Samsung Underestimating Apple's Potential Impact on Television Market?

[ericmooreart]

Reasons why Samsung is not concerned:

A) Its not even a real product yet.
B) A 27 inch Apple display cost 999. How much would a 42 inch Apple TV cost?
C) If true, Apple would probably buy the led screens from Samsung

 

[Taz Mangus]

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.

Where have I heard this before? I believe the same thing was said about the iPod and look how that turned out. Give people a better mouse trap and they will pay for the privilege owning it. Apple is really good at surprising people in how they bring a new and improved feature set to market. iPhone and iPad are just two more examples of premium products that turned out to be success stories beyond what people thought they would be.

 

[Nunyabinez]

Absolutely agreed. Most people don't even know or care that the content they are watching is not HD at all.

I also arguing for the experience, not the package. Meaning I don't know why Apple would need to put their view of a user experience inside a TV set...

I have read this entire thread, and it is obvious that there is one guy that is going through and down voting anyone that says anything against picture quality. So, dude, here's is a nice fat softball... There are a lot of things that would trump picture quality for me. Down vote away!

EDIT: It took less than a minute!

 

[jwdsail]

Seems to me everyone is assuming allot here.

Why can't Apple make a TV with *better* picture quality than most of the crappy TVs I see at Walfart or Worst Buy? Maybe image quality doesn't matter to the idjits wandering around walfart with their mouths open catching flies, but it damn well does to allot of people..

Apple works with both ATI and Nvidia.. they work well with Intel.. oh yeah, they design their own chips for iOS devices ... They are able to source vast amounts of high quality display panels for the iPhones and iPads.. .....

So....

Why is it anyone thinks an Apple HDTV wouldn't have the BEST image quality at any given price point? Seriously, why does anyone think Apple would bother if they weren't going to make something *better*?

Content? I already have the content. iTunes on my Mac Mini, Amazon Prime on my Mac mini, Cable+dvr, and blue-ray.. Ease of use? Unless they include a cablecard slot and support for multiple tuners and recording .. maybe take on Tivo's 4-tuner device... Replace multiple devices and do it all in one unified interface... how exactly will it be easier for most people?

If Apple makes a HDTV, it needs to do *everything*, including image quality, BETTER...

I hope they can do it. I sure wouldn't bet against them at this point..

I'm happy w/ my Sony XBR5 + Mac mini... I'm waiting for a 55"-65" 4K display... unless Apple really blows the competition out of the water .. And, even though it's not in my budget, I hope they do.

 

[dukebound85]

how would apple entice users to keep updating their tv?

 

[mjtomlin]

TV's are first and foremost about video, make the experience of finding and watching your favorite movies, television shows, news programs, sporting events as dead simple as possible. And enhancing the viewing experience by making the content interactive and smarter. Apple's QuickTime container (used as the basis for H.264) allows multiple various streams to be inserted at specific points in the file's timeline. Adding links and context aware information would not be too difficult to manage.

For instance if I'm watching a baseball game, how about being able to pull up the player roster and checking out stats on players, on the team, on the league, etc. If I'm watching a news program and one of the reports is on something I'm interested in, how about being able to search through some database and learning more about that subject. This is the next generation of TV.

Companies that want to throw apps and stupid pointless methods of controlling the TV are headed in the wrong direction. These aren't mobile devices that we carry with us every where, they don't need to do all the same things.

I'm hoping that Apple has actually rethought what a TV could be capable of and is not going to unleash just a dumbTV with the ability to play apps like all these other companies are doing.

 

[ericmooreart]

The seperator could be Siri.

I think that would be cool but most people I know with the iphone 4s used siri for the first week or two then hardly ever once the novelty wore off

 

[Swift]

I'm sure they're concerned but Samsung has a point. Just because Apple is entering the TV market doesn't mean that the rest of the TV companies are doomed.

It's increasingly sure that apple is moving into the home screen business. It's not a rival with TV makers, it will rival the networks. If you got a huge amount of content, free and ad-free, with every Apple TV, would it be a deal-breaker? Might they have deals with more than one cable net? What about the outside? HD Podcasts? All kinds of different content, and an intuitive, simple interface.

I think, in the strictest sense, Apple won't be making a TV, but another kind of television. How big? How about seperate screens that you can AirPlay to?

----------

how would apple entice users to keep updating their tv?

Now, buy a new OLED screen at 80" for your TV. Here, buy a new chip so you can... etc.

Oh, and FaceTime TVs.

 

[Nunyabinez]

how would apple entice users to keep updating their tv?

Why do you assume that Apple needs people to keep upgrading their TVs? Each device they make has a different life-cycle. People don't buy new Mac Pros every year. And Apple updates accordingly. But if compelling new features come out, people will be happy to spend money again. A huge percentage of iPhone 4S buyers were iPhone 4 owners who paid to break their contract. And how many iPad and iPad 2 owners will pop for the new iPad? And that is not chump change. So, what exactly is your point? How is Samsung enticing users to buy new TVs every year? They seem to be doing OK in the market.

 

[JAT]

"They don't have the best scaling engine in the world and they don't have world renowned picture quality that has been awarded more than anyone else.

Neither does Samsung.

 

[GenesisST]

The Apple TV is going to just become another 'viewing' device like the iPhone & iPad & iMac...wherever you are, you will have an option to see your iTunes content.

See my previous post. They would have to be careful about the interim, ie people that already have TVs that they DON'T want to change until it is time to change.

This is were a revamp of the AppleTV set-top box that would do the same, or close to the same as a full Apple TV would be important to at least get people hooked (no pun intended).

I love my current TV and don't intend to replace it anything soon. Even if an Apple TV set is a game changer.

 

[ABernardoJr]

Why do you assume that Apple needs people to keep upgrading their TVs? Each device they make has a different life-cycle. People don't buy new Mac Pros every year. And Apple updates accordingly. But if compelling new features come out, people will be happy to spend money again. A huge percentage of iPhone 4S buyers were iPhone 4 owners who paid to break their contract. And how many iPad and iPad 2 owners will pop for the new iPad? And that is not chump change. So, what exactly is your point? How is Samsung enticing users to buy new TVs every year? They seem to be doing OK in the market.

Agreed completely, I've tried iterating this point a few times in the past. lol People assume that Apple does not have the awareness of the distinct lifecycles of distinct products. I doubt Apple is that naive. I mean it's obvious that their current products are set for users to upgrade after X amount of years, that's because the products they produce all share that lifecycle. If they move into the TV market then they'll more than likely adhere to the way the television market works. Bringing up the point that plenty of phone manufacturers also manufacturing TVs at different lifecycles should really be sufficient in itself

 

[Jb07]

As of right now, I still think he is right. The most important thing to me is picture quality, and I have no interest in post a Facebook status from my TV... and I think most people would say the same. Sales figures would agree that most people are not interested in Smart TVs now. Samsung sold 2 million Smart TVs in the first 3-months of worldwide release. In November alone, they sold 5.7 million "dumb TVs." But it would be interesting to see what Apple brings to the table with Siri now out. A voice-controlled TV would be awesome.

 

[handsome pete]

I'm happy w/ my Sony XBR5 + Mac mini... I'm waiting for a 55"-65" 4K display... unless Apple really blows the competition out of the water .. And, even though it's not in my budget, I hope they do.

I don't have a problem with the technical specs of tvs getting better, but since most of this recent talk of an Apple television stems from that Steve Jobs quote, then it leads me to believe content is the key. There's nothing really revolutionary about 4K or OLED. Those don't change anything about the way you watch tv.

I think that would be cool but most people I know with the iphone 4s used siri for the first week or two then hardly ever once the novelty wore off

When I first heard people talking about Siri in a tv I thought it seemed pointless. If implemented, I still see it as a seldom used feature but I can see the value in it.

 

[kaizenmx]

Ha, Samsung will always be the best TV makers in the industry.

sorry apple and iTards but TV business is a completely separate business. You and your "fads" will most likely won't work in this area.

 

[G4DP]

This is a bit simplified but:
Apple's supply chain gives it 3-5% savings compared to competitors
Majority of apple TVs will be sold through apple own retail channel another 10-15% saved
Apple does not operate on borrowed capital so another 3-5% saved
Apple can purchase parts prepaying for year+ in advance another 5%
So at a price when sammy would make 0 apple will make 21%-30%
This does not account for content revenue
This does not account for Apple's ability to charge a premium even if it will be modest 10%

Slight problem, Apples supply chains is already a LCD TV maker, you think they are going to give Apple a better discount than their own production arm?

