What Is Sony Now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems to me it's just the 'natural' lifecycle of every major corporation. They expand their tendrils into a myriad of different areas, then slowly get pecked to death by the dozens of smaller competitors they are competing against. As the generations pass, their name brand doesn't mean as much to the new crop of consumers. Then they rapidly lose marketshare and hemmorage money. So, either you spin off into something completely different (that is profitable) or you go belly up.

You look at some of the longer lived corporations that made electronics (IBM, Westinghouse, Tyco) and they are a radically different company than they were just 25 years ago.
 
But Sony actually went away from producing the best in class audio and visuals and concentrated on "good enough" products. But these good enough products are priced way too high, so target consumers don't buy them and people who are willing to buy Sony gear at a high price won't because the quality isn't there anymore. Granted, in the higher end TV segment there is. In others segments not so much.

I'm saying they're being squeezed. On one hand, you have the "lower end' products that Sony can't compete with because of manufacturing costs and the strong Yen. On the other hand, you have a "high end" that is significantly less important than it used to be, such that the "high end" producers cannot realistically expect to be market leaders. Sony is a giant company, not a niche one, so focusing on an increasingly small segment of the market is not ideal for a company generating ~$85b revenue per annum.

This is the structural problem I'm talking about. Sony can't compete downmarket, but the upmarket is getting squeezed for everyone. They either have to figure out how to compete downmarket or accept being a niche company (relative to their status 20 or even 10 years ago) for A/V enthusiasts.
 
Less is more.

They shouldn't release so many products and make it easier for people to understand the differences between each product.

Also, stay a bit premium but lower prices.
 
Seems to me it's just the 'natural' lifecycle of every major corporation. They expand their tendrils into a myriad of different areas, then slowly get pecked to death by the dozens of smaller competitors they are competing against. As the generations pass, their name brand doesn't mean as much to the new crop of consumers. Then they rapidly lose marketshare and hemmorage money. So, either you spin off into something completely different (that is profitable) or you go belly up.

You look at some of the longer lived corporations that made electronics (IBM, Westinghouse, Tyco) and they are a radically different company than they were just 25 years ago.
While agility is a problem in many areas for Sony, the problem is a bit more obvious for their TV's. A strong yen and companies with lower employee/manufacturing costs is making it difficult to compete on price.
 
LG makes shit products.

My new laptop screen was an LG, IPS. What a shit panel. Tried 3 before tossing the thing. Image retention, light leakage, yellow tint, every panel had a different issue, but they all sucked and I'm not that picky. Apple had issues with LG panels as well, but they'll continue to source from that shit pile.

Wouldn't purchase a thing with LG logo attached, you have to fool me before I do. Seems like it's big in Europe however.

Edit: Wouldn't touch most Korean products to be honest, Japanese CES still make the best stuff.
 
But Sony actually went away from producing the best in class audio and visuals and concentrated on "good enough" products. But these good enough products are priced way too high, so target consumers don't buy them and people who are willing to buy Sony gear at a high price won't because the quality isn't there anymore. Granted, in the higher end TV segment there is. In others segments not so much.
The audio/video quality is irrelevant, past a certain baseline. They haven't made a product yet that's "good enough" in the areas that matter. Software and service integration are far more important. Content access is more important.
 
LG makes shit products.

My new laptop screen was an LG, IPS. What a shit panel. Tried 3 before tossing the thing. Image retention, light leakage, yellow tint, every panel had a different issuer, but they all sucked and I'm not that picky. Apple had issues with LG panels as well, but they'll continue to source from that shit pile.

Wouldn't purchase a thing with LG logo attached, you have to fool me before I do. Seems like it's big in Europe however.
Nook has a great screen
Edit: Wouldn't touch most Korean products to be honest, Japanese CES still make the best stuff.
Comes down to the particular model, though on average some of the companies do have some QC questions.

For example, Samsung's top PDP for this year (PN8000) actually bests the Pana VT30 ... though at the cost of suspect QC relative.






The audio/video quality is irrelevant, past a certain baseline. They haven't made a product yet that's "good enough" in the areas that matter. Software and service integration are far more important. Content access is more important.
While true ... for what's being mainly discussed here (TV's), Sony has been having issues since prior to smart TV's.

It really goes back to them initially backing PDP, and then moving over to LCD. They started behind, and have never caught up. When you combine that with a weak yen and higher manufacturing/wage costs ... it's a bit of a debacle.
 
The audio/video quality is irrelevant, past a certain baseline. They haven't made a product yet that's "good enough" in the areas that matter. Software and service integration are far more important. Content access is more important.

It's worth noting again that the things Sony is good at (A/V quality) were important just a decade ago, let alone two or three decades ago. People really did care about the creation of the VHS tape, and about the jump from VHS to DVD, and about the continual jumps in quality TVs had seen for decades.

In other words, the quality of visuals and audio went from "bad" in the 1950s to "okay" in the 1980s to "good enough" by 2000. Once A/V quality became "good enough," people began to look to other qualities -- qualities like price, interface design, and software integration which companies like Samsung, Nintendo and Apple trumped them at in different ways.

This represents a fundamental shift in consumer preferences, and one that I don't think Sony is well suited to. However, I can completely imagine that a new invention could reignite the A/V arms race (perhaps a machine that displays holograms? Who knows?) at which point Sony's strengths would be relevant again.
 
Nook has a great screen


Comes down to the particular model, though on average some of the companies do have some QC questions.

For example, Samsung's top PDP for this year (PN8000) actually bests the Pana VT30 ... though at the cost of suspect QC relative.

Are they only sourcing from LG for the nook? With the iPad 2 issues, pretty sure Apple stopped sourcing their screens from a LG for a bit, and my laptop experience I'll stay away if I can help it, but it's impossible to know what's in a device before you purchase it.
 
Are they only sourcing from LG for the nook? With the iPad 2 issues, pretty sure Apple stopped sourcing their screens from a LG for a bit, and my laptop experience I'll stay away if I can help it, but it's impossible to know what's in a device before you purchase it.
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nook-Tablet-Teardown/7121/2

And it's considered one of the best tablet screens available thus far (though a big part of that is due to it being bonded).
 
I'm saying they're being squeezed. On one hand, you have the "lower end' products that Sony can't compete with because of manufacturing costs and the strong Yen. On the other hand, you have a "high end" that is significantly less important than it used to be, such that the "high end" producers cannot realistically expect to be market leaders. Sony is a giant company, not a niche one, so focusing on an increasingly small segment of the market is not ideal for a company generating ~$85b revenue per annum.

This is the structural problem I'm talking about. Sony can't compete downmarket, but the upmarket is getting squeezed for everyone. They either have to figure out how to compete downmarket or accept being a niche company (relative to their status 20 or even 10 years ago) for A/V enthusiasts.

Apple is cleaning house targeting the high end. Apple took the spot of where Sony used to be.

The only solution is for Sony to buy webOS
pretty please T.T
 
Apple is cleaning house targeting the high end. Apple took the spot of where Sony used to be.

The only solution is for Sony to buy webOS
pretty please T.T

Apple is absolutely not targeting the high end A/V. Very few people think of them as leaders there.

You likely just mean "expensive products," which is true. That's why I've been using "high end" in quotations -- "high end" is defined differently depending on the products or services in question. Apple is the high end of aesthetic design, software implementation and interface; Sony remains at the high end of audio and visual fidelity.

The problem is that the high end of audio and visual fidelity is not that relevant any longer for reasons already stated, while UI design, software implementation etc. are very relevant, so it pays to be "high end" in that arena.
 
That post on the last page about Apple and Jobs connects to the comment I was going to have about Sony. Maybe it's a stupid idea, but I'd love for them (or anyone, but it could especially help them I feel) to follow in those kinds of footsteps, and really look at that idea of product simplification.

I remember when I bought my new TV last year, as tech-savvy of a person as I am it was still a nightmare. You have size, TV type (LCD, Plasma, LED-LCD, but then LED has three different types of backlighting), each screen size has different models from the same company, and they're all called like the Sony Bravia XR7-8910A or whatever. Completely simplify the line: have maybe four sizes (20", 32", 46", 60"), and one model for each size. But that's dumb, because what about options? Let other companies provide eight thousand options per screen size - be the company where, when people want a TV, they can go to a store and pick from a few simple choices that are, instead, things like "Sony Bravia Casual" or "Sony Bravia Home Theater". (Work on the names, but you get the idea.)

Consumer electronics force consumers to do so much research simply to figure out what options and features each random model are. That's what Apple understood about the PC industry, and what Jobs understood about where even Apple had gone in the time that he wasn't there. For the truly hardcore who need exactly four HDMI ports on the back or whatever, they're going to go for some more techie brand, and that's fine. For most consumers, they may walk in thinking that they need this or that, but what they really want is that feeling of confidence that they can just pick something out and it'll work for them.
 
Well at least on CNET, the only category that Sony is on top of are the $3300+ range of television where it is tied in rating with a Samsung. The Samsung is also more that $2000 dollars cheaper. In almost every other category they are not even in the top 7.

CNET is a review site and their opinion matters very little, over at the AVS forums they hold the high-end Bravia line in high regard. Their opinion outweighs CNET's opinion because the guys that are over their are in the business.
 
Apple is cleaning house targeting the high end. Apple took the spot of where Sony used to be.
No. There's a difference. Apple's 'high end' is about form-factor and aesthetics.

Sony, while pretty good at that, was also about actual high-end A/V quality or performance. Apple is very rarely about that..
 
So what was the undoing of Sony in the TV market? It used to be that a Sony was top of the line, albeit overpriced. Now Samsung seems to rule the TV market. Even myself who used to be a Sony guy bought a Samsung D8000 LED instead. When did this fall off happen? I'd like to think that a lot of Samsung's success in the HD market was helped immensely by them having smaller screens available just as the HD scene took off (see: Xbox 360).
 
CNET is a review site and their opinion matters very little, over at the AVS forums (in the Sony Bravia threads) they hold the high-end Bravia line in high regard. Their opinion outweighs CNET's opinion because the guys that are over their are in the business.

*fixed*

Every thread for a particular tv has 'av experts' that hold a model in high regard. Even the friggin' Vizio threads dude.. Yes, Bravia is up there, but you'll find many experts on there that would counter that the Sharps/Samsungs are better.
 
My issue with Sony, aside from gaming is-

Where is the value in the product?

If its a best in class audiophile MP3 player, the Cowon S9 is cheaper, and better-
If its a best in class television, the thing is priced into the realm of absurd-
If its a decent laptop, the bastard is 500 dollars more than the HP next to it-

So to basically sum it up, pricing is their problem not quality. Audio is a toss between Cowon and Sony, T.V's is a toss between Sony and Samsung, Camera's is a toss between Nikon, Canon and Sony, High-end Movie Camera's are a toss between Red Epic and Sony f65, basically Sony is competing at the highest level in different mediums. Their problem is Pricing, Apple might get away with their ridiculous pricing but Sony can't get away from it. Like someone in this thread said Sony was and still is about High-end products, the problem is that we live in an age were most people seems not to care about High-end products.



I'd love to know where you're getting your info. Just like your HX929 comments, you're simply incorrect.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Elite+-...218379547315&skuId=3143456&st=elite&cp=1&lp=1

It's MSRP is $7999, and you can find it streeting for less.

Is it a cheap display? Obviously not, but let's be accurate.

It's still fucking expensive, the Value Electronics HDTV Shootout convinced me that the HX929 is worth the price.
 
Their camera division has launched some great products over the last two years, caught others off guard, and they're actually affordable. Lenses are bit expensive, not enough lenses as well, but NEX and Alpha mirroless line are quality products at affordable prices.

Seems like that side has it's ducks in a row, person in charge should get a promotion.
 
My surround stereo is a Sony. It's quite old but still works perfectly. All but the last TV I've owned has been Sony and they all lasted a long, long time. Even when my last Trinatron died the repair man I called was willing to do a house call because he said the Sony's are easy to fix and it could only be one of a couple small things. (He was right, it was a $60 repair and it lasted another two years.)

Sony could have easily become more respectable brand like Bang & Olufson, making high-tier products for those willing to pay. Instead they tried to keep the middle and was out-produced as a result. You can see it with the PS3 and how they tried to push their high-tier vision but have it compete with the middle-class Microsoft way of doing things. It hasn't really worked out.

Really they're technological purists and that's why I will always love their products, but they don't market themselves as such. They want to be all things to all people and it's made their company bloated and aimless. I hope they can turn it around.
 
So to basically sum it up, pricing is their problem not quality. Audio is a toss between Cowon and Sony, T.V's is a toss between Sony and Samsung, Camera's is a toss between Nikon, Canon and Sony, High-end Movie Camera's are a toss between Red Epic and Sony f65, basically Sony is competing at the highest level in different mediums. Their problem is Pricing, Apple might get away with their ridiculous pricing but Sony can't get away from it. Like someone in this thread said Sony was and still is about High-end products, the problem is that we live in an age were most people seems not to care about High-end products.





It's still fucking expensive, the Value Electronics HDTV Shootout convinced me that the HX929 is worth the price.
Why can't Sony 'get away with it'?
 
Why can't Sony 'get away with it'?

Because unlike the 90's Sony are no longer the new thing in town, the new thing in town is Apple and they are the king currently therefore they have the ability to overprice their products. In order to stay competitive against Apple many companies do not price their Tablets and Smartphone's at the same price Apple does, the Transformer is much on par with the Ipad 2 but it cost's what $400 less?.
 
CNET is a review site and their opinion matters very little, over at the AVS forums they hold the high-end Bravia line in high regard. Their opinion outweighs CNET's opinion because the guys that are over their are in the business.
I disagree. The issue with CNET is how they weigh things. Different IQ metrics are weighed differently depending on the person. Moreover, they also consider features as well as cost/value as part of the overall score (though they have separate IQ-only rankings).

If you understand how to read the reviews, CNET's are actually very informative. While they do not do a service menu calibration (intentionally, since most users won't) ... they fully calibrate the units under test with pro equipment and report all the results.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57316314/Samsung-PN59D8000-CNET-review-calibration-results


This is on top of the other tests such as resolution, scaling, de-interlacing, power consumption, etc.

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-...4505-6482_7-34468622-2.html?tag=mncol;rvwBody



So if anything, they provide more objective data points the most of the dedicated HT magazine and web reviews. Also, they provide all of the settings. While you always need to calibrate a particular unit due to variances, it provides a very good starting point since they are doing a dark-room calibration with pro equipment to industry standards (6500K, etc).

Where AVSforum and the like come in:
  • Detailed information on what a TV can do with a full service level calibration
  • Issues and bugs that are not immediately obvious in a review like CNET's
  • Long-term quality or changes (occasionally CNET does this - they've done long-term black level change tracking on some Plasmas, but obviously they can't do this for all sets).


In summation one should use both resources. However, CNET provides VERY good information if you know how to interpret it for your particular needs.
 
It's still fucking expensive
Well yeah, if you want the best - it's gonna cost you. The Kuro's MSRP and initial street prices were fucking expensive too. People have a false impression of pricing due to the close-out deals when the line was killed off.


the Value Electronics HDTV Shootout convinced me that the HX929 is worth the price.
I'm not really sure how, given that the Samsung PN8000 and Pana VT30 measured objectively better in practically all important metrics, and were universally ranked higher in overall IQ. So unless a PDP in general is an issue for you - I can't see many recommending the 929 over them.
 
Why can't Sony 'get away with it'?
Apple is offering some very specific things. They have their own OS, an ecosystem that's nearing ubiquity (even if iTunes isn't inherently tied to it), and style that has basically zero peers. We're only now seeing some products that have a chance of competing in terms of aesthetics (ASUS ultrabooks, etc). Not to mention the company itself is simply considered hip and 'in'.

Sony basically has none of those advantages, or at least they aren't to that level.






Testing new avatar.
lol
 
Sony's biggest problem is that they still have the mentality of a company fighting in the analogue world when the whole world has gone digital. What I mean is that they are still first and foremost a hardware company, and when they want to they can create really amazing hardware. But their software and services side of things is completely broken. Apple has been very successful in marrying hardware, software and services into a coherent experience. Sony is completely useless at this even though they have many of the components necessary to pull off Apple-like products.

It's a real shame, but the world is leaving Sony behind. They can't compete with cutthroat competitors like Samsung and LG and they can't compete with companies that rule the high end (Apple), they're kind of caught in between that that's a terrible place to be.
 
So basically:

Organizational challenges: Still a lot of departments working at cross purposes though apparently Stringer has been fixing this and Kaz Hirai is on board with continuing that process.

Diminishing returns on traditional area of expertise: Audio/Video excellence isn't as important as it used to be as their competitors are cheaper and have 'good enough' audio and video for the mainstream consumer.

No longer living up to their own brand: For decades Sony was the absolute top of their field in consumer hardware. No one else was even close. This isn't true anymore. They're now just one of many

Weakness in the technical areas that are now important: Software and software as a service are critical components of new products and this is not a Sony strength. They may be getting better (see: PSN) but they are far far behind the leaders.

Diminished Brand: See all of the above.
 
They are just way too big and bloated.
securities filing said:
As of September 30, 2011, the Company had 1,308 subsidiaries and 96 affiliated companies,


And if you haven't read it, this is their plan to bring the TV unit back to profitability. I think it's a good plan, the problem is that they should have had an integrated PSN 3 years ago. I hope it works, nice to have companies that can make money while also developing the bleeding edge high tech products.
First, Sony is implementing measures to reduce LCD panel costs.

Second, Sony plans to enhance product competitiveness and reform operations to improve marginal profit ratio. For this purpose, Sony plans to focus on improving model mix in developed countries, while aiming to expand Sony’s business in developing nations at a greater than market growth rate through enhancing models designed specifically for the needs of those regions, which we expect will result in further profitability improvement. In the area of supply chain management, new systems are being introduced with the aim of further reducing inventory turnover. Further, Sony aims to deploy unique technology such as super-resolution high image quality engines and accelerate the development of a next generation TV. Additionally, Sony plans to increase added value of TV by providing consumers with an integrated user experience across multiple devices and network services.

Third, Sony plans to implement a reduction of selling, general and administrative expenses at sales companies, improve R&D efficiency and reduce indirect costs. Through these measures, Sony is endeavoring to return the television business to profitability in the near term.
 
This represents a fundamental shift in consumer preferences, and one that I don't think Sony is well suited to. However, I can completely imagine that a new invention could reignite the A/V arms race (perhaps a machine that displays holograms? Who knows?) at which point Sony's strengths would be relevant again.
It's unlikely, but right now the closest we are to a new A/V race is the head-mounted display market.

This brings me to one of the most confusing products Sony has ever released. At $799 in extremely limited quantities the HMZ-T1 is obviously not a mass-market device. I don't understand why Sony cut corners to get to the $799 price point. Technophiles are typically quite willing to spend a little more for a premium product. Sony should have included a better audio solution (something they are very good at) and generally improved the build quality even if it increased the price to $999 and beyond. This product lacks focus. It's mass-market quality at technophile pricing and availability.
 
This site is the perfect example why Sony has lost its way over the years:

http://www.computerworlduk.com/in-depth/operating-systems/3246945/sonys-10-greatest-tech-flops/

Top ten Sony tech flops

Sony Aibo

Sony's cute Aibo robot dogs, created by its Digital Creatures Laboratory and introduced in 1999, could move in a somewhat stilted fashion as far as their batteries would allow. They could express happiness, sadness, anger, surprise, fear, and dislike and deep-pocketed consumers snapped them up despite a sadness-, anger-, surprise-, fear-, and dislike-inducing $2500 price tag. Aibo pooches continue to be loved by their owners today, but the price barrier prevented these robopets from going mainstream and conquering the world. Sony ended the project following a recent corporate restructuring.

Vaio MusicClip

Sony created the portable audio market in 1979 when it launched the Walkman brand. Then Sony beat Apple to market in digital music by two years--but its first products bombed. The company's biggest misstep was its reliance on ATRAC, a proprietary file format used with Sony's MiniDisc. After 2000, digital music was all about file-sharing, and it was all MP3. Couple that mismatch with confusion within Sony, its VAIO PC division brought out products (including the MusicClip) that competed with Walkman digital players and Sony set itself up for a stumble.

Sony e-Villa

In 2001, many companies were betting on Internet appliances--dedicated terminals for accessing the Internet and browsing the Web. Sony's eVilla was just such a product. With a built-in 15-inch CRT monitor and a 56-kbps dial-up modem, it was designed to provide access to e-mail and to the Web. But it launched just as many competitors were giving up on the market and as many consumers were deciding to buy new PCs for Windows XP. Less than three months after the product went on sale, Sony pulled the eVilla.

Airboard

Ten years before people began gushing about watching TV on the iPad, there was Sony's Airboard. The tablet device had a 10-inch screen and connected via Wi-Fi to a base station that included an Internet connection and TV tuner. Users also enjoyed access to the Web and to e-mail. They could even multitask, thanks to a picture-in-picture TV function. But the Airboard never achieved mass penetration, and many people mistakenly considered it nothing more than an expensive portable TV. The Airboard never launched in the United States.

Qualia

In 2003, battered by fierce competition, Sony sought to reinvigorate its brand with Qualia - a line of expensive products that emphasized Sony's engineering prowess. Among the featured products were the tiny Qualia 016 digital camera ($3220), the Qualia 004 high-definition projector ($20,000), a Super Audio CD player, and a Trinitron monitor. To buy one of these items, you had to make an appointment at a Qualia showrooms or have a "Qualia concierge" visit you. But the concierge mostly stood around waiting for calls that never came, and Sony quietly killed the line in 2005.

Sony PSX

In 2003, Sony's PSX jammed a PlayStation 2 and a digital video recorder into a single box. You could play PS2 games and record TV shows onto hard disk or DVD, but this only-in-Japan device was heavy, much bigger than a PlayStation 2, and far more expensive than the PS2 game console. Compared to digital video recorders of the time, its price was attractive, but that selling point wasn't enough to attract consumers.

Mylo

In 2006, one of the hottest mobile phones was T-Mobile's Sidekick, which offered a full keyboard for text messaging, could access e-mail, linked to AOL and MSN instant messaging, and included a digital camera. The Sony Mylo attempted to do the same things. Though the Mylo worked only on Wi-Fi, it included Skype software plus a Web browser and a messaging client. Unfortunately, the lack of a cellular connection hobbled the device just as it has the iPod Touch. A second-general Mylo launched in 2008; but it, too, failed to catch on.

Rolly

One of the quirkiest devices ever to emerge from Sony, the Rolly "audio entertainment player" rocked and rolled to your music. Two motorized rings around its egg-shaped body enabled it to spin in time to a song played from two speakers mounted at either end of its body. Users could program their own routines and share them online, too. The Rolly always drew a crowd, but few people bought it. Sony released an updated version a year after its 2007 launch, but the Rolly didn't live to see a third edition.

PSPgo

Launched with much fanfare at the E3 gaming expo in 2009, the PSPgo was supposed to be a major refresh for the PlayStation Portable. It did away with the UMD (Universal Media Disc) format used in previous PSPs in favor of a sleeker look, but that meant gamers couldn't play titles they already owned. And because it was more expensive than previous PSP models, many gamers saw no compelling reason to upgrade. A recent price cut may stimulate demand, but at this point the PSPgo rates as one of Sony's few gaming flops.

OLED TV

Not every product that fails does so because consumers aren't interested in it. Consider Sony's XEL-1, the world's first OLED TV. When it arrived in late 2007, it wowed everyone. The OLED screen produced images with deeper, brighter colors than LCD panels could generate, and it allowed Sony to make the 11-inch TV superthin. Most people who saw it wanted one--until they noticed the $2000 price tag. To date, no manufacturer has succeeded in delivering larger OLED TVs. Sony pulled its version off the market earlier this year.
 
If Sony smart enough the embrace and reskin the Android ecosystem it still have a chance to make attractive hardware. What they need to do is build a "Playstation" skin on top of Android for ALL their phones, music players and ebook/tablets.

Sony actually has access to the contents to make this work. Currently what Sony is doing the the PS Suite stuff is a good start.
 
This site is the perfect example why Sony has lost its way over the years:

http://www.computerworlduk.com/in-depth/operating-systems/3246945/sonys-10-greatest-tech-flops/

God damned them for trying!!!

OLED? It will come. Mark my words and paste it in a Word document for safe keeping.

On a more serious note: Sony needs a new CEO. Someone that understands software and integration. Sony has so many assets, yet they don't use them (wisely). Use them or sell them!
 
This site is the perfect example why Sony has lost its way over the years:

http://www.computerworlduk.com/in-depth/operating-systems/3246945/sonys-10-greatest-tech-flops/
For stuff like Qualia and their OLED ... it's stupid to put them on the list. The products were meant as cost-no-object pieces used to offset R&D. The tech they employed was intended to trickle down into lower-tier products, and in most cases it did (and OLED still may).

PSPgo was really a tester for DD. They got the info they needed from it.

PSX can also argued to be a tester for a higher-end set-top that combined gaming and A/V. It too was more informational than anything (some of PS3's choices and accessories were derived from it)
 
If Sony smart enough the embrace and reskin the Android ecosystem it still have a chance to make attractive hardware. What they need to do is build a "Playstation" skin on top of Android for ALL their phones, music players and ebook/tablets.

Sony actually has access to the contents to make this work. Currently what Sony is doing the the PS Suite stuff is a good start.

Ugh. Android is such a fractured mess. I'd want something more elegant.
 
It's worth noting again that the things Sony is good at (A/V quality) were important just a decade ago, let alone two or three decades ago. People really did care about the creation of the VHS tape, and about the jump from VHS to DVD, and about the continual jumps in quality TVs had seen for decades.

Foreword: I agree with absolutely everything else you said and the thrust of your argument.

But unless I'm mistaken, the part I bolded seems a bit odd to me. Sony came up with the Betamax, which was the preferred format for years for professionals but failed to gain mass market appeal, whereas the "crappier" VHS (i.e. its image quality was inferior) went on to become the standard.

If you're only arguing that there was significant room for visible improvement in the field of image quality at that time, I absolutely, 100% agree with you. But while there is a general "good enough" point in time that seems to emerge with a historical perspective, it also seems to me that there is a multitude of "good enough" levels at any given point in time, and that A/V quality was but one factor among many others. In other words, while VHS wouldn't obviously be "good enough" forever (see the advent of the DVD), people obviously never really cared all that much about high-end A/V quality since formats like the VHS managed to win against the Betamax.

To repeat: I still agree with you that the ceiling of noticeable improvements in A/V quality was far away back then, but today? Even Blu-Ray is kind of overshooting people's need for A/V quality if you ask me.

More on-topic: I haven't read any recent statements from Howard Stringer, but if his admitted mission of betting everything on 3D still holds, I think that goal is going to be detrimental to Sony's relevance. But as you said, Sony's problem is one of structure: they can't just drop everything they're doing and radically change their focus. Well, I'm sure they could somehow, but it's a herculean task for a huge, entrenched company like Sony. Damned if you don't, practically damned if you do...
 
^The "good enough" threshold is always relative to price and content. VHS had all the movies people wanted to see, and IIRC, it was cheaper than Betamax. The same thing happened with Apple and Windows in the 90's. Apple computers being integrated tended to be more reliable. But people were willing to put up with Windows crashes because of the volume of important software (content).

That post on the last page about Apple and Jobs connects to the comment I was going to have about Sony. Maybe it's a stupid idea, but I'd love for them (or anyone, but it could especially help them I feel) to follow in those kinds of footsteps, and really look at that idea of product simplification.

I remember when I bought my new TV last year, as tech-savvy of a person as I am it was still a nightmare. You have size, TV type (LCD, Plasma, LED-LCD, but then LED has three different types of backlighting), each screen size has different models from the same company, and they're all called like the Sony Bravia XR7-8910A or whatever. Completely simplify the line: have maybe four sizes (20", 32", 46", 60"), and one model for each size. But that's dumb, because what about options? Let other companies provide eight thousand options per screen size - be the company where, when people want a TV, they can go to a store and pick from a few simple choices that are, instead, things like "Sony Bravia Casual" or "Sony Bravia Home Theater". (Work on the names, but you get the idea.)

Consumer electronics force consumers to do so much research simply to figure out what options and features each random model are. That's what Apple understood about the PC industry, and what Jobs understood about where even Apple had gone in the time that he wasn't there. For the truly hardcore who need exactly four HDMI ports on the back or whatever, they're going to go for some more techie brand, and that's fine. For most consumers, they may walk in thinking that they need this or that, but what they really want is that feeling of confidence that they can just pick something out and it'll work for them.

This is a really good post.

My assessment of Sony, aside from what was said above, is that they're a company of brilliant engineers who produce amazing technology that is of use to precisely no one. 3D goggles that you can strap to your head and use to watch video is an amazing idea. The technology is stunning. But no one will buy that thing. No one needs to. People like watching television with their friends and family. They don't want to be locked away in some virtual dream world - that's just not a job customers are trying to get done. Their engineers need to put their egos aside and do what their founder, Akio Morita, was so good at doing; observing customers, figuring out things they were trying to get done in their lives, and then using Sony tech to create products that perform that job. The ultimate example of that was right in the article:

Those engineers doubted Morita when he insisted that they build a portable music player. “Morita was immovable,” writes John Nathan in Sony: The Private Life. “He had watched teenagers on vacation in Japan and the United States lug their radios with them to the beach or into the mountains. How could they resist the opportunity to immerse themselves in their music while they played, exercised, or simply walked down the street?” In 1979, the Sony Walkman was born.

Morita knew how to make the engineers subservient to the customer's needs. Sony needs more of that.
 
For stuff like Qualia and their OLED ... it's stupid to put them on the list. The products were meant as cost-no-object pieces used to offset R&D. The tech they employed was intended to trickle down into lower-tier products, and in most cases it did (and OLED still may).

PSPgo was really a tester for DD. They got the info they needed from it.

PSX can also argued to be a tester for a higher-end set-top that combined gaming and A/V. It too was more informational than anything (some of PS3's choices and accessories were derived from it)

Seems like a great list to me and you do a good job of explaining why. They have all these departments spending boatloads of money developing products that don't have any viable commercial use or they don't know how to market it as a commercial device. A better run company would have R&D streamlined in a way that all these "testing" devices could be developed in a single unified program that doesn't need to create a brand new product every time they want to R&D a new idea.

They need to stop focusing on the tech and start focusing on the products.
 
^The "good enough" threshold is always relative to price and content. VHS had all the movies people wanted to see, and IIRC, it was cheaper than Betamax. The same thing happened with Apple and Windows in the 90's. Apple computers being integrated tended to be more reliable. But people were willing to put up with Windows crashes because of the volume of important software (content).

Was it always true? Don't get me wrong: if you're right about there being more content on VHS from the get-go, I agree with you. But what about the early days of VHS and Betamax? IIRC the thing is that VHS could hold more stuff, meaning that it was able to hold 90 minutes movies sooner than Betamax, which might have in turn allowed for content (i.e. movies) to go VHS earlier, allowing VHS to win the content war in the end.


Morita knew how to make the engineers subservient to the customer's needs. Sony needs more of that.

Is there anyone like Morita left at Sony?
 
Sony needs to focus. It is important to say no as it is to say yes. How many different Sony Vaio models are there? How many TVs are they making? Just this year alone 10 different Xperia smartphones were released.

When Steve Jobs came back to Apple in late 1996, Apple made digicams, portable CD players, the Newton PDA, printers, the Pippin game console and over 10 different Macs. All of those got the axe and Apple focused on 4 products: iMac, iBook, PowerMac and PowerBook. And eventually expanded when they had the right product. This is what Sony needs to do. A lot of products will need to be axed, jobs will be lost and factories will need to be shuttered but that's the only way to get Sony healthy again.

I can make no suggestions since I stopped being a Sony fan 10 years ago. And other than the Playstation brand, I own nothing from Sony anymore and have no idea what they offer because their lineup is confusing. Just check the Vaio lineup then compare it with what Apple offers and how much simpler it is to buy something from Apple.
 
I know it's only anecdotal, but my personal experience with Sony product quality has been awful the last decade. Their customer service though has been outstanding.

Some Sony products I've bought in the last 10 years:

2003 - bought a very expensive camcorder. I don't remember the model number but we paid over $1000 for it, $1200 if you count accessories. 4 years later it was an expensive paperweight. I called Sony to see how much it would be to fix and my particular issue was an engineering problem, they claimed, and fixed it for free and picked up shipping costs.

2004 - my PS2 system got the massive DRE bug. It was out of warranty and I didn't bother replacing it or getting it fixed.

2010 - my dad had a wega LCD 40" that he bought in 2005. 5 years later when we changed the bulb for the first time, the screen developed massive blue splotches. After researching the issue online, this was also an engineering problem. I called Sony for him, but didn't really expect them to do anything since the TV was 5 years old. He was pretty upset because he paid $1600 for the TV new and felt he should have gotten more than 5 years out of it. Sony replaced the TV with a brand new 40" Bravia 2010 model for free and picked up the shipping. I was very surprised and happy for him. They also offered him a massive discount if he wanted a larger size.

That said, I have had some good luck with some Sony products as well. I've got a 9 year old 27" wega CRT that is a tank and it can't be killed. My 40GB PS3 from 2007 has also been solid so far.
 
sony doesnt know who sony is either

they've gotten bloated and diluted in product offerings while everyone else has eaten or taken up their shares.

they might need a bailout lol
 
sony doesnt know who sony is either

they've gotten bloated and diluted in product offerings while everyone else has eaten or taken up their shares.

they might need a bailout lol

I feel like a merger or take-over would better. Put someone else in charge with 'brute force' so to speak and restructure, rebrand, reinvent the company without the old coots holding back progress.
 
Sony has failed for the very same reason any electronics manufacturer has in the recent decade - they just don't have had a culture of software and services to build an ecosystem.

It's doubly sad because they have all the content for the ecosystem, and in their game developers they'd even have the coders to craft their ecosystem, if they only were able to do a company wide platform strategy including OS, chipset etc.

The reason they have not fallen sharper is that the CE companies are all equally shit. User interfaces and platform strategies for TVs, home audio, video cameras and other CE gear are at least a decade behind those of mobile phones and tablets.

What will happen is that it will take a company like Apple to disrupt the CE business before it will change.
 
Samsung's greatest accomplishment is throwing the television market into turmoil with the false category, LED TV. This year, they've abandoned any attempt at innovation on that front, completely shuttering their local dimming efforts. With the possible exception of their phones, and it would only be by a bare margin, Samsung does not lead the development of any kind of CE device.

Apple outmaneuvered Sony in content delivery; they haven't supplanted them as they don't share the same interest in pushing the AV frontier.

A meek budget monstrosity and a different kind of company altogether are painfully inadequate replacements for Sony.

Sony's competitors don't create cutting edge halo products like the MDR-R10 or the Qualia. Even if that direction is no longer tenable, Sony still makes class leading televisions and cameras and I believe they have a decent chunk of the professional market even in the dismal state that they're in. Last year, I think Sony was still the most valued brand in Asia. It'd be a shame if cheap imitators and the shriveling of the high end gives Sony a death sentence. The buyout of the Ericsson share, Vita design philosophy, and SEN restructuring, among other things, suggests they are on the right track. I hope they have enough time to get where they need to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom