Category: The Front Line
Best Buy’s Bharp TV: Turkey Most Foul
- Published on Saturday, 06 December 2014 15:15
- Ken Werner
- 0 Comments
The fourth Thursday in November was Thanksgiving in the United States, as it has been since Abraham Lincoln made it so in 1863. This quintessentially American celebration was created as a national holiday not by Act of Congress but by Presidential Proclamation, which is worth pondering given our current debate concerning the proper limits of presidential power.
Politics aside, Thanksgiving is the day on which we travel long distances to have overly large family dinners with people we don’t like. The traditional main dish is roast turkey, and turkey is also our slang term for a fool or failure — as in, “It’s hard to fly with the eagles when I’m stuck down here with all these turkeys.”
Sitting down with strange companions to consume a turkey describes the agreement Sharp has made to license its brand to Best Buy “for use on an exclusive line of LED TVs that the retailer is direct-sourcing elsewhere,” as Gret Tarr and Alan Wolf described it in TWICE.
This may be foul for Sharp, but it may be filet mignon for Best Buy (BB). After all, the retailer gets to slap a tier-one label on low-end TVs, while Sharp gets to devalue its brand. Can the the Japanese manufacturer possibly make enough money from this deal to compensate for the brand devaluation?
There is a kinder way to parse this deal. My friend and colleague Pete Putman sees it this way: “This is what Sony should be doing for 2K TVs, instead of manufacturing/distribution/marketing/advertising. So far, that has been a money losing proposition.” In other words, Sharp gets to make its high-end, large-screen TVs, on which it may actually make some money, and at least gets to make something as it off-loads the small-screen, low-resolution cheapy business.
Whether you choose to look at this from my perspective or from Pete’s, the deal still leaves BB with the interesting problem of differentiating its Sharp-branded sets — initially 32-, 42-, and 50-inch 2K sets currently selling for $200, $330, and $430 — from its house Insignia brand. And Sharp has to differentiate the cheapies from Sharp’s AQUOS line of premium small and mid-sized sets. Your heart has to go out to Jim Sanduski (acting president of Sharp Electronics Marketing Company of America and Senior VP for product marketing) as he tries to dance on this tightrope.
As Sanduski put it in an email to Tarr and Wolf, the TVs are being produced to Sharp’s “exacting quality standards” and are separate from, though complementary to, the Sharp Aquos line of small- and mid-sized premium LED TVs. Quoting Tarr and Wolf, “Sanduski said his company is involved in the Best Buy program end-to-end, from developing the models and ensuring they meet Sharp’s quality requirements to creating in-store and online marketing materials to support them.” And, “Sanduski emphasized that Sharp remains fully committed to the open Aquos line and its national and key regional customers, including Amazon.com, hhgregg, P.C. Richard & Son, Sears and other dominant dealers.” Sanduski added that the products are produced specifically for Best Buy’s Sharp line and “are not simply rebranded Insignia products.” You see Sanduski’s problem.
Now, Jim Sanduski is a complete pro and I genuinely sympathize with the marketing problem he faces. In his comments, Sanduski simultaneously tries to protect Sharp’s brand value, assure BB customers that BB Sharp (Bharp) bare-bones TV sets sets will somehow be better than Insignia bare-bones TV sets, and assure his key customers for premium sets that they still have Sharp’s full support.
If that’s not a rotten turkey Sanduski was given to eat this Thanksgiving, I don’t know what is.
So I Bought A New Camera…
- Published on Monday, 01 December 2014 14:18
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
Yeah, I know. Camera sales are in decline (even digital SLRs), thanks to smart phones that can hit nearly 20 megapixels, have digital zooms, accessory telephoto lenses, and instant connections to Instagram and other photo sharing sites.
Still, there are a lot of things smart phone cameras don’t do well. Like shooting sharp, correctly-exposed images under low lighting levels. Or zoom optically over ranges of 15x, 20x, and even 30x. (Plus you don’t need to enter a password or swipe your fingerprint to turn on a camera.)
I shoot lots of photos every year, mostly for my articles, classes, and trade show coverage. In 2013, I probably captured well over 10,000 images and videos. My CES 2014 images alone totaled 1500 with an additional 100 videos, and it looks like it I will also break the 10K barrier by the end of December.
At one time, I did a lot of commercial photography, using Nikon F2s, Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex cameras, and even view cameras. But those days are long in the past – I sold off everything to do with film starting a decade ago, and finished the job when point-and-shoot cameras exceeded 10 megapixels, supposedly equaling the resolution of 35mm Kodachrome 25 film.
I’ve been 100% digital for many years, relying on small cameras to grab product shots, shoot videos of trade show demos, and even capture a product shot here and there. My cameras have mostly been Nikon CoolPix models in recent years, as they are a lot smaller than DSLRs and easier to truck around convention centers. Plus, they don’t give up much in picture quality for their compact size and ease of use.
What’s funny about these cameras is how fast they depreciate in value. I beat the heck out of a CoolPix 8200 for a couple of years, only to discover its lens had a scratch. After bringing it to the local camera store (now gone), I was told it had a used value of $30 and would cost at least $200 to fix.
I was also told that I could pick up a brand-new Nikon P310 for just $229, thanks to a special instant rebate. So I popped out the SD memory card and battery from the old camera and left it there for recycling, walking away with the P310.
That was two years ago. As much as I like the P310, its 4:1 zoom ratio just wasn’t cutting it for my needs. Last Saturday, I hopped in the car and drove to one of the very few remaining camera stores in the area, Cardinal Camera, to see what my upgrade options were.
Cardinal sells all the big brands – Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, and Olympus – and this would give me the chance to play around with a model before I committed. (Yep, I could buy one online, but I needed to shake it out in person first.)
What caught my eye right off the bat was how little merchandise was on display in the store. Clearly, retail camera and accessory sales is not a growth business these days! Cardinal seems to do better with photography classes and quick color printing than offering much of the pro gear they used to, like studio lighting packages.
The second thing that caught my eye was the preponderance of Sony digital cameras and the scarcity of Canon and Nikon models behind the counter. Sony really has some nice models that use “mirrorless” technology with rangefinders and interchangeable lenses. The salesman brought out a Sony A6000 Cyber Shot model with combination LCD screen and viewfinder – 24 megapixels, 15-50mm interchangeable zoom lens, 23.5 x 15.6mm sensor, and 1080p/60 video capture.
I have to admit, I was impressed. The standard viewfinder activates when you raise the camera to your eye, and the 3” LCD screen was super-sharp. But the price was $700, and I just wasn’t interested in spending that much money on something I’d likely recycle in two years, given the depreciation and heavy use. (Plus, it wouldn’t fit in my jacket pocket.)
After checking out a few other models, I ultimately decided on a Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS40 point-and shoot. If you haven’t tried out a Panasonic camera lately, you will be in for a surprise – they’re every bit as good in build quality and performance as the Nikons I’ve been using, and the better models use Leica lenses exclusively.
The Leica DC lens on the ZS40 isn’t removable, but does have a 30x zoom range, and the camera’s 2/3 CMOS sensor is good for 18 megapixels, Plus, it has both an LCD display screen and viewfinder, selectable with a small button. And it slides easily in and out of my pocket, great for traveling light when traversing the Las Vegas Convention Center for four days.
Even better – the Lumix camera was discounted from $449 to $349, and Cardinal “ate” the 6% sales tax as part of a Black Friday weekend special. I added a couple of extra SDHC memory cards and a wall charger and was on my way. For that kind of deal, it wasn’t worth it to order online.
My point? There are some great deals to be had on cameras these days, thanks to competition from smart phones and a slow but steady decline in camera sales that started in 2010. If you know what you’re doing with lighting and composition, you don’t need to buy an expensive digital SLR to get acceptable image quality – $300 to $500 will do the trick.
