DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Penny Can
HTML https://pennycan.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Television
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31708--------------------------------------------------
The way people view television...
By: Mac Date: October 18, 2014, 5:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The way people view television...
... it's changing. Like music, the business model for television
is nothing like the days of old and with some recent
announcements, I think we are going to see even bigger changes.
Both CBS
HTML http://deadline.com/2014/10/cbs-launches-subscription-streaming-service-852895/<br
/>and HBO
HTML http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/technology/subscribing-hbo-without-cable-bill/nhkdL/?ecmp=clarkhoward_social_twitter_sfp<br
/>have announced streaming for their content. We can thank Netfl
ix
for this breakthrough. I've been a fan of Netflix for about a
year now. Streaming content is going to be the future and with
these two announcements, we will see even more change. I have
never liked the idea of cable and 200 channels. Charge me for
all of them despite only watching a couple. If the right
studio's become available, I see no reason to have cable. Not
that I want cable to die, but it cannot continue what it's
doing.
Recently I changed our cable. I've been noticing we rarely watch
any of the premium channels. So I cut the cord on those. I still
have basic, but I'm not pleased. I only need a few, and I'm
still paying a hefty fee.
A change is a comin'
#Post#: 31717--------------------------------------------------
Re: The way people view television...
By: Neumatic Date: October 18, 2014, 5:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The HBO thing seems like a given, they paid an insane amount of
money to get half of the movies coming out until 2020, and if
they can offer their subscriptions to people without those
people having to pay for all the extra channels, of course
they're going to do it. The big concern, though, is that it's a
user-oriented experience. Netflix got to be where it is because
it wasn't treated like an afterthought, it was all about a
sleek, dependable user experience, and I feel like the more
traditional companies will just settle for "good enough" because
they still want to make their money off traditional channels
(this is why I don't like Crackle, it's a lousy interface with a
lousy selection, lousy menus, the ad transitions are clunky,
it's "good enough" and it's not nearly good enough).
We're also seeing original content coming out for PS4 (with
Powers) and Halo for XBox (and Showtime, I understand), so
there's going to be a big demand for content, which is great for
creators, but the problem is, they need a LOT of it to make
their subscriptions worth the price. We're already seeing the
Pixar "Brain Trust" show up in other companies (Disney animation
made their own, and there's evidently something similar set up
for Star Wars and Marvel Pictures), and I think that might be a
great way for production companies to maintain a high level of
quality (and establish a brand identity) while creating
stand-alone features for all these platforms.
#Post#: 31863--------------------------------------------------
Re: The way people view television...
By: Mac Date: October 29, 2014, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's slowly gathering steam...
[glow=red,2,300]FCC proposes rule change to open a la carte
internet television streaming[/glow]
[quote]The proposal, which seeks to alter the definition of
"multichannel video programming distributor" (MVPD) to be
technology-agnostic, would pave the way for consumers to
subscribe to channels à la carte from internet services. Fans of
Breaking Bad, for instance, could subscribe to AMC without also
paying for channels like Lifetime, in which they are not
interested.
"Consumers have long complained about how their cable service
forces them to buy channels they never watch," Wheeler wrote in
a blog post. "The move of video onto the Internet can do
something about that frustration - but first Internet video
services need access to the programs."
The definition of MVPD is one of the items that got "antenna
subscription" service Aereo into trouble with federal
authorities. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that Aereo had no
right to rebroadcast content under the provision.
If the rule change is eventually implemented, prospective
streaming providers would still need to reach financial
agreements with the content owners. They also would not be
allowed to provide programming on-demand — only "linear
channels, which offer the viewer a prescheduled lineup of
programs," would be covered. [/quote]
#Post#: 34157--------------------------------------------------
Re: The way people view television...
By: Mac Date: March 29, 2015, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting piece...