Apples supply chain? You mean having to buy every part from another company, whilst Sharp/LG/Samsung have to buy the parts from themselves.

Limited stores compared to Sony or Panasonic. Not everyone will sell them compared to the other manufacturers. There supply chain is very limited.

Apple may well pay up front? But why. Set the price and keep the money in the bank earning Apple the interest, not the supplier.

None of the main manufacturers make a large profit in the TV business. To think Apple will walk in and make 20% more profit is naive. The only way the would make that much money would be by charging 20% more than everyone else.

Ability to charge a premium? You mean people are dumb enough to pay extra because it has a etching of a Apple on the back.

Content revenue is the only way they could make this work, it's a damn big if as well. They must already have or been very close to having major deals in place to try to enter this market. Otherwise they may well be throwing some of their billions away.

If all the rumours are to be believed.

 

[msheredy]

Apple doesn't need 10,000 people in R&D, Apple has Jony Ive and the best engineers in the world. Sammy sounds scared.

I liked that line too. 10,000 people in R&D, really??? Sounds poorly managed (over staffed) if you ask me.

BTW, still stuck on the 10,000 bit, when was the last time Samsung came out with a "killer" product to necessitate 10,000 people in R&D?

 

[milo]

Apple has showed, time and time again, they don't release a product unless it is perfect.

Comical.

I think apple tv has proven that apple should

As well as Ping, MobileMe, iTunes Match, that iPod shuffle without buttons, etc.

Everyone seems to assume that if Apple makes a TV it will be the ultimate solution and will dominate the marketplace. The potential is there, but only if Apple truly delivers and ships the right product at a competitive price.

Will they deliver? At this point I'd say it's a tossup, with phones and tablets there wasn't much "next gen" competition but big TVs are expensive and for plug-in boxes Roku has some major advantages over aTV. Heck, I'd argue that Roku plus Plex blows away anything Apple offers for watching video.

- MiniDisc - technically superior - slow failure

Superior to what? When it first shipped it was pretty poor technology. Sony assumed that CD would be the dominant format forever and DCC had a big head start with much better lossy audio compression algorithms. DAT is probably a better example of a superior format failing, in that case it was decent sound but a design way too expensive and not portable enough for consumer use.

 

[msheredy]

sorry apple and iTards but TV business is a completely separate business...

...and so is the mobile phone biz. Nuf said.

iTard LOL!

 

[jackzig]

Not just picture quality

Mr. Moseley it's not just picture quality, it's the user experience. Nothing on the market today gives the user an experience thats leaves him "delighted". If Apple can improve the user experience, with tuning, recording, in general interacting with the television, it will have another winner on it's hands.

 

[diesel machine]

picture quality

I don't know about the rest of you, but my fantastic TV is hobbled more by my cable company's crappy bandwidth and compression than anything else.
It's hard for the average consumer to tell a difference in picture quality. Differentiating by product offering seems like a plausible opportunity for all manufacturers to me.

 

[kcswanko]

why worry

I wouldn't worry either, this won't take off. Prices will be too high.

 

[milo]

The simpler answer is usually right

How is "apple is going to have huge TV sales" more simple than "apple isn't going to have particularly huge TV sales"? Sure at this point more people are probably saying the former but that doesn't make that opinion any "simpler" nor any more likely to be right. Fact is, nobody knows what TV product apple may sell, and whether it may be a success or not.

And you seem to forget that Apple's track record includes the appleTV which has had lukewarm sales at best. People keep talking about "When apple enters the TV market..." but since they're selling the aTV they already are in the TV market. They just have made such a minor impression that people don't even remember their product exists.

 

[fertilized-egg]

Slight problem, Apples supply chains is already a LCD TV maker, you think they are going to give Apple a better discount than their own production arm?

It does happen although I don't know how often. According to Korean newspapers, Samsung's own MP3 division was reportedly unhappy that Apple was getting better deals for Samsung's own flash memory than them.

Ability to charge a premium? You mean people are dumb enough to pay extra because it has a etching of a Apple on the back.

People were dumb enough to pay extra for Apple phones because it had a etching on the back, no? No, they'll pay extra if Apple does something fresh with TV that's good enough to convince the consumers to pay the premium.

 

[*LTD*]

If Apple enters the TV space, Samsung (along with every other undifferentiated screen-pusher) is ****ed. Simple as.