While DSLRs are the way to go for high-end, museum-quality photography, point-and-shoots like the Lumix are a much better choice for everyday photos, especially if you need to get a quick shot unobtrusively under a wide range of good to poor lighting conditions.
And let’s be realistic – it’s hard to go wrong these days for a few hundred dollars. After a year, if you still aren’t in love with your camera, just buy a new one! They’re certainly cheap enough and their performance just gets better and better. (The same axiom holds true for televisions.) Just don’t be surprised when you see how little your camera is worth a year or two from now.
Welcome to the brave new world of consumer electronics…
Black Friday, In The Rear View Mirror
- Published on Monday, 01 December 2014 12:42
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
A story in today’s New York Times reveals that retail sales over the Thanksgiving / Black Friday weekend weren’t nearly as good as predicted, declining 11% Y-Y from 2013 according to the National Retail Federation. (That number includes both brick-and-mortar and online sales.)
To be sure, there is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on as to why sales didn’t hit the NRF targets predicted for 2014. It could be that the average consumer is increasingly put off by the avalanche of Black Friday advertising (TV, radio, newspapers, online) and TV news footage showing shoppers slugging it out over $100 TVs.
Or, it could be that consumers, chastened by the 2007 – 2009 stock market crash and the Great Recession, are just reluctant to spend for the sake of spending. Perhaps would-be shoppers are fed up with big box store chains increasingly intruding on the one holiday that has largely managed to stay non-commercial – Thanksgiving.
Whatever the reasons, it was clear that people voted with their feet to stay home and skip the madness. Returning from a family get-together in New York, my wife and I stopped at a BJ’s in New Jersey to pick up a few sundry items and heck out the latest mobile phones for our upgrade in a few weeks.
The store was busy for a Friday afternoon, but not insanely so. There were about 10 people at the Verizon counter, scoping out the Samsung Galaxy 5, LG G3, Motorola Droid Turbo, and a few other models. We grabbed our paper goods and I wandered over to the TV section to see if there were any deals.
Not surprisingly, there were plenty. What did surprise me was the steep discounts on Ultra HDTVs, with some as steep as 50%. Samsung’s UN55HU6840 55-inch Ultra HD model was advertised at $899 through Saturday night, and there were plenty in stock. (Full retail is $1799.99.)
Nearby, a Samsung 65-inch “loaded” 2K TV (3D, smart functions, Wi-Fi, the works) was marked down to $1169.99 from $2099, and this price was good through Sunday evening. Again, a huge discount, but there were plenty of them available with only a few tire-kickers spotted nearby.
Later Friday evening around 7:30 PM, we stopped by the BJ’s closest to home and saw the same TV deals there. The store was almost empty (you could hear the crickets chirping) and the Verizon stand was deserted except for three customer service agents. That, even though Verizon had some steep Black Friday discounts of their own, such as $250 off the price of a Samsung Galaxy 5 and “free” LG G3s after rebates (2-year activation required).
After several years of declining TV sales, manufacturers clearly want to bring back the good old days. The problem they’ve created now is that the average Joe isn’t going to understand with a TV with 10 additional inches, but half the screen resolution, sells for $250 more than a TV that’s 10 inches smaller but has four times the screen resolution.
No, I believe that what will motivate buyers to whip out their credit cards over the next couple of months before the Super Bowl will be a simple screen size / price equation. If Ultra HD sets are already edging below $1K for 55-inch and even 60-inch sizes on Black Friday, that’s where they’ll be again in mid-January during the peak of the TV selling season. “Ultra” is better than “2K” or “1080p,” right? Whatever “Ultra” means, right?
The cat has been let out of the bag, and what that will do to 2K TV prices is depress them even further. 55-inch smart 2K TVs were widely available all weekend at big box stores for less than $800. Why buy one of those if you could pick up a 4K model for just $100 more?
