Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Displays Television Entertainment Hardware Technology

Television Next In Line For Industry-Wide Shakeup? 381

Posted by Soulskill
from the making-the-idiot-box-relevant-again dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Television Next In Line For Industry-Wide Shakeup?

Comments Filter:
  • Re:"Smart" TVs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by revscat (35618) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:11PM (#39038899) Journal

    I dunno. I have an HTPC and it's kinda a pain in the ass. 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, including me. "Siri, I'd like to watch the latest episode of Venture Brothers." Boom. Off ya go.

    Now, what WILL be annoying is if their TV is iOS based.

  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:12PM (#39038905)

    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.

  • by roc97007 (608802) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:39PM (#39039209) Journal

    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?

  • Re:Talking his book (Score:3, Interesting)

    by theskipper (461997) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @07:44PM (#39039277)

    What you have is LED backlit, not OLED. OLED is an emissive technology and is pretty much only in cellphones right now (the majority being Samsung produced with Universal Display Corp PHOLED chemicals). Displays of 15" and larger are expected in production quantities later this year, more realistically in 2013.

    There are a lot of CES articles about the 55" I was referring to, here's a sample.
    http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/09/samsung-55-inch-super-oled-tv-launch-ces-2012/ [engadget.com]

  • Re:"Smart" TVs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:04PM (#39039457) Homepage

    "..yeah, no thanks. All I want or need is something that displays a 1080p signal well,"

    Why? If all you watch are the most recent Movies on BluRay, then I can understand that. but ALL cableTV and ALL satellite TV is 720P heavy compressed. I dont care what your settings on the receiver are, the signal is 720p and will stay that way for a very long time.

    Everyone pines for 1080p but very few have seen 1080p content that is crisp and at a viewing distance where they can actually tell the difference.

    If you know your source material, and you sit close enough to see it, Awesome for you! I also chased the 1080p dragon for my theater and succeeded. You will not find ANYTHING that will be a decent quality 1080p from a streaming service within the next 5 years. You just dont have the bandwidth.

    I instead made my own. XBMC with a server in the basement that has 5 1tb drives in it. I rip the bluray discs to the server and use XBMC to play them back. XBMC will do a AC3 passthrough as well as HD audio passthrough toslink to the receiver that will recreate the audio perfectly. My theater with VOD system I have in my media center was in total $12,500 excluding the walls, sound control and seating.

    If you want really good 1080p you are going to not only pay for it, but do it all yourself.

  • Re:User Experience? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:16PM (#39039581) Homepage

    amazon.com. I get a LOT of blurays at $5.00 or less used. I also have a bajilluion HD-DVD's I scooped up for $0.99 and a player for $12.00

    dont waste money buying at a brick and morter.

  • Re:"Smart" TVs? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DigiTechGuy (1747636) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @08:53PM (#39039921)

    I have a simple 4 year old flip phone on a non subsidized plan. It works for me, calls, voice mail and a few text every now and again. I also don't own a TV. I read news and watch it on youtube, listen to webcasts, hulu, etc. I just use my computer for such entertainment and am happy with my 23" 1080 screen. Costs too much for TV to be worth it, just to watch advertisements in the couple hours I might use it after work in the winter.

  • by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Tuesday February 14, 2012 @09:22PM (#39040189)

    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.

Computers can figure out all kinds of problems, except the things in the world that just don't add up.

Working...