I feel sorry for Sony. They're lost. They're so lost that they don't even know they're lost. And nobody will tell them, or they just won't listen.
E.g. a few years ago they bet big on 3D TV. At the time I said "huh?". It was destined to fail. Not just because many people dislike the 3D effect, there were multiple standards, there was a need for special glasses, etc.
No, the real (missing) elephant in the room was content. After all, how many times can you re-watch Avatar? Have there even been 10 "good" 3D movies made to date?
So what does this article end with? It says that Sony is betting big on 4K screens. Once again, the key word is "content". Just how do you get 4K content to people at home? About 10 years ago we were all sold the HDTV story. But look at what's being delivered to homes today. Extreme bit starving; an HD TV channel often uses less than 1/2 of what was envisioned. Why? Because most people don't care and so it's more profitable to deliver two or three mediocre quality programs instead of one high quality program.
Those uncaring consumers will now start paying for 4K content? I don't think so! And even if they wanted it, there isn't enough available bandwidth on the cable systems. So now we need a successor to Blu-ray with even more resolution? Great, now each movie will be available in DVD, Blu-Ray and 4K Blu-Ray versions? Don't forget the collectors editions. Don't forget the inevitable re-releases (e.g. special editions), because the video quality of the first release was total crap.
And without 4K content, today's TVs are already more than good enough. My TV set is capable of far better quality than what comes out of my cable. And the quality of video on demand is no better than what's OTA. Usually worse.
Apparently nobody at Sony has managed to convey to top management the unexpurgated version of "this is a crock of shit, and it stinks".
> Under Hirai’s leadership, the trajectory of improvement has been gradual but unswerving. What was once the struggling Sony Ericsson has been transformed into the popular and profitable Sony Mobile Communications group. Mirrorless cameras have helped position Sony as a leader in imaging gear, with enthusiasts increasingly opting for the Alpha (née NEX) range over the traditional DSLR format that Canon and Nikon still dominate. And most recently, the PlayStation 4 has managed to outsell its nemesis Xbox One while almost doubling subscriptions to Sony’s paid PlayStation Plus service.
I love Sony's mobile phones today. I bought one, so my money is where my mouth is. Who other than Apple can really truly differentiate and survive in the PC business today anyway? It's an unfortunate development, but I can't say that it's an overall reflection of the future of Sony. PS4 is rocking. Their phones are great. They still make good movies. Maybe their electronics division can do something special too. If yes, then they're firing on all cylinders. Let's see what happens.
Lenovo? I always thought Lenovo was the PC equivalent of MacBooks. Well, HP tried but they have massive heat outlets at the side of the machine that burn you, and the Samsung Series 7 came close but doesn't have the same build quality, and has a stupid power adapter.
So yes, perhaps Sony and Lenovo?
Way I see it, Lenovo makes rugged, durable and dependable machines, but they lack the finish/style in VAIO or MacBooks (then again I haven't seen what Lenovo has been up to lately, so might be completely off.)
So when people say there's nothing like a Mac, I mostly agree and understand where they're coming from even though I much prefer a cheaper machine on which to run Linux. I'm unaware of anything in the PC world to match Apple's high finish + dependability/durability. Also the screen is worth it on it's own, alternatives lacking.
While the most recognizable Lenovo is the ThinkPad line, which is a very capable but very dated looking machine, I recently worked on an IdeaPad U430 (I work in computer repair), and was surprised by how nice that machine was. It's build quality and style really reminded me of my MacBook air.
So it seems like while the rugged and durable machines are where Lenovo is still getting most of their money, that design was inherited from IBM, while Lenovo is trying to focus on new machines with style and finish.
Apple's screens are lacking compared to similar priced Vials/PCs (the TFT screens on the 11" MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro are particularly atrocious). Viaos are often lighter than similar priced Macbooks and are more durable.
Apple's differentiation is not a supposedly unique high finish + dependability — although they are unique for only selling high end computers — but the Apple retail stores and easily upsold AppleCare (available up to a year after purchase of a macbook). Most PC users call their 'computer guy' relative when their PC breaks. In contrast most Apple users take their broken device to the Apple Store. That professional service is why most Macs stay in circulation longer
The two vaios I used after the 505g were utter cheap pieces of crap, and they haven't seemed to do much better recently. Whatever your beef with Apple is, saying that Sony is actually better in quality is crazy.
Dells are the PC equivalent to MacBooks. Lenovo makes cheap plastic devices that crap out under load and take forever to be repaired/replaced. IBM had better quality control.
> Who other than Apple can really truly differentiate and survive in the PC business today anyway?
Anybody that cares to.
