Slashdot Mirror
The Coming Tech Battle Over 'Smart TVs'
An anonymous reader writes "One persistent theme from this year's CES is that television manufacturers are racing to establish the concept of 'Smart TVs,' sets that integrate modern browsing features, control through voice or motion, application support, and even upgradability. This article suggests the living room will be the location of the newest tech war. Quoting: 'To compete, the companies will have to offer carefully curated, high-quality applications and be open to supporting mobile devices such as tablets. Other media companies have already started: Comcast, for example, announced that it's going to allow OnDemand streaming not only to Samsung Smart TV's but also to the iPad. The TV makers are hoping that the multitude of additional features will be enough to trigger turnover like the industry saw after the introduction of flat-panel screens, Bloomberg noted. It's a big market, if the television makers can figure out how to crack it.'"
Hello commercials that start with the announcer screaming "Volume up! Volume up! Volume up!"
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I have been hearing this for over 30 years. Will they get powered by cold fusion?
I want to be able to attach smart stuff to the TV...smart stuff I choose.
When the smart stuff dies or is obsoleted, I can get new smart stuff and keep the old TV.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Where's the content? I would rather watch a good show in black and white that watch the current drivel in 3D surround sound motion enhanced smell augmented life like blah blah blah.
Finally, the year of linux on the TV is here !
My current TV works fine. I have no interest in spending large quantities of money on a TV that does the same thing only with a bunch of extra crap tacked on.
Now if you get me a TV that eliminates the need for a separate box from my IPTV provider, then we'll talk.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
" To compete, the companies will have to offer carefully curated, high-quality applications and be open to supporting mobile devices such as tablets."
Surely they mean "To compete, the companies will have to own, license or aquire vast numbers of vague patents and be open to locking users in to their product by pushing sub-par standards and deliberately crippling their products".
No good will come of 'smart tvs', but only because nothing good can come out of the consumer technology industry anymore.
I have one of them 'smart tvs' next room, one 32 inch lg 3d tv. as smart as it goes - can connect to internet, watch youtube vids directly, connect to this service and that, and let me tell you :
.... so then why shouldnt i buy/build a small media box and connect my tv to it instead ?
it is a bitch to use it with the remote. the moment you need to type something, you're in deep shit. guess what it needs ? right - a keyboard.
and the moment it gets a keyboard it would become a rather oversized monitored dumb terminal pc that i cannot tinker with
all these said, its rather convenient.
Read radical news here
As soon as people will start playing with TV firmwares, just like they did with smartphones and routers, we'll get better TVs.
Which in turn is not what manufacturers and broadcasters want.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
the winner will be the one that allows us to cancel cable and pay for content a la netflix. set up a few tiers for content where you pay more depending on the show. kind of like spotify but with price tiers depending on the show.
i'm paying $150 a month for cable/internet/phone and i want to cut it by half and still have a good choice of content to watch. i don't care about sports so leave that to the people who are willing to pay for it
Hooking up smart devices like HTPCs, game consoles, cable/fiber boxes and such I can understand. Maybe a really small appliance box to hang off the back of the TV too. But I can't for the life of me understand why tying this to the TV is wise. If it breaks, your ungodly expensive smart TV must go away for repairs. You can't upgrade to better "smarts" or a bigger TV or a projector without paying all over again. You can't use it on any other TV, you can't take it to a friend. I'd much rather take a cheap dumb TV and get the smarts some other way.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I have been hearing this for over 30 years. Will they get powered by cold fusion?
It's just a computer with a tv card attached to an HDTV.
I have an HDTV as a second monitor, without the cable connection, and therefore, minus commercials. Why anyone would buy a computer geared towards watching commercials is anyone's guess. Maybe they will be giving them away?
The entire point of Microsoft pushing into the video games space with the original Xbox was their stated goal: they wanted to take over your living room. That philosophy transformed the next version of the console into something approaching a multimedia center. I shudder to think of the next iteration.
... it's called the internet.
No really, it's going to get literally ugly. There will be a few TV manufacturers that will get onboard with good design for the interface, and take the time and money to study the most effective ways to present on and control smart TV's. And then there will be the other 99% of manufacturers that will slap on glossy, shiney, gaudy interfaces that are barely usable. Couple that with the inevitable "format wars" that will start - each manufacturer will insist on their own proprietary platform for apps and set up their own licensing deals with content suppliers (except the cheap ones, they'll just license the cheapest platform they can get from one of the big players and execute it poorly). They will all also try to mimic that "App store" model, creating dozens of "walled gardens", each just being a cheap knock off of Apple and Android. And, each of them will be rather understocked due to proprietary platforms and a lack of app developers willing to deal with the headache of porting apps to 3 dozen different setups. In time, there will be a few that will rise to the top and push the others out of the way, but the next few years is gonna be the wild wild west. And it's gonna be ugly.
