Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Racing Apple To Develop 'a New Kind of TV'

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the how-about-one-that-doesn't-support-reality-shows dept.

Television 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.'"

cancel ×

273 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A new kind of TV...... (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38022834)

A new kind of TV...... but no indication of what

Re:A new kind of TV...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38022932)

Built in storage for the SoC media and networking functionality already in most modern HDTVs, with subscriptions to pay as you view services.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (5, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38022972)

If Sony, in it's role as "content provider" has it's way, I'm sure that the list of requirements will include "Has a way to directly collect charges for each and every minute of viewing our stuff..."

Re:A new kind of TV...... (2, Insightful)

BOUND4DOOM (987004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023266)

If it is Apple, you must buy all your content from us and can only be watched on iSomething. We will say when and how you watch it as well

Re:A new kind of TV...... (5, Interesting)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023758)

That's only true if you pretend AppleTV doesn't have channels like NHL, MLB or NetFlix, and that AirPlay lets just about any app stream from just about any iOS device. They may not support jailbreaking (although it's trivial to do, and then you can run Plex, XBMC, etc), but they certainly let you watch content not sourced from iTunes. I haven't spent $1 in the last year on movies or TV shows from iTunes, yet I have an AppleTV.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (0)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024028)

But that's also surely not the way they want it.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (2)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024278)

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 iOS app store, while hugely successful, and dwarfing profits from any other similar mobile app store is just a hook to get people to buy iPads, iPhones and iPod Touch devices. It's a rounding error on their quarterly profits.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023918)

It's so incredibly apropos that the article is behind a paywall.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024038)

You should probably tell Apple that. Their iTV's already get content from services like Netflix.

If it is Apple, you must buy all your content from us and can only be watched on iSomething. We will say when and how you watch it as well

Re:A new kind of TV...... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024174)

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:A new kind of TV...... (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023674)

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 delivery tool

They'd effectively need to open source the framework, or at least the specifications allowing other manufacturers to adopt it too, but in the long term that would be in Sony's interest. Much better to have a share of a multi-vendor TV market than to be beholden to Apple for everything.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024154)

And use MemoryStick only.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (4, Insightful)

altoz (653655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023030)

In other words, 3d isn't selling, so we have to come up with something else to make everyone upgrade their TV sets.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (2)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023534)

It isn't selling well because it's still beta technology. Even the most expensive top-of-the-line 2011 models have problems with 3D. Either requiring stupid looking, battery-eating, oversized, heavy active glasses and/or cross-talk or other things. In a few years I think 3D will become more popular.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (1)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023806)

Passive glasses seem to work fairly well. They cost about $20 a pop or you can just keep the ones from the movie theater. I have a 42" 3D set that ran me $699 and came with a couple of pairs. Took the little one to see Lion King 3D and now she has a pair sized for her eyes. The biggest issue is lack of content (I get three channels, only one of which is really worth watching, and it's not 24x7 yet). It's also broadcast in SBS, so there's technically a reduced resolution in one direction versus regular TV, but it's not like you get a lot of full 1080P content over the air, cable or satellite anyway. BluRays work fine, although they really need to stop charging these insane prices. No, I don't need 5 discs of Tron including a digital copy, a DVD, a 3D BluRay, etc. Just sell me a disc for $20.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023928)

I'm waiting for the day when I don't need the glasses for 3D. I already wear glasses. Wearing a second pair on top of my glasses or putting in contacts just to watch 3D doesn't appeal to me.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024392)

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:A new kind of TV...... (4, Interesting)

plover (150551) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024310)

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:A new kind of TV...... (3, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023822)

It isn't selling because 3-D TV for the home is stupid.

It's pretty ridicules for the theater too.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024198)

Beta technology?

The so-called "3D TV" isn't even 3D, it's just another rehash of stereographic images, which keeps coming up every 10-20 years, ever since they were invented in the 1800's. It's been a short-lived fad every time, and it will keep being so, until we get real 3D video, when this annoying fad will finally die (annoying, because of the hype pretending it's 3D, and pretending that it's something new).

Re:A new kind of TV...... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024240)

"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 theater owners are lazy.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024214)

It 3d isn't sailing because everyone was forced to buy HD TVs during the HD switch over and 3D started coming out a little over a year later. Why would I want to buy a new TV when I just bought a new TV a year ago? The TV MFGs should have lobbied for a stay on the HD switch over until 3d was perfected (and in place with enough 3d channels) enough to sale during the HD switch over. Then it would have been "Well I have to buy a HD TV, so lets see if I spend a few more bucks I can get a 3d one and be on top of the game for a while." But now it's "Well I'll wait 5 years to see if the price is cheap enough". Also and guess what they would still be crying that they need to change the game on what a TV is.

