Samsung Underestimating Apple's Potential Impact on Television Market?

[wjdennen]

not underestimating... downplaying.

 

[inkswamp]

What is he supposed to say? "We are running around like a bunch of chickens with our heads cut off over a product that might not even exist"

Of course not. But it is telling that they're invoking the same reasoning and tone that others have in the past about Apple entering new markets. It betrays the fact that they're not likely prepared if Apple enters the market. And given that Apple always hits any new market from such an unexpected tangent, I honestly can't say there's anything they can do to be prepared. But talking up 10,000 people in R&D (which is silly) and image quality (which is of questionable importance to a majority of buyers) comes off as surprisingly defensive.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Couldn't care less. Building a tv around a better picture is like building a new horse buggy around a better windshield. It's an obsolete and fading product & content delivery method that needs an awful lot more than a minor performance improvement if it's going to remain relevant into the future.

 

[Lesser Evets]

"We've not seen what they've done but what we can say is that they don't have 10,000 people in R&D in the vision category," [Samsung product manager Chris Moseley] said.

Read that... read it again. Think about it.

I never thought anything about Samsung, never got into the stories of lawsuits and all that legal tugging. Then I saw their TV sets for cheap at a local store. No where in the store was there a resolution noted... I looked over the Samsung boxes ... no resolution noted. At that point I realized Samsung is probably stuffed with lameness. This Moseley quote proves me right.

This entire article is about Moseley painting himself into a corner. If Apple does release a TV, that guy will probably win a Ballmer Award for Excellence in Craptalk.

 

[BJB Productions]

I have no doubt Samsung can make a sexy looking TV, but will it take 5 minutes to search " Double rainbow guy" into the youtube app because I'm using the remote number pad to type in things?

Time will tell. Everyone has a fair chance at this. It will be quite clear who wins.

 

[kmanmx]

Maybe samsung havn't realised that Apple gladly invested $3.9Bn in securing what are likely top end LCD panels for the iPad. Who is to say they won't do the same for the TV ?

No, they don't have 10,000 people researching panel technology. They don't need it, not when you have $80Bn in the bank, you pay other people to do it for you.

I think they are being a bit naieve to think a company such as Apple won't be able to produce a TV with matching picture quality.

 

[koruki]

http://www.techdigest.tv/2007/01/nokia_responds.html

comments range from:
our phones are just as good..
people will get over this whole touchscreen fade..

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...o-chance-to-gain-significant-market-share.ars

iPhone has no chance of gaining market share... lol

 

[rumplestiltskin]

I wonder...

I wonder where Moseley will be flipping burgers next?

TV is -not- all about picture quality. If that were so, why do so many $399 32" TVs get sold? Do all of them have inadequate quality? No, most of them are fine.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton: "It's the content, stupid."

 

[rmwebs]

What is he supposed to say? "We are running around like a bunch of chickens with our heads cut off over a product that might not even exist"

Haha, It's be refreshing. No company will come out and say "You know what...we've not got a clue".

Here's my take on it:

The statement from Chris Moseley just feels like its one of those thing's we're all going to look at in a year or two and say "how wrong that fool was". A bit like when Balmer said ""There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance,".

Having said that, given Apples relatively tiny entry into the TV market, they have shown that they have struggled a little bit there. Of course this could be put down to several limitations with the Apple TV (e.g it's got much less features outside the US) or its lack of advertising. It's hardly been given the full works with TV ads in prominence like the iPhone, iPod and iPad have.

As it stands, would I buy an Apple branded television? No. Why? Simply because Apple being Apple will put a premium price on it. This can be justified somewhat with their other products because they are unique, but based on rumors the Apple TV set will not be unique, it'l just be another 'smart' tv but with iTunes built in. Why not just pay the $99 price for an Apple TV box and keep your high quality TV?

Of course that can be blasted out of the water if Apple do manage to come out with something game changing in the TV market, but its going to have to be something nobody has ever thought of, not just a combination of bits and bobs such as web browsing, Siri and a couple of web based tv providers.

To make the Apple TV something to buy, it would need to be either kept as a set top box, or integrated into affordable televisions. MOST people do not pay $2k for a TV. You've only got to look at the poor sales on 3D televisions to know that. Realistically, the Apple TV needs to top out at $1k for say a 46" model, and say $800 for a 32" model.

I'd like to see apps, and I'm fairly confident that we will. Firstly why else would you base the Apple TV on iOS instead of keep it with a stripped down OS X (Apple TV v1), and secondly why include 8GB storage on the first model? Sure it could be used for a couple of movies, but if that was its purpose, it would have been 32 or 64 GB. You dont need a full 8GB for buffering either.

