Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Samsung Underestimating Apple's Potential Impact on Television Market?

You know what. A tv is for watching tv. **** the apps, all i need is a TV Guide, i dont care how it looks and channels i can watch. Remember that if you have a "retina tv" and the channel is recorded in 420p the image will look stretched and crap. You guys need to series think here. Samsung, which will always be my preferred choice in screens due to the fact they last so long, ive had the same one for 6 years still working pixel perfect. I can watch tv, and view the guide. Which is all users care about.

May i just add how crap apples sound quality is on devices, its terrible and there's no bass at all.
 
I bet most mobile phone companies prior to the iPhone thought phone sound quality was the number 1 thing people felt was important when purchasing a new phone and where they focused their efforts. How wrong they were.

Looks like Samsung has their head in the sand thinking picture quality is number 1 in importance in the customer's mind.

History always has a way of replaying itself.
 
Please Sammy ****!
We can buy various picture quality systems as easy as buying toilet paper these days.
Sammy is just scared that Apple will do what they are good at, making a product you'll hold on to for several years before upgrading. And with Sammy telling us they have 10K picture engineers they need as much Samsung crap sold every year as possible or that engineering job is gone baby!
Start Sweating Samsung cause hell is coming home for the holidays!
 
carmenodie said:
Please Sammy ****!
We can buy various picture quality systems as easy as buying toilet paper these days.
Sammy is just scared that Apple will do what they are good at, making a product you'll hold on to for several years before upgrading. And with Sammy telling us they have 10K picture engineers they need as much Samsung crap sold every year as possible or that engineering job is gone baby!
Start Sweating Samsung cause hell is coming home for the holidays!
Click to expand...

Mate, apples products dont last more then 3 years. They refresh them every year, so have fun paying like 2000 dollars every year for a new tv.
 
I'm sure Steve Balmer could speak to the dangers of sneering at Apple's ambitions vs. preparing to meet them head-on.
 
firestarter said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it is more than that.
Apple would try to turn the TV market into things like they have with their phone, iPod, Apple TV, iPad ect market. That is have the device have force obsolete say after 2-3 years. That being with software blocks and so on.

For example the orginal Apple TV can not stream Netflex with out being hack or using the streaming services. I expect that the current Apple TV will not be able to play 1080p stuff from the iTunes store and so on.
I could see Apple doing that with TVs as well. Apple lacking the number of ports other TV have and force you to go more threw their software which would mean the TV would need to be replaced ever 2-3 years or have very limited use.
That is something I do not see the market baring because TV in houses have very long life spans. You plug in a cheap box of some type and route threw that. TV is nothing more than just displaying the picture and sound.
It is not like Apple an take control over cable boxes which will still be in use, or kill off gaming systems which will still be plugged in full time.
Apple way of running the market just will not work with TV because TV are a durable item not a commodity item (durable in the fact that their life spans tend to be well over 5 years) Come on how many of you out there replace you TV say ever 3-4 years even. I expect most of you use a TV for over 5 years and those that are less than 5 years old you expect them to last over that point in time. Well outside Apple time span of 3 years and throw it away.
 
I feel like people will be making fun of that quote a couple years from now just like Ballmer's "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share." and Dell's "Apple should shut down and sell the stock back to shareholders." right now.
:p
 
haplain said:
Oh my! I love it when people make assumptions. See the funny thing is that if you compare displays on Apple's iPad versus Samsung's Galaxy Tablet I don't think that Mr. Moseley fully understands who he is dealing with. Apple has showed, time and time again, they don't release a product unless it is perfect. Even when the critics berated the iPhond 4S for a lack of innovation Apple went ahead and sold more iPhone's then ever. All of Apple's new products feature retina displays, such as the iPad, and iPhone I think Samsung should be shaking in their boots. What if Apple has acquired a retina display for its Tv's... making any Samsung 1080P Tv look silly... who will be laughing then.
Click to expand...

You should look at the trends in R&D here. Apple has never designed a panel. LG had to come up with this, at which point Apple does whatever further research to design an optimal implementation. The high res thing has started off with smaller displays while larger ones have stagnated somewhat, but trying to cram a similar pixel density into a television of reasonable size is still most likely years off. They could offer resolution bumps from what is currently available, but you're stuck in a fantasy land if you believe that Samsung lacks the R&D resources in display design. If Apple was going to compete with them somewhere, it would be content, UI, etc. not hardware quality. The iphone display is from LG, and they do their own panel research. Many of the internal components are made by Samsung. You really need to accept that the difference is not in the hardware.

Rodimus Prime said:
I think it is more than that.
Apple would try to turn the TV market into things like they have with their phone, iPod, Apple TV, iPad ect market. That is have the device have force obsolete say after 2-3 years. That being with software blocks and so on.

For example the orginal Apple TV can not stream Netflex with out being hack or using the streaming services. I expect that the current Apple TV will not be able to play 1080p stuff from the iTunes store and so on.
I could see Apple doing that with TVs as well. Apple lacking the number of ports other TV have and force you to go more threw their software which would mean the TV would need to be replaced ever 2-3 years or have very limited use.
That is something I do not see the market baring because TV in houses have very long life spans. You plug in a cheap box of some type and route threw that. TV is nothing more than just displaying the picture and sound.
It is not like Apple an take control over cable boxes which will still be in use, or kill off gaming systems which will still be plugged in full time.
Apple way of running the market just will not work with TV because TV are a durable item not a commodity item (durable in the fact that their life spans tend to be well over 5 years) Come on how many of you out there replace you TV say ever 3-4 years even. I expect most of you use a TV for over 5 years and those that are less than 5 years old you expect them to last over that point in time. Well outside Apple time span of 3 years and throw it away.
Click to expand...

Apple is the kind of company that won't actually debut such an item unless they feel they can profit from it. My guess would be that they'd have to rely on a cut of content prices rather than hardware sales with something like a television if they can't maintain a similar repurchasing cycle. This seems to be their eventual goal anyway. At some point the growth will level off in any industry as the product lines mature. They may be trying to build out the ecosystem from every possible angle in anticipation of the day the repurchasing cycle no longer churns out steady gains. Reading this back it's like I'm stating the obvious, but they're going to have to look at where they will find future gains. The growth of macs relative to declining PC sales is touted here, yet no one seems to put the numbers in perspective (20% of a much smaller number vs. whatever percentage of decline in the industry as a whole). In the end the hardware bubble could run out unless they artificially limit backward compatibility in true Apple fashion as you've suggested.
 
Last edited:
I think TVs have been about picture quality because TV manufacturers couldn't think of anything better to do with them. If that's truly all they could be about, you wouldn't see TVs springing up with things like Netflix and Hulu integration, etc - we've reached the limit of how much consumers care about and will pay for picture quality, and now they need something else to differentiate.

Just like with video games. The Wii didn't win its generation on graphics, even though he last couple generations were all about graphics. He graphics reached a good-enough point where a large part of the market moved on to caring about other things.

Will Apple release a TV, and will it capture something hat consumers care about more than picture quality? I have no clue, but if Samsung truly has this attitude then it's just a matter of time before someone pulls the rug out from under them.
 
I don't think anyone has hit it yet

I don't think that the physical television is going to be the revolutionary part of "cracking" television. Apple will strike deals with the big television companies to allow a la carte television subscriptions. This is the way to truly revolutionize television. Make it cheaper monthly and give the people exactly what they want just like Apple did with iTunes and being able to purchase the songs they wanted instead of entire albums.

But that is just what I think.
 
I don't see how having 10,000 people in R&D is a valid argument. So far, Samsung has proven (at least in their mobile phone business), that all these 10,000 people are capable of doing is simply copying the competitor. My impression at the moment, is that Samsung, obviously being aware of the growing Apple TV rumours, is trying to cram in all the features possible in their SmartTVs so, when Apple's TV finally does come to market, they can say "We did that first". In other words: they're playing it cool but are actually ******** themselves.
 
Isn't it ironic that Samsung themselves pretty much proved picture quality doesn't matter all that much by beating the superior plasma TVs from Pioneer and Panasonics?

If picture quality was really that important, there would've been no way the Pioneer Kuro line shut down but it did and more people would be watching plasma TVs. Heck, Plasmas are usually cheaper as well and yet still not as popular because of factors other than the image quality!
 
Capt Underpants said:
TV's aren't all about picture quality anymore, Samsung.

We're moving forward.
Click to expand...

I agree, this statement sums up his cluelessness.

"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.

"So, from that perspective, it's not a great concern but it remains to be seen what they're going to come out with, if anything."
Click to expand...

Apple comes up with a usable TV with a decent picture quality, it will be a hit and Samsung will try to copy that again.
 
This is clearly overconfidence for investors, while everyone at Samsung tries to turn the boat around in time.

Smart TVs IMO aren't worth a damn. I don't want apps, i want the usability to skyrocket, and I want the ability to access networks and thunderbolt arrays to find content. And hopefully 4K Retina display, and 3D.
 
All these comments on here about picture quality being not important are extremely asinine. Kind of like picture messaging wasn't important in 2007? Or 3G? It's insane, Apple could release a 720p 40hz TV and the fanboys would buy it up like it's the next big thing.

Apple has spent the last half decade trying to revolutionize mobile technology yet now they want to get their feet wet in arguably one of the least mobile appliances that one can buy? Let me put it like this, if pictures quality isn't important what is? Content? Haven't the last couple years showed us that Apps on Tv's, other than Netflix, really aren't worth a damn? Who really sits in front of their tv to open an app? More importantly, who has time for that? Isn't that what our iphones and ipads are for?
 
haplain said:
Oh my! I love it when people make assumptions. See the funny thing is that if you compare displays on Apple's iPad versus Samsung's Galaxy Tablet I don't think that Mr. Moseley fully understands who he is dealing with. Apple has showed, time and time again, they don't release a product unless it is perfect. Even when the critics berated the iPhond 4S for a lack of innovation Apple went ahead and sold more iPhone's then ever. All of Apple's new products feature retina displays, such as the iPad, and iPhone I think Samsung should be shaking in their boots. What if Apple has acquired a retina display for its Tv's... making any Samsung 1080P Tv look silly... who will be laughing then.
Click to expand...

1. The iPad doesn't have a retina display. The iPad will most likely have one, but the iPad 2 does not.

2. The Samsung Galaxy S Smartphone has a Super AMOLED display, which whilst not packing quite as many pixels, gives a better picture color quality. Both displays are pretty much on par (even the critics have said so).

3. 'Retina' isn't a technology, its not something you acquire. You simply make a high resolution display. It's a made up marketing term that Apple use.

4. You wont see a 'retina' display on an Apple TV, and even if you ever did its pointless given that a 1080p image doesn't come any bigger, thus it'll be stretched.

Put it this way, it would be like running an iPhone (non-retina) sized video on your 42" Plasma, it wouldn't look too good without major upscaling, even then it wouldn't look as good as it would on a smaller screen.

If Apple ever do come out with a TV, it'll be with a 1920x1080 screen, likely made by Samsung, LG or Sharp. To have it with a "Retina" screen, you're talking $5k easy. People just wont pay that kind of money for a TV.
 
They are so naive!

It would be ironic if Apple used Samsung's screens.

Then they would have the same screens but Apple's outer shell and user experience would undoubtedly be better.
 
What Samsung is missing - just like Motorola, RIM, MS, etc.

Apple is not about improving the hardware. Apple has taken over the markets it has [iPod, iPhone, iPad] by improving the experience of using the hardware. The article in Wired mag about the development of the iPhone said that it took off when some people were gathering for a meeting and started talking about how much they hated their cell phones and how they would change them.

The TV experience is changing from a passive experience to an active experience. The quality of the screen means nothing in that context. If Samsung believes that [and they're not just pulling a draft-day misdirection], you can add their name to the list of seriously drowning companies that used to own their market...
 
fertilized-egg said:
Isn't it ironic that Samsung themselves pretty much proved picture quality doesn't matter all that much by beating the superior plasma TVs from Pioneer and Panasonics?

If picture quality was really that important, there would've been no way the Pioneer Kuro line shut down but it did and more people would be watching plasma TVs. Heck, Plasmas are usually cheaper as well and yet still not as popular because of factors other than the image quality!
Click to expand...

Did anyone forget how expensive those were? Not everyone wanted to spend 3k on a TV. Samsung revolutionized superb picture at excellent price points.
 
I have that TV pictured in the story. Cost a huge amount of my money.

The screen is nice. A lot like the screen on my iMac. I note that Apple don't make screens.

The TV's software is slow, clunky and in many places simply does not work. Any device where you can simply type too fast – using a keypad and on screen keyboard no less! – is not concerned with user experience.

It’s inconsistent – simply choosing a broadcast channel is difficult! On some channel selectors, keypad up/down are reversed! Then depending where you are, the channel up/down keys have different functions.

The web browser only works occasionally and is a bad experience after Safari on iOS.

And don’t get me started on the bundled apps… in one app, renting a film is same cost as iTunes and yet pressing pause or trying to seek causes the app to crash, dumping you back at the start of the film! (not to speak of the awful quality of the video).

I love the screen, but I am disappointed having paid double the price of a non-’smart’ TV and expecting the same quality as Apple due to this premium.
 
THis person from Samsung is not underestimating anything. He's simply trying to show what advantage Samsung would have over an Apple TV.

Now, I have no idea whether an Apple television is going to be a big hit. Neither the AppleTV nor the iCloud have been very revolutionary or incredibly successful, especially when compared to their other products. What they have to bring is something that either is revolutionary, or an element that has simply never been done very well and everyone will want.

Unlike the iPhone, though, which entered an ever expanding and consumable (people get new cell phones regularly) market, the television market is fairly saturated and the turnover is not high (mostly due to the price and fact that there is rarely much of a reason to upgrade regularly).

I recently bought a new TV and looked at two things. Picture quality and price. All the other stuff I didn't care about. I've already got it hooked up to a computer so none of that Smart TV stuff interested me at all.

That said, I'm not ready to count Apple out, but I'm hesitant to believe a new Apple television is going to have anywhere near the impact as the iPod, iPhone and iPad.
 
saud0488 said:
All these comments on here about picture quality being not important are extremely asinine. Kind of like picture messaging wasn't important in 2007? Or 3G?
Click to expand...

Picture quality isn't a feature where you either have something or don't. Picture quality is much more of a moving target which can be "good enough" for most people, especially since Apple will presumably source the panels from proven LCD makers like Samsung and LG themselves in any case. Apple has more than enough experience dealing with digital pictures and videos in various cases.
 
Just wondering... why would Apple have to re-invent the wheel? He is talking about all kinds of technology one can license or buy in a bundle. Everyone knows that TVs exist already. I am pretty sure that the Apple TV set will have a high-end display and picture processing. That is a given. It will not be the sales argument - it will just be there to compete. The package will include innovation in interface and approach of media content, right? Usig iOS devices as remote - or getures and speech - is only part of it. I bet Apple came up with things that make us drool with our mouths wide open.

Reading the whole statement, I was thinking about the Apple display. Sure, there are cheaper ones out there. There are better ones out there when it comes to specs. And there are bigger and smaller ones out there as well. Some even do 3D. Some, I can easily cluster to make a video wall because they have small rims and have a wall mount. That doesn't mean iMac users would buy them as second display over the Apple monitor. My current main display has a contrast ratio of 100.000:1, brilliant colors, etc - but it isn't better or comes even close to the Apple Monitor. All black, it leaks color on the rims and is only 23.1", just an example. That's why it was about $150 and not $999. So, focussing on one of the parameters people look at will not sell me anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back