There is no manufacturer that claims to have extraordinary quality, no one that tries to make the cheapest possible system, no one focused on consumer support, and I'd probably get a dozen other niches if I keep trying for a few minutes. All PC manufacturers are trying hard to sell the same thing everybody else is selling, for a long while now.
Anyway, Sonny is not in the business of caring about what their consumers want, so I doubt they can differentiate in any good way.
You claimed a hypothetical situation that doesn't exist today and claim that it's due to lack of desire on the part of the product companies. It's highly doubtful that the hypothetical situation is not real only because the industry players don't desire to achieve that level of success. The more likely answer is that they can't figure out how to do it, despite many attempts to try.
Maybe but that is what people were saying about Sony couple of years ago too, they have great products for e.g. their headphones are the ones I use Sony XBA-4, their top of the line in ear headphones.
Just something for house keeping, Sony managed to sell more than the Xbox One beucase Sony is selling the PS4 in 54 countries vs Xbox One is only available in 13 and is $100 more expensive.
4 million PS4s vs 3 million Xboxes. I think the victor is Microsoft over here, if MS does open Xbox up to more markets it will clearly outsell, then again maybe not.
> Maybe but that is what people were saying about Sony couple of years ago too
Hirai became CEO less than 2 years ago.
> Sony managed to sell more than the Xbox One beucase Sony is selling the PS4 in 54 countries vs Xbox One is only available in 13 and is $100 more expensive.
And these are the sorts of smart business decisions it needs to be leveraging in order to turn things around. If you remember the PS3, it was $500 on launch.
This is not in any way meant as a refutation to your point, but merely as a "for your interest" piece of information:
From working in the TV industry, I can tell you that real money comes from sports broadcasts, which also means that the sports people are the ones with money to burn. Apparently, ESPN made an attempt at a TV channel dedicated to 3D broadcasts of sports events. It was discontinued in September last year not for lack of content, but because of the reasons that you dismiss :) (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_3D ) Similarly, I expect early 4k TV content to be sports and news.
So, movies isn't the only kind of content and 3D TV channels have failed because of lack of adoption. This, however, doesn't mean that lack of (even more) content still isn't the cause of lack of adoption.
Similar in the UK with Sky, sports seems to be their biggest 3D draw (on Sky Sports 3D I think it's called), but they show other content too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_3D
Not sure how popular it is (I don't know anyone who uses it, the only friends I have who tried it got bored of it quickly), but it hasn't shut yet.
I don't see how Sony are any different from other players in these areas. In fact they are probably closer to having content answers than most.
From a technical point of view there was no "big bet" on 3D. It is almost a software change provided the TV is capable of a high framerate. The marketing bet wasn't that big either it was just the obvious focus of the budget that year and could also be a cross category approach (some camcorders and still cameras can do 3D).
4K is a bigger more expensive technical change but what is the alternative? How much profit do you think there is in $500 50" TVs? After 30% retail margin?
You are mostly not wrong but it is a TV industry issue not a particularly Sony one.
It is almost a software change provided the TV is capable of a high framerate.
Alas, Sony et al made it a hardware issue, requiring re-purchase of recently-purchased HD hardware and requiring the most expensive & annoying forms where possible (battery-powered high-price easily-lost/broken glasses). This when a relatively cheap polarizing overlay with passive glasses (heck, contacts even) would have made it a no-brainer upgrade.
Polarsising screens would have had greater cost increase on the TV. Your complaint seems to be that they didn't go all in an put the cost in the TV. The Active glasses can fit over normal glasses. The first year the glasses had button batteries, after that they were USB rechargable (and compatible with the first year too).
Passive glasses would also have reduced the resolution although that might be a worthwhile tradeoff.
I'm not sure what alternative you suggest they should have done differently to avoid "requiring re-purchasse" of hardware. PS3 was software updated to support 3D Blu-ray and 3D games. You might have to avoid existing AV receivers to get the 3D signal through which isn't ideal but not sure how avoidable it would be without making the user manually set up the 3D each time they wanted it and losing half the resolution by putting both frames in a single frame.
Think: polarizing screen overlay, sensor in corner watching subtle pixel indication of which eye to show. No need to repurchase TV, just buy stick-on overlay. Cheap passive glasses.
Doubtlessly, numerous people on this planet woke up this morning and said: "wow, this day would be great if I could see a 53-year-old movie in 4K. Because watching The Guns of Navarone in Blu-Ray just doesn't do it justice". No, I don't think that happened this morning (or any other morning).
Or maybe they all said: "If only I could see Dr. Peter Venkman get slimed in 4K quality, my life would be complete. Watching Ghostbusters in Blu-Ray doesn't let me appreciate the nuances of that 29-year-old film". No, I don't think too many people said that either.
I understand that Sony has to start somewhere. But there's no "killer app", or in this case "killer movie" on that list. (Though, granted, there was plenty of killing in Breaking Bad). Ghostbusters is one of my favorite movies of all time, but I'm not going to buy a brand new TV set just to re-watch it in 4K. Still, if they add Forbidden Planet to that list, maybe they'd make a sale. :)
This is not a mass market product. In fact IMO there's not enough of a market for this to be a profitable product.
But as Dennis Miller used to end his rants: "of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong".
Isnt that the same as samsung are doing with their devices? They come up with a phone/tv/dishwasher that have 550Ghz/100Mpix of whatever, but no clue for what it should be used. Its just "faster, and look, very large screen"
If samsung didnt produce stuff for others they might have been in the same situation, probably a bit better but close.
I guess the sony vaio line wont be missed if it goes away, I've never come by a vaio which as nice/good.
> Have there even been 10 "good" 3D movies made to date?
Yup. But the question is, "have there even been 10 good movies made to date?". Pretty much every good mainstream movie is made in 3D now, and people go to see it in 3D by default. I've recently been to a 2D movie in a cinema and then I realized how weird it looks; being accustomed to watching movies in 3D for last few years.
>Pretty much every good mainstream movie is made in 3D now
Okay, honest question, because I'm not up on the technology.
Are all these movies actually made in 3D, or are they mostly converted to 3D after the fact? Shooting in 3D has to be a lot more expensive. I can see doing it for big action movies, but is it needed for a typical RomCom?
2 cameras, two sets of identical lenses, grip that can carry two cameras (usually a 3d rig), and the most expensive part - people that know how to work with 3d. That usually means a stereographer on set, more storage, dedicated 3d dailies preview (special equipment, monitors), DoP that knows what he's up to (3d requires slightly different lighting setup).
All combined isn't THAT more expensive on A budgets, but usually they shoot with parallel setups of two or more cameras (double for 3d). With special monitoring, extra step (stereographer) and slightly different lighting techniques you're looking at more time needed for each setup - which then halts everything and costs even more money.
And that's only for production. Postproduction has to work on everything twice, including rendering... so it adds up.
Erm no. Most movies are still filmed in 2D, and plenty of people still go to see 2D versions of "3D films" because they don't see the point in the 3D for that particular film, or in paying $20 to go and see it instead of the usual $10-11.
I go to the cinema, on average, about once a month. I don't even remember the last time I even noticed, or had to consider, whether to see a film in 3D.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of 3D, and millions of sets were sold on the basis of it. The problem with 3D is purely an implementation issue -- people don't want to wear the glasses.
Is your argument that the display market can't be improved? Because of course that is...dubious. It is a huge market, and hundreds of millions of people simply need a reason to spend some of their cash on replacing their current device with a new one, just like every other device market. 4K with adaptive oversampling is enough to sell loads until the content arrives, and of course the content will arrive (increasing resolution in compressed material is one of the easiest ways to improve perceived quality for a given bitrate, obviously to a given floor).
It's interesting to contrast your post with the endless speculation that Apple is going to introduce an actual Apple TV (doing away with the supposed complexity of the modern getup), and this will be their next trillion dollar product.
It's also worth noting that the Engadget article seems to have derived a different take than some others. Others talk about Sony focusing on mobile/gaming/etc, splitting the television division off specifically so when the time comes they can do with it what they did with Vaio. That spin off somehow convinced Engadget that they are becoming the new division.
The trouble is there is almost no profit at all in TV's these days (and for most of the last decade too). It is too prestigious and therefore competitive as there is still the impression that it is the key part of becoming a major consumer electronics player (I think it is probably wrong these days and mobile phone/tablets may be more important). Differentiation of TVs is hard because features appeal to niche's of the total market and basic picture quality is now good on most products and MOST people can't recognise a good picture if they see it.
Sony has also suffered badly along with Panasonic from the strength of the Yen. A great deal of the cost base is still in Japan even when manufacture is outsourced into local markets which destroys any real possibilities of profit.
I don't know what the effect of making the TV arm it's own subsidiary will be, (it may be mostly to allow profits to be shown in the rest of electronics), but I really don't know what the best thing to do with it would be. I'm not sure it makes commercial sense to make TV's in its own terms but it is doubtful whether Sony could sustain franchised retail chains without TVs so it may affect the total business if they withdrew completely. It would also be a shame as the products are good and there are many good people there but I just can't see a future of long term profitability.
But I had just bought a big screen Sony XBR6 the year before. That TV is still my primary TV, still working fine. I might replace it in another 5 years, "just because". But until then, there had better be a really compelling "breakthrough" for me to justify buying another TV. And, IMO, 3D wasn't it. And 4K isn't it, either, for reasons I already outlined.
Most households got rid of their CRTs a long time ago. So the long-time scenario of moving the old TV to the basement doesn't work anymore, because the basement already has an LCD, and that LCD still works great.
I agree with you, there's just no future of long term profitability in TVs anymore.
It had been north of 5 years since I had last bought a laptop. It was a VAIO. I loved that computer as a man can love his bread-winner. Nowadays I work on an old trusty Acer (which feels close to a VAIO in finish, build quality and even style) and an old MacBook Pro (also top notch.)
Well, I just got a Samsung Ativ Book 9. What crap. I'm deep in buyer's remorse. For a computer supposedly with high finish, the keyboard is completely cheap and crappy and scratchy, the screen is meh, it's oversized (despite being super thin) and just overall feels cheap, cheap, crap. Don't buy it. I could only get Fedora 19 working (not latest Ubuntu, not latest Mint, all graphic driver issues) and it was laggy as hell, my keystrokes took a half-second to materialize. Presumably the graphics driver. Gonna try Fedora 20 right now, or I'll go after driver updates or something. Don't buy this sucker. I know I won't buy Samsung again over this. Wish I would have bought a VAIO. But then they sell out.
I also loved my vaio. It was white, solid, and computed, and the keyboard was lovely. I lost it in the divorce. I exchanged it for a Samsung netbook I gave her as a present, because she was having problems with her eyesight.
That said, the netbook is rock solid and very reliable. It saw me through a squalid period of sleeping on couches on top of it after drinking heavily. The keyboard is tacky crap, sure, but it types well. I also have a samsung smartphone and tv (complete coincidence that they had my favourite product in each range), and I would have a hard time knocking their engineering and reliability.
I've had similar experiences with everything Samsung I've used apart from their SSDs. They just don't seem to put much engineering effort into their products.
Acer knock out some good machines. I miss their Timeline series. I got 12 hours out of one of them once and it was super-cheap.
Unfortunately, not every place in the world allows no-questions-asked returns like in the US. Even at an intl' chain store like Walmart (where I bought it.)
We're kind of blessed here in the UK, consumer rights is one area where we haven't yet been thrown under the bus. Distance selling regulations for stuff bought online mean companies are obliged to take products back within 7 days of customer receipt no questions asked. This law exists solely to alleviate the "buyers remorse" problem. This doesn't apply to brick and mortar though.
High end Sony Vaio are the best laptops the money can buy.
When I custom ordered one from them - they notified me about every step from the beginning of manufacturing to the movements between facilities to detailed cross ocean shipping.
It is Made in Japan.
Every time I use this Laptop (one of Z-models, gold colored) it's a joy.
I think instead of trying to compete for made-in-china junk buyer's attention - they should of elevate their Z-line to fashion statement for very high end, demanding users.
I hope the TV subsidiary can stand on it's own feet. Losing it would be a shame because they build damn fine TVs.
The only problem they have is that others advertise their features more aggresivly and customers prefer to buy some 50" candy-colour "Smart TV" for 800€ instead of a feature rich awesome display 46" Bravia for 900€.
I thought that when I bought my Bravia EX but it's a pain in the ass. iPlayer is poorly maintained and it barely plays anything on a good day, the thing is impossibly slow for the first minute when you turn it on and it's the fussiest thing I've ever seen when it comes to media playback. The TV bit is pretty good but I didn't really buy it for that as there is literally nothing on TV in the UK. Oh and it randomly decides to inform the watchers that it's going to turns itself off even though every option in it is set to not automatically turn off.
It's no Triniton to make a comparison.
I've had zero experience with other smart TVs so this might be the best user experience out there -- please feel free to confirm this or not as I was thinking about getting rid of it.
To be honest, I can only compare it to Samsung because that's all my parents and my friends have. My GF's parents have a Sony.
I found Samsungs menus and control scheme to be unbearable and the owners often struggle with it too.
I usually play media directly from my PC via UPNP and that works. The built-in Youtube app is okay for the occasional video, too. Other than that I only play DVDs and Blurays and the media libraries of german TV channels (they are usually not available via built-in apps to the same extend) via a connected Rapsberry Pi.
A big plus is that my TV is able to put out DD 5.1 it receives via HDMI on it's optical output.
The picture qualities beats every other (LED) TV I have seen. It even came with halfway decent factory settings. Don't ask me how much time I spent trying to adjust the colours on my parents TV. But they grew to like the candy colours...