[glow=red,2,300]The Millennial Trends That Are Killing
Cable[/glow]
[quote]“Cord-cutting” has become the bane of cable providers’
existence, but the fast-changing face of consumer content is
signaling dark days ahead for cable, as the option to avoid or
drop cable service has grown more appealing and more popular
than ever lately. The Internet, mobile devices, TiVo TIVO
-0.19%, Netflix NFLX -0.84% and other streaming services, and
other major disruptions to traditional TV and home entertainment
mediums were already hurting the cable industry. But now, recent
events have given rise to predictions that the era of cable may
be coming to a close.
Netflix began producing their own original content in 2011 with
House of Cards, and quickly ramped up the creation of new
original shows, with dozens of programs and films in the works
or already on the air. Meanwhile, HBO recently announced they
will offer stand-alone service so customers need not have cable
to enjoy HBO’s lineup anymore. This news was followed by
announcement of a deal to carry HBO Now exclusively on Apple TV,
but then came word HBO had also arranged a deal with some cable
providers to offer HBO’s streaming service to customers as part
of an Internet plan instead of as part of bundled cable content.
Showtime is pursuing a similar path away from cable, too.
Cable Killers
Right after the announcement of the deal to carry HBO Now on
Apple TV, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Apple plans to
offer a streaming TV service that will include ABC, CBS, FOX,
FX, ESPN, and 20 other broadcast channels to start. The pricing
will fall be $30-40 each month, and it’s expected that the plan
will also include VOD streaming service alongside the broadcast
channels.
And in the aftermath of the FCC’s adopting of strong Net
Neutrality protections came rumblings that HBO, Showtime, and
Sony might seek classification as “managed” services rather than
regular broadband Internet content. This would skirt Net
Neutrality and allow those content providers to get faster,
better delivery to customers apart from the “public” Internet,
so to speak.
In short, the times they are a changin’, and not in cable’s
favor. To get a better grasp of just how dramatic all of this
news is, and how much it’s changing the landscape of the future
of content distribution and consumption, I spoke with Deloitte,
who work on — among other things — strategic risk management and
who provided data and insights regarding the emerging threats to
traditional business models in entertainment, and how the
landscape is going to change in the future.
First, some generalizations: What is the trend with regard to
cable versus alternate viewing mediums like DVRing, Netflix, and
so on? Deloitte notes that households have an average of seven
connected devices, and that number will grow over time. The
company’s Digital Democracy Survey revealed a great deal of
relevant data. For example, 37% of U.S. consumers today own the
trio of tablets, laptops, and smartphones, a percentage that
represents a 270% increase since 2010. In the same time frame,
women have gone from just about 11% of those trio-owners to 45%
of those owning all three devices. And a major factor in trends
is generational differences, which aren’t always obvious when
you look at the broad data but which significantly change
consumption patterns from one generation to the next.
The Digital Democracy Survey data about Millennials shows they
represent nearly one-third of the U.S. population over age 13,
and more than one-third of those between the ages of 14 and 66.
And it is Millennials who are driving disruptive trends the
most, consuming most of their TV and film content online rather
than through television or Blu-ray/DVDs. 56% of the TV and film
viewing by Millennials aged 14-24 is on computer, smartphone,
tablet, or a gaming device — only 44% is via TV. Older
Millennials (in the 24-30 age range) consume 47% of their film
and TV content on those alternative devices. So on average, the
30-and-under crowd’s primary means of consuming content is
through mobile devices, streaming, and online. That’s in sharp
contrast to the over-30 crowd who still rely on television for
an average of more than 80% of their film and TV show viewing.
Tellingly, the desire for à la carte purchasing of channels is
equal to that for bundled cable packaging, but the real
difference is the means of consumption and what activities a
given demographic engages in while watching TV. A majority of
Millennials browse online, between 41% and 51% text (the younger
Millennials coming in at the higher percentage), and 48% use
social media, during television viewing. Overall, however, a
whopping 86% of all U.S. consumers are doing something else
while watching TV, most of those activities being online or
using some sort of alternate multimedia mobile device. But the
average number of activities while viewing television changes
from each demographic, with Millennials averaging four
activities compared to three for Generation Xers, two for Baby
Boomers, and one for the over-66 crowd.