I’ve predicted that we will eventually see all TVs larger than 55 inches migrate to Ultra HD resolution, thanks to an oversupply of LCD panels, China’s ramped-up production, and slackening demand for TVs. That day may be coming faster than you think, based on Black Friday and Cyber Monday pricing…
LG Display’s New Line for TV-sized OLED Panels to Ramp up this Year
- Published on Monday, 17 November 2014 16:01
- Ken Werner
- 0 Comments
LG Display will ramp up its M2 OLED-TV panel line next month, according to a report in South Korea’s ET News quoted in English by Amy Fan and Alex Wolfgram in Digitimes.
As prevously reported, the new $640-million line is expected to have a monthly capacity of 34,000 units, quadrupling the company’s current capacity. LGD will be producing 55-, 65- and 77-inch panels, at significantly higher yield — and therefore at lower cost — than has been possible in the past.
Digitimes Research reports that production concerns have caused LG Electronics to reduce its OLED-TV sales target for 2015 to 800,000 sets from 5 million. Digitimes Research expects OLED-TV prices to remain about double those Ultra-HD LCD-TVs through 2016, reported Fan and Wolfgram.
At Display Week this past June, Changho Oh, Senior VP for LG Display’s OLED TV Development Division 1, told me that the company’s Fab 1 was producing panels for LG’s 55-inch OLED TV at a 70–80% yield. That was a remarkable improvement from what was widely estimated to be a 10% yield in the middle of 2013 and 50% early this year. Manufacturing yields for 55-, 65-, and 77-inch panels will vary by size, Oh said. New-for-2014 OLED-TV models will all have curved screens.
The striking improvement in yield has been due to improvements in IGZO stability.
Oh told me very openly that the oxide-TFT process has very narrow process margins and obtaining good yields was difficult in the development stage. It is necessary, he said, to understand all of the characteristics and to be able to control them precisely. The situation with the OLED frontplane, he said, “…is not so difficult because we use WOLED,” referring to the white OLED process LG uses for its TV panels. He confirmed that most of the yield issues were related to the oxide-TFT
process and the “very complicated backplane,” which uses four transistors per pixel in LGD’s design. As a result, an extra power line must be designed into the backplane.
Farther down the line, LG might consider using a different oxide. For now, the company has made its investment and is enjoying the fruits of its labors.
Oh agreed that the blue OLED lifetime remains on the short side. LGD specifies that the D6500 white point cannot vary by more than 500°C over 20,000 hours, which represents about 7 years of viewing for the typical consumer. Oh said this is a tough spec, but LGD is meeting it.
Oh also said speculations that the oxygen/moisture barrier is a problem for TV-sized panels are not correct. LG uses a 0.1-mm metal sheet and tests the seal by bending the panel 20,000 times without difficulty.
Although LGD has improved manufacturing yields dramatically, it is widely believed that solution processing — applying the OLED materials in liquid form with one of a variety of printing-like processes — is the way to make OLED manufacturing costs competitive with those of LCDs. Oh onfirmed that LG has a large research program in this area, and noted that equipment and development are expensive. LG’s goal is to have solution-based OLED panels available in 2018.
With Samsung having temporarily retreated to the sidelines as far as TV-sized OLED panels are concerned, development is in LGD’s hands. And LGD is committed to making the most of its lead. The company is making its OLED panels available to Chinese set-makers, so look for companies such as TCL and Hisense to lead the way with relatively low-cost OLED-TVs next year.
It’s All About The Pipes
- Published on Thursday, 13 November 2014 19:37
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
It has become increasingly clear that consumers are moving to streaming and cloud downloads to watch TV shows and movies at home. This trend, which has been documented by numerous research firms and news organizations, reached a “tipping point” in 2011 when more video was acquired via streaming and downloads than by the traditional method of renting or purchasing optical discs.
I’ve been staying on top of this phenomenon ever since 2005, when optical disc purchases began a slow, steady decline. A few years later, DVD rentals also turned south and have stayed there ever since. The blue laser format wars of 2005 – 2006 did nothing to reverse this trend: Blu-ray disc sales have not nearly made up for the fall-off in packaged media sales and rentals.
Netflix, of course, carries the blame (or credit) for this reversal of fortune. The company now has over 50 million subscribers worldwide, with over 30 million of them stateside. Their clout has increased to the point where agreements have been negotiated with Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and other MSOs to ensure Netflix can stream its movies and TV shows with minimum guaranteed bit rates.
At the receiving end, we’ve seen increasing competition by Internet service providers to boost their download speeds. Although Verizon’s FiOS service lies buried in my front yard, ready for tapping, I still rely on Comcast for video, VoIP, and broadband. (For now, Verizon is a “useful idiot” when I complain to Comcast about ever-escalating costs.)
A quick check with the CNET Broadband Speed Test shows my download speeds at 10 AM average 17 – 20 Mb/s, which is certainly faster than they were a year ago. But they’re not nearly as fast as those encountered in South Korea, Zurich, Brussels, Hong Kong, or even Chattanooga, Tennessee.
An article in Friday’s New York Times explores why the U.S. has fallen behind in providing faster Internet service and offers up some intriguing data from a group called the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute. In many countries, governments regulate or control telecommunications services and have made the necessary investments to upgrade their broadband networks.
In contrast, broadband delivery in the U.S. is largely dominated by Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon, who appear to be motivated solely by the bottom line. There are exceptions, such as the aforementioned Chattanooga, where the city offers service through a publicly-owned and operated fiber optic backbone, and Kansas City, where Google took over an existing ISP and has been upgrading to fiber with haste.
What about the rest of Americans, particularly those in areas limited to DSL or even satellite broadband (always unpredictable?) Some hope may lie in the new High Efficiency Video Codec (HEVC), a.k.a. MPEG-H H.265. This codec promises to reduce bit rates by 50% over H.264, allowing delivery of 1080p/60 content to homes with adaptive bit rates in the vicinity of 1 – 2 Mb/s. Not coincidentally, that is the average download speed found in a majority of U.S. homes between 9 and 11 PM at night, when video streaming is heaviest.
Hand-in-hand with improved broadband service comes cord-cutting, or dropping pay TV channel packages in favor of streaming. A recent report by The Diffusion Group shows that 14% of all broadband homes don’t subscribe to pay TV, up from 9% in 2011. The report states that about 75% of U.S. households now have broadband service, so 13 million homes are doing just fine without the likes of DirecTV and Comcast.
I’ve written previously about the growing outflow of pay TV customers and how the pay TV industry saw its first net loss in subscribers in 2013. This trend hasn’t gone unnoticed by media companies: HBO announced last month that it would launch a streaming service for $15 per month that would reach a large, younger population of viewers who have no interest in cable subscriptions.
CBS followed suit the next day, announcing an “all access” subscription for $6/month to all its owned stations, current programming (viewed a day later), and an enormous archive of older yet still popular TV shows such as Star Trek and Cheers (two shows that, ironically, originally ran on NBC!). And yes, there are mobile apps for all of this.
The convergence of cord-cutting and improved broadband connections has economists wondering if we are finally reaching the era of “a la carte TV.” In an intriguing paper posted on the Knowledge@Wharton Web site, the author ponders if consumers would be better off with a la carte (pick your own channels) services, or if costs would skyrocket and diminish the value of choice.
One thing is for certain: Speed drives need. Just as improvements to the highway system in this country led to bigger, faster, and more comfortable cars, faster broadband access (no matter where it comes from), coupled with more efficient video codecs, will lead to more cord-cutting and a shift in video content delivery and consumption online at the expense of conventional TV channel viewing.
It’s all about the pipes…