Slashdot Mirror
Television Next In Line For Industry-Wide Shakeup?
New submitter pjlehtim writes "In a recent interview. Samsung's AV product manager, Chris Moseley, said, 'TVs are ultimately 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.' Sounds familiar? There must be a change in the perceived role of television in the entertainment ecosystem before the general public starts to care about the smart TVs manufacturers are trying to push. That change is likely to come from outside the traditional home entertainment industry. It's not about technology; it is about user experience, again."
..yeah, no thanks. All I want or need is something that displays a 1080p signal well, and isn't going to break down and need to be replaced in a couple years. You can keep your so-called "smart", your "3D", and all your other silly bells and whistles. I'll stick to something that is quality, and if I need some "smarts" beyond what TiVo can do for me, I'll add an HTPC.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
There ain't much on TV I care about except sports, weather and the occasional movie. The rest is crap.
Smart TV? for what? It's just more stuff that can break. I don't want some smart TV or cable box wigging out on me while the damn game is on.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
"It's not about technology; it is about user experience, again."
We know he was working on it, and this sounds like a cue for Steve Jobs' final "one more thing..."
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
It's about time we get 4k televisions in production. Screw 3d, screw smart tv, just increase the resolution already. My monitor has higher resolution than my hdtv.
Picture quality? Maybe if you're into seeing the pancake makeup and ridiculous quantity of hair gel necessary to make your Sitcom/Soap stars look the way they do. Not going to really help animation at all, a little blur helps hide the sharp contrast of lines. Great for sports, so you can rest assured you're right when you call the ref an idiot for getting the call wrong, while you smugly watch the replays in High Def.
More likely going to find the user experience is more a la carte, as people leave the traditional broadcast, cable, and satellite networks for what they pick and choose over the internet (assuming ISPs don't kill the fledgling market with opressive fees for bandwidth, as IF my piddly 6 Mb/s connection should be considered taxing of their infrastructure. where's 100Mb/s?!?) I'd rather see my shows when it suits me, without even bothering with recording them on a DVR.
The TV itself could have the bits built in, but at the present rate of change I'd prefer an external box which I can upgrade as needed while the big investment, the display, is only bought every 5 or 10 years (or longer apart -- my only TV is really getting on in years, but still works.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Considering that Samsung currently owns 95% of the OLED display market, it's not surprising that he'd say that. Picture quality (and thinness) is going to be the primary driver for OLED replacing LCD in the TV and monitor markets.
Of course the real question how the price vs. adoption curve plays out. There's a shot at seeing sub-$5k sets when their 8G OLED lines are up to full production this year. LG's faux-OLED (i.e. WOLED stack) is waiting in the wings too. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
That is still correct. What has changed is the weighting given to any given instruction. (In the Olde Dayes of Yore, it was sufficient to run a million lightweight instructions, such as ADD or MOV, and see how long it took. After caches started being added, benchmark programs that were any good simulated typical function sizes and typical arc lengths. These days, things are so complex that full applications are generally run from a known start point to a known end point.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
...It's also about the [short] lifespan of OLED screens, currently at about 5 years if used for a straight 8 hours per day...much less than that of LCDs, which is close to twice that.
It is also about support for the device itself, when things go wrong as they will sometimes do. On this point, I salute Samsung for 'owning' any problems I have forwarded to them in the last 3 years.
TVs are ultimately about picture quality
Try this. Turn down your TV sound and try to work out what a programme is about. Now try the same with the sound audible and the picture blank (or just looking away). It's almost impossible to follow any programme without listening to the audio channel, but remove the video and little is lost (the exception is probably sports programmes, but for everything else it works).
Although the video component takes up the overwhelming amount of bandwidth - and cost both for production and TV set manufacture, it's the least important aspect of a programme.
The only thing that stops TV from being "radio with pictures" is the marketing of programmes, since this is ultimately where all the money is.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
It's quite memorable when people expect the status quo to remain relatively static and instead see it change suddenly. We all go back and point to the people who expected things to say the same and talk about how short sighted they were. However, just because that happens occasionally doesn't mean that an industry leader's expectation of no shakeup implies in any way that a shakeup is more likely. The shakeups just stick out in our minds when we reminisce.
