leaked 2015 sony 4k prices - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 23Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 02:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kleenex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,026
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 371 Post(s)
Liked: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post
Most here will believe the R series hoopla when it's seen in the wild. If the reviews are comprable to the Sony and Samsung flagships then it will need to gain acceptence from videophiles like us here. Maybe need is to strong a word but it would certainly be Vizio's goal to be accepted as an equal to the current crop of flagships. The R series may indeed be that TV but Vizio cannot falter here. I will need to hit the ground running. No missteps, no hiccups, no excuses. Maybe that's why we're still waiting.
I do not think that Vizio will bring out A crappy R series TV set, but it needs HDR 4K content and we have very little of that content to look at.
kleenex is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 02:32 PM
Senior Member
 
spinachpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul.sim View Post
I want to buy a 65" but I just can't come up with a logical argument to spend what Sony is asking for their 2015 4K 65", now that there will be so many more choices available. Here's hoping the 2014 set prices drop like anchors in the next couple months.

In terms of price, who would you go for in place of Sony? I would consider Samsung, but their TVs seem overpriced for comparable quality sets. Then there is LG - and reviews of LG TVs are never all that great.
spinachpie is offline  
post #33 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 02:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HDTVAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: WI
Posts: 2,117
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 761 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by player002 View Post
NO Sony's 2015 tv's do not have the bandwidth for Meta data which is 18gbs ...Sony has hdmi 2.0 but @ 10gbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillieC View Post
The metadata adds 20-25% of overhead. We won't know the final Sony specs until it's officially released.
Well, according to the Sony specs we do have...

They can only do 4K at 30p - and not 60p...

So that means HDMI 2.0 "lite" at 10.2 Gbps - correct

HDMI PC Input Format

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

But then I don't understand this...

Video Signal

3840x2160/24p (HDMI only); 3840x2160/30p (HDMI only); 4096x2160/24p (display center 3840 area); 4096x2160/30p (display center 3840 area); YUV420 3840x2160/60p (HDMI only); YUV420 4096x2160/60p (display center 3840 area); 1080/24p (HDMI only); 1080/60i (HDMI, Component); 1080/60p (HDMI, Component); 480/60i; 480/60p; 720/60p; 1080/30p (HDMI only); 720/30p (HDMI only); 720/24p (HDMI only)


Samsung 78 HU9000 or LG 79/84 UB9800 or Sony XBR-75X940C (2015)
Panasonic 65VT60
Panasonic 65VT25

Pioneer Elite SC-37
Pioneer Elite BDP-09FD

Last edited by HDTVAV; 02-28-2015 at 03:02 PM.
HDTVAV is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 02:57 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatuglyguy View Post
Huh?
The Samsung JS9500 is FALD and $6K for 65 inches. By extension, an extra $2K for 10 more inches really doesn't seem too bad. Especially when you consider that there looks to be no 78" JS9500, just a $23K 88".
The 78 inch JS9500 is coming out in europe for 10'000 Euros.
myst4ry is offline  
post #35 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 03:04 PM
Member
 
paul.sim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinachpie View Post
In terms of price, who would you go for in place of Sony? I would consider Samsung, but their TVs seem overpriced for comparable quality sets. Then there is LG - and reviews of LG TVs are never all that great.
That's the million dollar question, but to be honest, I only want the Sony. Last years Samsung's had too much input lag for my taste and although one of my sets is currently an LG, it just can't match Sony in pq or color. I do believe both Sony and Samsung LCD are superior to LG.

Panasonic may be the direction that I steer in as their price/performance/feature ratio seems to best the new Sony lineup. Interestingly, there is a side argument about Vizio in this thread, if the Vizio R-series manifests and it delivers at an attractive price point I may give them a try.
paul.sim is offline  
post #36 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 03:18 PM
Member
 
paul.sim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVAV View Post
But then I don't understand this...

Video Signal
YUV420 3840x2160/60p (HDMI only); YUV420 4096x2160/60p (display center 3840 area)

"4:2:0: The two chroma components are sampled at half the sample rate of luma both horizontally and vertically (i.e. there's one U and one V per 2x2 group of Ys)."

Quoted from here

It just confirms that the chipset is capable of displaying 4K 60 at 4:2:0 chroma. Not sure what this means in terms of bandwidth overhead for any additional HDR metadata but it does confirm that it's not the full HDMI 2.0 18.2Gbps spec, however, UHD Blu Ray will only be 4:2:0. I wouldn't call these sets HDMI 2.0 Lite as they can display 4k at 60Hz.
paul.sim is offline  
post #37 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 03:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
howardstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimoli View Post
Please stop comparing Visio and Sony, a Kia will never sell at BMW price even with better specs. Brand is very important in this country, quality has a price also. Visio is not in the same league as Sony,Samsung and Panasonic. You want cheap, go for it but don't say a Kia is cheaper than a BMW, we already know that.
Could you please tell this to my X850B? It seems to not understand that it's made by Sony. Ironically, it performs like BMW tried dabbling with making a TV.

