Hacker News Reader

I'm pretty optimistic about Sony's future:

> 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.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5293414/sony-rediscovers-s...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lenovo have at least 20 laptop product lines. It's a generalization to call them all cheap plasticcrap, as they really do cover the entire spectrum.

I also don't see how Dell compete with the MBPs at all.

Yeah, I've had bad experience with the Ideapads.

Dell's new Latitudes can easily compete with the MBP when it comes to design, price, performance and features.

My X1 has been quite good so far...except for the track pad, what is up with PCs and track pads????

> Lenovo?

They were, before they started doing gimmicky shit like this: http://arstechnica.com/staff/2014/01/stop-trying-to-innovate...

> 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.

Ex Sony TV Product Planner.

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.

And that's Japanese culture for you

No one will speak up because the bosses "know better" and the bosses won't listen as well.

> Just how do you get 4K content to people at home?

http://blog.sony.com/press/sony-launches-worlds-first-4k-ult...

Oh, man, that link proves my point. IMO.

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.

Were there really 3D versions of American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, Rush etc. ?

[NB I like big action 3D blockbusters as much as the next person - but good ones seem pretty thin on the ground]

>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?

Really? Don't you just need 2 cameras for every 1. (Like how our eyes work).

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.