If Apple says "we're going to release a smart taco, the iTaco" and Mexican food experts say it's stupid, I'm sure we'll have Slashdotters pointing out old quotes about the iPod and acting like success is inevitable.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
table uses the term 'user experience' ....
thats the point you burn with a fiery desire to get on top of the table, pull out your johnson and piss around on the faces of all participants. ..............
you sit in front of a tv, you click the remote, you watch the channel. that's what tv is. there is no more 'experience' in it. neither does a person coming home from work and dinner want an 'experience' to come out of their tv. they just want to click and watch.
same goes for oses. 'user experience'. what ? i just want to click on my program, and use it. i dont want any 'experience' happening in between.
hell, even internet. i have been on internet since it got out of the hen (1993-94), i have been on the first wave on everything ranging from multiplayer games to irc to webmaster culture to mmos, i have been an overclocker, and let me tell you :
when im on internet, i use at most 10 websites, play the same game, use the same software to do development, use the same instant messengers....... you get the picture.
im not looking for any 'experience'.
if someone like me, who has been riding the wave of adoption in digital age is like that, figure the rest of the population.
but for some reason, companies cant let go of that 'experience' illusion they are embroiled in.
i wonder, whether there is ANY person, who gets up from in front of a computer or television or any other ramped-up gadget and says, 'wow, this was a great xyz gadget using EXPERIENCE' - in any meaning of the term.
Read radical news here
Perhaps... I'm considering buying a replacement for my 2000-vintage 28" 4x3 ratio CRT TV. I'm not in a hurry as I rarely "watch TV".
I like the Samsungs - especially the ultra-thin 46" ones... with fast refresh and high-definition. Their biggest down-side is that they aren't competitively priced relative to other manufacturers - IMHO.
I am interested in a seamless way to use the TV to display what would be on my Laptop otherwise... I like the idea of watching internet video on a big screen... and I like the idea of lounging with a keyboard and having a full-PC environment on my wall... but I don't know if these will be mere gimmicks for me.
I don't care about 3D - but I do care about slimline high-resolution displays with great connectivity. Thereafter, for me, it's price, price, price.
Samsung and the likes can hawk their Smart-3D crap all they want.
When Apple release the SuperJumbo iPad -- err, iTV in the next year, with multi ARM processors, 1TB HDD Storage and the ability to remote control it with your existing iOS devices and run Apps in PIP-mode while watching movies, your run of the mill Flat panel displays will seem like the commodity display units they are.
Seriously though -- how can the likes of Samsung, Sharp or Sony Compete? Apple can deliver it's own streaming Movie and TV content via iTMS, they offer apps via the App Store, they allow any registered developer to make their own Apps and Games, they have iTunes installed on millions of machines, they have AirTunes that allow multi-room audio streaming, they have AirPort Express which helps facilitate AirTunes, they have Front Row which can turn any Apple Laptop or Desktop into a FullScreen media player. Essentially, you can have an iTV which allows you to Watch TV, stream movies, run apps, purchase new media, surf the web, broadcast music and media to other devices in other rooms all from one unit -- who cares about 3D when you have something that can essentially be a Media Hub and the family computer all in one?
The only market player I could see taking them on would be Google, but they don't have the media distribution channels -- they'd likely have to partner with Amazon since they already have the distribution deals and the infrastructure all set up. But, it would be a viable contender if they did come up with an Android based competitor to iTV that streamed and downloaded music and movies from Amazon and featured the App marketplace for both Google and Amazon.
No matter what though, TV is about to go through a pretty dramatic evolutionary period that will likely see the dumb-terminal relegated to a by-gone era.
Next stop: get rid of the fixed display completely and move it onto touch screen enabled surfaces like walls and windows.
However, everything Apple did so far to skyrocket as it did was for portable devices.
So what are we talking here? A TV running iOS with integrated DVR and using some sort of next gen cable card? What will be the big hook? It needs more than integration with other Apple devices, although we can probably expect teleconferencing with face time (hello boardrooms of America) and streaming to iPad/iphones.
Being subscription services, cable companies will jump at the chance of exclusivity contracts and give in to Apple's demands and needs like compatibility with a better cablecard type system.
Watch for Verizon Fios winning this one. /end speculation
I like many people get "high" speed internet from Comcast. If Comcast updated their Internet with modern tech, we could stream television on computers. Then people would drop their cable subscriptions. So why does Comcast want to increase the broadband speeds when it will hurt their profits?
It is sad you need to hope for Google to do their 1gb/s because the current ISP behemoths don't want to move.
God spoke to me
Smart TVs are nice for things like streaming for a secondary TV, in a bedroom or basement, where you dont want a bunch of boxes and cables, but for my living room... i have a cable box, i have a game console, i have a networked dvd player. The TV is ONLY a display. This is one place where with some technologies moving as fast as they are, convergence is a bad thing. If some new streaming service comes out, i can reasonably assume theyll have a PS3 app. Depending on how proprietary things are they may not have an app for a smart TV even a few years old. Heck, i dont even need the main TV in the home theater to have speakers, i just want a big dumb good quality monitor with a digital video input. Let my receiver handle all the AV stuff and one or two boxes handle TV and recorded media.
Convergence has its place, its nice having a camera in my phone in my pocket all the time, but i dont want a cheap, prone to mechanical failure, blu-ray player or cheap PC that no one will make software for in 9 months stuck on the side of my nice high end tv.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Cost is why Blu-ray fails.