Hey Now!
howardstern is offline  
post #38 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 03:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HDTVAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: WI
Posts: 2,117
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 761 Post(s)
Liked: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul.sim View Post
... but it does confirm that it's not the full HDMI 2.0 18.2Gbps spec...
Figures...

Samsung 78 HU9000 or LG 79/84 UB9800 or Sony XBR-75X940C (2015)
Panasonic 65VT60
Panasonic 65VT25

Pioneer Elite SC-37
Pioneer Elite BDP-09FD
HDTVAV is offline  
post #39 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 03:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
howardstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatuglyguy View Post
Huh?
The Samsung JS9500 is FALD and $6K for 65 inches. By extension, an extra $2K for 10 more inches really doesn't seem too bad. Especially when you consider that there looks to be no 78" JS9500, just a $23K 88".
Can anybody explain this about the TV industry?

"$2k for 10 more inches isn't bad"....


How do you get to the first 55 inches for $2k, then 10 more inches adds on another $2k? How do you get to 65 inches for $3k then to get 10 more inches its costs another $6k?

65"--- $2,799
85"--- $$39,999

This is crazy logic. What in Gods's name could possibly triple and even more then quadruple the price of a TV by going up a relatively small percentage in size? Do they not use the exact same materials, engineering and equipment to produce the exact same products only bigger? Is there suddenly rare metals and precious gems beyond 65 inches?
Csbooth likes this.

Hey Now!
howardstern is offline  
post #40 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 03:48 PM
Senior Member
 
spinachpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by howardstern View Post
Can anybody explain this about the TV industry?

"$2k for 10 more inches isn't bad"....


How do you get to the first 55 inches for $2k, then 10 more inches adds on another $2k? How do you get to 65 inches for $3k then to get 10 more inches its costs another $6k?

65"--- $2,799
85"--- $$39,999

This is crazy logic. What in Gods's name could possibly triple and even more then quadruple the price of a TV by going up a relatively small percentage in size? Do they not use the exact same materials, engineering and equipment to produce the exact same products only bigger? Is there suddenly rare metals and precious gems beyond 65 inches?
This is something i've often wondered too. Do they just bump the price because they know AV enthusiasts want the higher sized sets and are prepared to pay for it?

Last edited by spinachpie; 02-28-2015 at 03:53 PM.
spinachpie is offline  
post #41 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 04:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
howardstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinachpie View Post
This is something i've often wondered too. Do they just bump the price because they know AV enthusiasts want the higher sized sets and are prepared to pay for it?
I can't think of a logical explanation. It would be like two exact boats comprised of the same materials and components with the only difference being length and seeing:

15'--- $6,000

25'--- $19,999

We know perfectly well that an extra 10 feet of materials and labor couldn't possibly more than triple the price of the original 15 foot boat. I think that it has to be price gouging and screwing the consumer. I am also tired of these companies saving their only decent technologies for their "flagship" models and offering only repackaged goods on their lower tiers yet charging more than for last years models. They should start where Black Friday was on last years models. They are obviously keeping cost down by not including FALD, HDR etc. on lower sets. There is no justification to still be in the $3.5-$5k range. They want $4k for their 4th best TV in the line-up. No wonder they can't make money. A 65" 850 should be introduced at $2,300. Sony is not great anywhere before you reach their their 2nd best TV offering in a given year in my opinion.

The whole pricing system is indeed arbitrary.

Hey Now!

Last edited by howardstern; 02-28-2015 at 04:23 PM.
howardstern is offline  
post #42 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 04:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 4,424
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 992 Post(s)
Liked: 458
The extra $2,000 for 10 inches is simply a matter of supply and demand. They manufacture 3 or 4 times more 65" than 75"" because they know there is exactly that difference in the market. The difference is not as wide comparing 55" to 65" but there is still a difference. To me the 70" kind of fills an obvious middle road when it comes to price and demand.
dsinger likes this.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #43 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 04:56 PM
Member
 
EVPlus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post
The extra $2,000 for 10 inches is simply a matter of supply and demand. They manufacture 3 or 4 times more 65" than 75"" because they know there is exactly that difference in the market. The difference is not as wide comparing 55" to 65" but there is still a difference. To me the 70" kind of fills an obvious middle road when it comes to price and demand.
It is more complicate than that. You have to remember is the area of a TV that matters. Your 15% increase in diagonal results in something like a 40% increase in area. The other thing to remember is that defect rate. If you can cut 4 46" tvs (haven't actually looked it up but the idea is the same) versus 1 75, you might think the 75 should be 4x as expensive (well less since we are only talking panel price). But when you are starting looking at defects in the panels, a defect that runs 1 46" panel, leaves 3 working panels. That same defect would result in 0 75"s. And you also then run into capacity issues where only the lastest lines are big enough to crank out the 75+ range while you can use the last generation of lines to crank out the 65s.
EVPlus is offline  
post #44 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 05:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
mithras1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 851
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 520 Post(s)
Liked: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 34HFX83 View Post
Man that's way too much XBR lineup

I think Sony should treat and build XBR lineup like an ELITE lineup from Pioneer and Sharp.
I think Sony North America is the only region that uses "XBR" for their models, everywhere else the exact same sets are just named "KD-/KDL...." like the rest of the lineup . But yeah where everyone else is already replacing the midrange with 4K sets, Sony is a step behind once again ...
I don't think "Android TV" has the same pull as "4K" when it comes to picking out a new tv for a majority of consumers.

I guess the 74X940C might be $7999 after all, as guestimated a while back, seeing these "leaked" US prices .

Last edited by mithras1; 02-28-2015 at 05:17 PM.
mithras1 is offline  
post #45 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 05:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
lovswr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Riverview, FL
Posts: 1,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Send a message via AIM to lovswr
Since technology surrounds us, & especially if you are nerdy/geeky enough to post here, IMHO, we have become a little jaded. A 5 foot (diagonal) Television Set that has a profile such that I can hang it on my wall is, frankly, a modern miracle. These things, although ubiquitous, are neither trivial nor easy to implement. Earlier today I read an article about a couple where the husband was 108 & the wife was 106. Think about all the advancements that have happened in just the life span of these two human beings. Yes, I'm sure that there is some gouging (I think the proper term is rent-seeking) as we progress in size/features, but we have to remember that the technology curve goes almost vertical (as we approach infinity) & thus the price/performance curve will follow.

Now we may quibble about the amount of profit margin for any given item, but I think it is disingenuous to suggest that increasing in size/features follows a simple linear ramp. As alluded to up thread, we have already seen what happens when a manufacturer, in this space, is reduced to competing on mostly price (RIP, KURO). I would contend that Sony's software engineering is second to none & while I too am reluctant to pay the prices they are asking, I will miss them if they leave this area.

carry on with your HD-Lite Directv loving banter! <--Comedy Gold
Don't fall for the HDMI 1.3 Hype!
PSN = lovswr
XBOX Live = lovswr
lovswr is offline  
post #46 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 06:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
howardstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovswr View Post
Since technology surrounds us, & especially if you are nerdy/geeky enough to post here, IMHO, we have become a little jaded. A 5 foot (diagonal) Television Set that has a profile such that I can hang it on my wall is, frankly, a modern miracle. These things, although ubiquitous, are neither trivial nor easy to implement. Earlier today I read an article about a couple where the husband was 108 & the wife was 106. Think about all the advancements that have happened in just the life span of these two human beings. Yes, I'm sure that there is some gouging (I think the proper term is rent-seeking) as we progress in size/features, but we have to remember that the technology curve goes almost vertical (as we approach infinity) & thus the price/performance curve will follow.

Now we may quibble about the amount of profit margin for any given item, but I think it is disingenuous to suggest that increasing in size/features follows a simple linear ramp. As alluded to up thread, we have already seen what happens when a manufacturer, in this space, is reduced to competing on mostly price (RIP, KURO). I would contend that Sony's software engineering is second to none & while I too am reluctant to pay the prices they are asking, I will miss them if they leave this area.
I respect your opinion but I think you are giving the corporations a little undue dignity. The television and broadcast industry is a dirty, corrupt empire that actively bamboozles the consumers on an annual basis. I don't know another industry as shady or disingenuous other than tobacco. As for the pricing issue, I am not talking about low-end vs high-end where they can make claims of differing technologies and expenses. The Samsung 65" 8550 is $2,900, the "85 is $9,999. The same exact technology and materials are being utilized here. I could understand a reasonable premium but that says $7k for a 20 inch TV to me. Business and economics were never my forte but this seems irrational to me.


What do you mean by defects and panels? I heard that for every 10 panels LG buys only 2 are suitable to become TV's. Do you know what this means? I was under the impression that the panels were designed by the companies and then produced to spec.

Hey Now!

Last edited by howardstern; 02-28-2015 at 06:20 PM.
howardstern is offline  
post #47 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 06:30 PM
Member
 
provenflipper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Keep in mind these are the list prices. IIRC last year, Sony released the pricing and specs on their website, and by the time the TVs were actually shipping they were on "sale" for hundreds cheaper than list. I'm pretty sure they never sold a TV at these list prices.

I bought my KDL60W850B for $1199 in Sept. It had a list price of $2299 and was selling for $1799 immediately upon release. I expect this years set to follow the same patterns.
provenflipper is offline  
post #48 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 06:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 4,424
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 992 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Exactly. $3,000 for a 65" and $10,000 for a 85". Supply and demand. More like demand and supply since I doubt very many average buyers would even consider a 85" TV. Now when Sony first released the x850 series the 65" retailed for $3999 while a 5 inch jump to the 70" was $1500. That seems like a lot of coin for 5 inches.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #49 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 07:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
lovswr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Riverview, FL
Posts: 1,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Send a message via AIM to lovswr
howardstern perhaps I don't view the TV business as cynically as you You know that whole tomato toMAYto thing.

I did not say anything about panel defects but, IMHO, I would be surprised if the reject rate is 8 out of 10 (80% ). However, whatever the reject rate is, we the individual consumers, still pay for those unused panels. The machines that make the largest panels (i.e. 65 & up) are considerably more expensive than the machines that stamp out smaller glass. At those sizes even say 2 good panels to one bad panel gets financially prohibitive very quickly.

carry on with your HD-Lite Directv loving banter! <--Comedy Gold
Don't fall for the HDMI 1.3 Hype!
PSN = lovswr
XBOX Live = lovswr
lovswr is offline  
post #50 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 07:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
howardstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post
Exactly. $3,000 for a 65" and $10,000 for a 85". Supply and demand. More like demand and supply since I doubt very many average buyers would even consider a 85" TV. Now when Sony first released the x850 series the 65" retailed for $3999 while a 5 inch jump to the 70" was $1500. That seems like a lot of coin for 5 inches.
Well whatever economic theory drives the pricing it still does not mitigate the fact that it is arbitrary and impossible to quantify. A 1/5th or 1/6th escalation of extra materials and labor costing 3 to 5 times the amount is dubious to say the least. I can't believe that even 5% of consumers would be interested in 75" and above. Most people can not accommodate that size television or are turned off at the idea of their decor being dominated by a flat panel. Women are usually highly influential in big $ decisions and not many I have come across would desire a $10,000 85" thingiemahjigg. Not to stereotype but AV enthusiasts are not the average consumer.

Hey Now!
howardstern is offline  
post #51 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 07:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
howardstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovswr View Post
howardstern perhaps I don't view the TV business as cynically as you You know that whole tomato toMAYto thing.

I did not say anything about panel defects but, IMHO, I would be surprised if the reject rate is 8 out of 10 (80% ). However, whatever the reject rate is, we the individual consumers, still pay for those unused panels. The machines that make the largest panels (i.e. 65 & up) are considerably more expensive than the machines that stamp out smaller glass. At those sizes even say 2 good panels to one bad panel gets financially prohibitive very quickly.
Well what do you consider convincing the whole world to buy 720 TV's telling everyone that they are going to be blown away by "glorious HD" and then right after millions are accumulated, they pull the ole switch-aroo and turn around and tell us they are merely "enhanced" definition. Now come on everybody and buy these brand new 1080 TV's as they are "true HD." Then after they make many millions more they have yet another surprise up the sleeve. "Ever hear of 1080p?" This is what we call "full HD." The picture is breathtaking and you better upgrade because those ridiculous TV's you bought last year don't support our beautiful, mouth-watering "stunning HD" like 1080p offers.

Then who could possibly forget the cute little battle between HDDVD/Blu-Ray where people lost mini-fortunes.? As if this weren't enough. Here comes "Smart TV".!!!..."Show us the Millions..!!"Uh Oh! Wait, put those Smart TV's you purchased away cuz you need a......a.............. a "True Smart TV!!" That regular "Smart TV" is so passe. "Remember when we told you that HDMI was amazing?" Sorry, you are going to need HDMI 2.0 and your TV doesn't have that!!!" "Time for an upgrade I think!!" "While you're at it you better upgrade to a 3D capable set because that's the FUTURE!!!!!" You don't want to be left behind right?!" "Active or Passive doesn't matter, you will get the most stunning 3D image that the manufacturers are going to stand behind forever!!!"

Here comes "glorious" 4k!!!!!!! 4 times the resolution, "so immaculate and awe inspiring".."just look at it!" "Wait, throw away your 4k sets you purchased over the last 3 years because unfortunately they will not be compatible with 4k players!" Yay!! More millions!! "Tired of old, boring plain flat screens?" "Try our new "CURVED TV's. "Enjoy the extra immersion as you sit and stare at 1/5th of a circle!! Don't mind the funhouse mirror effect or the odd glares that come with. Just sit back and tell yourself "Samsung knows what they're doing!" This can be yours for a nominal fee of a few hundred extra. It may not bring any better image but your friends will think you are so hip.!!!"....

"Oh and if you are still seeking the picture you thought 4k was going to bring you due to our relentless marketing campaigns/assaults where we said we would bring it to you.........here you go! Ready? You will need to buy a set with HDR!!"Sorry, our scientists and engineers are only just discovering that contrast ratio is more important to image quality than resolution!" More Millions, "How Fun?!" "And that quaint little TV you own is nothing without a wide color gamut!!!" What were you thinking buying that? "You Silly Billy!!!!"

Then we have the lovely stunts they pull like putting FALD in sets 5 years ago then stop for no reason and now bring it back under the guise of being a miracle feature!!! Or how about Nano Crystals which were used before? Now they're back and better than ever!!!! "We just didn't know what we were doing last time but now they're here to stay, we promise!!! "Please spend millions more on our "new" technology!!!!" "And if you would like these in a size where you may take advantage of or actually enjoy any of these features, you may have to choose between your child's college education and your TV but hey, is it really even a choice? Who doesn't love HD, am I right?!!" "And we have a little confession to make".... "When we told you 240, 480, 960 and 1300 refresh rates? We actually just made those up, they're all really just 120 and we only use tricks to simulate it and not very well."..."That's why your $11,000 TV still has blur and ghosting! Don't be upset, we'll make it up with contrast ratio!" "Oh Nevermind, we make those numbers up artificially as well."..."Most of all we apologize for having had all of these technologies in our displays and at or fingertips for years and never fully utilizing them."..." They were just marketing tools in the past but this time we plan on actually using them."

Also, don't forget plasma was the culprit, they were "so expensive to mass produce" and the consumer paid the price for it. "Wait til LCD comes along, they are so much cheaper to manufacture!!!" 15 years later we still see $10,000-$100,000 TV's while plasma was putting out masterpieces for $3-4 grand. I can't get an LCD that knows what black is for under $7k.

How about the mighty OLED that was going to save the world and "costs pennies on the dollar compared to plasma and LCD." We were all going to be "rolling up our TVs" and "hanging them on the wall like pictures" with the "dirt cheap" OLED. How much for a 50 inch 1080p? 3 thousand dollars!!!!!! AWESOME!!! 4k version? 12 THOUSAND DOLLARS! Yipeeee!! SOooo glad that "cheap" technology came along just in time! On top of fall this, LCD's are plagued with laughable black-levels banding, clouding, ghosting, motion blur, DSE, flash-lighting, judder, grainy, flicker,light-bleed horrible viewing angles etc. but they are "soo much brighter than plasma!!!" Though every CES is filled with pristine displays with not even a hint of imperfection. We are being sold a bill of goods. What is so hilarious is that CRT still produces a better picture in so many aspects than all of these "glorious" stunning" "jaw-dropping" "life-like" images we are supposedly getting. We are spending $8,000 dollars to fall short of a technology that was around since 1950. LMAO.

Then with all this supposed advancement there is not one single broadcaster who even broadcasts in 1080p after more than a decade. hahahahahaha We won't see HDR 4k in the next 75 years. They are all complicit in the conspiracy to rape the consumer, pull bait & switch, pump & dump..etc..etc. If this was finance they would be in prison for these tactics they use. What I have learned is that there is a massive fire and the fire department set it. They are giving themselves job security. They put out bullshit inferior products, improve incrementally and then claim to have made groundbreaking improvements and pat themselves on the back manipulating the consumers into spending millions in the process. You can't claim victory because you figured out a way to finally get your TV's to do what you have said they were going to do every year for the last 5. In essence if they create a TV without blur they can call it a "flagship," and charge $8-15k because one of their TV's finally handles motion like one would naturally expect from their marketing. They want praise for doing something every other technology has done since its inception. If the average consumer was aware of any of this they'd all be bankrupt. They are merely correcting their own mistakes at this point and making millions for it...lololol...Just like "here's an expensive plasma because it doesn't buzz" or "doesn't burn in as easily", Or "it's easier to watch during the day." The whole industry is twisted and evil.

In 3 years it will be "Ever heard of HDR+.0?" Your TV soooo can't display it.....

"Samsung with HDR+.0"

ZU65HN9800 ----- $13,000.

ZU85HN9800 ----- $67,000


These circumstances just rinse and repeat ad nauseum, one thing that we all know for sure is that this cycle will never end. 2016 will be another "revolutionary advancement" that will keep prices astronomical and they will spend the next 4 years trying to get that "revolutionary advancement" from 2016 to work properly on their current displays until the next "revolutionary advancement" comes along.

So ya, I'd say I'm just a little "cynical." If you pronounce "To-MAy-To differently than me I don't know where you've been for the last 15 years.
TheCrow1994, dr0z77, ERuiz and 1 others like this.

Hey Now!