Why do manufacturers have to bundle shit? I want a product that does 1 thing well not a product that does several and does them half assed.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I turned up the Brightness on my TV, but it didn't do what I hoped.
At what point did we accept that companies have to sanction their software to run on each and every different device?
Comcast, for example, announced that it's going to allow OnDemand streaming not only to Samsung Smart TV's but also to the iPad.
Imagine if you read the following statement:
Microsoft, for example, announced that it's going to allow Microsoft Office to run not only on Toshiba Laptops but also on the Sony Vaio
Or perhaps
Google, for example, announced that it's going to allow Google Search to run not only on Chrome, but also on Internet Explorer
Or perhaps closer:
AT&T, for example, announced that it's going to allow voice conversations to run not only on Panasonic phones, but also the Uniden DECT phone.
Those would be preposterous. Yet because media companies are basically monopolies, they decide who can use what services on what devices. And we accept this. We cheer when they allow yet another device to connect to their services. We need to break up these media conglomerates, disconnect the phone monopolies from the handset manufacturers, and get the DOJ and the FAA to stop allowing mergers like Comcast - NBC that just make the problem worse.
TVs "just worked"?
You turned them on, flipped tot he station you wanted, and away you went.
I can't imagine a "smart" TV now. Gotta update the thing like an xbox360 before you can watch it? TVs that crash and require rebooting?
Where's the advance here?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
To each their own, but I treat TVs like refridgerators, only buying when the old one breaks.
Its no surprise that I still run a standard def CRT.
Gone!
All those concerns aside, the market voted on this when the iMac came out (well, the idea had been around earlier, in the form of all "portable" PCs). The votes added up to Yes.
So you've gotta remember: you're listing reasons to not buy one of these things, but none of them are reasons to not make or sell these things, because It Is Known that millions of people are going to ignore the reasons to not buy.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Media center PC?
Palm trees and 8
Mostly people purchase an overpriced over featured receiver to switch between their devices. This is dumb. With the number of ports and the onscreen menus and such available on modern bigscreens, the TV should be the center of the system. All devices should go into the TV and one lead should go to the amplifier.
The amplifier should be dumb. Maybe just a power supply built into the subwhoofer, and all control should be turned over to the TV. Why have multiple control points / multiple remotes? The control should be with the TV since it is the most versatile at providing controls and displays.
Some TVs already have fiber optic sound output and it seems it should already work, but there are problems reported that the TVs dont report the correct amplifier capabilities on the HDMI connections.
Most people keep their TVs for years and won't even consider upgrading unless: The TV is broken; A major upgrade (I mean from a CRT to an LCD). Nobody is going to fork out insane amounts of money because their TV can run an app or browse the internet; this is what computers and smartphones are for.
It'll be a battle between their stupid fragmented platforms and my common sense. I don't want a smart TV that won't be smart in two or three years because they don't want to update software on my model. I want a dumb TV that I can connect all my smart things to. The problem is, HDTV manufacturers don't want to return to the dark ages when people would keep their TVs for years. The boom from the DTV transition and LCD revolution has left them sitting on quite a nice stack of profits, but as the LCD trickles down to the bedrooms and second hand markets, they are realizing how quickly their market will mature. Now that they are finished inventing useless technical advances (more Hz!) they've set their sights on selling you widgets that post everything you watch to Facebook. Better be careful flipping through the porn channels.
As I in a previous comment (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2612736&cid=38652618), the reason why its in the TV is so you don't have to connect a bunch of those boxes. In their current configuration I am not sure that Google TV and the like are ready for the living room but they are definitely ready for other places. Right now there is so much duplication in features in so many of the boxes that hang off a modern HDTV...Why not put them in the TV?
This reminds me very much of the WebTV debacle in the 1990s. Same basic idea, but with fewer bells-and-whistles. I don't see how this will offer much/anything that isn't currently available via the Internet, or via a standard TV with an XBox or similar plugged-in and connected to the network.
Yes, this new iteration seems to favor the integration of tablets, smartphones, etc., but if you have a(n expensive) TV in your living room, why on earth would you watch your shows on a tablet or phone?! I see this as being not "the next tech war," so much as "the next tech war that failed."
Maybe I'm too old-fashioned or something, but this seems really silly to me, until the media companies start taking a more "Internet" (read: commercial-free, choose-your-own-content, etc.) approach to television. Of course, I haven't turned my TV on to watch a show in about 3+ years...because I can get them all online with less garbage interlaced therein.
Both integrated VCR's and DVD's have been tried, with limited success. Oh, they sell. And I predict that smart TV's will go the same direction: a few integrated, most as separate boxes.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I would say that 3D TVs have a better chance of being successful.
If someone wants to browse the Internet and use apps in their living room, a tablet will provide a much better form factor. If they really need the functionality in their TV, a video game console will provide a better experience and already has a mature ecosystem.
I turned up the Brightness on my TV, but it didn't do what I hoped.
I've been thinking, for some time, that it was broken too. But now I'm wondering if it was installed years ago for a future upgrade that they never got around to. Perhaps these new "smart" TV's will get an intelligence setting. I mean besides the one labeled "Off".
My new Samsung can record to a USB stick/disk, so it is already out there. All except their entry level TVs already has it. If you want to use it, add a $10 USB memory stick. So yes, I have it.
Of course I can plug in a USB stick with ripped movies, picture or music on it, so the DVD player replacement is already installed. Did I forget to mention that it will access the media content over the network as well...?
All these companies are complete idiots because its not a war between themselves, but a war against Cable companies.
The problem is that cable companies are holding on to their monopolies with a white knuckled, kung-fu death grip. Any time a disruptive technology comes along that might usurp cable in the living room, the Big Telco lobbyists fire up and make life difficult for government agencies so that those agencies impose laws that almost always rule in favor of Big Telco and limit the abilities of competitive "Smart" TV services.
Cable companies want to charge you $80+ for cable, another $15 for the box to access that cable, in addition to charging you $40+ a month for a "separate" internet service, so they get $135+ per month out of you, every month, and they want this for life. These companies also own the internet infrastructure and ensure that any disruptive services are throttled or blocked to prevent competition. I know damn well that Roger's in Canada throttles Netflix, I can download web content at max speed but I can't watch more then 5 minutes of Netflix without it pausing and buffering.
Big Telco is uninterested in merging Cable and Internet and allowing competitive IPTV services to encroach against traditional Cable TV services. Sure Netflix is already out there and Boxee and various TVs have IPTV "apps", but overall you generally cannot access high quality (visual and audio) television except through Cable services. Netflix "HD" is not the same as Cable HD, Boxee streaming web broadcasts is nowhere near Cable HD quality. The only exception is iTunes which charges you per episode a price that would greatly exceed cable subscription rates for the equivalent amount of viewed content. Apple conveniently allowed a pricing structure that would not compete with Cable services.
The first person to win in the "Smart TV" war is the one that allows me to stream HIGH QUALITY content over the internet without a separate cable services charge. The problem is that while Google and Apple and Microsoft and all the others try to win that war as individuals, the morons are not realize that they need to band together to break the stranglehold that Big Telco has in the living room.
Once the monopoly for the living room content distribution is broken, then the companies can compete to offer the best form of Smart TV possible. But until then most of these Smart TV services are stillborn because the content available on them is a small sub-set of what is available on Cable, and that is how Big Telco wants it.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
"The TV makers are hoping that the multitude of additional features will be enough to trigger turnover like the industry saw after the introduction of flat-panel screens"
Just...no...
reducing the bulk and weight of TVs, while still increasing screen sizes, was huge, HDTV becoming mainstream around the same time helped even more. The only thing that will generate that much turnover again is when we have extremely thin/light screens with UHDTV at similar and greater screen sizes.
This is just making your TV try to be a terrible version of your PC. Traditional TVs still have their own role (even if a bit less ubiquitous and a bit more diminished) in an era of PCs, tablets, high speed internet, wifi, etc. "Smart TVs" sound like they're going to try to cross some lines that they really can't even begin to compete across. I'll withhold judgment about whether this is dumber than glasses-required 3D TVs though.
Stupid TV! BE MORE FUNNY!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
A large 1080p TV with multitouch +1. Having my behavior monitored by [insert corporation here] -10.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
The original value proposition was you got free content in exchange for screening commercial messages in your home. Pretty much the same as Gmail, really. It can be a very successful business model when imaginatively applied - for example, you can get soap companies to pay for women's theatre or get a local grocer to pay for music broadcasts.
But eventually the middlemen got greedy and started charging for providing high quality signal to the home... thus the birth of Comcast and other cable companies. You pay a minimum of three times, now - first for provider installation (one time charge), then for signal (monthly), then for content (by viewing commercials). In some cases, four times, because you also rent an access box. In some cases, five times, because your commercial-laden channel has additional access charges (hello, HBO!) or because you like PBS so you voluntarily pay them.
The Internet (and wide availability of free or low-cost wireless Internet access) may be pushing media back to its roots - where the middlemen sell eyeballs to advertisers, and content creators are motivated by a desire to make art more than by a desire for riches, and common people can access culture and art without making multiple payoffs to a bunch of sleazy gatekeepers.
They need to make an android app so that your phone can act as the remote for typing (or add a bluetooth option). Samsung does sell some piece of crap 100 dollar keyboard.
The point is for you to watch advertisements. Who cares about good shows?
Palm trees and 8
It's just a computer with a tv card attached to an HDTV.
No, it's a super-sized iPad. You won't watch channels any more, you'll watch apps. Some apps will be for regular TV channels (eg. NBC, ESPN), some will be for specific shows, some will be for shows you can't get on regular TV (vintage, foreign, etc.), some will be for internet video services like YouTube, some will access your PC's media libraries, and some will have nothing to do with video content (games, email, web, etc.). It will all be controlled by voice (eg. Siri) with iPad, iPod, or iPhone remotes. There will, of course, be an Android version, but it will be all over the place in terms of quality and app completeness, as different set manufacturers try to differentiate from each other.
Great. Now I'll get to root my TV. (and not that kind of root, you dirty brits)
This makes me both happy and sad. Happy since the challenge is there and sad since it is almost necessary to do so with every locked down, buggy, and poorly updated device. If it wasn't for the fanatical control over content, we would all be using amazing devices that have an open architecture where the best firmware for your usage pattern can shine. This is what drives me to rip all of my content to the format of my choice from DVD and CD, rather than purchasing the approved, vertically integrated formats (hello, Apple, Microsoft).
I couldn't see myself purchasing a "smart" TV unless it offers something I cannot do with a normal TV + HTPC combo, as I doubt they will be competitive price-wise.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
I have a couple of friends working in the digital and innovation departments of government regulated broadcast organisations (BBC, ZDF, ARD (uk and de) and what they tell me they are working on as 'cutting edge' has been there in other areas years ago
What I feel is the case is that TV innovation cycles especially in non private organisatios are slowwwwwwwwwwww
- Government regulation surely is an issue (red tape, compliance and compatibility requirements)
- Another issue certainly is the history of the industry. At least for the big ones. Nothing did move quickly in the past, and surely the digital world order hasnt changed that
Admittedly, the BBC has done a cool thing with the iplayer, but again, that took ages and was supposedly quite expensive.
So I am wonding whether this is a business model issue...
It's just a computer with a tv card attached to an HDTV.
No, it's a super-sized iPad. You won't watch channels any more, you'll watch apps. Some apps will be for regular TV channels (eg. NBC, ESPN), some will be for specific shows, some will be for shows you can't get on regular TV (vintage, foreign, etc.), some will be for internet video services like YouTube, some will access your PC's media libraries, and some will have nothing to do with video content (games, email, web, etc.). It will all be controlled by voice (eg. Siri) with iPad, iPod, or iPhone remotes. There will, of course, be an Android version, but it will be all over the place in terms of quality and app completeness, as different set manufacturers try to differentiate from each other.
I can do all that with my puter. And there are no (very few at least) commercials. And I can actually control it to a certain degree from an Android device, my phone, or a tablet. I don't have voice control, but I could. It would be more appealing to hook it up to the Kinect, I prefer a mouse and keyboard.
I suppose everyone can't do those things, so there is a market. I'm just glad that I'm not in that demographic.
I see a huge second hand market developing on eBay for "dumb" TVs in the future. Eventually, people will be come frustrated when their Sony Playstation 6 resfuses to display to their Samsung "smart" TV, because Samsung "upgraded" the firmware to no longer work with Sony products due to a contractual dispute between the two companies.
And don't think this won't happen. Remember how Sony "improved" the Playstation3 by REMOVING the "Other OS" feature? A feature that they advertised on the box and people paid good money for, and was removed due to a management decision?
If you don't think that won't happen to your "smart" TV, you're naive and stupid and deserve what you get.
Once this kind of crap takes hold, people will long for the days their TVs just displayed stuff... And on Slashdot, someone will mention this, followed by 'now get off my lawn"
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
...Expansions slot on the back to add 'another' hard disk and extra ram....
Expansion slots?! You clearly have not been paying attention to the direction devices have evolved toward in the last 5-10 years.
At this rate, you'll be lucky if they let you swap the batteries in the remote.
I don't want apps on my TV. The TV is for non-interactive content. When I play with my interactive content, I prefer to also have the non-interactive content going on on the TV in the background. That was always a disadvantage I saw with my Wii. If I played a game on the PC, I could watch TV at the same time. If I played a game on Wii, no TV.
Maybe try the Sharpness setting?
So did I, and now I can't get it to change away from PBS.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
....will we have to deal with corporations trying to make a buck out of the combination Internet + TV ? This is getting annoying. Back in 1999 / 2000, during the Great Internet Bubble, the buzzzalk already was about set-top boxes and what the hell ever. C'mon, people, move on, nothing to see here !
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Annoying horrible exclusive deals!
Do you want to steam from the Comcast library to your Sony TV? Nope, sorry - only Samsung devices are allowed to do that! Expect to see a lot of that sort of thing, as device manufacturers compete to get exclusive contracts with content creators and distributors. Maybe Universial will do an exclusive deal with Apple so you have to buy an iPad, but NBC will do a deal with Microsoft to only show their movies on Windows Eight (/nine, by then) devices... so if you want to view everything on just one device, you'll have to either fall back to old-fashioned cable services or go to the pirates.
The receiver is generally the center because on high end home systems the display is a front projector which can't act as a central point. Also, due to content protection issues, the toslink surround output isn't as good as the encrypted audio on HDMI. Also, the cost in a good receiver isn't the digital stuff but rather the analog paths. I just wish that some of the lower-end receivers had dual HDMI outs...one for TV and one for projector. Currently only the really high end stuff has this.
That said, many people have much more money invested in the tv than in the audio system and in this case it might make sense to make the TV the hub.
In Soviet Russia, Smart TV watches YOU!
TV will never be smart because it's held back by the stupid kids in the class.
I'm talking about the broadcast/cable networks and companies like Hulu.
Start with the fact that the content providers don't have a flipp'n clue what people want (a.k.a like the Music industry--wait for it TV show producers will blame technology soon enough). I'd rather watch TV shows from previous decades than the bulk of crap on the air now. I recently watched a TV series from the 60s. That's a heck of a lot of mileage for a show that's been off the air for over half a century. I watched it without advertisements because I got it off of torrent. I would have been just as happy watching it off of Hulu or one of the network sites WITH ADVERTISEMENTS. But the content, despite the technology being ridiculously available, isn't available to watch today. Ok maybe if I paid for those hundreds of cable channels and tuned in at 3AM... I could find it.
It amazes me that TV networks who have always made their money by advertising, but are so fucking clueless about it. They can't seem to grasp the concept that advertisements can be made relevant to the viewers. They can't seem to grasp the concept that even old content can continue to bring in revenue with modern commercials.
CBS for a long time couldn't line up the commercial blank with the commercials on their site. Really? You do advertising for a living and I'm watching the show go blank, start up again for a few seconds, then cut to commercial? Really? Advertising is what you do... really?
Then there's Hulu. We're gonna charge you extra for the same shit if you want to see it on some other device than your computer. Wait... what? Oh yeah lets replay the success of the recording industry and try and find away to charge the same person for the same content multiple times for each device he owns.
Every time they come close to what the viewers want... they're gonna fuck it up... no SOPA won't help you... when you fuck it up, I'll get my content on torrents.
Give up on selling your TV shows in DVD boxes and bet big on on demand content with customized advertisements. I would bet that more people would sit there and watch your advertisements than buy those DVDs anyway. Cost of DVD sets vs slight inconvenience of watching adds... even in non-frugal America it will work. This only offering the last 3 or 4 episodes of the most recent content? It's gotta go. Especially if you can't keep the quality of new content up with that of old content.
I want this account deleted.
when I walk in with my 42 inch tablet.
Don't say, XBOX 360 or PS3, or even the Wii already offer most of this: "modern browsing features, control through voice or motion, application support, and even upgradeability". I just don't see the sense of building these features into a TV.
So are the networks actually going to be able to handle more streaming or will it be like the bait and switch cell networks?
I, for one, can't wait to kick back in my EZ-toilet and watch "Ow My Balls" with 18 commercials playing in different windows.
Smart TV doesn't matter because content providers are stupid enough to off set it.
$200, really?
Consider the price of the Raspberry Pi, a $25 board by a small-time maker (totally not in the same economy-of-scale league as Samsung, LG, etc), which should be able to do pretty much everything we're talking about. And consider the latest generation of media player boxes (e.g. WDTV Live, etc) which retail for under $90 (an end-user product, not a building block for hackers) and include an enclosure, power supply, useless cable, redundant remote-- all stuff you wouldn't need if the computer were built into the monitor.
This stuff isn't expensive. By all means, debate whether it's a good idea or not! But let's throw around some more realistic dollar amounts. I think we're talking about an approximate $20 increase in hardware cost, and when you're buying a $1500 50" TV I think that's nearly (not completely, but close to) insignificant.
If we were talking about adding a $20 computer your toaster or coffeemaker, everyone would say it's cool, and the people who bring up practical concerns would be put down as anti-nerd party poopers.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
the living room will be the location of the newest tech war
I lost the tech war in the bedroom years ago.
"Slow Down Cowboy!"? I haven't heard that in years, aside from here on Slashdot.
Have gnu, will travel.
The TV makers are hoping that the multitude of additional features will be enough to trigger turnover like the industry saw after the introduction of flat-panel screens, Bloomberg noted.
The difference is that everyone had to buy a new tv at the time the flat panels were coming out because the old broadcast technology was going away. The market didn't make the broadcast change, it was mandated by the US government. So, unless someone or something outside the market dictates that everyone must have a smart tv, it is unlikely to trigger a turnover like the industry saw with the introduction of flat-panel screens.
Something that would send the data digitally and encrypted with volume control to the subwooffer amplifier. Its just a waste to have intelligence (incompatible intelligence) in both boxes.
The amplifier box can be very very basic.
The biggest impediment to technological progress in many forms of consumer electronics and information is greed by way of lock-in. Everyone has to make their own "thing" that is wholly incompatible with everyone else's thing, even (especially?) if there is an existing player doing well in the market. Right now the cable monopolies pretty much have everyone else by the pubic hair; exclusivity contracts ensuring that many "OnDemand" shows can't be shown elsewhere. Then the big networks/broadcasts have their own gadget (Hulu/Plus), as now are Premium channels like HBOGo and their Cinemax gadget; Showtime/TMC andStarz are catching up. Somewhat agnostic players like Netflix are making headway, but running into barricades because the aforementioned won't simply license their content to Netflix but instead insist on their own player.
All of these locked-down players and streamers need to be coded and ported for varying platforms, with varying levels of quality and openness. Will X be on both Android and iOS? How about Windows Phone and MeeGo? Windows PCs, Xbox360...Linux? Built into the "SmartTV"s of LG and Sony? How about Samsung? On BluRay players? Available online? HD or SD? Back catalog, new releases, or only items 6 months out? Commercial skips, or forced ads? Is it any wonder that people aren't emptying their pockets in droves to subscribe to these service where everything is going to be so limited?
People can't pay a simple, reasonable fee for the content they want and generally have access to it nomatter what, when, or where they may want to watch. Right now, even for those who already have a CableTV subscription, its often easier for certain content, to simply downloaded pirated ripped versions; which come online swiftly, have a fleshed out back catalog, lack commercials, have an up-front listing of the quality, streaming is an option not a requirement, and generally no limits to how the user can watch. Until this is remedied, trying to ask people to pay extra for "SmartTVs" is going to be a farce because 99% of people aren't going to research that only Sony and Samsung TVs over $2500 are authorized to carry HBOGo etc.
Content producers all need to get together and decide on an OPEN, unified system for placing their content online. Lets start with Netflix, the current pack leader who has already been fighting for the right to display content for years. Lets say if everyone, from broadcast, cable, movie studios and even foreign content producers went and licensed their content to Netflix, with the understanding that Netflix will 1) Collect and share revenue from subscriptions and 2) create an open source client for distribution that has a number of important features for users such as lack of commercials, HD resolutions and the ability to download as well as stream. Then we can think about "SmartTVs", where each manufacturer knew all they had to do was support the unified client. Then, no matter if you had a set-top box, home-theater PC add-in card, or software-based setup, a subscriber would still have full access to everything.
Until hubris and greed can be let go, I don't see this happening. Thus, all the scraping about in this market will be a gimmick at best or useless at worst while clueless industry blame users and piracy and demand even more lockdown, thus beginning the circle anew. We need to show we simply won't put up with having content held hostage in this way.
The original value proposition was you got free content in exchange for screening commercial messages in your home.
Of course it was never actually free; merely "free at point of delivery". The soap manufacturers paid for those ads, and they passed the cost onto consumers in the form of higher prices.
US annual expenditure on advertising: $300 billion
US population: 300 million
Advertising tax: $1000 per person per year. We're paying this money to line the pockets of the advertising middle-men so that we get ads that we don't want thrust in our faces.
Especially in Canada. Oh just got your $600 over usage Internet bill because your 50mbit connection is only allowed 100bg or less or data transfer and you love watching all those cool show on the Internet .... game over....
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Well, going OT on this one but I gotta unload. I recently saw the movie "Network" (Finch as "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"), I've seen clips of it before but watched the entire movie. It has Peter Finch as a major network anchor who goes off on a diatribe during broadcast, "I've got nothing to say but bull---- because all we have been talking about in the news is bull----." Everyone in the control room is shocked, one says "cut him off" but William Holden (show producer) says no, keep him on. Earlier he Holden was attending a TV network banquet and president of the network announced they are scaling back the news division as it is not profitable [for those too young to remember, news divisions were not moneymakers like they are nowadays]. Understandably Holden figures let this anchor continue with his diatribe because his news division is going down anyway. In other activities in this movie was they got ahold of a film made by a group of terrorists as they were robbing a bank (i.e. SLA Patty Hearst style). A director, portrayed by Faye Dunaway gets this idea of recruiting this group to do other films and they can have a reality show with robberies, assassinations, etc. Rest of the group gets this WTF look on their faces and ask is she really sure they can get good ratings. Later instead of canning the anchor for his diatribe on BS, they retain him and encourage him to do more. Meanwhile show directors and the terrorist group argue over who gets credit. Going back to the anchor portrayed by Finch, the show becomes something like Jerry Springer but instead of guests, he makes grand speeches such as TV is all lies and BS and the most powerful propaganda machine ever. Near the end of the movie, his ratings were going down so show producers decide to have the last show go out with a bang. They had a couple guys in audience pull out guns and shoot the anchor while on live TV. It was a bizarre show but flash forward to the 21st century, shows these days have all those attributes.
On being on topic, I could give a rat's ass about TV tech. I want content!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know back when they paid writers livable wages, Sci-fi channel had sci-fi shows, History channel had history.... and when you go way back when into the 20th century you can watch old movies on late night OTA TV (I was mesmerized by Gina Lollobrigida when I first saw the movie "Fast and Sexy" in the 1970s).
mfwright@batnet.com
Finally, the year of linux on the TV is here !
My TiVo Series2 from 2003 been running linux for years.. and that's a v2 product.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
You do have a point, and I'm no friend of Madison Avenue, but you're oversimplifying by ignoring economies of scale and other factors.
Hypothetical example: Widget company makes 15 quatloos per widget sold. Widget company invests in advertising that costs 150,000 zuleks (17 quatloos to the zulek, as everybody knows). Sales increase by 400%, increased income allows factory to expand, cost of widget production goes down, price is reduced and now the customer pays less but the maker nets 18 quatloos a widget. Everybody wins as long as widgets are a new product on the market - if they aren't, then the the sales created by advertising are actually sales lost by some other maker, who retaliates with advertising of their own, and then everybody loses.
See? It's not so simple as "all advertising == evil". It's just that most advertising is bad, and regulatory capture in the western world by corporations has assured that it's not going to get any better.
In high school some 3 decades ago, I and a buddy both received Zenith stereo systems as presents. Just about identical, by mine was components and his was an all-in-one. His lasted about two years; mine lasted about fifteen. All a TV should have is: a great screen, good connectivity, a tuner (required by law) and nothing more. I'll upgrade the external components as needed, thanks.
I had a little portable TV with integrated VCR. We used it for a year or so, took it to a ski cabin one weekend.
A tape got tangled in the works of the VCR. By the time we got it out (including taking off the housing and poking in with sticks), lithium grease had gotten onto the video head from somewhere nearby.
I couldn't clean it well enough out there in the boonies, and it wasn't worth the trouble and uncertainty of finding the solvents and cleaning up ship-in-a-bottle style at home (and certainly too cheap to bother w/a repair shop), so the VCR's I bought from then on were separate units.
KISS Lesson Learned Agin.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
It's just a computer with a tv card attached to an HDTV.
No, it's a super-sized iPad. You won't watch channels any more, you'll watch apps. Some apps will be for regular TV channels (eg. NBC, ESPN), some will be for specific shows, some will be for shows you can't get on regular TV (vintage, foreign, etc.), some will be for internet video services like YouTube, some will access your PC's media libraries, and some will have nothing to do with video content (games, email, web, etc.). It will all be controlled by voice (eg. Siri) with iPad, iPod, or iPhone remotes. There will, of course, be an Android version, but it will be all over the place in terms of quality and app completeness, as different set manufacturers try to differentiate from each other.
This is exactly what is happening on the xBox 360 today, they even call them 'apps' after the most recent update. There is an app for NetFlix, ESPN3, Hulu Plus, UFC, and a variety of other news type video sources and movie sources (there is an HBO app coming soon too). This is exactly what I want as long as it stays reasonably priced because instead of paying the crazy costs of cable/satellite TV and only watching a small set of the channels that are paid for this new system is more a la carte. The only problem I see in the future is a bandwidth problem because if the majority of people switched to getting their TV entertainment over the internet it is going to be a huge strain without major upgrades. The bandwidth issue is the only thing I can see holding back this revolution in entertainment that has been growing over the last few years.
Personally I love that more and more content is becoming available online (legally). I dumped my cable TV about 3 years ago and have not looked back in remorse yet, I get nearly everything I want on my xBox 360 and most of it is even commercial free. They have even been increasing the sports content which is what I missed the most after dropping cable TV and this year I got to watch every BCS bowl game live at no extra cost using the ESPN3 app, it is great.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
In some cases, five times, because your commercial-laden channel has additional access charges (hello, HBO!)
I take it you don't normally watch HBO, because it's commercial-free except for about 5 minutes between programs - never mid-program, and even the few they have between programs aren't that long.
So there's no ads at all, as long as you ignore the five minutes of ads? Just like PBS!
^_^
that the generation of the i<Marketing Name Here> product is over.
Long live the smart<Marketing Name Here> product naming to come....
I'm suprised the e<Marketing Name Here> product naming convention hasn't come back.
do you HAVE to be involved in whole or part to a company that is affiliated with the conference. I imagine some joe smo can't just register online and purchase a ticket. any info from someone who has been? thanks.(i really want to go next year)
a smart TV is just a computer attached to a monitor.
The future seems to be one service, multiple screens.
I suspect each service can only be accessed from one screen at the same time unless a family pack of some kind of bought, and you may well have to sign up for multiple services to get all the content you find on a premium cable or sat service.
How long before we start reading about various cable companies spinning off their physical holdings and focusing on IP streaming services?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
It's just a computer with a tv card attached to an HDTV.
So, why not just... connect a computer to your TV??
There are plenty of 'book size' mini-PCs that can be connected via HDMI or even good old-fashioned D-sub cables to your (flatscreen) TV.
http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=309&name=Mini-Booksize-Barebone-Systems
And there are plenty of HTPC applications to choose from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_theater_PC#Software
For example, I use MediaPortal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaPortal
The hardware required is such that even an 'old' pc can run it:
1.4 GHz Intel Pentium III
256 MB of RAM
DirectX 9.0 hardware-accelerated GPU
200 MB free harddisk-drive space for the software
12 GB or more free harddisk-drive space for Hardware Encoding or Digital TV based TV cards for timeshifting purposes
It's set up is... simple, and it probably has all the features you need. And if it doesn't there are tons of Plug-ins for it. Have an Anime Collection? No problem- there's a plugin to scan it and download the covers/fanart/descriptions/etc. Same with TV series, and Movies. Browsing Youtube. Watching streaming content from the Internet. And so on.
And the great thing is, I can swap out my TV (37") for a bigger one at any time. I can expand it with another Harddrive at any time. I can decide to use any other HTPC software at any time. I'm not locked in at all.
'Smart TV's' will end up looking like this: http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x74/chicbn872/Movie%20Stills/idiocracy-tv-dvd.jpg , with ads and extra crap you don't want. And you won't be able to change it without buying a whole new TV.
US population: 300 million
Advertising tax: $1000 per person per year. We're paying this money to line the pockets of the advertising middle-men so that we get ads that we don't want thrust in our faces.
Which they spent paying for TV shows that we would otherwise have to pay for ourselves, so that we would watch their ads.
"the living room will be the location of the newest tech war"
Wasn't that exactly what they said about the time of the release of the original XBox (2003)?
Oh, sorry, I've already forgotten what today's "X" was. Ah, a "Smart TV." Sounds ... like a "why" to me. TV is for vegetating to ; if you want to interact, use a computer?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Not free to buy, but fee free to use. Now, you can build a htpc, but you cannot find a fee free DVR which records ota and cablecard. Sony made one briefly, the hdd 250 and 500, but you CANNOT buy your own box. TiVo, which is the closest thing, is useless even for ota if you don't buy the service. Every other DVR is held on a string by big content through the catv company or sat broadcaster. You cannot walk into any big box store and buy the son of the VCR off the shelf. Any smart tv will be so DRM ed as to be useless.