Really? Blu-Ray discs seem cheap enough to me these days. I thought the reasons Blu-Ray wasn't taking off like DVD did were because:
No electronics industry exec will ever admit this in an interview, but the bottom line seems to be that all the things the electronics industry claims people are demanding from TVs are false. It doesn't have all that much to do with image quality. It has a lot more to do with convenience and cost/benefit (rather than pure cost) -- people just don't see the need for what's being shoved at them. What people want is low-end TVs that do Netflix and Hulu.
Breakfast served all day!
... than being charged for 200+ channels I will never watch.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Old, established companies will claim that old, established standards are best - until they devise a new product.
New companies and old ones with new products will claim that new standards are best.
The consumers -- the ones actually USING the product -- don't get to say what it is they need or want. Rather, they are told what they should need and want.
The intelligent consumers (all three of them) should ignore what the companies are saying and should define metrics in terms of value. One option would use zero as no product and 1 as being the absolute baseline requirement for that parameter. All metrics should be non-linear and should either tend to a limit, following the law of diminishing returns, or it should reach a peak and then fall off to zero. (You can't always say for certain what the limit should be, but you can guess. The best vision and best hearing are still finite quantities, for example, and no matter how good 3D pictures become, no person will need a 5D display for a very long time.)
A second option would be to do something similar but instead of defining the baseline requirement, define the maximum instead (let's say 100). The current baseline requirement can then be marked on the curve, together with where the product ranks.
Functionally, these two are the same. The difference is that one is scaled according to how usable the product is in relation to actual need, the second according to how usable the product is in relation to theoretical limits.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If Apple can come out with a TV that has a built-in HD, a decent OS, and Siri, that could very well be the sweet spot for a lot of people
An iMac meets those requirements except Siri, and once the novelty of the iPhone 4S runs out, I fully expect Apple to make a Mac version of Siri.
Now, what WILL be annoying is if their TV is iOS based.
The Apple TV 2 runs a customized iOS. Expect Apple's rumored offering, should it come out, to be not unlike an Apple monitor with a built-in Apple TV 2.
At any given store, DVDs are about $15 for new stuff, while BluRay is about $25 for the same movie.
I have a 1080p TV, and I can barely see the difference between a BluRay and a DVD. It's just not worth the $10.
Here's today's slashdot quote.
>There is hardly a thing in the world that some man can not make a little worse and sell a little cheaper.
What about AIDS?
The problem with Samsungs (and, I think all of the other TVs) is that the software sucks. I've got a 2(?) year old 42' Samsung. Nice TV but awful interface UI, terrible USB support, non existent documentation.
This is, as has been mentioned, where Apple could conceivably break in. Allow a non technical person to hook up a DVR or find a movie, get a remote without three hundred tiny little buttons with colored squiggles. Change inputs without looking at the Janglish manual. Lock people into iTunes. Make it hard to do anything not explicitly deemed appropriate by Apple. Die after an update....
Sigh. It seemed like a good idea at the time. It really did.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The only thing I want from the TV industry is for them to license their content to internet sites.
Streaming music over "Internet Radio" is very successful because there are licensing agreements in place that allow royalties to be paid back to the content providers.
There is no Internet TV because the dinosaur-brained TV execs don't want to relinquish control of their product (even though it has already been broadcast nationwide).
Hulu and Netflix have pitiful TV content because they simply can't license the content. The TV studios are totally missing out on a huge advertising revenue source, because of their backwards thinking.
Message to TV execs: WAKE UP and smell the internet. You could be making money RIGHT NOW if you licensed your content to websites to stream to millions upon millions of handheld devices. (Don't sweat the format, other people will fix that for you.) ...
Or if you don't we'll just keep torrenting TV shows and you'll get nothing
If you're willing to give up live news, live sports, major-studio feature films, and major-studio television series, you can get TVs supporting YouTube today.
By far the largest problem standing between us and mass smart TV adoption is the user interface.
No. By far the biggest problem is that there's no reason for a "smart" TV (whatever that is) when all you can do with it is watch the same junk that's on a dumb TV.
I am interested in a seamless way to use the TV to display what would be on my Laptop otherwise
Pretty much any new TV can do that. Many PCs have HDMI or DVI-D video outputs that plug right into an HDTV's HDMI input. Those that don't can use a VGA cable, as most HDTVs have a VGA input (except, I'm told, in Europe where TVs tend to have a SCART input instead of a VGA input). And until you replace your TV, you can go to SewellDirect.com and buy a PC to TV adapter that converts a VGA signal to an S-Video or composite signal.
Join the HTPC crowd. Indie filmmakers and indie video game developers will thank you.
If TV is about picture quality, why does my wife watch Modern Family on the 15-inch screen on her laptop in our office and not on the 40-inch HD TV we have downstairs in the living room? Oh, right, because it's super easy for her to legally watch episodes whenever she wants via ABC's Web site in a browser, whereas doing so on our TV varies between "a pain in the ass" and "impossible."
The company that solves this problem will make millions, and it won't be a company that's convinced that all people want is ever-sharper video.
I understand the problem -- my wife can't operate our current tv, relies on our geek daughter to cue up what she wants to watch or choose the right input and navigate to the channel she's interested in. The TV ecosystem has gotten ridiculously complex. Some simplification or automation or integration is long overdue.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the answer is not to build all that stuff into a tv. TVs are a long term appliance, not something you buy every two years when an incremental improvement comes out. Remember TVs with VHS VCRs built in? The TV continues to work long after the VCR becomes dead weight. (Somewhat true also for TV/DVD combos, although I notice they're starting to use common laptop DVD drives now.)
I know, if, say, Amazon Instant Video goes away or Netflix changes or some new hot service becomes available, the manufacturer could add new features with a firmware upgrade, right?
Yeah, that worked really well for the cellular market. Why would manufacturers upgrade existing sets when they could use the new feature as leverage to replace the set?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Have a plain old 32" CRT TV with digital converter box, blu-ray capable player (mostly used for DVD).....resolution isn't anything to me, don't give enough of a crap. If I really want to see something with spectacular sound and resolution I'll play it on my workstation. and fuck 3D
You're spot on. At a friends place 5 remotes to operate a modern TV system. The screen, the dvd, the pvr, the dolby and there was something else but I have no idea what the hell it was.
WTF?
All so I can watch complete crap interrupted every 5 minutes for god damned adverts? Why would I bother to do that? I personally no longer have a TV.
Deleted
TVs are about picture quality but, more importantly, about content. The first TVs were B&W and the picture quality was dismal compared to modern standards. Yet people paid huge prices for them because TVs allowed them to watch stuff they had only imagined.
"TVs are ultimately 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"
First thought: Bullshit. Then I saw it's not S-PVA vs IPS Pro anymore; Samsung's doing PLS now.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/samsung-sa850_2.html
Need more detail on PLS...
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/12/02/14/2144217/television-next-in-line-for-industry-wide-shakeup#
My mom can't operate a modern TV. [..] The revolution will be the people who make some kind of master overlay and master remote
The television will not be revolutionised, brother.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
airborne distribution?
We have a Tivo, Wii and LG Blu-Ray all plugged into a Yamaha AV amp, which is connected to a Metz TV.
As a result i need:
Two remotes to watch TV (tivo for channel and amp volume, and the TV remote to turn it on/change the AV channel)
two or three remotes to watch a DVD -
Blu-ray + Amp remote + TV remote
trying to explain this to my mother-in-law is painful to say the least.
It's 2012 and all these devices still can't talk to each other, unless they're all from the same manufacturer. They all have their own, incompatible remote control technologies.
Please, TV and home entertainment equipment manufacturers, thrash out a common control communications standard and go with it - eg XML/SOAP over bluetooth or zigBee, or even HDMI, so I can control ALL my AV gear from one remote interface. I don't really care if it's a logitech-style remote or an android app; just give us something that works across manufacturers so i can have one remote to control them all.
The computing power is readily available and cheap, the frameworks all exist to do it - just choose a standard and implement it.
1080p 100Hz TV is good enough, I don't need or want craptastic 3D or a smart TV interface i'll never use. Just focus on the user experience. Make it easy for normal humans to use AV gear.
Also that samsungs will NOT last 12 years like your last TV. you will be lucky to get 4 out of them. And this is a problem with MOST brands right now. Longevity is crap on these TV's. Even legendary Panasonic longevity has taken a huge hit with the company not fixing defective sets.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I think most people looked at their huge collection of DVD's and their huge collection of VHS and realized that no matter what format they purchased, it was effectively wasting money. Especially since you watch once and never watch again.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Do so many of you really still own TVs? Do you not have computers? How are you posting? Hulu: free, and with all the wretched commercials you've loved for years. Netflix: bloody cheap, with no commercials at all. Youtube? Youtube anyone?
airborne distribution?
That's called a money shot.
Cameras come to mind.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
No. Facebook on TV would be.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Access to good content, all the time, ala-cart, WITHOUT having to pay an arm-and-a-leg for it!
Picture quality is a great thing to have, but content is king. Without access to that, the TV is pointless (ever watch saturday mid-morning TV, when nothing but infomericals is on?).
We should have full access to all channels (broadcast, news, premium, "cable only") via all mediums. Right now, the big cable companies (and a few satellite companies) have everything locked up, when the Internet could easily stream most of the live, broadcast content. I don't want ONE company owning my cable, Internet and TV pipe, so they can collect $150-$200 per month from me. I want a choice!
Apple, Google, whomever: SHAKE THINGS UP
I don't know about that, I've got a 32" Samsung LCD I bought back in 2006 that's still going strong. Cost me $1600 new, compared to the $1000 the 55" cost that ended up taking it's place, so it wasn't cheap, but it's not nearly as bad as the Sanyos and Visios and shit I see people replacing every other year.
Still, I get what you're saying. My grandmother's ancient console TV in the basement worked from the day they bought it in the 60's until they sold it in the early 2000's. I doubt a single appliance or device I've bought within the last 10 years will last even half that.
...Blu-ray disc player. Has access to a ton of internet content, which is fine, but trying to pull up a you-tube video is painful. Just a crappy interface.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
It has to be *in* the TVs because this way you'll buy a new one every year when something shinier comes out. Same as with cell phones.
Every year they'll add some small new feature, then carefully design an ad campaign that will make you feel like a loser because you don't have the latest-greatest. You'll be glad to open your wallet just to feel popular again.
experience, you have none
(note: this won't happen, but I like to dream)
Licensed TV input and ATV2-type boxes that plug in with a single cable and make the TV a dumb-box. It's similar to the boomboxes/head units of today, but the ATV remote controls volume and power for both TV and ATV box, plus the menu/play/pause/directionals (for times when SiriTV isn't working).
Your cable, satellite, and OTA become mostly obsolete because Apple will contract with those companies to stream their content over IP, or more likely negotiate directly with content providers for a la carte (monthly or hourly) directly from the networks. Streaming through your iCloud subscription to "channels" on the ATV, plus rental and purchased content from iTunes. That way you can just "watch whats on" as a pre-determined stream, or pick and choose, even queuing up stuff from your other iDevices so the stream never ends. You might even get iTunes credits by watching and interacting appropriately with infomercial programs.
Access to content might even be through apps, though they could look like "channels" - I'm just hoping for apps so I can stream my existing colllection without a JB, though that's probably a pipe dream.
This would be a $50 option on your TV - you pay for the blessed iConnect protocol and take-over circuitry, Apple gets full control of the day-to-day operations and effectively locks you out of the other TV inputs unless you grab the old remote, and they rake in the cable fees plus their iTMS business.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"Really? Blu-Ray discs seem cheap enough to me these days. I thought the reasons Blu-Ray wasn't taking off like DVD did were because:"
Yes. Really. $5-$20 for DVD v. $25+ same DRM-Ray.
"Everybody already bought the movies they like to see on DVD and they're not replacing DVDs with Blu-Rays"
Partially correct. I only purchase DVD, period.
"Using Netflix is way more convenient than messing with discs all the time, even if they don't have all the content you want"
Nope. not using any IPTV netflix, hulu. LACK OF CONTENT, and FEES.
1311393600 - Back to Black
"Especially since you watch once and never watch again."
Incorrect, I watch nearly all of the DVD's many times, just depends on my mood, lack of original programming being aired at the time... but then I prefer older films from the 30-60's v. newer ones. I can put TCM on and let it play any day any time and get better programming than most newer stuff.
1311393600 - Back to Black
You were thinking of a bunch of food tins with "Village Foods" on them weren't you?
I wonder if The Village PPV service has that show available?
Be seeing you...
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Yes. Even a $8 BluRay is expensive when compared to the marginal cost of ZERO you get from a flat rate rental service.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I already have "an experience" when I click a remote.
Tivo was the prime mover in this area.
I don't care about some clueless johnny come lately and his fanboys that choose to be ignorant about everything. They have no clue and no taste and nothing to add to the discussion.
They don't even contribute any really interesting "pie in the sky" suggestions that sound good but might run afoul of the multiple monopoly players on one side and a completely non-standardized industry on the other.
If you want a castrated set of features disguised as "ease of use", you can already do that with a 30 year old TV.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
talk to the cable/satellite providers who overly compress the broadcasts then.
Touch feed back on a remote is good even more so in the dark or if you don't want to look down to see what you are pressing.
Yes. Really. $5-$20 for DVD v. $25+ same DRM-Ray.
You're doing a cost comparison between a format that's the current technology standard and one that became popular more than 15 years ago. When DVDs were first introduced they most certainly did cost $25 or more, and DVD players were one of the fastest-adopted technology products in modern history. Now the $25+ doesn't seem worth it, but not because nobody would ever pay that price to own a movie, but because they already did -- 15 years ago -- and the difference between the new format and the old doesn't seem sufficient to justify paying that rate anymore (which is what you're saying). It's not just cost, it's cost/benefit.
What's fascinating is that when CDs first came out they said the price of CDs would shrink to reasonable rates. It hasn't. In fact, in many cases you can buy a shrinkwrapped DVD for less than you can buy the soundtrack for the same movie. The price of CDs didn't really "go down" until the big box retailers started doing aggressive sales on brand-new releases by major labels. Then it started shrinking a little more across the board with the advent of iTunes -- which made music a little less expensive, but also introduced lossy compression. So at least with Blu-Ray the format is actually getting better at the same price, and the price of the older format has gone down. That's sort of what you'd expect -- but it's not what has happened with music.
Breakfast served all day!
I don't know what "judder" means, but when you show a Martin Scorcese movie on a big LCD screen at 120Hz, it looks like a videotaped TV soap opera from 1974.
Breakfast served all day!
cable card at times sucks and the cable co's takes a lot of the blame just look at dsl reports for that.
Now some cable co like RCN have TIVO boxes but you are forced to rent them at high prices.
canadian systems let's you buy the box or rent some even have rent to own and when you buy the box no outlet or mirroring fees.
The big problem for TV manufacturers is convincing people who already have a flat screen TVs that they need a new TV. People bought (and are buying) flat screen TVs to replace their CRTs because a flat screen TV has clear advantages (even to the lay person) over a CRT in the same way DVD is better than VHS.
But for the people who already have a HDTV, the trick is getting them to buy a new one. Lots of that has focused on making the display itself better (faster refresh rates, better LCD panels, LED back-lighting etc) but its gotten to the point where further advancements in display technology currently cost too much to put into mass market TVs (such as OLED TVs).
So with there being little room to advance in actual display technology (at least in terms of advances that normal consumers will care enough about to buy a new TV), the way TV companies are trying to get people to buy is 3D (which is a hard sell to most consumers given the lack of 3D content out there for their 3DTVs) and smart TVs. Smart TVs make sense for the manufacturers because convincing people that already have a flat screen TV to buy a new one because the new one gets YouTube is a lot easier than convincing people that already have a flat screen TV to buy one because the new one has better picture quality, blacker blacks, faster refresh rate etc.
Personally I would much rather see the research invested in making TVs less power hungry than in making them support all this "smart content" stuff (content that the big media companies would rather you got through network TV or cable/satellite anyway)
download cap's will kill apple tv over ITMS + who will want to over pay for a TV? when apple should be working on a box that will work with any tv aka the apple tv.
..yeah, no thanks. All I want or need is something that receives and sends a voice signal well, and isn't going to break down and need to be replaced in a couple years. You can keep your so-called "smart", your "apps", and all your other silly bells and whistles. I'll stick to something that is quality, and if I need some "smarts" beyond what my Nokia 6100 can do for me, I'll add a laptop.
world standards, satellite, non cable card systems, SDV and other stuff.
For cable card systems with SDV apple will need to have a working USB port.
But even with cable card NO VOD and to order events ppv you have to call in.
satellite tv is a other area that it is very hard to use your own box. Most pay systems force you to use there box.
Lot's of non US cable systems don't use cable cards.
For OTA tv / FTA satellite (build in to some TV+) there are lot's of world standards.
what about live sports? The cable co's own part of RSN's. But the teams also own part of them as well.
The situation as it stands right now; most TV sets are effectively expensive monitors. They take and display a signal from one or more of...
* an antenna
* a cableco box
* a PC
* a Bluray or DVD player
* a game console
* whatever
The TV maker sells a piece of hardware, and that's it for the next 10 years.
What the TV makers dream of; They already ask you to fill out a form (paper or via internet) to "register your warranty". So they have your TV's serial number and your name+address+etc. Now imagine if the TV set had an internet connection. The TV maker could get real-time info about what you're watching and when, because the serial number is linked to a person, and also an IP address. This information is valuable to marketers. TV makers want to "monetize" that info.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Who really wants to surrender more brain resources to operating an intricate trinket that further clutters our heads.
I'm not an anti-TV evangelist, I watch TV, and even like some of it. A few years ago, we switched from rabbit ears to Shaw Satellite with a pvr. TV watching almost ceased. The set-top box was so annoying everybody just gave up. When I cancelled the service, nobody noticed for 3 months.
I just want to watch TV. I don't want a "user experience".
It's not usability, it's all about DRM. The content providers are desperate to keep people from copying or modifying content. It everything is in one box, then you have no where to connect a recording device. Your cable box will be implemented in software instead of a separate piece of hardware that has to be maintained. Providers can change their encryption any time they want by pushing out a new patch, and keeping the "hackers" at bay. You want to record and watch later? There's an extra charge for that, and only on their terms.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Our 47 inch LCD TV is now nothing more than a big monitor connected to a Mac mini computer. The mini receives signals over Wi-Fi from a server that contains ripped DVDs and a few Blu-rays from the collection of our discs, which are safely stored in the garage. The sound output of the computer is connected to a normal stereo system which includes a subwoofer. In addition there is a gadget called Eye-TV connected to the computer via USB. This takes care of live broadcasts from the antenna. It also functions to record shows that come on at inconvenient times. An old VCR is also connected to this Eye-TV gadget to enable viewing some ancient tapes. iTunes and Netflix supply more content. iTunes also can play a 35GB music collection resident on the server. All of this except the VCR can be controlled with an app on an iPod Touch which enables it to perform the duties of a mouse and keyboard. Alternatively, a wireless mouse and keyboard can control the mini. My wife has no problems running this system since she often uses her iMac in the bedroom to watch movies or listen to music from the server. We basically have a homemade VERY smart TV that's extremely easy to use by anyone who knows how to use a computer.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
It doesn't help that factory settings are typically Torch Mode. Live fast, die young, indeed.