Last edited by howardstern; 02-28-2015 at 10:09 PM.
howardstern is offline  
post #52 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 07:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
Jason626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: illinois
Posts: 658
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 204 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by howardstern View Post
Well what do you consider convincing the whole world to buy 720 TV's telling everyone that they are going to be blown away by "glorious HD" and then shortly after millions were accrued they pull the ole switch-aroo and turn around and tell us they are "enhanced" definition. Now come on everybody and buy these new 1080 TV's as they are "true HD." Then after they make many millions more they have yet another surprise up the sleeve. "Ever hear of 1080p?" This is what we call "full HD." The picture is breathtaking and you better upgrade because those ridiculous TV's you bought don't support our beautiful, mouth-watering "stunning HD" like 1080p offers.

Then who could possibly forget the cute little battle between HDDVD/Blu-Ray where people lost mini-fortunes.? As if this weren't enough. Here comes "Smart TV".!!!..."Show us the Millions..!!"Uh Oh! Wait,put those Smart TV's you purchased away cuz you need a......a.............. a "True Smart TV!!" That regular "Smart TV" is so passe.

Now here we are at "glorious" 4k!!!!!!! 4 times the resolution, "so immaculate and awe inspiring".."just look at it!" "Wait, throw away your 4k sets you purchased over the last 3 years because unfortunately they will not be compatible with 4k players!" Yay!! More millions!! "Oh and if you want to see the picture you thought 4k was going to bring you due to our relentless marketing campaigns/assaults here you go! Ready? You will need to buy a set with HDR!!" More Millions, "How Fun?!" "and that quaint little TV you own is nothing without a wide color gamut!!!" What were you thinking buying that? "You Silly Billy!!!!"

Then we have the lovely stunts they pull like putting FALD in sets 5 years ago then stopping it for no reason and now they all bring it back and claim its a miracle feature!!! Or how about Nano Crystals which were used before? Now they're back and better than ever!!!! "We just didn't know what we were doing last time but now they're here to stay"!!! "Please spend millions more on our "new" technology!!!!" "And if you would like these in a size where you may take advantage of or actually enjoy of any of these features, you may have to choose between your child's college education and your TV but hey, is it really even a choice? Who doesn't love HD, am I right?!!"

Then don't forget plasma was the problem, they were so expensive to mass produce and the consumer paid the price for it. "Wait til LCD comes along, they are so much cheaper to manufacture!!!" 15 years later we still see $10,000-$100,000 TV's while plasma was putting out masterpieces for $3-4 grand. I can't get an LCD that knows what black is for under $7k.

Then there was the mighty OLED that was going to save the world and "costs pennies on the dollar compared to plasma and LCD." How much for a 50 inch 1080p? 3 thousand dollars!!!!!! AWESOME!!! SOooo glad that "cheap" technology came along just in time! On top o fall this, LCD's are plagued with laughable black-levels banding, clouding, ghosting, motion blur, DSE, flash-lighting, judder, grainy, horrible viewing angles etc. though every CES is filled with pristine displays with not even a hint of imperfection. We are being sold a bill of goods.

Then with all this supposed advancement there is not one single broadcaster who even broadcasts in 1080p after more than a decade. hahahahahaha We won't see HDR 4k in the next 75 years.

So ya, I'd say I'm just a little bit cynical.
I have to say this post made my night lol. Laughing at how true it is. You should add in 3d and curved tvs too!
howardstern likes this.
Jason626 is offline  
post #53 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 08:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 4,424
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 992 Post(s)
Liked: 458
Do you think they had 1080p when the wanted us to buy 720p? Do you think they had 4k when we were first offered 2k? Do you think they had OLED when we were buying LCD? all of these things are natural progressions in the evolution of technology. I'm certainly not saying plain old greed hasn't played a part in the marketing of TV'S. A perfect example is Samsung perpertrating the LED lighting as a new technology. The curve is nothing more than offering an astetic option, akin to offering a convertible along with a coupe. Stereo sound, 5.1 Dolby Digital, sound bars, remote control, color television, cell phones, smart phones, tablets. All natural progressions in technology. All came to fruition with profits as a major driving force. Nothing wrong with that, except for Samsungs sleezy little trick.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #54 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 08:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fatuglyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: southern CA
Posts: 2,440
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 1238
@howardstern dude are you ok? lol

