Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, I'm ignoring it since its several years away. You've got your head in the clouds if you think Apple will be introducing a 4k display for an Apple TV.
Jim Balsilie, is that you?
Who said the truth would be palatable?
----------
Like what? Barely matching that of a price/feature-comparable Bravia? The others catch up with each other eventually. Which is why there is next to no differentiation in the segment. One black level here, another there. Edge-lighting here, and some new sort of plasma tech there. Same ****. BFD.
LMAO
What I love is that Apple hasn't even mentioned anything relating to a actual TV set or getting into that market and the big players in that market are all responding to a rumor.
I didn't know Samsung TV's had such great picture quality. That's news to me.
If they were so concerned about demonstrating that, why is every retailer of Samsung TV's (well, just about all manufacturers have this rule) contractually obligated to set the TV's to the Vivid/Dynamic mode? This ridiculously blown out setting looks nothing short of terrible. Nearly all of the post-processing options are switched on and applied heavily, so film-based material ends up looking like a 90's soap opera crossed with a CGI cartoon. Oh, but it's so bright, err, I mean, "so clear!"
I doubt Apple will come out with a TV that has the most accurate picture, which is what most videophiles desire, but I'm sure it will be a damn good picture that is far more accurate than most stock televisions on the market today. I'm also sure that it would be far easier to use and integrate much better with all of our other Apple devices.
But then again, I still half-expect Apple to put out larger Cinema Displays with less of an emphasis on internal processing that work with an updated Apple TV box. It's tougher to be innovating in the TV market because people rarely buy new TV's every other year, let alone on a yearly basis. And considering that the ideal picture should simply be "accurate," if you have a great display, it'll be great for a long time. The only updating you would do would revolve around the way you interact with the display and what you do on it, and all of that can take place in an Apple TV box. Selling people on yearly or bi-yearly upgrades to a $99-199 box would be far easier than selling people on $999-1199 full-feature TV's, and this would allow them to grow the technology that matters at a faster pace without leaving so many people behind.
If they were so concerned about demonstrating that, why is every retailer of Samsung TV's (well, just about all manufacturers have this rule) contractually obligated to set the TV's to the Vivid/Dynamic mode? This ridiculously blown out setting looks nothing short of terrible. Nearly all of the post-processing options are switched on and applied heavily, so film-based material ends up looking like a 90's soap opera crossed with a CGI cartoon. Oh, but it's so bright, err, I mean, "so clear!"
I doubt Apple will come out with a TV that has the most accurate picture, which is what most videophiles desire, but I'm sure it will be a damn good picture that is far more accurate than most stock televisions on the market today. I'm also sure that it would be far easier to use and integrate much better with all of our other Apple devices.
But then again, I still half-expect Apple to put out larger Cinema Displays with less of an emphasis on internal processing that work with an updated Apple TV box. It's tougher to be innovating in the TV market because people rarely buy new TV's every other year, let alone on a yearly basis. And considering that the ideal picture should simply be "accurate," if you have a great display, it'll be great for a long time. The only updating you would do would revolve around the way you interact with the display and what you do on it, and all of that can take place in an Apple TV box. Selling people on yearly or bi-yearly upgrades to a $99-199 box would be far easier than selling people on $999-1199 full-feature TV's, and this would allow them to grow the technology that matters at a faster pace without leaving so many people behind.
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.
Such a well thought out post and you managed to leave name calling out of it.
Don't like Apple fine, don't post here. Go to a Samsung posting forum where you can discuss with others why they make the best TVs in the industry.By the way, you're not the first person to state such things and come to find out that Apple has a way of re-inventing a product in a way that no one expected.
This guy has some serious lack of vision.
Consumers don't care about picture quality. Sure, they want nice images, but do people really chose Samsung because of 'scaling techniques'? No, they just think it looks nice and then they purchase it.
We are reaching a point where picture quality becomes less and less relevant, just like happened with computer and specs. People care less about CPU speed, people are going to care less about picture quality since all TV's look pretty good and will look even better.
The biggest challenge in the TV industry isn't picture quality, it's content! People want 1080p material, but where can they get it? Blu-ray discs are outdated by definition. Boxee like media players... Mwuah, they rely on streaming services for legal content and illegal content offers much more convenience to the user. I think it is fair to say that the illegal and rather unpleasant (but still more pleasant than its legal counterpart) ways of content distribution are the best options available right now.
Someone needs to step in and change the 'TV' to a 'display for entertainment purposes' which works flawlessly without any TIVO-boxes, mediaplayers or blu-ray players attached. It needs to have only one or two cables (for power and sound), a single remote control (instead of 3 or 4). This is what we ultimately want, and for this purpose, TV's do need to get smarter!
If I were on Samsung's board, I'd opt to fire this guy. He lacks sense of urgency. TV's getting smarter is the most important innovation of the coming years.
Consumers don't care about picture quality. Sure, they want nice images, but do people really chose Samsung because of 'scaling techniques'? No, they just think it looks nice and then they purchase it.
We are reaching a point where picture quality becomes less and less relevant, just like happened with computer and specs. People care less about CPU speed, people are going to care less about picture quality since all TV's look pretty good and will look even better.
The biggest challenge in the TV industry isn't picture quality, it's content! People want 1080p material, but where can they get it? Blu-ray discs are outdated by definition. Boxee like media players... Mwuah, they rely on streaming services for legal content and illegal content offers much more convenience to the user. I think it is fair to say that the illegal and rather unpleasant (but still more pleasant than its legal counterpart) ways of content distribution are the best options available right now.
Someone needs to step in and change the 'TV' to a 'display for entertainment purposes' which works flawlessly without any TIVO-boxes, mediaplayers or blu-ray players attached. It needs to have only one or two cables (for power and sound), a single remote control (instead of 3 or 4). This is what we ultimately want, and for this purpose, TV's do need to get smarter!
If I were on Samsung's board, I'd opt to fire this guy. He lacks sense of urgency. TV's getting smarter is the most important innovation of the coming years.
Kinda reminds me of 2010 CES where players all had 'slates' to respond to a product that Apple hadn't even released yet.
.
I don't understand why you are so angry all the time man? Maybe you should change your avatar to a raging bull instead of the tibetan buddhist stuff
Anyways all the TV rumours seem contradictory to the stuff Tim Cook recently said about TV still being a hobby and staying focused on a few products.
Apple can take over content delivery quite easily, upgrade iTunes to 1080p, offer subscriptions, greatly improve the range of content available, esp outside the US. No need to enter an already over saturated market. Apple would be buying their panels from Samsung anyways like sony does so Samsung wins either way.
Theyre not going to just walk in...
I'm reminded of something...
I'm reminded of something...
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” - Palm CEO Ed Colligan, circa 2006
I couldn't agree more. Until OLED TVs hit the market with affordable pricing, the current LCD TVs are already "good enough" in their picture quality for most consumers. It's how you package the whole experience together and no one's better at that than Apple.
Personally I'm still skeptical of Apple's prospective outlook in this market just because people simply don't switch their TVs all that often but nonetheless I'm shocked to see someone sound so out of touch after seeing what happened in other industries.
He's Absolutely Right
Just bought a Samsung 60 in LED the other day. He's absolutely right...it's all about the picture quality when you're spending that kind of coin. After comparing a ***** ton of screens, I have to agree that nobody comes close to Samsung anymore...not even Sony.
Just bought a Samsung 60 in LED the other day. He's absolutely right...it's all about the picture quality when you're spending that kind of coin. After comparing a ***** ton of screens, I have to agree that nobody comes close to Samsung anymore...not even Sony.
This is the thing that makes me most curious about the Apple TV. It won't be able to follow Apple's usual yearly upgrade plan. Yeah, they'll probably release a new model every year, but....why? Faster processors? Uh. For what reason? A TV's main purpose is to display movies and TV shows. If it doesn't work smoothly right out the gate, it won't sell. More internal storage space? That isn't enough to convince people to go out and buy an entirely new set. Will they set it up so you can only get certain content if you own a certain TV model? Yeah, that'd be the business model equivalent of putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger. What about games? Will the new Apple TV have a game console built into the set? I don't think anyone will want to upgrade yearly just for that. Hell, the Xbox360, the PS3, and the Wii are still chugging along, and they're 5-6 years old these days.
There's nothing about delivering content that requires a yearly upgrade. Bumps in resolution only happen roughly once a decade. And everything else? Well, it works at first, it'll work just as well later. You should only need to buy a new TV set once every 5-6 years or so, whenever the TV bites the dust, or some neat new little feature arrives on the scene. The whole concept of the Apple TV doesn't make sense in relation to Apple's usual practices.
LTD said:
Are you completely incapable of liking anything but Apple products?
No wait. I know. You're gonna play the impartial tech connoisseur, and say something like "If someone else releases something as polished, revolutionary, and spectacular as what Apple puts out on a daily basis, I'll like it". But, that won't ever happen. At least not by your standards, because...
...you're completely and totally incapable of liking anything but Apple products.
Wow, just answered my own question without any of that usually unnecessary input from you.
Just look at MS. Massive R&D budget with an employee count that dwarfs Apple's. Then compare their results to Apple's for the last 12 years or so. A big eye-opener.
10,000 people in Vision R&D? Hahaha.. Oh Samsung, such BS - what, did you count the undegrads still at Uni?
I'm so glad I left, maybe you should check to see if there's only 9,999 now, sounds like your employee database is still a bit broken
As for the Apple TV, I'm collecting photos of current TVs already. Especially the amazing(ly awful) Smart TV user interfaces.
Should be a good laugh.
edit: down vote away samsung lovers. used to be one just like you, i understand.
I'm so glad I left, maybe you should check to see if there's only 9,999 now, sounds like your employee database is still a bit broken
As for the Apple TV, I'm collecting photos of current TVs already. Especially the amazing(ly awful) Smart TV user interfaces.
Should be a good laugh.
edit: down vote away samsung lovers. used to be one just like you, i understand.
Last edited:
Yeah. I think Harman Kardon, Denon and Yamaha are really shakin to their bones with those flimsy iPods taking up the digital marketshare.
And just because you are so hooked to Apple's hype (Siri on a TV makes no sense, AppStore on TV makes even less sense) you don't see the major point, Samsung has made.
It's the picture quality, stupid!
Yes, that's it. And though I have several iPods, iPhones and stuff the like I still rather enjoy music from CD/BluRay on my HarmanKardon system. And yes, I'm longing to get some badass Canton speakers in the long run.
As a massive AV enthusiast i will always go for better picture quality over form. The thing is Pioneer offered the ultimate picture quality at a premium with the Kuro Plasma tv's but they did not make enough money on them and stopped making tv's. This clearly show most people just want a tv that looks half decent that is really thin and has great features. This is something Apple could do very well but if they hold a pricetag like the Kuro Plasmas did i don't think apple will succeed, Apple needs to keep the pricetag competitive!!