FTFY. Panasonic has the Plasma TV equivalent of the Knights of the Roundtable: the Pioneer Kuro engineers. Many people already consider the Panasonic VT series to be superior to the Samsung offerings. But in all honesty, even second place in the world is still pretty good.
The first time I saw an ipod i thought. Where's the record button. Stallman is right. Right to read that is.
It's not about picture quality. It's not about 'user experience', which is so vague as to be meaningless.
Something the tech geek crowd will always miss.
There's a reason why iOS has a higher customer satisfaction rating than Android does. It's user experience.
For TVs to work well, it doesn't have to support features, it has to support features to the point where people can look at the remote and not see a sea of buttons.
Any exec who thought this was UX needs to be dragged out into the street and horsewhipped publicly.
It'd make an awesome controller for MechWarrior though.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
You're assuming everyone has a collection going back to 1979.
As if anyone could POSSIBLY be born before 1992...
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
TVs are dead though, they just haven't realized it yet. Who actually really needs a TV these days? Hell, we have TVs that are actually PCs now or you can always output your IPTV to a regular TV if you want, although quality and res is often better on a decent monitor.
We occasionally turn the TV on for news and stuff, but its not anything we can't get through the internet or IPTV anyway.... we get the same channels and more.
And what is actually on TV that is so interesting to watch? 99% of it is crap, and the other 1% you already saw.
I've had to reboot the f*cking thing because it occasionally locks up. No thank you, smart t.v. Please remain a dumb box in which I plug in other poorly designed crap.
Sweet informative mod.
I personally think toasters are next in line.
I mean, come on, toasters have such poor user experience. You put the toast in and wait, how boring!
No bells, no whistles, no sexy narrator voice to tell me what's happening to my toast.
How could ever live without these things?
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
There's one reason why TVs should be "smarter", and that's the UI of the TV itself. I can't really figure out why all my devices--my microwave, TV, DVD player, coffee machine, whatever--need to be operated by pressing tiny buttons in some arcane manner, like I'm casting a spell or something. There is a Better Way.
It would be great if, in addition to having the remote+TV UI option that's standard with my TV, I could also use my iPad, computer, and/or web browser to configure my TV. Run Android or whatever on the TV and publish an API to the TV's internals, and you've made your TV a lot more usable.
I guess if people want to use this capability to create apps, great. For my part though, I'm happy just plugging in an Apple TV or whatever. This capability isn't going to go away (I hope!) with a smart TV, so you'll still be able to buy an external box for something down the road if you want it.
Judging from content restrictions and device manufacturers' generally terrible attempts at innovation in this area, I don't hold particularly high hopes that the reality of the future is going to match my rosy utopian vision of it.
www.clarke.ca
I don't know about that, I've got a 32" Samsung LCD I bought back in 2006 that's still going strong. Cost me $1600 new, compared to the $1000 the 55" cost that ended up taking it's place, so it wasn't cheap, but it's not nearly as bad as the Sanyos and Visios and shit I see people replacing every other year.
Still, I get what you're saying. My grandmother's ancient console TV in the basement worked from the day they bought it in the 60's until they sold it in the early 2000's. I doubt a single appliance or device I've bought within the last 10 years will last even half that.
I was thinking the same thing. I bought a Samsung 32" for ~$1200 in 2006, and (so far) its been running fine. The TV I have to set the bar on for comparison was an old TV w/remote (wireless), that my parents had that was bought in the early 80's and lasted ~20 years (surviving two moves).
I haven't had any problem with it, but I know it was right before Sumsung became popular, so maybe as demand increased, quality dropped?
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
I think most people looked at their huge collection of DVD's and their huge collection of VHS and realized that no matter what format they purchased, it was effectively wasting money. Especially since you watch once and never watch again.
Really? I think "Boy, I'm glad I bought that disc for $8 and could watch it at home with my wife, eating the food/drink of my choice, on the timetable of our choosing, instead of paying $25 to watch it in a theater, and then being gouged for Soda/Popcorn/Snacks."
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
TV's current embodiment as an in the-box closed system fully patent-protected oligopoly is too expensive, restrictive and boring.
SteveJobs et. al. and AAPL abstract above the-box to circumvent expensive IP royalty streams (i.e. TVGuide) with software enabling remote access hardware portable devices that control multiple streams, multiple sources in which Users choose how, where and what they want to consume when and after they have options...
Cable providers will simply bundle and resell subscriptions to these services (along with the live channel feeds) at a "discount" (compared to buying them individually, not compared to actual value for what you use), and link your Comcast/Charter/Cox account to your HBO GO/etc. accounts seamlessly.
It's already happening. Just one of dozens of recent, disturbing datapoints to crop up in the last few weeks, but free content on thewb (and elsewhere) is diminishing. For example, the first 10 episodes of Fringe Season one went away this weekend...probably doesn't matter to most, but since I was out of the country when the series started, and just happened to discover it a couple of weeks ago, and since they're not available on Netflix, I'm either going to have to skip episodes 3-10, or pay for them at an inflated rate / episode on the iStore or Amazon (or even worse inflated rate on Vudu), or buy the blue-ray set for season one (which ironically is cheaper than the streaming rental on a per episode basis).
Less and less content available via a general web interface ... first steps toward the crappy iStore model of shit, where you download the WB or Fox app, or worse, have to download the Fringe app to watch the show. I curse Apples contribution to this ... the endgame is a walled garden worse in every respect from the one that existed with CompuServer, GEnie, AOL, and other dialup services before the Internet became common.
Welcome to your lobotimized world. Not government or big brother, but big content Apple, all driven by megalomaniacal monopolists that make Bill Gates look positively benign in comparison.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Personally, I think it'll never happen, because it'd take industry cooperation, but HDMI allows for a 100mbit ethernet connection. It shouldn't be took hard to use computer technologies like 'wake on lan' such that when you power on ONE component, they all power on, if you have a seperate sound system(or even multiple ones) that you can turn the volume up/down even if you end up putting the amplifier box in a different room, etc...
Basically, have ALL the multimedia devices you hook up talk to each other over such links, using some sort of protocol. It'd require some setup if, for example, you want to use your TV's speakers as the center and want the volume to stay equalized, but it should be doable.
I don't read AC A human right
I think his point is that if you want to do better than 720, you're going to have to do some work for it. Cost Increases: 1. Have to buy a 1080 capable TV vs 720. Not significant, but there. 2. Buy a decent BR player - $100 vs $20 for a DVD player. Even worse - you still have a working DVD player. 3. Buy 1080P content - vs watching 'upscaled' broadcast stuff or compressed to heck internet streams 4. Want the sound that goes with it? Can't rely on the TV's speakers anymore, need to get a sound system($$) Labor increases(can substitute hiring somebody, but that's $$$) 1. Have to install it semi-correctly 2. Have to view it close enough 3. Typically you have to mess with discs, or perhaps a file system.
I don't read AC A human right
Meanwhile, netflix has 0 marginal cost, while with BR discs I have to purchase them individually and put them into the drive. Or I'd have to pay another $9/month or so to get discs from netflix again. Then figure in that 'most' households are no longer single-player, much less single-TV. So for a BR disc to have full utility, not only do they need to get a $100 BR player for the main room, they need to get one for every other room they have a TV in where they might want to watch it.
TV sucks not just due to image quality, but due to the lousyness of modern programming. It'll take a while for the 95% percent dross to drop off and us build up a library of decent HD TV footage. You're right - Netflix & Hulu on relatively simple TVs is the big point right now. It's the same deal as with MP3 players and music. People value convenience over quality 80% of the time.
I don't read AC A human right
Well, no - I won't likely purchase another TV ever. I will, however, purchase a projector and hook it up to a computer, or possibly a Smart TV box - e.g. a Google TV box (like the Logistics Revue), Boxee, Roku, or something similar; possibly both. Why? I get exactly what I want out it, and TV isn't really what we want. A home theatre is - and a project is better for that than a TV; an a SmartTV box would allow NetFlix, Hulu, etc to be pushed out the projector a little better than a standard Linux-based computer. The computer may have a DVD and/or BlueRay-DVD drive, and possibly a TV tuner as well (for OTA TV) should we want it - or possibly to hook up the VCR, Wii, etc.
But a TV? Not likely.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
When I play a game, I certainly expect a great user experience since that's the only reason to do it at all. When I use other technology such as my PVR system, I expect it to be convenient enough that I don't have a bad experience. That's the kind of user experience a TV designer should aim for: one that the user doesn't think much about beyond being satisfied. This is no longer as simple as allowing the user to select channels and adjust the volume since video is coming from increasingly diverse sources under the control of various entities. I'm still looking for a good way to combine access to recordings on my MythTV system with Internet sources like Netflix in one user interface.
The problem I have seen with Samsung is bad capacitors. Now, bad capacitors is not an uncommon thing, but I've seen them in lots of Samsung TVs and monitors made in 2007-2009ish which is well after everyone else seems to have gotten their shit together. Newer screens may be better, or perhaps they just haven't failed yet. On the upside, at least I haven't run into a Samsung yet that I haven't been able to repair, though it's enough to turn me off of the brand.
If I had to guess, I'd bet they had a problem meeting demand in 2007-2009 after their reputation (and the market for flat screens) grew (starting in 1996), and probably outstripped their production capacity, so they went for quick/cheap components?
Which suffered higher failure rates?
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.