film Sony 65A1E|Sonus faber Liuto, Smart Center, Venere Wall|B&W DB4S|Sony ZA5000ES|UDP 205|UB820
2ch Sonus faber Toy|REL S/5|Sony TA-A1ES|Wadia 321|Sony SCD-777ES|Sony PS-HX500 + Schiit Mani|AQ Niagara 5000
desk Sonus faber Toy monitor|REL T-Zero|Rega Brio|AQ Dragonfly Cobalt/Victoria|Mac mini|AQ PowerQuest 3
living Sony 55X930E|Monitor Audio Silver RX1|Marantz NR1508|Panasonic UB900
fatuglyguy is offline  
post #55 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 09:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
howardstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 507
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason626 View Post
I have to say this post made my night lol. Laughing at how true it is. You should add in 3d and curved tvs too!
I did a major edit but forgot curves..lol.. That's a great one. I'm going to throw it in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post
Do you think they had 1080p when the wanted us to buy 720p? Do you think they had 4k when we were first offered 2k? Do you think they had OLED when we were buying LCD? all of these things are natural progressions in the evolution of technology. I'm certainly not saying plain old greed hasn't played a part in the marketing of TV'S. A perfect example is Samsung perpertrating the LED lighting as a new technology. The curve is nothing more than offering an astetic option, akin to offering a convertible along with a coupe. Stereo sound, 5.1 Dolby Digital, sound bars, remote control, color television, cell phones, smart phones, tablets. All natural progressions in technology. All came to fruition with profits as a major driving force. Nothing wrong with that, except for Samsungs sleezy little trick.
Yes, absolutely. I have heard hospitals for one and other industries were using 1080p and 4k monitors decades ago. I want to say 1080p was being experimented with in the early 70's or 80's. NHK has been playing around with 4 and 8k for a very long time. I heard of OLED probably 12-15 years before LG ever produced a TV. FALD was in TV's 6 years ago and Nano Crystals as far back as 4 or 5 years ago that I know of. If not sooner. HDR has been around in photography for quite a while too. The problem is that rather than cultivating these technologies they draw out the life-span of current gen capabilities and bilk the consumer for every last penny before the well dries up and they introduce the new "have to have" features. Ask yourself this. Do you really think that they had absolutely no clue how to put Wi-Fi into a TV until 2010 or whatever? You don't think Apple had Apple Pay technology years before they brought it out?

We are talking Corporations with endless financing for R & D. They are all already aware of FALD's next incarnation which will replace it. It's a lot of market analysis. There is no need to solve the black level issue until OLED becomes more viable. They had the brightness advantage over plasma plus burn-in so no immediate threat there. Look how we are now seeing better than black LCD's with technology they had years ago. They can keep reserving the technology for their "flagships" to keep the enthusiasts happy and keep churning out mediocre TVS for the average consumer who doesn't know the difference or care and when needed they will make it available across the entire lineup and have new features for the flagships. No ground breaking research going on here from what I can glean. It wasn't long ago that the motionflow/clearmotion features were only available on the high-end models. Now it comes standard on sub $1k sets. They play this game every single year and we all keep biting. Let me guess, it suddenly became drastically cheaper to insert smooth motion technology into a display in the course of a year? They figured out how to do it using orange peels which are much more cost effective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatuglyguy View Post
@howardstern dude are you ok? lol
No, and neither should any of us be. What they are perpetuating on the consumers is asinine and criminal on some levels.

Hey Now!

Last edited by howardstern; 02-28-2015 at 10:30 PM.
howardstern is offline  
post #56 of 130 Old 02-28-2015, 10:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dick W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 839
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by howardstern View Post
The problem is that rather than cultivating these technologies they draw out the life-span of current gen capabilities and bilk the consumer for every last penny before the well dries up and they introduce the new "have to have" features.
I think you are ignoring several factors.


1) Taking all these laboratory or niche or related-market technologies and making them:
  • producible in consumer quantities
  • at prices enough consumers will pay
  • with necessary reliability, usability, etc., for consumer use
  • with even a hint of the related infrastructure (e.g., DTV and all the things that came along like how to record, produce, broadcast, and distribute digital video content)
  • and make a profit sufficient to justify the investment in the R&D and production capacity
does not happen instantly. You make it sounds as if, gosh, Farnsworth's TV of 1928 should have led directly to what we have today and nobody'd ever have had to buy any of that other stuff along the way. It doesn't work that way.

2) They aren't twisting our arms to play this game… Now, yeah, they are doing some things (3D, and Curved come immediately to mind) that are clearly trying to "invent a demand" just so they can sell the merchandise. (And lots of us consumers happily play along, but we'll overlook that for the moment.) If they don't sell merchandise profitably, they won't be around long. They don't exist just to make us happy. At the end of the game, for the manufacturers, turning a profit is all it's about. And, yes, the difficulties of things like ramping up things like OLED from lab curiosity to mass market consumer product have been soft-pedaled or optimistically underestimated when the technology was first discussed. But you also conveniently ignore the hundreds of millions or more that has been spent trying.

Name any technology that didn't start as a high-priced niche offering available to a few before it got scaled out and perfected for low prices and high volumes on the mass market. And name one where the early adopters did not pay high prices that made it profitable enough to encourage and enable the producers to make the investment in scaling it out.
fatuglyguy likes this.