The trend, then, is that younger consumers are increasingly
likely to consume content on platforms besides television, and
to use more other multimedia mobile devices while watching
television. Deloitte says it boils down to people wanting the
easiest access to content wherever they happen to be. And the
behaviors of different generations are clearly a factor in how
they consume content — younger viewers are more likely to use
more different devices while watching, so perhaps that’s why
they are more likely to consume content at a higher rate on
other devices.
HBO, Showtime, and Sony seeking ways around the FCC rulings
highlights the fact that availability of bandwidth and its cost
could create changes to the patterns, if for example Netflix
could see its position either strengthened or weakened by the
FCC decisions and by the ways its competitors respond, and then
again by how the FCC might in turn respond to attempts to
circumvent open Internet rules. All of these businesses — new
and old alike — are seeking ways to respond to the changes in
the environment and changes in consumer patterns of spending and
consumption. As they react and adapt, those best positioned will
survive, and being well-positioned naturally means seeing the
changes coming and preparing for them, then taking the right
action when the disruptions occur in order to not only survive
the change but to actually benefit from it and come out in an
even better position.
Let’s take a closer look at some examples of disruptors and the
impact they’ve had, and might have down the road. Some experts
claim HBO’s move to allow online subscription isn’t actually
disruptive and will just end up augmenting cable, not
undermining or replacing it. Others point to this as a defining
moment that signals imminent radical change. Which view is
right?
The defining point, according to Deloitte, is that the balance
of power in the consumer-provider relationship has shifted to
the consumer. So getting closer to the consumer is the way to
survive and take advantage of the consumer-driven trends. HBO’s
move is a reaction to the reality that younger viewers have cut
the cord or just never had the cord to begin with, and in order
to reach them HBO is having to take risks and try new models for
reaching those viewers. Without expanding to new avenues to get
closer to those Millennial consumers, HBO would risk losing them
entirely, and 74 million consumers is simply too many to ignore
— the risk of failing to reach them frankly outweighs the risk
of trying new models at this point.
Notice, too, that HBO taking this new direction is probably
going to have an effect on the generational habits, since now
HBO — and CBS following close behind, and soon Showtime and
undoubtedly other as well — are demonstrating a functional
alternative to cable bundling of services, bringing the reality
of à la carte purchasing home (literally and figuratively).
Millennials who take interest and pursue HBO will do so because
HBO has gone to those places where they must go to get close to
those consumers, and so those consumers will decide if the
option is appealing enough or not, and if so it will reinforce
the trend toward preference for à la carte purchasing over
cable, which could (and likely will) further the move toward
cord cutting and demand for alternatives.
However, Deloitte is quick to point out that HBO didn’t in fact
start this trend. That credit goes to MLB Live and Netflix, HBO
is simply the first major pre-existing channels to join the
streaming subscription trend that’s already underway. Besides, à
la carte purchasing sounds great, but it also requires more work
than just signing up for a big package you know has a lot of
your favorite stuff already included. Expense could become an
issue as well. Those most likely to consume larger amounts of
varied content across many platforms are also those who at
present are more likely to favor à la carte purchasing and are
more used to handling the many variables involved. But if all
consumption became à la carte without price drops, then that
long list of content could get too pricey, and we might even see
a reversal of trends back toward some alternate form of
bundling.
The point is, HBO’s move has yet to official kick off, so it’s
premature to try and guess too far ahead. That said, other
content producers and providers will respond depending on
whether HBO’s move is rewarded by younger consumers and whether
it likewise instigates a larger move toward cord cutting among
older demographics as well. If we see a faster trend toward cord
cutting in Generation Xers and Baby Boomers, replacing cable
with streaming alternatives like HBO Now and Apple streaming and
so on, then other producers and providers will have to go where
the consumers are and follow HBO’s lead.
The wisdom of HBO’s choice, though, is apparently already
obvious enough that several companies are clearly not waiting
for results to roll in before taking their own leap. With some
cable providers already dealing or willing to deal with HBO to
provide the channel via Internet instead of bundled in channel
packages is a sure sign HBO’s move will be disruptive after all,
and it will be harder for cable to adjust and avoid a
significant impact to traditional relationships with consumers.
Pointing to Tad Friend’s The New Yorker article about viral
videos, Deloitte suggests that in the grand scheme of things,
HBO’s move could be just a relatively small disruption compared
to the way YouTube, Vine, and similar services are radically
changing the rules for how content is produced, distributed, and
viewed. For younger audiences among the Millennials, such
services are a big part of what they consume and how they
consume.
If HBO’s move (and the similar moves by CBS, Showtime, and
others soon) does indeed kick off a trend of many large channels
moving to streaming service options away from cable, then
Deloitte sees it as a fundamental attack on the economic value
of bundled cable service. Cable companies would have to respond
by playing one of the strong cards they have left in their hand:
their role as major suppliers of Internet into homes. To get the
content, you still need a way to receive it, and at-home content
delivery of online and streaming content is overwhelmingly
handled through cable providers — you aren’t going to see many
households relying on cellular Internet access to act as a hot
spot for all of their devices and TV at home, after all. So
leveraging this position as Internet providers still puts cable
companies in the position of distributors of content, just in a
different way than they’re used to counting on.
Another point to consider, according to Deloitte, is whether
cable providers like Comcast provide access to content, or move
toward becoming owners of the content they distribute. Comcast
in fact has for a few years now been moving toward a role in
production and ownership role in content it provides, expanding
beyond the role as distributor. But in the long run, the true
power cable companies will have is as distributors who have the
path into consumers’ homes.
Comcast
Companies are responding in different ways to the reality of the
changing trends, seeking not only ways to change and do things
differently, but also frankly how to retain whatever they can of
what they already have now. The truth is, the largest companies
aren’t having to survive, they are merely having to adjust in
order to remain dominant and grow their financial strength. It’s
everyone else who must worry about survival in the disrupted
market, while companies like HBO set the pace and carve out the
direction. Watch the industry leaders, then, to get the best
idea of where the trends are headed. As that happens, watch for
the smaller companies who successfully identify and fill roles
left vacant by the larger players, and for the larger players to
buy up or craft deals with those successful smaller companies.
With so much depending on getting closer to consumers and
knowing what they want, when they want it, Deloitte identifies
consumer data as likely a major commodity among these companies
going forward. Those companies with greater pools of consumer
data are the best positioned to see the trends as they take
place, and more importantly which trends are going to emerge in
the future.
Consider the difference between the amount of consumer data held
by Amazon, and that held by Comcast. Those two sets of data are
dramatically different in some key ways, with Comcast having
broader information about viewing trends and consumer plans, but
not the nuanced day to day specific data about individuals
within households and long-term personal trends regarding not
just what they watch in a specific context (like cable bundle
preferences and number of devices receiving specific services)
but even data about what they look at and consider, what they
get for their friends and family, what they stream and what they
buy in hard-copy form, what they read and what they wear, and so
on. Future trends will be much easier to predict from the data
pool at Amazon.
The trends in consumption and viewing platforms have caused
shifts in the approach to content production as well. Content
delivered via the Internet, for viewing on mobile devices a
little bit at a time as viewers go about their day and engage on
other devices, requires a change in how projects are selected
and created. Deloitte identify a few key indications of how
consumer trends have changed production and distribution of
content, the first and most obvious being that binge-viewing of
programs on streaming services. This, Deloitte points out,
undermines the entire concept of programming schedules at
networks, and we’ve also seen a significant rise in production
of long format drama series that are popular for binge-watching.
The shows have a faster pace, and have to constantly reinforce
the viewer’s interest in what’s happening next and to reduce the
chances audiences will skip through slower parts of the
show.[/quote]
More... next
#Post#: 34159--------------------------------------------------
Re: The way people view television...