>I found Samsungs menus and control scheme to be unbearable and the owners often struggle with it too.
I have my doubts about Apple succeeding in the TV business. But maybe they will, just like in phones. Not necessarily because they're so good, but because everyone else is so bad.
I still remember the remote control of my last Sony VCR. It let you record up to 8 different programs, you put them into "slots". Horrible. Quite the opposite of how TiVo does it.
But the real absurdity of the Sony remote came when entering start/stop times for recording. The remote had a number pad (most remotes did, to allow changing channels). But the number pad couldn't be used to enter start/stop times. Instead you had to push up/down arrows, and IIRC separately for each "digit" of time. An utter fuster-cluck when it came to usability.
Which EX is it (particularly the second last digit that indicates the model generation)? The first ones to get iPlayer actually use the MHEG system to deliver it so it is possibly less well supported by the BBC as that version of iPlayer only used on that year's Sony TVs and for Freesat and Freeview. I have a KDL-yyxXz23 which is used the next version of iPlayer which seems to work pretty well to me. The Amazon/Lovefilm service also works pretty well. Even newer Sony's get Netflix too I believe.
The Sony will wake up/turn on to the input it was turned off on so you could always supplement it with a recent internet TV box of some sort (Apple TV/Roku/Recent Sony Blu-ray/Recent Samsung Blu-ray...) whichever appeals to you.
I haven't evaluated recent models or competitors recently although I did buy an LG Blu-ray player/Freeview HD HDD recorder with internet features that not only probably had privacy leaks but also the usability was pretty catestrophic.
Disclaimer: I used to work in Sony TV Product Planning in Europe and did some of the business development for the internet services in Europe.
The scope of some of these companies can be pretty big. Samsung, for example, in addition to selling millions of smartphones, is also the world's second-largest shipbuilder (among many other activities). We're used to more focused companies like Apple or Google, but it's not always so.
Sony bought Ericsson's phone business. They make nice Androids, but are not very high profile in the U.S. Certainly nowhere near the market share Ericsson had in the 90's. Much of the R&D is actually in Sweden.
Ericssons network business is alive and well, actually no. 1 by market share. I worked there until recently.
No one can make laptops as great as Apples. It isn't because of skill though, no one else can expect to sell as many of the same model. The current MacBook Air is magic and the Retina Pros are amazing performance wise. All while retaining a great look and build quality. Hard to do that when you sell dozens of skus the way sony, dell, hp, Lenovo, etc do.
Because the basis of your opinion is anecdotal and seemingly you haven't used business category PC laptops. They have disadvantages compared to Macbooks (heavier, clunkier, and usually more expensive than a Macbook Pro), but many advantages as well (much-much better cooling -- I hate my rMBP because of it's constant cooling issues; much-much better warranty -- if it breaks, you can get a replacement in a few hours).
Ah ok. I have used HPs in business when I was in charge of of the IT department and you did get a lot for your money but they flexed. I had some turn up bust or with duff batteries. Some also had poor fittings on the keyboards, particularly around the edges where they met the body casing. For ~£750 laptop this was poor. This was the ProBook line, in addition to other lines. And the screens were dreadful, with washed out colours. The Sonys we had in were better but I had some blow up. The Toshibas were alright but again, flexing.
E.g. a few years ago they bet big on 3D TV. At the time I said "huh?". It was destined to fail. Not just because many people dislike the 3D effect, there were multiple standards, there was a need for special glasses, etc.
No, the real (missing) elephant in the room was content. After all, how many times can you re-watch Avatar? Have there even been 10 "good" 3D movies made to date?
So what does this article end with? It says that Sony is betting big on 4K screens. Once again, the key word is "content". Just how do you get 4K content to people at home? About 10 years ago we were all sold the HDTV story. But look at what's being delivered to homes today. Extreme bit starving; an HD TV channel often uses less than 1/2 of what was envisioned. Why? Because most people don't care and so it's more profitable to deliver two or three mediocre quality programs instead of one high quality program.
Those uncaring consumers will now start paying for 4K content? I don't think so! And even if they wanted it, there isn't enough available bandwidth on the cable systems. So now we need a successor to Blu-ray with even more resolution? Great, now each movie will be available in DVD, Blu-Ray and 4K Blu-Ray versions? Don't forget the collectors editions. Don't forget the inevitable re-releases (e.g. special editions), because the video quality of the first release was total crap.
And without 4K content, today's TVs are already more than good enough. My TV set is capable of far better quality than what comes out of my cable. And the quality of video on demand is no better than what's OTA. Usually worse.
Apparently nobody at Sony has managed to convey to top management the unexpurgated version of "this is a crock of shit, and it stinks".