Last edited by Dick W; 02-28-2015 at 11:05 PM.
Dick W is offline  
post #57 of 130 Old 03-01-2015, 12:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fatuglyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: southern CA
Posts: 2,440
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by howardstern View Post
No, and neither should any of us be. What they are perpetuating on the consumers is asinine and criminal on some levels.
I think the post above sums it up nicely. If you want a nice TV, those have always cost more than a mid-range/low end set. Think about it from the perspective of a CE manufacturer: Why would I build lower end models that were so good that it would eat into sales of my high-end models? Make them "good enough" for most people who don't care much about PQ and charge a premium for premium picture quality. I don't know if it's easy to quantify how much "extra" that picture quality costs the manufacturer to put into the set -- but it honestly doesn't matter. Consumer electronics like TVs survive on razor thin margins; I don't think it's evil to build in a little more margin into high-end models if people are willing to pay it -- they need to recoup costs on R&D, design, etc. There has to be some skin in the game for these manufacturers to keep producing premium TVs, even if they're inherently flawed LCDs. IMO one of the worst things to happen to consumer electronics is this constant race to the bottom where people demand lower and lower prices driven by low-end/low-quality TVs from the likes of Samsung and this new onslaught of Chinese manufacturers...and then complain when the product has defects or poor build/image quality.

And ask Panasonic how giving amazing image quality in a low-end model worked out for them. For years you could get a near reference-level U, S, or ST plasma that delivered 80-90% of the performance of their GT/VT/ZT lines and was roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the price. Panasonic's decline had more to do with the dearth of overall plasma sales, but I'm sure the fact that the few people still buying them were mostly buying the cheap models didn't do much to help them in a business sense.

In regards to the rat race that is keeping up with "specs," nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play the game. Since most people already own a perfectly good flat panel TV, manufacturers have to keep rethinking ways to drive the desire to upgrade. By the standards of current and upcoming technologies, my ZT60 is a relic...no WCG, no 4K, no HDR, yet it has an amazing picture that definitively trounces anything you can buy currently save for maybe a Sony X950B or Samsung JS9500 (which features that awful curve). At the end of the day these are just TVs man. They aren't a matter of life and death and when UHD blu-ray comes I'll buy a player even if my X850B doesn't support or take full advantage of every single feature, because this is a fun little hobby for me.

film Sony 65A1E|Sonus faber Liuto, Smart Center, Venere Wall|B&W DB4S|Sony ZA5000ES|UDP 205|UB820
2ch Sonus faber Toy|REL S/5|Sony TA-A1ES|Wadia 321|Sony SCD-777ES|Sony PS-HX500 + Schiit Mani|AQ Niagara 5000
desk Sonus faber Toy monitor|REL T-Zero|Rega Brio|AQ Dragonfly Cobalt/Victoria|Mac mini|AQ PowerQuest 3
living Sony 55X930E|Monitor Audio Silver RX1|Marantz NR1508|Panasonic UB900
fatuglyguy is offline  
post #58 of 130 Old 03-01-2015, 06:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 4,424
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 992 Post(s)
Liked: 458
When it comes to duping the public this (TV/Electronic ) industry could be considered saints compared to the oil industry and the pharmaceutical industry. My guess, Sony, Samsung, etc have zero lobbyists in Washington.
andy sullivan is offline  
post #59 of 130 Old 03-01-2015, 07:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ktownhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,009
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 583 Post(s)
Liked: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post
Cheaper doesn't always correlate to inferior. Honda and Toyota at one time were considered inferior but over time the learned and progressed until today they are considered the leaders in quality for their price segment. Vizio has come a long way and keep in mind that Sony, panasonic and Samsung use panels that they do not make themselves. Everybody has to decide on the qulity level vs the price point but for most buyers bang for the buck wins out.
Honda and Toyota are great cars but they still don't even match up to a VW in terms of performance and feel. Let alone Audi, BMW or higher.

Low end products can often do very well in the core aspect of said product, but it's the little extra thoughts here and there and better quality materials that set apart the best of the best.

Now, please, stop with the car comparisons ☺

Sent via Tapatalk on the Oneplus One
ktownhero is offline  
post #60 of 130 Old 03-01-2015, 07:47 AM
Senior Member
 
Beefchopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Franklin Lakes, New Jersey
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 41
What exactly is this industry doing that is improper or immoral or even unusual? They try to get their highest margins on the largest televisions by introducing their best and newest technology on those sets to lure buyers and work for much smaller and more competitive margins on the smaller sets they sell in quantity. Isn't that the same strategy used by many other industries? A Mercedes C Class has a list price of about $38,000 and the base Mercedes S class about $94,000. Do you think it costs Mercedes 2.5 times as much to produce the larger car? Mercedes charges $94,000 for the S500 and $167,000 for the S600. Do you think that pricing strategy is driven by production costs? Pick many other luxury product makers and you can find similar results.
Beefchopper is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off