KMA wrote:

Millemissen wrote:

The 'value for the money' question has always been asked with B&O-tvs.

(Edit)

Perhaps more vigorously now, because the TV part of the B&O-tv is no longer B&O.

I'm going overboard with this example just to make a point:

What if I buy a BeoLab 7.6, mount a Sony A1 on top of it, and slap a B&O logo in the front, is it a BeoVision?

No, it's a Sony TV with a B&O speaker.

 

 

Login to view image

 

+

 

 

Login to view image

 

=

 

Login to view image

 

And hey – they would look pretty good together, even in a bad Photoshop! Plus the picture would be better.

I may have just come up with "BeoLabVision" 😎

The scary (?) part is that the above "DIYvision" could be easily done: buy a 2nd hand BL7.6 with a table stand and 55" Sony A1. Place the A1 (that has a kick-stand) on the speaker and "Hey presto": OLED TV with B&O sound.

I couldn't believe that coming from you!

The BL7-x is a speaker from a way back generation.

Offering this as a valid B&O solution of today would mean neglecting any progress in the audio/speaker technology from the Acoustic Department in Struer.

The work, that Geoff and the other guys there have done in the last years, would be totally for nothing.

The Sound Center of the BS Eclipse is far from (or far ahead of) a somehow connected BL7-x speaker.

MM

I actually don't think we'd be having the same value debate if the Eclipse had even a B&O skinned UI, electronic curtains, dynamic light control, visonclear, etc. I think what has sparked this debate is that there was little done to hide the fact that an LG screen and UI is being used in a B&O branded television. The value debate we'd be having is the one we have had in the past: how much of a premium is justified for a B&O television.

I think we can all justify that we and other customers should pay the B&O premium (I know I did), but for the purposes of the Eclipse, the question is how much is the right premium that should be paid? I think the premium should be less than B&O televisions of times past.

We're all questioning the value proposition because the premium really hasn't changed when the "core" of the television is blatantly not B&O any longer.

CasperI wrote:

I think you can ask yourself that question in many luxury-brand situations. Why is there a market for expensive watches, when you can buy a cheap Seiko that even keeps time better? Buy a Porsche 911 when a lot of cheaper alternatives can get you just as fast from 0-100?

Why is this "not-real-B&O" becoming a problem now? Would people have preferred another Edge LED screen from Samsung, but with in-house video engine, that would still be far behind OLED in picture quality? ... And keeping the bad TV business for B&O.

I get why some are wondering why they can't get both OLED and in-house video processing and I think it comes down to costs. B&Os TV devision needs to be a healthy business or they will simple be forced to shut it down. Easy as that. The Eclipse is the offer on the table, and if there is no takers, this could easily be one of the last B&O TVs. And  ... Contrast screen? Apart from getting a glass front on the TV that might cause dust problems, what benefit would it do to a TV like the Eclipse?

That being said I don't think this forum is close to represent the average B&O costumer. They might know about a brand called LG and of something called "OLED", but they don't care about that stuff. They have no idea about the difference between a LG C7 and B6 ?! They want products that makes there life easier and is simple to use. They don't spend time researching the possibilities of buying a Sony screen with some sort of soundbar and some sort of black-box-surround switch for their speakers - no. And that doesn't make them stupid or anything, they just spend their time differently and doesn't feel the need to dive into tech specs and so on. Does the picture look great? -Yes! Is the sound incredible? -Yes! Will it integrate with all my other current B&O stuff and control my Sony Blu-Ray and AppleTV, so I can stick to one remote simplicity? -Yes! If the design also falls into the customers taste, then it's a deal! They are used to B&O pricing and doesn't compare it to similar products bundled together to create a "close-to-B&O"-package. If all the above boxes are ticked, then it doesn't come as a surprise that the price range matches the previous TV models. 

That just became a lot longer than expected and might be influenced by a lovely glass of wine, but after reading all the negative thoughts I wanted to contribute the discussion 

Well said 👍

MM

Emil Jensen wrote:

Puncher wrote:

Emil Jensen wrote:

BV7 and BV12 was very bad value tv's. The Eclipse is way better in that sense.

Absolutely and utterly disagree!

 

Puncher can you show me how you would defend the pricing of the BV7 and BV12?

It was actually engineered by B&O, not LG and was not sold under pretence.

Emil Jensen wrote:

Puncher wrote:

Emil Jensen wrote:

BV7 and BV12 was very bad value tv's. The Eclipse is way better in that sense.

Absolutely and utterly disagree!

 

Puncher can you show me how you would defend the pricing of the BV7 and BV12?

It was actually engineered by B&O, not LG and was not sold under pretence.

MM,

Fully agree. I guess I may be a minority here but I actually really like the fact that we now have a proper 4K OLED TV option from B&O. I like the design and I am happy it integrates with all my other B&O products. I would have wished that Dolby Atmos had been included in the specs though. As mentioned before I have put my money where my mouth is and bought the 65" version - can't wait.

HC

Puncher wrote:

Emil Jensen wrote:

BV7 and BV12 was very bad value tv's. The Eclipse is way better in that sense.

Absolutely and utterly disagree!

The BV7-55 was 16.000 £ at launch - good or bad value....depends on your point of view, I guess.

MM

What he said ^

Sal wrote:

I actually don't think we'd be having the same value debate if the Eclipse had even a B&O skinned UI, electronic curtains, dynamic light control, visonclear, etc. I think what has sparked this debate is that there was little done to hide the fact that an LG screen and UI is being used in a B&O branded television. The value debate we'd be having is the one we have had in the past: how much of a premium is justified for a B&O television.

I think we can all justify that we and other customers should pay the B&O premium (I know I did), but for the purposes of the Eclipse, the question is how much is the right premium that should be paid? I think the premium should be less than B&O televisions of times past.

We're all questioning the value proposition because the premium really hasn't changed when the "core" of the television is blatantly not B&O any longer.

I completely agree with this Sal.