Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Television Next In Line For Industry-Wide Shakeup?

Posted by Soulskill on from the making-the-idiot-box-relevant-again dept.

New submitter pjlehtim writes "In a recent interview. Samsung's AV product manager, Chris Moseley, said, 'TVs are ultimately about picture quality. ... and there is no way that anyone, new or old, can come along this year or next year and beat us on picture quality.' Sounds familiar? There must be a change in the perceived role of television in the entertainment ecosystem before the general public starts to care about the smart TVs manufacturers are trying to push. That change is likely to come from outside the traditional home entertainment industry. It's not about technology; it is about user experience, again."

14 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. "Smart" TVs? by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..yeah, no thanks. All I want or need is something that displays a 1080p signal well, and isn't going to break down and need to be replaced in a couple years. You can keep your so-called "smart", your "3D", and all your other silly bells and whistles. I'll stick to something that is quality, and if I need some "smarts" beyond what TiVo can do for me, I'll add an HTPC.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:"Smart" TVs? by slaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article is right about a couple things: TV UIs suck and remotes suck even more.

      My mom can't operate a modern TV. I mean like not AT ALL. If it's anything more challenging than volume up or down, it's too much. She doesn't get it.
      There's a bunch of stuff we plug in and want to use now - DLNA clients, DVRs, Home Theater receivers, cable boxes, game machines - and it all works differently and needs some stupid or weird different control, both on-screen and in terms of the control device. The revolution will be the people who make some kind of master overlay and master remote (I love my Harmony but it doesn't go far enough) that handles everything.

      Maybe that means a mic or a kinect that lets us talk or gesture. Maybe it means having a little display on a tablet. I don't know. I just know that what we have now is a huge mess.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    2. Re:"Smart" TVs? by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      PCs are smart and work for you.
      TVs will become smart and work against you.

    3. Re:"Smart" TVs? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But why does that have to be *in* the TV? If all it does is display a video signal at as high of quality as possible, it can last for many years. If you stick a bunch of apps in it, inevitably the CPU or RAM become inadequate, it doesn't have the latest codec support, manufacturers stop supporting the software, whatever. If you keep it separate the display from the "computer" you can replace the latter every year or two and it's no big deal. (note the AppleTV is $100 and an iPad is $500+)

      I have gone through at least 3 computers over the lifespan of my 21" LCD monitor (which I still have and love). If I had to pay for a new display every time I upgraded to something that ran the latest games, apps, etc, I'd be really annoyed. Same thing for the 60" plasma I bought last year.

    4. Re:"Smart" TVs? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Maybe that means a mic or a kinect that lets us talk or gesture. Maybe it means having a little display on a tablet. I don't know. I just know that what we have now is a huge mess.

      I work for a company that is working on the next-gen UI for TVs.

      There is a reason that mic's or gestures will never become popular.

      They are _invisible_ interfaces.

      How is a user supposed to know what the different gestures are? Or what the _available_ voice commands are?

      Mic's will never work because they fail on this usage case: If you have an accent the software is fucked.

      WIMP (Windows, Image, Mouse/Menu, Pointer) and Keyboards work because you get immediate feedback plus you can directly see the effects of pushing a button, dragging, clicking a menu item, etc.

      Tablets? Now I could see that as a possibility.

    5. Re:"Smart" TVs? by preaction · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But why does that have to be *in* the TV? If all it does is display a video signal at as high of quality as possible, it can last for many years. If you stick a bunch of apps in it, inevitably the CPU or RAM become inadequate, it doesn't have the latest codec support, manufacturers stop supporting the software, whatever.

      I suspect this is why they will be joined: Planned obsolescence.

    6. Re:"Smart" TVs? by complete+loony · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or soon, a $25 Raspberry Pi running XBMC....

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    7. Re:"Smart" TVs? by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But why does that have to be *in* the TV? If all it does is display a video signal at as high of quality as possible, it can last for many years.

      Let me tell you something.... many MANY people can't hook up a TV input to save their lives (or would be glad to avoid having to do that). For every one of you and me who could do this in their sleep, there are probably 3-5 people who either can't or would be very anxious if asked to do so. The vast proliferation of inputs (HDMI, Component, Composite, Coax) and ambiguous and tough setup conspire to make this uncomfortable even to me.

      What does this mean in terms of market? It is possible (though not certain) that TV installation and setup could go mainstream and bypass the "knowledgeable enthusiast" and address the lager market of technically incompetent/insecure

      Like the iPhone (which at first seemed a bit dumbed down to me, coming from a Treo), if Apple can completely avoid the need for inputs (think plug in power and internet signal (likely wireless), and if you're really pushing it, buy and position auto-connecting bluetooth speakers), these folks could "safely" buy and use a TV without us.

      Apple would make a killing - and Siri would be icing on that cake.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  2. User Experience? by Wansu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There ain't much on TV I care about except sports, weather and the occasional movie. The rest is crap.

    Smart TV? for what? It's just more stuff that can break. I don't want some smart TV or cable box wigging out on me while the damn game is on.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  3. Television, depending upon your needs by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Picture quality? Maybe if you're into seeing the pancake makeup and ridiculous quantity of hair gel necessary to make your Sitcom/Soap stars look the way they do. Not going to really help animation at all, a little blur helps hide the sharp contrast of lines. Great for sports, so you can rest assured you're right when you call the ref an idiot for getting the call wrong, while you smugly watch the replays in High Def.

    More likely going to find the user experience is more a la carte, as people leave the traditional broadcast, cable, and satellite networks for what they pick and choose over the internet (assuming ISPs don't kill the fledgling market with opressive fees for bandwidth, as IF my piddly 6 Mb/s connection should be considered taxing of their infrastructure. where's 100Mb/s?!?) I'd rather see my shows when it suits me, without even bothering with recording them on a DVR.

    The TV itself could have the bits built in, but at the present rate of change I'd prefer an external box which I can upgrade as needed while the big investment, the display, is only bought every 5 or 10 years (or longer apart -- my only TV is really getting on in years, but still works.)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Hardware is less an issue... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... than being charged for 200+ channels I will never watch.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  5. Re:The problem is resolution by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's about time we get 4k televisions in production. Screw 3d, screw smart tv, just increase the resolution already. My monitor has higher resolution than my hdtv.

    Don't forget about color dept. 1677216 just isn't enough.
    Absolutel no reason we shouldn't be at full on 16-bits per channel right now.

    My 19", 4:3 monitor from 2002 had higher resolution than my HDTV does today.
    Oh, and better picture quality and response times, too.

  6. Re:5 remotes by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your friend could buy a $10 universal remote and spend the 5 minutes it takes to set it up instead of needing 5 remotes...

    And then have the programming go away as soon as the batteries die. I swear universal remotes are great, but why the hell haven't they added 75 cents worth of flash memory to the things to hold the codes permanently? The only ones that seem to do that are the more expensive ones like the Logitech Harmony varieties (which though they are coming down in price, are still a lot more than $10).

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  7. It Is All About Content Control by Princeofcups · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not usability, it's all about DRM. The content providers are desperate to keep people from copying or modifying content. It everything is in one box, then you have no where to connect a recording device. Your cable box will be implemented in software instead of a separate piece of hardware that has to be maintained. Providers can change their encryption any time they want by pushing out a new patch, and keeping the "hackers" at bay. You want to record and watch later? There's an extra charge for that, and only on their terms.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.