Unrelated. Question anyone else getting tired of being asked if they want a 1 year warranty when they buy electronic devices. I'm not talking extended warranty I'm talking a 1 year on top of the 1 year from the MFG. I even got asked if I wanted on on a micro-sd card. It cost 14$ and they wanted to sale me a 1 year warranty on it for the same 1 year warranty of the mfg. This happens all the time to me no matter what it is, phone, tablet, TV, memory cards, etc. Is there something going on that I don't know about, like maybe china's quality is going down?

Re:A new kind of TV...... (3, Insightful)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023412)

I'd prefer a new kid of TV-content.
The current one plainly sucks.

Re:A new kind of TV...... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023698)

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:A new kind of TV...... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024256)

Yup because that pesky free broadcast TV... how dare people watch free content!

Did I miss something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38022996)

I thought the iMac was Apple's version of a next-gen tv.

Marketing-driven products (5, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023012)

"'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 (5, Informative)

SIR_Taco (467460) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023226)

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:Marketing-driven products (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023436)

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 making a loss on each one. However they are not going to drop the TV market just yet. Because this is still their bread and butter market and they just need to come out with the next big thing before LG and Samsung and back to profit again.

For the most part 3d tv was a bust. Too many people got ill, had to ware glasses, and after 10 minutes of wow, it gets old fast, and if the movie isn't created just right 3d makes you feel Ill. And it is different for every person.
I found that when I watched Shreck 3d I had no issues, but Tron made me Ill (Flipping from 2d to 3d and the 2d paper men on a 3d background just didn't work for me.

Re:Marketing-driven products (2)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023510)

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:Marketing-driven products (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024102)

Of course he got it wrong, but: those words actually make sense in this particular context.

Re:Marketing-driven products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023532)

I can't must point out.. the phrase is "all intents and purpose", not "intensive purposes".

Re:Marketing-driven products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023656)

Look at you, up on your pedal stool, correcting people for simple mistakes.

Re:Marketing-driven products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024110)

Stop being such a pendant.

Re:Marketing-driven products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023562)

for all intensive purposes

Congratulations. You just invalidated the entirety of the rest of your post.

Re:Marketing-driven products (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023708)

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:Marketing-driven products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023610)

You lost me at "intensive purposes". The problem is I don't know if you were being hipster-ironic or if you really do suffer from a learning disability.

Re:Marketing-driven products (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024080)

Tron made me ill in 2D.

Re:Marketing-driven products (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024276)

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 can talk to a Blu-Ray player costs in the store, I'd be game... It was beautiful in much the same way the original was, except not all faded out like the originally necessarily ended up. The story was about as complex. It was a good-natured romp. What more did you want?

Re:Marketing-driven products (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024238)

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 do then they get upset. So without some legislation preventing people from owning a television with inputs, that would never fly.

I don't really know what he's talking about but I would bet it has to do with DRM somehow. That's not a very risky bet, though.

Re:Marketing-driven products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024274)

No. They think like Insurance companies.

For example, last year I made 2 million dollars PROFIT on TVs. This year I only made 1.2 million dollars profit. So I am losing money.

Now you and I dont consider that losing money, but companies do. They still are making a profit but since it is smaller than the previous years it is a loss.

Re:Marketing-driven products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024344)

No Sony's TV operation has lost money four years running. See link below
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/sony-annual-loss-fourth-year_n_1071304.html

Re:Marketing-driven products (1)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024320)

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 can make that delivery order through their commercial partners right on the TV, without having to get on the phone or pull out the credit card or figure out tip. They of course get a cut of the money. They might also push ads for movie/food sale packages through the TV itself, like a Groupon thing but instead of for a single item, it's for an entire packaged TV experience.

Maybe there's also some integration with your smartphone where if you see an ad for a product you want, you can click on a "save to my shopping list" button

Try this link to go around the paywall (4, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023024)

Re:Try this link to go around the paywall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023576)

WSJ paywall there too.

Re:Try this link to go around the paywall (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023668)

I'm pretty sure it depends on how many articles you hit in a certain time period.

Re: Every TV Set Loses Money (1)

pastafazou (648001) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023048)

Not exactly true. The organization loses money because there's not enough profit on the TV sets they sell to pay for the organization. Maybe they should restructure their organization?

Re: Every TV Set Loses Money (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024118)

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 company is better off with each additional TV sold, and it's still in their best interest to sell as many as possible.

Completely different design mentalities (2, Insightful)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023086)

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:Completely different design mentalities (1, Redundant)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023204)

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 (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023332)

"Siri, I wanna watch To Catch a Predator... Hey why's the Penn State game on?"

Re:Completely different design mentalities (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023372)

what if i'm watching a recording of me telling siri to start recording....?

Re:Completely different design mentalities (2)

G (2545) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023450)

Congratulations - you're the latest YouTube viral geek sensation : b

Re:Completely different design mentalities (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023482)

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.

Well I'll have to buy the Sony one then since I own a parrot.

Re:Completely different design mentalities (3, Insightful)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023916)

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 (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023108)

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:Download caps kill non cable / satelliteTV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023814)

There is more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then just fucking sports.

Re:Download caps kill non cable / satelliteTV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023932)

But those things are: A - Not on TV B - if they are, people aren't willing to pay for it.

Re:Download caps kill non cable / satelliteTV (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024200)

Not sure about that. I have Comcast with 15 MBPS down/3 MBPS up and a download cap at 150 GB/month. I also have my PC connected to my 40" television using HDMI, and most of the TV I watch is streamed from the Internet, with a couple of torrents. Have been doing this for most of the year, and I have yet to even come close to the download cap. Granted, I typically don't watch sports over the Internet because I use either local stations through the limited basic cable I have, or go to a sports bar. Still, I probably stream more shows than the "average user".

Well Apple will win on that (3, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023114)

If only Apple and Sony are looking into new TVs, well Apple is about to win that race.

Re:Well Apple will win on that (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024316)

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.

I hate it when people say things like: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023150)

I hate it when people say things like "Every TV set we sell loses money" then why is Sony selling them? Why is anyone in that business if TV's are such a money pit? Company's make a profit at all costs and Sony is not a charity. No one is losing money selling TV sets.

Re:I hate it when people say things like: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023570)

Sounds like they mean 'not making as much as we think we should' is 'losing'.

Re:I hate it when people say things like: (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024092)

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.

Re:I hate it when people say things like: (1)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024400)

A for-profit company needs to make money but they don't need to make money on every product. If people that buy Sony TVs are more likely to buy Sony blue ray players and/or PS3s, then Sony may very well be making money because they build TVs which they sell at a loss.

That said, as others have mentioned, Sony is probably referring to the loss of "potential money that they could be making" if they were using a different model on their TVs such as negotiating with Hulu and Netflix to embed clients if they get a small fraction of the subscription fees for new subscribers that sign up through the TV.

They need a "new kind of TV" to be profitable? (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023154)

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:They need a "new kind of TV" to be profitable? (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023992)

I just dropped a dime on a new 55" HD TV.

My last TV (32" tube") from the early nineties is still going strong in another home.

So they will have had at least two "new" TVs before I'm ready to buy again.

Re:They need a "new kind of TV" to be profitable? (1)

NixieBunny (859050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024182)

The TV makers got so high from the CRT-to-LCD replacement revenue bump that they want another hit. It's like drugs to their accountants.

Yay! (2)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023196)

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 (4, Insightful)

The Creator (4611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023214)

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 (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023268)

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.

There still won't be anything on worth watching. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023280)

Just sayin'...

Content needs to be improved not the TV (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023308)

As things stand most people have a duopoly or triopoly on how they get their television. 1 or 2 terrestrial providers and possibly satellite. As things stand most of the channels that aren't local boadcast or in the impossible not to carry (sports packages) have to pay to be carried on a provider. Until they are willing to stream wholesale on the net there isn't going to a whole lot that can be done to improve content.

Profitable (1)

martiniturbide (1203660) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023314)

"...become profitable again..." is that's what we call innovation?

Re:Profitable (1)

G (2545) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023520)

It's what we call incentive, innovation - in a perfect world - follows.

Re:Profitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023774)

It's what we call incentive, innovation - in a perfect world - follows.

Nope, innovation is what happens when geeks have too much time on their hands.

Losing Money? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023324)

It is hard to believe that Sony is losing money on each TV, considering the price premium that Sony televisions command over other brands. So is their TV division horifically mismanaged, or is "losing money" an eupahmism for "we think we should be able to charge you for everything you watch on your TV?"

Re:Losing Money? (3, Informative)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023578)

"Losing money" means "we think we could make much much more on every TV set sold if we had more control over it." Failure to realize potential profits is a loss according to MBA-speak.

I'm assuming by evolving the TV paradigm... (2)

Jbain (1453725) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023360)

they mean adding another monthly subscription fee.

Re:I'm assuming by evolving the TV paradigm... (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024136)

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.

A standard TV with features (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023396)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023930)

They are already doing this. They have TVs with built in apps and wireless. You can get Netflix, Hulu apps etc to stream content directly to your TV.
They are all doing this, check out anyone of these so called Smart TVs. [newegg.com]

Walled Garden Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023416)

First it was what ever channels you got over the air. Then it was what ever channels you got on cable. Then they added streaming to set top boxes. Next Apple TV will be the most awesomest TV ever and we won't care that it only works with AT&T U-Verse, doesn't have slow motion, only records 3 shows at a time and doesn't show adult channels. Yeah, Sony will not be able to compete with that.

Profitable again (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023488)

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...

Didn't Google already try this? (1)

apcullen (2504324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023518)

Google TV sounded really revolutionary-- but content providers seem to have killed it off. Maybe Apple or Sony will succeed where Google apparently failed.

Re:Didn't Google already try this? (1)

Tim12s (209786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024032)

This is to be the iTV to the TV as the iPod was to the portable MP3 player. Google TV is the MP3 player in this equation.

The fundamentals are, however, different:

1. Everyone already has a TV.
2. Everyone is already manufacturing TVs.
3. Every broadcaster has equipment (analog/digital) for that marketplace.
4. Broadcast TV is already legislated and controlled as a propagand^H^H^H^H broadcasting authority.

The iPod was competing in a new/clean market that did something fundamentally different to the portable CD Player. It "won" in that market place because it succeeding by (1) producing an incredible form factor, (2) taking advantage of iTunes distribution of digital music.

What Apple and Sony want to do is earn incredible profits by controlling and exclusively monetizing the entire supply chain from producer to consumer (pay per view), and force that on consumers without them realising it. ... Doing this in an established market is going to be difficult and everyone has learnt from iTunes.

iTunes saved the audio market by providing leadership and an alternative to "piracy".

The home TV market doesn't need saving.

The next leap (1)

freshlimesoda (2497490) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023550)

Well a goggles less 3D, holographic with 1080P resolution, light as an LED, with Full Voice-Controls and seamless access to Apps store, and direct Blu-Ray streaming via high speed V-Sat is what I want. A camouflage button on the remote to mix in with surroundings will be good too. Hey! all this within my wallet.

I have that for about $500 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023626)

1280x1024 projector and netbook that's slaved to it. Even built a nice wooden box for it.

Re:The next leap (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023766)

Hey! all this within my wallet.

Most people want a TV that won't fit in their wallets...

more proprietary content is my guess... (1)

mschiltz (2464976) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023602)

probably in the form of a media server, but nothing you can really do anything with, other than buy stuff straight from them. So if you have iTunes, the Sony TV won't play your old collection, and same goes for apple.

TV everywhere is what needs to be next. (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023618)

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 demand whatever content my PC can get.

I would not mind a "Computer ..... " speech driven interface but I think the big issue has to be the interface, how do you make it easy to tell the system to show you what you want.

We will call it Blu-Ray-TV (4, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023676)

And we will force...allow OEM's to license the technology for an exhorbi...attractively priced fee. I know nobody here listens to the radio anymore but I do and would love to see HD radio take off. But if a simple handheld radio is $49.99 [bestbuy.com] because of the licensing fees associated with the HD technology how on earth do they expect it to ever go mainstream? That is what most companies are looking for now. A permanent revenue stream where you invent once and license everywhere. I support capitalism and believe it helps mankind strive to improve but when the only motive is greed and not being the best this is what you get.

Re:We will call it Blu-Ray-TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024410)

"And we will force...allow OEM's to license the technology for an exhorbi...attractively priced fee. "

If you're going to use "..." to cut off a word, at least spell the first part of the word correctly. It's "exorbitant", not "exhorbitant". Cretin.

Siri (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023876)

Mic in the remote. Nailed it.

Chained TV (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023970)

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:Chained TV (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024404)

That sounds very much like what we already have.

here's hoping they develop my dream console (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024132)

Basically I want the iMac version of a TV. That is to say I want a large-ish flat screen that can be hung on a wall and that has the following baked in:

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 videos and/or connect an external PC and use the TV as "just a screen")
7. Storage and DVR capabilities for both cable and over-the-air broadcasts
8. The ability to open a browser and browse the web, play videos at random sites (e.g. Youtube, Vimeo, etc.)

I would pay a premium (more than the sum of the parts) to get all that in a single attractive package. I'm looking at you, Apple.

Re:here's hoping they develop my dream console (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024250)

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:here's hoping they develop my dream console (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024354)

I've actually looked at building a HTPC with all this built-in. It's not easy. Probably because my other requirement is that it be small and fanless, which probably means an Atom-based solution. There are plenty out there, but all that I've seen lack enough slots to support WiFi + Bluetooth + TV Receiver without one of those coming via an external USB device. Also there seems to be a dearth of Bluetooth remote controls, meaning I need an IR receiver built in to the chassis (and support on the mobo).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?