By: Mac Date: March 29, 2015, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[glow=red,2,300]Killing cable (cont)[/glow]
[quote]Another change in programming is segmentation, since many
viewers of content online and with mobile devices are watching
in short bursts here and there throughout their day, or
switching between content on different devices. So a program
might be broken up into segments that can be watched and then
paused or stopped until later, then picked up again for the next
segment continuing the story. In this case, a given episode
isn’t quite so important as the individual segments that
comprise it, and a viewer binge-watching but skipping between
segments through the day is less aware of a given single episode
because they are consuming the program in small bites and view
it only as small bites out of a single larger whole that is the
entire series.
But regardless of viewership, the bottom line is always the
actual bottom line — money talks, and content survives only if
it is profitable. For now, the most profitable content, Deloitte
tells me, is still regular ol’ traditionally formatted
television programming. And content trends that feed viewer
trends but ignore the need to generate revenue will simply not
survive. Case in point, Deloitte says, is how advertising
revenue can be disrupted by things like the threats to cable, or
how streaming or TiVo allow skipping of commercials in some
situations.
On the one hand, providers have to get closer to consumers, and
that proximity allows greater chances to use consumer data to
better market to those viewers and reach them all day long on
mobile devices and engaging them via social media. But on the
other hand, as consumers have more control and as providers and
distributors work to meet those consumers’ demands, there’s an
obvious trend toward viewers attempting to bypass advertising in
the traditional sense. Sharing of consumer data, better
targeting of particular demographics, and reaching them directly
where they are at a given time are some of the challenges that
advertisers will face, and as the generators of much of the
revenue stream, that means the success of the advertisers should
be very important to the content creators and distributors.
Deloitte identified for me four future scenarios based on these
trends, which they note could co-exist among Millennials,
Generation Xers, Baby Boomers, and the over-66 consumers, since
each scenario has a variety of forces at work and industry
leaders who would dominate any particular scenario:
In turn, and as noted above, they say any and all of these would
in turn impact advertising, which would already be changing and
adjusting to the trends that bring about any and all of these
scenarios. And regardless of any particular outcome, film and
series content will have to adapt itself to compete with other
entertainment and media uses among consumers, such as social
media (which is still evolving), gaming apps, and emerging new
forms of entertainment and mobile interactions. Advances in
consumer electronics, too, will create new trends as consumer
behavior changes to match those new technological advances and
as the devices deliver new content in new ways.
It’s not hard to imagine some huge event to happen at any given
time that might create a major disruption with outcomes hard to
even begin to predict. For an outrageous but significant
example, what if Apple bought Netflix? What would it look like
to have an Apple streaming service that merges iTunes and
Netflix into a brand new streaming model for content production
and distribution? That would go beyond the streaming disruption
and raise the specter of a content creator and provider also
creating and providing exclusive hardware on which to watch all
of their content.
The only remaining question in that scenario becomes whether
their best option is to deal with the cable Internet providers
to stream the content, to find some other route to deliver
Internet access themselves, or to convince the government to
create public Internet access through wireless towers and
expanded wi-fi access at businesses and apartment complexes and
government buildings. Might it make sense for Apple to push for
some long-term plan that creates free public Internet in the
U.S.? Would the benefits be worth the effort?
It’s interesting to contemplate, even though it’s obviously an
unlikely scenario any time soon. But this is the sort of “what
if” that companies should be considering, because as wild as it
sounds, it wouldn’t really be that hard in the long-term to
create free public Internet that would end the need for having
cables pipe it into our homes. And there are without a doubt
some companies and industries who would stand to benefit
enormously should that come to pass.
The entertainment climate is shifting rapidly, and that creates
both risks and opportunities for content creators and
distributors. Adapting and surviving will depend on identifying
the trends not only when they are happening, but more
importantly before they start. That sounds like a tall order,
but it’s not necessarily as difficult as it seems, if they pay
attention to the data and make the right choices.
As much uncertainty as exists, and as significant are the
changes taking place in content creation, distribution, and
consumption trends, I believe a few things are obvious. The
viewing habits of everyone are increasingly toward watching more
content on more devices, and consuming that content in the
easiest and fastest way possible. But the rate of use of more
devices for viewing content has increased much more among
younger consumers than older ones, and is most pronounced among
the 14-24 year old crowd. Their trio usage went from 11% in 2011
to 51% in 2013, while the average change for all ages (again,
excepting the 13-and-under age range) in that same period was
from 10% to $37%. Looking to the future, there’s no reason to
doubt that the trend for everyone will continue to be greater
usage of multiple devices to view content. Which, in turn, means
the era of traditional cable service is eventually going to end
— not by falling off a cliff, but through simple, slow
obsolescence.
Alongside that, we can also see that the trend for Netflix for
example is, quite simply, growth. The company is expected to
have as many as 100 million subscribers worldwide by 2020. Their
catalog of content is massive, and they produce their own
content for televised viewing and theatrical releases. Their
stock was at about $54 per share in August of 2012 is at $428
today. That $54 per share price was after a huge drop in value
caused by angry subscribers who did their best to try to sink
the company for splitting its DVD and streaming services and
daring to charge about $7 for each separately per month. But
despite their best efforts and all of the wild predictions that
Netflix would fold, of course it didn’t happen because it’s a
huge valuable company with far too many subscribers and a
popular brand name around the world and too much content to
ignore. So looking to the future, there’s no reason to doubt
that the trend will continue to be Netflix expansion and
strength, and a dominant position in the aftermath of the
continued decline of traditional cable service.
What I feel those two sets of trends should clearly demonstrate
is, the future is one of multiple devices used for viewing in a
variety of streaming and online content. The more mobile the
device, the more fractured and segmented the content being
viewed, and the more home-bound the device, the more the content
will be streamed film or binge-viewed series that competes for
attention with the other mobile devices the consumers are using
to interact online. The primary questions are, who will control
the means of distribution for content, of delivering the
Internet access? Cable companies are in the best position to
retain that control for now, and how well they position
themselves to strengthen their hold will determine how long they
last as the trends render regular cable service obsolete.
Thanks to Deloitte for agreeing to speak with me about these
topics, for supplying me with their survey data relevant to the
topic, and for permission to include a chart from their survey!
All box office figures and tallies based on data via Box Office
Mojo and TheNumbers.[/quote]
#Post#: 39855--------------------------------------------------
Re: The way people view television...
By: Mac Date: January 5, 2017, 9:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm excited....
[glow=red,2,300]These are the most incredible new TVs unveiled
at CES 2017[/glow]
[quote]Trends come and go every year at the Consumer Electronics
Show in Las Vegas, Nevada. One year it’s tablets, the next year
it’s wearables, then it’s the internet of things, drones and
smart homes. Some of the trends we see develop at CES go on to
shape the future of consumer tech. Others come and go with
precious little fanfare. But one thing is true each and every
year at the show, and CES 2017 is no different: There are always
incredible new TVs on display that make us drool uncontrollably.
This year we’ve seen some particularly drool-worthy televisions
shown off on the show floor at CES, and in this post we’ll cover
the best of the best.
LG Signature OLED TV W
[img]
HTML http://cdn.bgr.com/2017/01/lg-signature-oled-tv-w_13-1024x631.jpg?quality=98&strip=all&strip=all[/img]
There is no question — and we mean none whatsoever — that LG’s
new line of Signature OLED TVs stole the show at CES 2017. These
TVs are ridiculous. They should not exist. Science shouldn’t
allow it.
LG’s new OLED TV W7 is 2.57 mm thick. We’ll pause for a moment
to let that sink in.
Let’s put that in perspective, shall we? Apple’s iPhone 7 is 7.1
mm thick. The average number 2 pencil is between 6 mm and 7 mm
thick. This thinnest flagship smartphone on the planet, Lenovo’s
Moto Z, is 5.2 mm thick. This gigantic OLED television is 2.57
mm thick.
Crazy.
[img]
HTML http://cdn.bgr.com/2017/01/lg-signature-oled-tv-w_4-1024x768.jpg?quality=98&strip=all&strip=all[/img]
LG’s incredibly thin design allows the W7 to be mounted flush
against the wall in such a way that it almost looks like part of
the wall. There’s even a special magnetic mounting system that
ensures a flush installation. But this TV is about much more
than just the razor-thin design. The 4K HDR picture quality on
the W7’s panel is just as impressive as LG’s earlier OLED TVs —
anyone who has seen last year’s LG OLED B6 will know that LG’s
TVs are easily on par with the best in the business.
WebOS powers the OLED W7, and for our money it’s still the only
smart TV platform worth paying any attention to other than the
Roku software that powers TVs from a few different mid- and
bottom-tier brands. Also of note, there’s obviously no room for
speakers in there, so a separate sound bar handles that.
Pricing hasn’t yet been announced, but you can expect all LG
Signature OLED TV W models to be quite expensive. The 65-inch
OLED TV W7 will start shipping in March, and a 77-inch model
will launch sometime after that.
Sony Bravia A1E OLED TV
[img]
HTML http://cdn.bgr.com/2017/01/sony-bravia-a1e-oled-tv.jpg?quality=98&strip=all&strip=all[/img]
Coming in a very close second to LG’s new paper-thin OLED TV is
the Bravia A1E OLED TV that Sony unveiled on Wednesday night.
This thing is… stunning.
The A1E is practically as thin as LG’s W7, but it’s not designed
to be mounted on a wall like LG’s TV. Instead, it uses a stand
design that offloads most of the TV’s guts to the stand. Apart
from the thinness, 4K resolution and the stunning HDR picture
quality, the coolest thing about this new Sony set has to be the
fact that the display itself is also the speaker.
Huh?
Two actuators positioned on the back of the panel actually
vibrate the TV so that it produces sound, just like any other
speaker. Don’t worry though, because the vibrations are
imperceptible to the human eye and won’t impact the viewing
experience.
Sony hasn’t announced pricing or even a release timeframe at
this point, but expect the 55-inch Bravia A1E OLED TV to be
priced in line with other premium Sony flagships at launch.
We’re likely talking over $6,000 here, and that’s even before we
get to the 65-inch and 75-inch models.
Samsung QLED TV
[img]
HTML http://cdn.bgr.com/2017/01/samsung-qled-tv.jpg?quality=98&strip=all&strip=all[/img]
While LG and Sony focus on OLED panels in their premium TVs,
Samsung — the undisputed king of smartphone OLED screens — is
debuting what it calls the QLED TV. From the company’s press
release:
Samsung QLED TV takes Quantum dot technology to new heights with
advanced light efficiency and stability, as well as a wider
color spectrum than ever before. The new QLED TV also features
truly deep black levels, perfect 100% color volume when measured
with DCI perfect match, and HDR optimal brightness of 1,500 –
2,000 nits. Samsung QLED TV’s new panel design also reduces
reflection so consumers can see every bold detail with
unbelievable levels of contrast. Finally, QLED delivers this
level of performance regardless of where one is sitting, with
consistent color and picture quality from any viewing angle.
Samsung didn’t say when its new QLED TVs will launch or how much
they’ll cost, but you can expect an entry-level price that’s
well below the OLED TVs were covered from LG and Sony. Samsung’s
current flagship KS9800 4K SUHD TV launched at $4,500 and can
now be had for about $3,600.
Samsung Lifestyle TV
[img]
HTML http://cdn.bgr.com/2017/01/samsung.jpg?quality=98&strip=all&strip=all[/img]
Last but not least is a crazy new concept TV from Samsung called
the Lifestyle TV. In a nutshell, it never shuts off. Instead, it
displays your movies and shows like any other TV while you’re
watching it, and it becomes a big piece of art or a digital
picture frame when you’re not.
[/quote]
*****************************************************