Rambling thoughts on the future of "TV"

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by atmuscarella, Jan 25, 2012.

  1. Joe01880

    Joe01880 I love my TiVo

    736
    19
    Feb 8, 2009
    Boston

    Advertisements

    Not at all, I have what I consider a very nice 7.2 surround system to compliment my very thin Sony NX810 3D HDTV.
    Although i love the PQ of my TV the thinness of it is leaving no room for anything near acceptable audio, (acceptable to me) in fact i can be quoted that the speakers in my TV suck worse than anything has ever sucked before. My TV is all of 1 inch thick. Thinner is going to mean ever worse sound or no sound, which is exactly where TV manufactuers want things. Forcing you to spend more money on a sound system for your brand new $8k TV.... and once you hang it on the wall you cant tell if its 1in thick, 1/3 of an inch thick or 2 inches thick unless you stand up against the wall and strain to see it. I usually watch TV sitting almost right in front of mine.
    OLED prices at release have been quoted 5 to almost 10k. For that money i would hope a real nice sound bar sytsem is included but no one will ever convince me a sound bar will ever compare to a fair surround sound system in sound qulaity, much less a good one. As hard as one might try 1 speaker bar and a subwoofer is not going to sound as good as 7 speakers properly placed and 2 subwoofers but thats not my point either.
    Price is my point, the new tech of OLED is going to be wicked expensive. Like plasmas when they first came out. The advantage plasma had when they came out was exceptable out of the box audio quality built in. Almost paper thin OLED's most surely will not have onboard audio of any quality placing them in videophile territory perhaps making them a niche product at introduction.
    As for me not wanting one, once the price drops some and the bugs are worked out, much like the TiVo Elite, i will most definently have one if they are indeed what they are hyped to be.
     
  2. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,955
    617
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    The comments about super thin TVs and where do you put everything else are interesting.

    Personally I have thought for awhile that high end TVs shouldn't be a TVs at all. They should be a monitor with nothing but a power plug and one HDMI port or better yet a wireless connection. If I needed a new TV that is what I would want, no need for tuners, speakers, smart tv or anything but a great picture.

    If you take the OLED TVs that are supposed to be released this year, price guesses are in the $8000 range. Does anyone who is paying $8000 for a TV not have a high end sound receiver/home theater system?

    Regarding 4K - I don't think it will be as long as people think. I noticed that many of Onkyo's 2011 receivers had 4k up-scaling abilities, which means they expect 4k sets soon.

    Thanks,
     
  3. Brad Bishop

    Brad Bishop Member

    285
    0
    Sep 11, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    I think there are a couple of things at play:

    Cable TV is convenient but expensive. What most people would consider 'basic' cable (locals plus CNN, TWC, MTV, ESPN, etc.) is $80/month. Well that seems nuts to most people. It is convenient just having it all right there with your remote in hand, though.

    So, folks cut the cord and go with IPTV. The problem here is that the convenience is lost. IPTV gives you at no cost (well, the cost of your ISP but you're paying for that, anyway):
    - Hulu - works great if you have a PC connected to your TV. If not, you have to subscribe to Hulu+ for $8/month and you are limited to only certain shows that have been authorized on non-PCs. It's silly.
    - Netflix - great for older TV episodes to catch-up or for older movies. You'll look up a recent movie and they'll tell you, "oh, add DVDs to watch this movie for another $8/month" - No, thanks.
    - various other websites that may or may not offer the show you're looking for but you'll have to comb through all sorts of 2-3min clips with 20-30sec of commercials attached to them.
    - periodic freezes
    - periodic blockiness

    Still, IPTV is a lot cheaper so it's more appealing in the cost factor. It's not appealing in the convenience factor. Try getting your mom to watch a show via your IPTV setup. She's probably just going to tell you to set it up for her.


    I've been back and forth between these two for years. I'll get on cable, then notice that I'm not watching all that much and then decide to save a few bucks and go IPTV and then notice that I'm missing some things from cable and after about 6-months to a year I'll switch back. If cable were just ≈$50/month then it'd be a no brainer for me. You can achieve this with many cable companies by just calling them for their 'specials' every 6mo-1yr but that's still kind of a pain.


    Anyway, that's just the cable vs IPTV aspect. The other aspect is this '3D' and 'Smart TVs' deal. Both of these ideas have been floating around for quite some time. 3D comes to the theater every 20 years or so. The novelty wears off (as it is now) and people go back to watching regular movies. They're pushing it on TVs now but, from what I can see, it's just another checkbox on the box so that consumers will say, "Oh, but this one has 3D!," without any thought to them actually using it. In reality, I think most consumers see that checkbox and think, "We'll never use that," and only get the 3D TV if it's already included in the set they really wanted and of no greater cost (which I think it is for most TVs today). The glasses go in the drawer and they go watch ESPN in 2D like they always have.

    Smart TVs on the other hand have been fairly consistently pushed since the early 1970s with Tele-text (all or your news and weather will be on your TV!). It never caught on. No one wants to dig through a crappy/sluggish interface to read what (at the time) was in the paper easily available. Now it's even more convenient to just read it on our iPads and smart phones. The Smart TV innards are always under-powered and quickly go out of date (who's still using their Gateway Destination TVs? Still booting Windows 95/98 when they want to watch something? It's all at your fingertips!).

    The external boxes (Roku, AppleTV, etc.) make far more sense in that they're cheap and easily replacable. If you bought a new HDTV in 2007 you're probably still using it today. If you purchased an Apple TV around the same time (the first version), it's probably been replaced by now.

    What I'd like to see and it was hinted at by the cable companies a few years back and then squashed by the lawyers: drive-less DVRs. Technically speaking it makes more sense to have a drive-less cable box under our TV that uses SDV to get to pre-recorded stuff on demand at the cable company's head end than it does for all of us to record "How I Met Your Mother" separately at each of our houses. Why not just allow us to mark something as, "I want to watch it later," and have it pulled from a central server and sent to us via SDV when we're ready? Well, legally, they say no - even though, technically and economically, this makes far more sense. This one isn't going to happen but I wish it would.
     
  4. Joe01880

    Joe01880 I love my TiVo

    736
    19
    Feb 8, 2009
    Boston
    I think thats what the TV industry wants you to do, go back and forth, subscribe to this one, cancel then subscribe to that one always being subscribd to something. Their altimate goal is have us paying at the cable level (cable compnay, Dish company, FiOS.. something) and IPTV level forcing as many commericals down our throats as they can.
     
  5. rasmasyean

    rasmasyean New Member

    170
    0
    Jul 28, 2011

    Advertisements

    That's exactly why I think that Smart TV's are going to be a consumable. As these things get thinner, shipping goes down. You can fit a lot of boxes in a truck. And it's not like a 100lb glass tube like it used to be. The overall costs go down, especailly when we have Chinese slaves gladly working arround the clock for $1 per hour to the point of jumping off Foxxcon buildings.

    Regardless of what some people might still believe, the "computer" itself has been a consumable for a long time. When they figure out the new business model to merge the computer and "wireless/wired TV", it can be just like a big stationary smart phone that you cycle every couple of years to get the new thing. Now do people still have Windows Mobile phones from 5 years ago. Probably. But look how many more iPhones and Androids there are. And the next 2-3 years, those will be different for a good brunt of the ppl. Even though the 5 year WiMo phone just needs a new $2 fresh Li battery from ebay (I mean...China), it still "works" right? But most ppl want the shinny new thing and runs the touch aps.
     
  6. rasmasyean

    rasmasyean New Member

    170
    0
    Jul 28, 2011
    That's actually a good thing. Every time a company loses a customer, they learn a lesson. The company that gains the customer gets the vote of wallets. That's what this type of competition fosters. Eventually, the consumer decides which will succeed. If "3D TV" doesn't make that many sales...it will just go the way of the blue and red era. But the important thing is that ppl get to dip their toes into it and choose which product lives.
     
  7. slowbiscuit

    slowbiscuit FUBAR

    4,699
    634
    Sep 19, 2006
    In the ATL
    That's not the problem - the issue is that the tech is WAY ahead of the content. You won't see 4k broadcast content for years and years to come given that we only recently migrated to HD and it will take a huge investment on sat/cable's part to move there. Blu-Rays are completely adequate at 1080p given that a lot of films look like crap no matter what res they're shown at.

    This is, again, a nice feature like 3D for a niche of folks that really want it. No one else cares.
     
  8. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,955
    617
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    Native content may not be as important as you think. Virtually nothing I watch is actually in 1080p now as I don't watch much from blu-ray, but it is all up-scaled to 1080p. How existing content looks when up-scaled to 4K will really determine how soon 4K TVs become popular. My understanding is that 1080p content will look noticeable better on a 4k set, which is all that will be necessary to start selling them.

    What is "adequate" is in the eyes of the beholder, some people still find SD "adequate" others do not. The same will be true for 4K - many with money will see it and decide 1080p is no longer "adequate" and at some point when there are enough 4K TVs out there and then they will figure out how to provide native 4K content. Just like we are moving from MPEG 2 to MPEG 4 to reduce file size while maintaining quality there will be something after MPEG 4 that will make native 4k viable faster than most of us believe.
     
  9. slowbiscuit

    slowbiscuit FUBAR

    4,699
    634
    Sep 19, 2006
    In the ATL
    Upscaling is just interpolation of the existing content. Can it look better than the source? Sure, and it can also look worse, but more importantly it's nowhere near as good as showing it natively.

    All of which doesn't change the fact that if the original content doesn't even take advantage of the max res possible (this happens all the time with broadcast content because of multicasting and excessive compression), you're upscaling crap.
     
  10. rasmasyean

    rasmasyean New Member

    170
    0
    Jul 28, 2011
    Well, 4K might enable full 1080p/i premium content to be "free" without breaks by having the rest of the area filled with banners. :p
     
  11. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,955
    617
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements