Sony Racing Apple To Develop 'a New Kind of TV' 273
PolygamousRanchKid writes with an excerpt from SlashGear about Sony's efforts to reinvent the television set — a task many suspect Apple is focused on as well. Quoting:
"'There's a tremendous amount of R&D going into a different kind of TV set,' CEO Howard Stringer told the WSJ (in a paywalled article). ... [W]hat Apple and Sony agree on is that the traditional TV paradigm must evolve if the segment is to become profitable again. A new model is 'what we’re all looking for,' Stringer confirmed, suggesting that 'we can’t continue selling TV sets [the way we have been]. Every TV set we all make loses money.'"
A new kind of TV...... (Score:3)
Re:A new kind of TV...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A new kind of TV...... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
But that's also surely not the way they want it.
How does that make sense? Apple doesn't want NetFlix, MLB, NHL, WSJ, etc on their AppleTV, but cut a deal to make sure it's all pre-installed and on the home screen? Or did you mean they don't want AirPlay to allow anything to stream onto an AppleTV, but kinda accidentally made it and promoted it anyway? Or did you mean they prefer you buy everything from iTunes? Yeah, they probably would like that, but they don't care. It's not the force that drives their sales - hardware is, and always has been. Even the
Re: (Score:3)
Right, they are 'stuck' with those things because no one wants their product without it. But if they could have what they wanted, it would be a closed ecosystem with all content sold through itunes.
Re:A new kind of TV...... (Score:4, Insightful)
If wishes were ponies, every company would charge you for everything that they possibly could.
In the real world, every product is a balance of functionality, cost and ongoing cost. A company has to get that balance right to sell product and make money.
The other poster is right - Apple view content as little more than a way to sell hardware. It's open and/or free of charge when that makes the most sense; it's closed and/or priced when that is more sensible. It's not about control, and it's not about nickel and diming on content. If you think it is, you'll never be any good at predicting what Apple will do in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
What they want, is for you to buy an apple TV and an iPad and a MacBook Air and an iPhone, they really don't care as much about content distribution as you think they do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad that is not reality in any way.
ipad lets me view and hear anything.
AppleTV does the same.
ipod, iphone, etc...
have you even touched an apple product before?
Re: (Score:2)
ipad lets me view and hear anything. AppleTV does the same. ipod, iphone, etc...
Flash? Vorbis? FLAC? You can stop lying now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But does iTunes offer you Porn?
Re: (Score:3)
But does iTunes offer you Porn?
If you can't find porn on an iOS device (or anything else beyond DOS) connected to the Internet, well.
Well, words fail me.
Re: (Score:2)
all your content from us? is that so bad? how many channels in your cable package do you actually watch? i have to pay for more than the basic package to get Discovery, Science, History, etc but Oxgen and BET come with the basic? $5 bucks for OTA channels on DirecTV?
Apple didn't make you buy an album to get the 1-2 good songs.. I call that al la carte.. someting TV needs desperately.
the 100 year old business model for broadcasters needs to change.
I'll be first in line for any company that let's me pay ONLY
Re: (Score:2)
If Sony wanted to, they could have a leg up on Apple.
This is make or break time, if Apple became dominant, Sony's only hope would be in selling panels for apple to include in their products. Were Sony to deliver a vendor neutral framework for program delivery over a connected TV, that they and other providers could use to monetize their content, it's just possible it could work. They need something like the RadioPlayer in the UK, that allows multiple radio stations, BBC and Commercial to utilize a single de
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day, Apple manufactures nothing apart from software, getting a leg up on a fullly featured electronic manufacfturer is going to be impossible unless Apple buys one to take on the rest.
New kind of TV. The big thing about TVs is their life versus what used to be the life of a computer. Now computer upgrades have been slowing right down and the majority of people are pretty much starting to hang onto them until the computer die.
So the new TV, basically just jam a fully featured computer
Re: (Score:3)
And use MemoryStick only.