The issue with apps however would be controlling them. Apple wouldn't have it so the only way to say, control a TV based game is from an iPhone as that doesn't really work, you wont be looking at the iPhone so you need a physical controller with actual buttons that you can feel. Without feedback or the touch/feel of a button, you cant use the controller without looking at it constantly.

Right, thats about it. Feel free to slate me for most likely missing a vital piece of info, or getting something completely wrong

 

[toddybody]

I think iOS has proven that Apple shouldnt be underestimated in any category.

 

[henrystar]

"We've not seen what they've done but what we can say is that they don't have 10,000 people in R&D in the vision category," [Samsung product manager Chris Moseley]

Sounds like something Nokia might have said before the iPhone

Samsung probably believes that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.

 

[Bluefusion]

Uhhh... "famous last words", I think.
If picture quality was all that mattered with a TV, why did DVRs become so popular? And if picture quality was all that mattered, why didn't everyone ran out and buy Blu-Ray players?

I think this "Apple TV" is pretty underwhelming conceptually, since I basically hate TV, but hey-- if they apply a fantastic interface (as they did with the iPod and iPhone), great integrated services (as they do, well, always), and a content package that doesn't rip you off (just as they did before with music downloads), then this is going to be a TV that's easy to use, does cool things, and possibly saves you money and frustration. It's probably also going to look real nice.

I'd say there's room for something new here, yes. This guy's comments reveal how short-sighted Samsung is and has always been about building products. Specs are never, ever, ever the answer. Not ONCE has a single, technically-superior product triumphed over its less advanced counterparts unless it brought a distinct and purposeful advantage that was otherwise unattainable. Specs have never made the difference... EVER.

Here are some examples:
- nintendo 64 - technically superior - lost marketshare to much older systems (but hung around due to unique advantages)
- sega dreamcast - technically superior - catastrophic failure
- MiniDisc - technically superior - slow failure
- Memory Stick - superior at the time - failure (unless you use Sony products)
- Betamax - technically superior - we all know how that went
- Windows CE devices - technically superior - but a joke
- Palm VII - technically superior - failure (despite having a legitimately useful feature)
- APPLE NEWTON - technically superior on every level - failure
- Bernouilli Disc - technically superior in multiple ways - failure

let's come up with some more, shall we?

 

[gugy]

TVs are a commodity item - and current offerings already offer a good feature set.

It's not whether Apple can produce a good TV... it's whether the market will bear an Apple-style premium price. Personally I doubt it.

Yep,
Apple should be better of creating new user experience using ATV box as their main strategy and going after content distribution revolutionary way.

I have a plasma 60" Pioneer Elite that has incredible picture quality, I would only consider Apple if they can beat that, just being smart TV I would not make my diss my current set.

 

[basesloaded190]

Of course not. But it is telling that they're invoking the same reasoning and tone that others have in the past about Apple entering new markets. It betrays the fact that they're not likely prepared if Apple enters the market. And given that Apple always hits any new market from such an unexpected tangent, I honestly can't say there's anything they can do to be prepared. But talking up 10,000 people in R&D (which is silly) and image quality (which is of questionable importance to a majority of buyers) comes off as surprisingly defensive.

Good point, and I agree that saying they have an R&D department of 10,000 is ridiculous.

 

[Dr Kevorkian94]

I guess he isn't suposed to say "were screwed", but lmao R&D department. As for picture quality I'm sure apple can do that, but that isn't going to be the main selling point anyway (not saying thats to part of it but its expected and Apple wouldn't make a crappy picture anyway) . If apple just made a plain TV i wouldn't buy it, but there not going to make a plain TV it will be a nice integrated set. Also add the apple design and features and you got yourself a nice TV set.

 

[dashiel]

It has been proven time and time again content is more important than fidelity. Even the snobbiest videophile would opt to watch 2001 or The Seven Samurai on an old 27" CRT at 480i than watch The Jersey Shore in 4K resolution. Of course fidelity and content are not mutually exclusive, but if Samsung believe Apple is focused on the quality of picture or interface design as their key differentiator they will find themselves playing catch-up/copycat once again.

 

[jctevere]

And this is where Apple's unique perspective on what individuals value differs from Samsung's - and has led to their vast success.

See, what Samsung doesn't realize is that Picture Quality on a television, while important, is not the only thing that consumers look for. Well, perhaps right now, but what is so unique about apple, is to look at a traditional or common item - such as a phone, and show people that it can be SO much more, and that "call quality" is not the most important item. In fact, call quality seemed to have suffer on smartphones, with more dropped calls, etc.

With tv's, I suspect that Apple is predicting that while picture quality is important. Consumers are willing to sacrifice picture quality for a tv that shakes things up, and offers many more features. These include things like integration with iTunes, internet, movie streaming, etc. Some of these features exist on tv's (even samsungs). And while they tend to be pricey (where I would consider Apple's TV to fall) - none of the current offerings do this "well".

And this is where Apple really shines. They have a way of controlling the whole experience, making it extremely refined and just "work". Movie streaming is seamless, intuitive and easy to operate and understand on an Apple TV, same thing with iTunes sharing. These are just the things that I can imagine being on an Apple TV. But I do not work at apple, and they have people imagining things that a TV can do for years exclusively. I predict that Apple will have much more features that completely redefine the way we watch, use and interact with tv.

And of course, the thing Samsung fails to mention. Is the fact that in all likely hood, Apple might just buy or use a Samsung television's hardware as their basis or starting point for their Apple TV. Giving them the best picture quality, and the best features and overall experience on ANY television offering from any brand. Leave it to Samsung to think small - just like they think that a stylus is a new feature of smartphones that should be highlighted in a super bowl ad, when they died years ago with the palm pilots - the "dinosaurs" of smartphones.

 

[batitombo]

Samsungs SDK SUCKS

 

[Consultant]

Who needs a personal computer anyway? Apple will never get anywhere!

Who needs GUI and mouse instead of command lines anyway? Apple will never get anywhere!

Music player is a commodity! Apple will never get anywhere!

Music retailing is a commodity! Apple will never get anywhere!

Cell phone is a commodity! Apple will never get anywhere!

 

[jdsipod]

you know i have a few issues with any "smart" devices, like TVs and blu ray players (not just Samsung) is that they all are trying to promote all of the apps that are available on the TV and like Facebook having TV applications but the constraint on them is the way that people interact with their TV. We have two "smart" blu-ray players from samsung and I have to say that it is a pain in the a** to try and update my Facebook with the remote. Maybe we should stop trying to make our TV's more like computers and just focus on having high picture and sound quality and not try and have a bunch of apps on them
Just sayin

 

[rstansby]

There's a HUGE difference between a consumers expectations from a portable music player and a television. Consumers expect more from their TV.

re: Samsung. Typical blather.

Plenty of people use iTunes for all of their music listening at home and away.

If you want a video example how about Beta vs. VHS. Beta was higher quality, but consumers chose VHS for other reasons.

 

[Cordless_Drill]

I own a Samsung TV. I'm also an Apple owner. I like both companies.

I disagree with the concept that picture quality is everything. If Apple is able to make a TV that has good picture quality (let's call it 8/10) and some kind of innovative, intuitive method of controlling the TV, Apple will have a chance to dominate that industry.

Samsung better get cracking.

Also ...

As it stands, would I buy an Apple branded television? No. Why? Simply because Apple being Apple will put a premium price on it. /QUOTE]

+1.

 

[sigamy]

TVs are all about picture quality? I see a fair amount of Dynex, Westinghouse and other no-name brands sold at BB and Costco.

LCD and LED have probably caught up but when I was purchasing a few years ago it was still widely held view that plasma had better quality, better blacks, better for fast motion than LCD but most people were buying LCDs.

My point? Consumers are not that educated. TVs are often sold on price and features, not just picture quality.

btw, I thought Panny had the best picture quality?

 

[Ryth]

Samsung AV product lead Chris Moseley:

TVs are ultimately about picture quality. Ultimately. How smart they are...great, but let's face it that's a secondary consideration. The ultimate is about picture quality and there is no way that anyone, new or old, can come along this year or next year and beat us on picture quality.​

​

Reminds us of....

Palm CEO Ed Colligan, circa 2006:

Responding to questions from New York Times correspondent John Markoff at a Churchill Club breakfast gathering Thursday morning, Colligan laughed off the idea that any company — including the wildly popular Apple Computer — could easily win customers in the finicky smart-phone sector.

“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” he said.

“PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”​

​

Whatever happened to Palm, anyway?

Samsung is most likely extremely worried about Apple.

 

[dethmaShine]

'... about picture quality...'
'... world renowned picture quality...'
''... about picture quality...'

Someone should tell them that in todays world its all about 'Content', 'Ease of Use', 'Device Integration', 'Picture Quality', 'Product Satisfaction', 'User Experience', 'Content', 'Content'...