Re:A new kind of TV...... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, 3d isn't selling, so we have to come up with something else to make everyone upgrade their TV sets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, I find it doesn't work that well due to the clumsy fit. The 3D effect seems to be sensitive to the distance between the lens and your eye, and its difficult to get a comfortable fit with glasses on, and when it's comfortable, the effect seems "off".
Re: (Score:3)
That technology already exists, its called "Turn off your #$@#$! TV, go outside and see the world".
Re: (Score:3)
3d is a fad that just won't die.
no one my age buys these (over 40). but when I see the deals' sites (slickdeals and such) and all the 'kids' who drool over this crap, I remember who the target audience is.
kids who got their first job, have lots of income, live at home and pay little rent or expenses and have nothing but free time to spend gazing at the glass tube. they want to impress their also-same lifetyled friends so they blow money on expensive toys, like big tvs.
they also like to spend on 7.1 speake
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A new kind of TV...... (Score:5, Interesting)
Please don't feed your small child very much 3D TV programming.
Her brain is just now building up neural pathways for stereoscopic vision. It is incorporating all kinds of visual inputs to understand distance. This includes the angular separation of images (what you get from 3D TV) as well as focal cues based on distance (what you do NOT get from 3D TV.)
Her brain needs to understand both are important together, which is a skill she can never get from the television. Establishing the neural paths based on faulty inputs could impair her stereoscopic abilities for the rest of her life. And if that's due to early childhood 3D TV, that's just sad.
Re: (Score:3)
No it's not. The focal plane on a 2D TV is consistent as is the angular separation of images. You are simply focusing on a specific point with your eyes at a specific angle when watching 2D TV.
3D on the other hand you're focusing on 1 point exclusively but your eyes constantly change their angular position to "line-up" elements of the 3D image. You're effectively training your eyes how to look at something without actually focusing on it and that can quickly lead to lazy-eye.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't selling because 3-D TV for the home is stupid.
It's pretty ridicules for the theater too.
Re: (Score:2)
"In a few years I think 3D will become more popular."
I dont. It has never became popular in the 20 some reintroductions in the theater.
Why? because 95% of films shot are NOT shot in 3d but psudeo 3d.
There has been exactly 3 films shot in the latest iteration of 3d. all the rest are fake 3d that are processed to look 3d but fall down hard or are CG only movies.
3d is a utter failure and it ruins the regular theater experience. they dont remove the 3d lens for regular movies so they end up darker because
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current one plainly sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Since 3D isn't panning out the only thing left is to eliminate broadcast. Many of us are watching television only that way now, e.g. via DVD (television shows, anyway) as well as Netflix and the web. If we eliminated broadcast television entirely in favor of using the spectrum for last mile connectivity, everyone would be better off. Well, in theory... that depends heavily on net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup because that pesky free broadcast TV... how dare people watch free content!
Re: (Score:2)
Yup because that pesky free broadcast TV... how dare people watch free content!
You may or may not have noticed this, but there's no shortage of free content all over them thar intarwebs. Indeed, at any given time you can find more variety of free content than you can even with a combination of FTA satellite and rabbit ears anywhere in the world, not least because much of what is broadcast is also webcast.
Marketing-driven products (Score:5, Insightful)
"'There's a tremendous amount of R&D going into a different kind of TV set,' CEO Howard Stringer told the WSJ (in a paywalled article). ... [W]hat Apple and Sony agree on is that the traditional TV paradigm must evolve if the segment is to become profitable again. A new model is 'what weâ(TM)re all looking for,' Stringer confirmed, suggesting that 'we canâ(TM)t continue selling TV sets [the way we have been]. Every TV set we all make loses money.'"
Somehow this doesn't make me very enthusiastic about the prospect of "a new kind of TV." Sounds like they're just trying to come up with excuses to charge more money for essentially the same products. They don't seem to have any specific ideas about what to do aside from "we need to make more money."
Re:Marketing-driven products (Score:5, Informative)
You need to think like a big corporation.
When they say: "Every TV set we all make loses money" it doesn't mean what you think it means.
What they are really saying is "Every TV set we all make doesn't continue to make us money once it's been sold"
Re: (Score:2)
For companies like Sony TV's were a core business. Sony use to be the Name in TV's They could make a TV do a lot of Good R&D and sell them at a profit.
Now Sony is getting competition from other makers like LG and Samsung. And they seem to make a cheaper TV that for all intensive purposes is as good as the Sony so Sony cannot charge the brand name premium to them, that will cover its extra R&D and built up workforce that their Old TV company had. So for every TV they sell they can actually be maki
Re: (Score:2)
And they seem to make a cheaper TV that for all intensive purposes is as good as the Sony...
It is early. I'm grumpy. I haven't had my coffee yet.
So I'm being my nicest and suggesting that you might not have that part [wsu.edu] right.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he got it wrong, but: those words actually make sense in this particular context.
Re: (Score:2)
Tron made me ill in 2D.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, it wasn't that bad. In most ways it's the same picture as the original. And if you didn't enjoy the moment when Flynn elevated privileges then you must have a dead spot inside. I'd have watched the whole movie just to see that.
If I'd seen it in a theater I'd have been pissed. I would like to see it on Blu-Ray sometime; I finally got a player, but I need a remote for it. If anyone's BDP-S300 died and they want to sell me the remote under $20 shipped, which is what a cheap universal remote that ca
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember that proof in my discrete math class.
"Disproof by common grammar mistake."
You rebuttal does fall under one of the listed invalid proofs. "Proof by intimidation"
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure it's proof by peanut gallery darts.
Re: (Score:2)
When they say: "Every TV set we all make loses money" it doesn't mean what you think it means.
What they are really saying is "Every TV set we all make doesn't continue to make us money once it's been sold"
I think you're both wrong. I think he's referring to piracy as if it were lost sales, and he wants to do something about it. Maybe he's envisioning a television with no inputs, with a PS3 built in, and if you don't want to consume what Sony wants you to consume, you can go fuck yourself. Of course, that won't work; not only will there be hacks to add video inputs, but consumers want choice. That's the one thing they actually know. When you start telling them they can't do things that other people let them d
Re: (Score:2)
rent-paying ftw!
translation: if we don't get a recurring income, we are not screwing over our 'customers' well enough.
fuck sony. I have not bought sony goods for over 10 years, now.
fuck them and the DRM they rode in on. (wait, what?)
Re: (Score:2)
It has to be further integration in their ecosystem, probably like on-demand content with targeted interactive commercials from which you can immediately buy whatever it is being sold.
Say you have itunes/sony network on-demand movies in your to-watch list and it's Friday afternoon, so the TV detects that you'll probably want to enjoy some movies tonight and says "How bout some pizza and snacks delivered to your door?" (Or it's a RomCom and you're a dude, so it's says "Don't forget the condoms bro") Then you
Try this link to go around the paywall (Score:5, Informative)
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it depends on how many articles you hit in a certain time period.
Re: Every TV Set Loses Money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Exactly. Saying every TV set loses money suggest that each additional TV they sell will put them even further in the red. That happens when the cost of parts, labor, repairs, shipping, and other things attributable only to that 1 specific TV is more than what they sell it for. In the case you are suggesting (which is what I believe is really going on), those other things are sunk costs. Selling additional TVs might not be enough to cover those costs, but it covers at least some of those costs, thus the comp
Completely different design mentalities (Score:3, Insightful)
The remote for the Sony TV will be a wall of buttons and under those buttons will be more buttons and there will also be a function key so that each button has 3 or more functions.
The remote for the Apple TV will have no buttons and will probably be useless but at least it will look good on the fireplace mantle as a knick-knack.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
The remote for the Apple TV will have no buttons
There may be some truth to this. Apparently Apple is planning on making their new TV powered by Siri, so it may be (to some degree) voice controlled.
Re:Completely different design mentalities (Score:4, Funny)
"Siri, I wanna watch To Catch a Predator... Hey why's the Penn State game on?"
Re: (Score:2)
As a PSU alum, I hate that that's funny.
Re: (Score:2)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20116165-71/apples-siri-is-apples-buttocks-in-japan/ [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations - you're the latest YouTube viral geek sensation : b
Re:Completely different design mentalities (Score:4, Insightful)
Not at all. The remote for your Apple TV will (continue to) be your iPhone. Don't have an iPhone? Tough luck. Perhaps Siri can help you...
Download caps kill non cable / satelliteTV (Score:2)
Download caps kill non cable / satellite TV video systems.
Can apple or Sony get
local RSN feeds?
ESPN 1, 2, news + ESPN ALT and ESPN 2 ALT.
MLB network + alt's
NFL network
NHL network + alt's
NBA TV + alt's
VS / nbc sports network + alt's
CBS sports network?
other NBC cable channels for NHL playoffs and Olympics
local channels? (in some areas OTA is hard to get and other may need to change from cable / sat locals to OTA locals to a new antenna.
and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AppleTV right now can get MLB, NBA, NHL games - on their subscription platforms.
http://www.apple.com/appletv/#sports-news [apple.com]
But yeah, nothing else. Which sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Sports is the one fundamental area that non-cable/satellite services are still failing at.
Watch sports on cable vs watch sports on atdhe.tv or something similar. It's like movies vs a flip book.
Well Apple will win on that (Score:4, Insightful)
If only Apple and Sony are looking into new TVs, well Apple is about to win that race.
Re: (Score:2)
If only Apple and Sony are looking into new TVs, well Apple is about to win that race.
Sony has way more worldwide recognition than Apple. Apple has failed before, and will probably fail again. Sony has succeeded before, and could succeed again... though I'm not holding my breath. But don't take it as a foregone conclusion that this race will even have a winner. Indeed, Sony, Apple, *and* the consumer may lose.
Baloney (Score:2)
Okay name me Sony's most recent successes?
Playstation? PS3 was a joke, it adopted slowly, they screwed up security for online gaming and further screwed up by not telling everyone right away, plus the playstation line was simply feeding off the knowledge they gained while working with Nintendo and it's quickly running out.
Blu-Ray? Adoption is slower than DVD, because no one wants to invest quickly in HD TVs because no one wants to replace what isn't broken, Blu-Ray are more expensive and the digital revol
Re: (Score:2)
Okay name me Sony's most recent successes?
Keeping zillions of fanboys sucking their cocks even through all these debacles.
Sony's TVs used to be a symbol of quality but not any more.
Yeah, not since the 1980s. They've accomplished a lot since then. Their TVs still have great picture anyway. Not any better than my Aquos, but great. Not as fast, either :)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a *way* bigger company with far greater resources than Sony. And in the market this will play in, they have a stronger, very well established reality distortion field.
They are clearly after the idea of iVideo where iTunes went before. The Mafiaa however is terrified this will happen and will fight it tooth and nail, just like they are trying to prevent Netflix from establishing the same sort of franchise.
Re: (Score:2)
They need a "new kind of TV" to be profitable? (Score:2)
You mean like HD sets, that only really came into the market a few years ago?
Or better yet - 3D! That worked out really well, too, people FLOCKED to stores to not buy those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to count the ways home 3D sucks. It truly is an Aleph-1 set.
Yay! (Score:3)
Now we get to watch endless reality and talent shows in a different way.
I can't wait!
Well i know what my next "tv" will be (Score:4, Insightful)
It's going to be a projector i connect to my existing computer. The computer can already do everything i want, pause, reverse, forward, watch what i want when i want it. If someone invents a new brilliant feature i want it's just an 'apt-get install new-brilliant-feature-i-want' away.
cable card is a mess / tru2way forces cable co gui (Score:2)
Cable card is mess and in some systems you need SDV tuners added on as well. Even then some systems like cable vision clam some channels (may work with a SDV tuner) do not work on cable card. Also you need to get guide data and channel mapping from some where.
Tru2way still has some cable card mess but no SDV tuners needed and you can get VOD BUT it forced the cable co guide and GUI on you.
Content needs to be improved not the TV (Score:2)
I'm assuming by evolving the TV paradigm... (Score:2)
they mean adding another monthly subscription fee.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are right. Sony doesn't have the design or engineering talent to create something truly innovative. Even if they did and were able to come up with something truly revolutionary, there is no way it would be allowed to succeed. Sony, more than just about any other company, is frozen by the innovator's dilemma.
Re: (Score:2)
A standard TV with features (Score:2)
My suspicion tells me this "new kind of television" is nothing more than a standard television with a media server built in. Perhaps something like a computerized television; in Apple's case an iMac marketed as a television.
Re:A standard TV with features (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably. But Apple has a remarkable way of taking a product that everybody has made before and giving it a makeover into something everybody wants. The underlying technology is the same, or even worse, but the interface finds the sweet spot of giving a lot of people exactly what they want.
It rarely seems like a significant technological advance to Slashdot users, who usually want more control over their devices. But many people don't want maximum control; as long as they get most of what they want right in front of them it makes them very happy.
It often incorporates a cutting-edge technological decision. Sometimes that means cutting things away, like skipping the floppy drive. Sometimes it means adding something, like Siri or a touchscreen phone.
I've got no idea if they'll succeed this time, but I wouldn't count them out and I wouldn't dismiss the idea as being just like something else. The details turn out to be 90% of the problem.
Sony, on the other hand... I'm not expecting much.
Profitable again (Score:2)
So these $3,000 3D LCD screens with $299 eye glasses are not profitable.
$800 for a standard 1080p 42" screen isn't profitable.
Might I suggest cutting the CEOs pay to regain profits. You shouldn't need to sell 10,000 TV to pay for your CEO.
Just saying...
TV everywhere is what needs to be next. (Score:2)
Corning (or someone else) had some good videos about a day in glass... and in my view they are closer than concentrating on whats in the living room.
Simply put : TV everywhere. Being able to display what the user wants where they want it. I have friends with a TV behind the mirror in their bathroom, at first I though it was the most idiot/arrogant thing ever but if I could do it I would. However I would extend it to being able to display not only what cable/broadcast/satellite could but also display on dema
We will call it Blu-Ray-TV (Score:5, Insightful)
Chained TV (Score:2)
They are both looking for a way to tie a TV into their broadcasting system so they can:
1) Harvest user preferences.
2) Control the media distributed.
3) "Proprietarize" distribution to thwart competition.
4) Charge media producers to distribute media.
5) Charge advertisers to attach advertisements to media.
6) Charge customers to access media tied to advertisement.
Re: (Score:2)
here's hoping they develop my dream console (Score:2)
1. Blu-ray player (so I don't have to have an external player)
2. WiFi (for streaming and internet, e.g. hulu/netflix)
3. Bluetooth (for the remote control and keyboard/mouse)
4. Two digital HDTV receivers (watch one thing while recording another)
5. USB 3.0 (so I can plug in a thumb drive and show pictures)
6. HDMI (so I can plug in a camcorder and show
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is available today and much more, just get a HTPC. And you will have far far more flexibility and ability to adapt it to future changes.
The problem with an all-in-one is that any time any ONE of the functions it has built in becomes outmoded you need a whole new $5000 thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are still trying to have an all-in-one with the limited flexibility and future that entails. Accept the external USB devices and it's much easier and more flexible. And you might want to consider a non-Bluetooth RF remote control. Or remote control via some of the nice IPhone apps out there.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a better cable box? (Score:2)
Before they invent a better TV, can they just come out with a better cable box? One that doesn't take 3 or 4 seconds to change channels (I know digital tuning takes time, how about 3 tuners that auto-tune the next channel up and down so when I'm flipping through channels, it changes instantly to the next channel). And one where scrolling through the program guide doesn't take forever. I'd be happy to give up the inane live-video previews on the channel guide if that meant that when I hit the page down butto
What, you mean a TV with non-stupid content? (Score:2)
Sorry, cannot be done. TV is dead. Sorry, but the problem is not TV at all, but the available content. But go ahead, be two more to fail at this.
Logitech Revue - Cheaper is Better (Score:2)
I finally broke down and purchased one last night. And let me tell you, they are hard as hell to find. I had to check the entire state I'm in.
But it's like the Kindle Fire. What we want are cheap polished devices... or we want Apple. At least, until the market has real competition. It's not that way with phones now, but at one time it was. That's the fight Amazon thinks it can win. Get in cheap, then polish, polish, polish. I think TVs will go the same way. Only this time, Apple doesn't have a succ
It probably won't happen soon (Score:2)
There are two camps here:
Camp 1: People who want an information stream - turn on a "channel" and it plays in the background for hours, always there as a comforting sound and intermittent entertainment whenever you happen to look. My wife falls into this camp. Sure, she uses a DVR to record programs she likes, but she is just as happy turning on a channel and watching whatever is on. In fact, she PREFERs this mode for most of her daily viewing - she's only half watching but she likes the noise. No, I have
A new kind of subscription fee! (Score:2)
"New kind of TV" is a very important sounding way of saying "simplifying the iTunes interface to be more remote friendly". Whatever smart TV Apple cooks up will be very cool, but also be tethered to the Apple store if you want to use it's best features.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! all this within my wallet.
Most people want a TV that won't fit in their wallets...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hate it when people say things like: (Score:5, Informative)
God dammit, Slashdotters are so dumb about corporations and how they work. Even if you're anti-corporate you ought to know a handful of things about your enemy.
Suppose you are a corporation with basically one physical asset: a $10 billion TV factory. Raw materials and labor go in one side, and finished TVs come out the other. Let's even ignore R&D and marketing.
What you'll learn very quickly is that you can't really control the price that you sell the TVs at. Since you have competitors also making TVs, and there is only so much demand for TVs out there in the market, you're constrained. Maybe some of your competitors can build TVs cheaper than you because their labor is cheaper, or they have a better factory, or whatever. Maybe everyone expects huge TV sales due to some new technology and the sales never pan out, and there are just too many TVs in the market.
So your brilliant idea is to shut down the factory the moment that you can't sell the TVs for more than the cost of making them. In the real world it isn't always so simple. If you completely abandon the TV market, you'll have to sell your $10 billion factory even though nobody wants a TV factory right now -- you'll be lucky to find a buyer at $1 billion. If you decide to sit on your factory (still paying for maintenance, security, property taxes, etc), you'd have to get rid of your employees to really save money, and then you'll need months of lead time to re-hire people if the market picks up again. Not to mention that you'll lose your position in the marketplace -- everything from distribution contracts to your mindshare will evaporate. Nobody really wants to buy or distribute a TV from a company that only makes TVs some of the time.
There is always a point where keeping things running isn't the best decision, especially if you think the market will never come back (the buggy whip situation). I'm just saying that the point where you start selling things for less than it costs to make them isn't always the time to abandon production. Sony will be happy that it kept its TV division running if the R&D guys can come up with some new feature that everyone actually wants to buy.
Bottom line: yes it's possible that they really are losing money on each TV. Depending on how you interpret the mysterious future, they might lose even more if they stopped making them.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly right. Their calculations include things like opportunity costs. Sony is especially bad in that they believe that anybody making money on their platform should be sending Sony a cut.