'Connected' TVs Mostly Used Just Like the Unconnected Kind

antdude writes "The National Purchase Diary (NPD) Group Blog reports that 'Internet Connected TVs Are Used To Watch TV, And That's About All — The Internet connected high definition television (HDTV) screen has so far failed to break beyond the bounds of its TV-centric heritage, with little use for the big screen beyond the obligatory video services. But the connection is being used to provide access to a far wider variety of alternative sources for video content. The latest NPD Connected Intelligence Application & Convergence report highlights that nearly six out of ten consumers who own a connected HDTV are accessing Over-the-Top video services through the device.' (Seen on DSL reports.)" Wired's headline on a story based on the same information puts things more bluntly: "No One Uses Smart TV Internet Because It Sucks."

Comments

Sounds about right

[Jetra]

My aunt kicked me off the TV, so guess what? I'm watching TV via Netflix and YouTube.

Re:Sounds about right

[swanzilla]

+1 Fascinating

Re:Sounds about right

[crafty.munchkin]

The Smart TV apps on my LG 50" TV work, but take ages to load. Youtube is good, Netflix isn't available in my region, iView had problems loading the only time I tried it (but works on the Xbox 360 so I use that instead). I've tried the web-browser and it was really slow, and didn't handle forms entry particularly well even when using my phone as a remote control for it - the experience has led me to leave the TV there for watching the TV, and to simultaneously browse the web from either my phone or my android tablet.

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones on my Samsung work very well. I use them to watch Netflix and HBO Go, a trailers program, sometimes Hulu+. There are a ton of them.

Re: Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

The Samsung I got my dad so that he could stream movies from our pc forgets the wireless connection settings everytime the tv is turned off. He gave up on it and is now a regular tv.

Re:Sounds about right

[hairyfeet]

This is why guys like me that build HTPCs aren't worried about "smart TVs"...because they suck. They aren't updated very often (if at all) and use seriously weak chips anyway so what you end up with is a really poor experience.

My advice would be to look at a DIY kit for an HTPC. If you want high def and low power you should look at an AMD Bobcat, if you don't care about HD you can get an Intel Atom (yes I know about ION but they aren't common or easy to come by anymore and its dead end tech since Nvidia left the chipset biz) and if you want to game or be able to transcode an Athlon or even a Phenom X6 if you can find it on sale would be good.

The nice thing about an HTPC is that you can have the latest browser, flash is no problem, it'll easily take wireless remotes (The Lenovo mini-keyboard with trackball is the one I recommend if you want a small and light remote, easily fits in one hand), Steam had big picture mode which is great for an HTPC, hell its one of the few places Windows 8 makes sense as that fugly metro makes a great 10 foot UI as the tiles are easy to hit. For those that don't want to spend the whole $40 for Win 8 there is OpenELEC which is free, has the XBMC front end, even comes with PVR software baked in and is pre-compiled for various chips so you simply pick the one you've got and away you go.

Once you try an HTPC you'll see how truly limited these "Smart TVs" are and will not want to go back. With the HTPC you can do everything a normal PC can, plus use it as a media tank, with all your movies and music loaded and ready to go, it can play games like a console, and you don't have to use some limited browser that most likely won't be getting updates and is slow to begin with. With OpenELEC you can build one for less than $150, Win 8 less than $200, and frankly the things will just last and last. The whole "Smart TV" is a nice novelty but use it any length of time and as you pointed out the limitations start showing pretty quickly, same with using the consoles to surf.

Re:Sounds about right

[mcgrew]

Thanks for that, I guess I'll stick with my old 720p TV and Dell that's plugged into it. Although I need to buy some memory for the Dell...

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem I've had with HTPCs is plain and simple: noise. The last time a looked, a decent, quiet case+ps was hitting your $150 mark before adding the guts.

I switched to a cheap little fanless WDTV Live for $100. It is silent, plays any format I've thrown at it over DLNA, has Netflix/YouTube/Hulu/etc and phone remote app.

Re:Sounds about right

[hairyfeet]

Then you should have asked old Hairy as you just didn't know what to look for. If you were my customer I'd ask "What do you want it to do?" and could easily tailor a quiet or even completely noise free system to your requirements. If all you are wanting is a standard noise free HTPC that does 1080P I'd recommend this E350 kit as it has but a single tiny fan on the CPU and is quiet as a churchmouse, and is quite easy to customize to what you want it to do. I'd put a 2GB or 4GB stick along with a 1TB HDD and then its up to you whether you want BD or DVD.

Having built several of these systems I can tell you that it blows a WD Live away, as long as you use fast memory (I recommend the 1333 over the 1066) you can play quite a few games on it, I've personally run L4D, Portal 1 & 2 and Torchlight 1 & 2 on one, and if you want even more power and the ability to play the latest games frankly it isn't hard to slap a Zalman silent on an Athlon or Phenom X4, you simply can't use the mini VCR case due to the size of the heatsink. I've found most of my customers don't really care about the mini VCR case when they see they can have something like this that looks quite stylish sitting next to the TV table, but again if you want to do heavy gaming one will have to put up with a fan or spend more on silent coolers, its all a trade off.

But at the end of the day you really need to look at how long the unit will last, I have a couple of customers that have first gen Athlon X2s I built HTPCs around and they are still happy more than 6 years later, all I did was up the storage when they started running low and as drive prices dropped. and unlike the consoles or smart TVs they can still surf the latest websites, use the latest software, watch flash no problem, its really not hard to build a quiet HTPC with just a little thought beforehand.

Re:Sounds about right

[Rob Simpson]

The only problem with HTPCs I've found is that Netflix still stubbornly demands Silverlight. I guess I could install Windows instead of Linux Mint, but last I checked their computer interface was some terrible web browser garbage anyway. That's the only thing I bother to use Smart TV features for. XBMC (especially with Navi-X) is great.

(typed on a Logitech K400 wireless keyboard, in Firefox on my completely silent Shuttle XS35GS HTPC running Mint 13)

Re:Sounds about right

[hairyfeet]

I hate to say this but in this case it does work well...pick up one of those $40 Windows 8 downloads. While Metro sucks hairy balls as an office desktop one place where it DOES work great is as a 10 foot UI, those metro tiles are easy to see and hit from across the room and then you'll have support for Netflix as well as all the Windows software out there. Also with hybrid boot and on demand services its faster to boot and a little lighter on memory than Win 7 is so while it makes a piss poor laptop or desktop OS for HTPCs the OS really shines.

Damned shame they didn't make metro optional so that you could switch it off for desktops and on for tablets and HTPCs but for your use case Win 8 actually works quite well.

Re:Sounds about right

[nobodie]

So I bought a cheap Vizio 42" Internet Enabled. Now, I know, I am not you and I watch very little TV (less than 8 hours a week, often much less) and neither does anyone else in my family (we just do too many other things) but I have zero complaints with my Vizio. We use Hulu Plus for some stuff, Netflix for the rest. We have only the internet connection (FIOS) and pump bits to three desktops, three laptops, two tablets and two phones, for 55 a month plus the NF and HP costs (@16 a month). I've got a 6 or 7 year old Dell minibox that I can use for a media center to play DVDs to the TV, but we seldom use it. So what is it that I'm missing? Obviously, for my family, nothing except a buttload of commercials. If we really want something we can browse through the attached PC, but we watched the Presidential debates on a small screen since we get tired of bullshit very quickly.

Nope, life is good.

Re:Sounds about right

[nobodie]

yeah, fedora with xmbc does as much and more, but i don't bother most of the time

Re:Sounds about right

[airdweller]

Same here. Samsung 51'', 8-10 hours of TV a week. Amazon Prime - 70%, Pandora/YouTube/etc. - 20% and the HD OTA - 10% (just the news). No complaints so far. We don't see any need for an HTPC. But I'll keep it - just in case.

walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one of these TVs, and one major problem is that each manufacturer is trying to create a captive audience for their own variety of apps.

As a result, the number of apps available is pathetic, and almost all boil down to TV stations vanity apps

Re:walled gardens don't work

[rikkards]

Yep, I just got a Sony and I tried it out and it can't hold a candle against XBMC. The interface is clunky and slow which I have heard as well about it with Samsung. Now if Samsung was smart they would be using Android instead...

Re:walled gardens don't work

[NIK282000]

TVs should be a display and that's it. Give it the brain to decode HDMI signals and the tuner for over the air digital but that should be it. Every time a manufacturer tries to put more then that in their TV it just makes it worse. I spent a day at best buy looking at TVs this month, not a single internet enabled had an interface that doesn't make you want to rip out all your hair. Added features shouldn't break the main ones.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[nschubach]

I kind of wish that there was a recess in the back of the TV or more "behind the screen" PCs that mount on the VESA pins (or between if you wall mount it) that had a simple 12v power supply and HDMI port. This way you can buy "smart" modules or a PC that mounts on the back of the set to give you the "smart" feature set. Leave the TV up to the task of getting and displaying a signal to the best of it's ability (like you said.) If you ever need to update the "smart" part of the TV, you wouldn't have to replace the whole set. I have a 1080p monitor in my living room that has lasted far longer than the media PC I have connected to it.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[TWX]

We built an XBMC box for out TV, and we found that our Blu-ray player can also connect to a bunch of services like slacker radio, crackle, youtube, NPR, and the like.

It works fairly well actually.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[NeutronCowboy]

Sort of. I have a Samsung Smart TV, and while they definitely have their flavor of apps only available for their TV, that's not really the main problem. The main problem is that the apps that do exist are slow, have a terrible interface, and are filled with bugs. For example: for the first 6 months or so, the Netflix app kept losing my login information. I was this close to just not watching Netflix on the TV anymore, and just go back either jerry-rigging it onto the TV via an extra-long DVI/HDMI cable or to just watch it on my laptop.

But yes, the Smart TVs are absolutely retarded and a waste of money (or at least, the Internet connectivity aspect is). They need to fix the following problems:
* no useful apps available outside of Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus..
* requirements to use specific and approved USB cameras or widgets.
* Buggy apps.
* Very slow responsiveness.
* Terrible, terrible interface.

The solutions:
* Swallow your pride. Go Google Play Store or iTunes.
* Invest into the connectivity, and throw some real processing power onto it.
* Release a smartphone app that allows you to use its interfaces (voice recognition, touchscreen) to control the action on-screen.
* Make the USB-connectivity more robust, and accept standard webcams, gizmos and widgets.

Until then, I will consider Smart TVs a waste of time.

Oh, and fair warning, dear TV makers: this isn't rocket science, and if Apple is indeed working on an Apple TV, it WILL eat your lunch. Because they will get it right, and people will fall over themselves to get a well-thought out, easy to use, pretty TV that integrates into the Apple eco-system.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[hey!]

Plus, you have all the problems of a computer, because these TVs *are* computers. I have a Vizio which takes forever to boot up. It's currently out of service because of a problem with the logic board, which needs replacing.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[aaarrrgggh]

Most of the TVs I have owned have a recess for cables that has been the home for first and second generation Apple TVs, and a Roku. Keep trying to finish a project with a BeagleBone that would go in the spot on a smaller TV, but it is a low priority project. Raspberry Pi or one of the little USB stick computers would work fine though...

Re:walled gardens don't work

[olsmeister]

90% of people wouldn't want to screw around with that. When they spend all that money on a TV, they expect it to do cool stuff, out of the box. If you tell them they need to buy something else, they're going to think you're trying to screw them over. Now that $80 HDMI cable, though, that they'd probably buy.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[CanHasDIY]

90% of people wouldn't want to screw around with that. When they spend all that money on a TV, they expect it to do cool stuff, out of the box.

OK, we all know the 90% is a number you pulled straight from the depths of your ass, but you do still make a valid point, so I'll go ahead and ask:
Really? Since when?

To wit - I was born in the mid 1980's, and it has always been my expectation that my TV is nothing more than a display screen, which only shows me 'cool stuff' from the devices I physically connect to it.

Then again, I've never spent more than maybe $350 on a television (hooray pawnshops and demo units!), so I'm guessing this is a YMMV situation.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[mcrbids]

Apple TV has existed for quite some time now. Despite this, it has yet to become much of a success. Apple probably makes some money on it, but it's just not getting all that much reach. Its integration with an ipad is pretty slick. There's also Google TV which is embedded into other players.

So far, the winner for the alternative TV seems to be gaming devices, like Xbox or PS3.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[scot4875]

90% of people wouldn't want to screw around with that. When they spend all that money on a TV, they expect it to do cool stuff, out of the box.

It's particularly amusing that you make this unfounded assertion in a story about how nobody who buys smart TVs uses them do do any of the 'cool stuff' that they're capable of.

--Jeremy

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux \ FreeBSD is far more likely. The ARM support is already there. And with Wayland and E17 you basically get a clean slate on a stable and well thought off platform.

Android by comparison is a minefield of I.P. and poor design decisions. Best thing is, when Android I.P. is disputed, a few Asian OEMs are up against every single patent troll in the States. With Linux, you'd have the whole freaking sever and embedded world fighting on your side.

This days even governments and research bodies have a lot invested in Linux. Hell, play your cards right and you can even have RMS followers declaring Jihad on those trolls :)

Re:walled gardens don't work

[SJHillman]

My parents have one of them. The Netflix app is nice, but no better or worse than watching Netflix via the Wii. Most other apps are just too clunky to use with the remote control. If they allowed motion sensing like the Wiimote, they'd be a lot more useful. As it is, it's a lot like trying to use modern UIs with just the keyboard and no keyboard shortcuts... it's doable, just a whole lot of tab-tab-tab to get where you want to go.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

My Sonys (one TV, one BD player on another TV) have NetFlix, HuluPlus, YouTube, and a lot of other third-party "apps" built in. I'm not sure that fits the definition of a walled garden per se.

Searching YouTube is a pain, and I'd sooner have Hulu than HuluPlus. (I already have NetFlix, not going to pay for HuluPlus too, or BlockBuster, RedBox, etc.) So I put a $500 computer on it with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse and that solves my Hulu and YouTube issues.

And geez Sony, for a $3000+ TV you can't give me a $50 bluetooth keyboard and mouse, or even offer them as an option? That just seems like a no-brainer.

I was somewhere recently, talking about this, and $otherperson said she has NetFlix streaming, and a smart TV, but can't be bothered to activate it on her TV – or maybe just can't figure it out. I expect there's a bunch of non-techies out there in the same boat.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[SJHillman]

I bought a car expecting it to go real fast. The reality is that regardless of whether or not it can go real fast, I rarely drive much above the speed limit anyway. I bought a Wii expecting to use it to exercise. The reality is I sit on the couch and play games with wrist flicks. People buy based on expectations, not how they'll actually use it.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[BitZtream]

Windows Media Center on Win7 with XBox360's as extenders and a HDHomeRun Prime on the server for cable is pretty much the best thing there is on the planet for this stuff.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[AmiMoJo]

I barely use XMBC any more because of my Panasonic smart TV's built in media player that copes with almost everything I throw at it. The only other feature of XMBC I used to use was YouTube (for things like movie trailers, instructional videos, documentaries etc.) which the TV also has.

On top of that it has a pretty good iPlayer client, which XBMC was lacking last time I checked.

The only time I boot XMBC is for the 0.1% of videos that the TV can't play itself and because for some inexplicable and stupid reason you can't select the really nice THX picture modes in the built-in media player, only for broadcast or HDMI video. It has to be a pretty good film for me to make the effort.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and fair warning, dear TV makers: this isn't rocket science, and if Apple is indeed working on an Apple TV, it WILL eat your lunch. Because they will get it right, and people will fall over themselves to get a well-thought out, easy to use, pretty TV that integrates into the Apple eco-system.

You can't put your iTelevision up on the table at the restaurant to show off. No deal. People do not want a smarttv, they want a dumb display device for the dumb content that comes over cable/satellite. No Texting, Browsing, APPing or AngryBirding, just plain, old, dumb, passive TV.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Githaron]

The apps are already on Android. The app developers might have to make some small modifications to allow for remote control input but overall the small cost would be worth it if they could get their app of compatible with 70% of new smart TVs.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[AmiMoJo]

no useful apps available outside of Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus..

+ iPlayer and YouTube. Those apps alone are worth their weight in gold.

requirements to use specific and approved USB cameras or widgets.

I'm afraid that unless you want your TV to run Windows you are probably going to be SOL on that one, since no manufacturer is going to try and support every random ultra low-cost craptastic webcam chipset with a custom driver when they can just sell you one of their own. If the fault lies anywhere it is with the USB standard for not defining a standard driver-neutral webcam interface.

Very slow responsiveness.

Try Panasonic TVs. The higher end models have dual core CPUs and are pretty responsive. You get what you pay for.

Release a smartphone app that allows you to use its interfaces (voice recognition, touchscreen) to control the action on-screen.

Already exists, works pretty well.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[phantomfive]

Rumors from some pretty good sources suggest Apple is working on a new TV that will be somewhat different than that product. It will change TV the way the iPhone changed smartphones.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[ko7]

Wouldn't it be great if you could just buy a 40 - 60 inch 1080p computer monitor for some fraction of the cost of the complete PC? (... and then just swap out or modify the connect media PC as necessary)

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Kaenneth]

" It will change TV the way the iPhone changed smartphones."

I am filled with so much sarcasm right now, I literally can't decide which snide comment to make.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Nutria]

Exactly. TVs in living rooms are just not the place to be sending tweets from.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[rtkluttz]

I would go a step further with that statement... the reason it sucks SO badly is that they try to create revenue streams because they falsly believe they have a captive audience. Hulu is free on a computer, but hulu plus blocks some shows depending on your device. WTF??? I'll just hook my computer to my TV and bypass your damn cripple ware. Stop trying to lock me in and give me value that makes me WANT to stay.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the main purpose of these internet connected devices was that the manufacturers ran out of ideas to keep the prices high. It took some time but LCD/Plasma TV have reached commodity level. First there was the switchover from CRT, then it moved on to 120 HZ, 240HZ, better LCD and plasma screens, LED, thinner and lighter units, 3D, internet. They have run out of ideas to keep people buying new ones and the multiple tiers of models they can sell at different price levels are going away. Just like the 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, cdrom drives. Eventually only 40x and above were being sold and the price for those dropped like a rock.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Belial6]

Most USB devices work with linux drivers. Most smart TVs are running linux. My guess is that the TV manufacturers put extra effort into removeing a lot of the functionality so that they could skimp on hardware.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

That really is my problem with them as well. My cheap ass bluray player can stream video from any uPnP source on my home network, I've yet to encounter a format it doesn't support, yet most of the "smart tvs" I try give me "unsupported format" errors when I try to watch most of the stuff on my network. Generally they only support the most wasteful formats out there, and never the containers that people actually want to use (hell dumbasses, mkv format has most of the features of DVD/BR that we all love). The ones that support multiple audio streams support it so poorly that I only get the stream it chooses or all of them at once.

These are features the freaking TV needs built into it. It's a device to watch video, so all of it's features should be centered around incorporating as many video sources as possible instead of the dumbass spread of random in-house movie stores they tend to support. Would it really kill them to put a freaking cable card slot in the TV, seriously I'm sick of having to have a cable box around when all it's used for is to decrypt the incoming signal.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[isorox]

TVs should be a display and that's it. Give it the brain to decode HDMI signals and the tuner for over the air digital but that should be it.

You've said two incompatible things there. Wither you want your tv to just have a baseband hdmi input or 10, or you want it to receive a data stream and decide it. Dvbt, dvbc, ts over ip, doesn't matter.

You presumably want a way of displaying what channels are in your stream, without tuning in manually and selecting a pid.

Fundamentally what's the difference between watching a dvb stream over the air, and watching a Netflix program?

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Dan667]

personally, I like MythTV even better. It will even skip commercials without even needing to press a remote button.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Charliemopps]

Looks like, yet again, we need to wait for google to step in with Android TV or whatever and save us all. How can companies be so blind to the obvious when all the world knows what will work? 10 to 20 years from now you'll hear Sony and everyone else bitching that Google and Valve rule everything they do... how dare they take over the entire market by giving the customers what they want?

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Cederic]

* no useful apps available outside of Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu Plus..

I use the DLNA capability on my Samsung Smart TV, which is useful. More often than that I watch films on LoveFilm, which has always worked perfectly. I could use Netflix but I've been using Lovefilm for longer than Netflix has been available in this country.

I use the iPlayer from time to time, which also works fine.

I'll admit that I tend not to use the rest of the apps much. But having built in wifi means I can stream directly to the TV from the iPlayer or Lovefilm servers, very simply and with HD quality. It also means I can access my media server, with its selection of films, and access my photo site if people want to see my pictures 'in the large'. (I tend to use a tablet for most photo browsing, to be fair).

The other factor is that the 'smart' bit of the smart tv is frankly a relatively trivial add-on. The beautiful screen is the bit that matters, and it's tough getting that good a screen these days without the 'smart' bit thrown in as a bonus. Why even try?

Re:walled gardens don't work

[GIL_Dude]

I agree with you on that. I have one of these "Smart TVs" (in my case an LG). I've had it for 5 months now. It has gotten 4 "software updates" that nobody from LG will document or give a change log for so we have no idea what is being added, removed, or fixed. After 4 months, it began randomly rebooting. Sometimes it would work through most of a soccer or football game - other times it would reboot almost every 15 minutes. Had to have the main board replaced (under warranty thankfully). It does have some apps. It has Netflix. Now, I have the TV and the TiVo on wired networking. When I watch Netflix using the TV app, it is so laggy that it is unwatchable. It goes to pixelated crap all the time. Using the TiVo to watch Netflix works fine. So we don't use any of the "Smart" apps on the TV. We just run the silly updates when prompted. Other than that, we just use the HDMI inputs and once in awhile a VGA in. Quite frankly I'd rather it be a dumb display and just leave the "Smarts" to the devices connected to it.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye. TVs should be used for displaying TV stations the same way phones should be used for placing phone calls. But hey, it's cool to have a clock and agenda on it. And why not add a Snake game? And video cameras are small and it's cool to always have one around. And since we're using a full blown OS, why not add other games and features? Since you use your phone to stay in touch by placing phone calls, it would be cool to also be able to stay in touch by email & IM. Since we're online, we might as well throw a web browser with it. Ah what the hell, we're using Linux, so let's give everyone the ability to create their own apps.

I wonder what will come of TVs.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[drinkypoo]

I kind of wish that there was a recess in the back of the TV or more "behind the screen" PCs that mount on the VESA pins (or between if you wall mount it) that had a simple 12v power supply and HDMI port.

Step 1: Right angle HDMI connector of the proper right angle (left or right, who cares which is which, buy one on eBay with a picture.)
Step 2: Plug in gumstick android machine, install XBMC
Step 3: Profit!

You can mount stuff to the VESA mount, but there's not any good reason to sell that because you can't sell it to people who can't wall mount and the computers are getting so small that they don't even need mounting, the connector can withstand enough force to hold them in.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[phantomfive]

If you don't like the iPhone, then you probably won't like the AppleTV. *shrug* If you don't see how the iPhone changed smartphones, then you're an idiot.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple TV will only work if they can get the content at an affordable price, and make it available worldwide. Otherwise it is just another flop. But then it would really have to do something magical to beat the price of a nice 40" LED TV and a Roku or Plex media PC

Re:walled gardens don't work

[drinkypoo]

requirements to use specific and approved USB cameras or widgets.

I'm afraid that unless you want your TV to run Windows you are probably going to be SOL on that one, since no manufacturer is going to try and support every random ultra low-cost craptastic webcam chipset with a custom driver when they can just sell you one of their own. If the fault lies anywhere it is with the USB standard for not defining a standard driver-neutral webcam interface

I beg your pardon, what was that again?

It really only makes sense to offer a TV with nothing, Android with access to the Play store, or an iPhone dock. That's it.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[marcosdumay]

I'd venture a guess that one of the main reasons that most smart TVs are used as plain TVs is because the people that bought them don't even know they are smart. Thus, they can't go through the rationale the GP proposed.

Altough, they can go through a similar one: "This is the top of line TV, it must be good", that coupled with the fact that all top of the line TVs are smart makes them favor buying smart TVs... But not at the expense of add-ons. They just probably don't want add-ons.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[schnell]

Snark if you want, but as someone who worked in the industry at the time I can tell you when Apple first showed off the iPhone in January 2007 it changed damn near everything (or at least it did when the other OEMs and carriers realized to their horror that people were actually buying the damned things). Full touchscreen-based UI, functional web browser, no carrier software deck and WAP store, real music player functionality and good video viewing, multitouch, visual voicemail ... It all seems old hat now but if you don't remember what it was like, go pick up a contemporary BlackBerry or Windows Mobile 6 phone and tell me if it doesn't just beat the shit out of it in terms of usability.

you can hate Apple for what they have become, but you cannot dismiss how that original iPhone changed the wireless landscape. If they can do the same for TVs, it could be very very interesting.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[kye4u]

I bought a car expecting it to go real fast. The reality is that regardless of whether or not it can go real fast, I rarely drive much above the speed limit anyway. I bought a Wii expecting to use it to exercise. The reality is I sit on the couch and play games with wrist flicks. People buy based on expectations, not how they'll actually use it.

People buy based on how products are marketed to them, not how they'll actually use it.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Phroggy]

Have you looked at the AppleTV?

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Netflix app on your TiVo works better than the one in your tv, then you're in a small subset of people http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=491641.

I have a Sony smart tv and Netflix on it works 10 times better than the TiVo's Netflix app. If Sony had introduced smart TVs before they stopped making TVs with CableCard slots I probably would have dropped my TiVo.

So maybe smart tv app usability is still heavily dependent on manufacturer input.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Kjella]

That was my idea as well, I saw what an uncle of mine spent on a fancy new smart TV, I was thinking "so... this is like a TV + a $99 AppleTV in one, except it is less flexible and costs way more". Personally I got myself a dumb TV, no 3D, apparently no buzzword-compliance because it was on a huge going-out sale but it's a 60" LCD. For one my fiber company has a smart set top box, I have a PC hooked up and for some reason I thought I could use an AppleTV and I recently got a Wii U that can browse the Internet too so I already have four "smart" devices to hook up, why would I need a 5th one in the TV itself? Personally I'm just hoping 4K can come down from lottery winner to semi-reasonable prices, I'd like both a 4K monitor and a 4K TV, dumb as a brick thank you.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you used a TV with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, et al? Mine has applications to connect to those services directly, and while there's a tiny amount of lag browsing the title selection, it's pretty much "good enough", and I'm pretty happy with it.

It's also a DLNA client. While codec support is not 100% (some of the more exotic codecs) and it has a little trouble with scaling low-res, it's close enough that I'm convinced in a few years it could be finished and completely functional.

Really, this fits in with your vision of "TV as display"- it's just that I am equating the network with HMDI. Much as with a DVD player or Netflix, the content is being stored elsewhere and streamed to the TV.

It's a Panasonic plasma, FWIW.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

So a Smart TV is going to work because it is made by Apple.?? I don't think so. People don't replace their TVs every two years like a tablet or phone. They are big and expensive. Expect it to be a big a failure as the rest of them. Only an Apple fanboi would think otherwise.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[jackbird]

Isn't that a fair description of a cable box/DVR?

Re:walled gardens don't work

[hairyfeet]

If you like the XBMC UI and want to build an HTPC dirt cheap you really should check out OpenELEC as its built around the XBMC UI and has pre-builds for all the major designs, Atom/ION, AMD Fusion, standard Intel or AMD, etc and even comes with PVR software baked in.

That said I looked into smart TVs before going HTPC with my family and the problem is it is proprietary city, everybody is making their own UIs and nothing is standardized and they all frankly suck. its more about trying to lock you into their ecosystem than it is making a truly great UI and it shows, slow loads, clunky UIs, problems with compatibility with this code or that website, its just a giant PITA.

I built an AMD Bobcat based HTPC for mom and an Athlon X2 based for dad (because he wanted to be able to access his shop cams and so needed a little beefier CPU) and its like night and day compared to the smart TVs. They can run all their programs (I went win 7 HP with XBMC but Win 8 actually works good in this regard as metro is practically a 10 foot UI already), everything is snappy, I slapped in a 1TB HDD and ripped all their CDs and DVDs so if mom wants to watch her horror movies or dad his action its just a push of the button, they can chat, surf, its just so much nicer than the clunky slow smart TVs it wasn't really any comparison.

My only advice would be if you want small and low power get the Bobcat, I ended up having to use a nice black mini-tower instead of a VCR style on dad to fit a silent heatsink, unlike the Bobcat the Athlons do generate some heat and all the mini CPU coolers i found either ran hot or sounded like an F15 taking off. That said I have paired a cheap Athlon or Phenom II X4 with an HD4850 ($30-$40 at Geeks) for several customers that wanted to game and they are quite happy, playing Batman:AC and Saints Row 3 and thanks to all the Steam sales its a lot cheaper than the consoles to build a collection and of course no discs to mess with or lose either.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[1u3hr]

I'd venture a guess that one of the main reasons that most smart TVs are used as plain TVs is because the people that bought them don't even know they are smart.

I visited my sister in law last week, she's had a Samsung "smart" TV for a few months. Was only using it to watch broadcast TV. The broadband router was right next to it, but never plugged in. So I plugged it in, looked up the manual online and tried to get it going. Main issue was that you had to use the incredibly clumsy arrow keys on the remote for input. So it took literally 2 minutes to type in "youtube.com" to test that out. The manual never mentioned that there are apps for smartphones that can act as touchpad remotes, Found that out later, so will try that next time I visit.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[tlhIngan]

TVs should be a display and that's it. Give it the brain to decode HDMI signals and the tuner for over the air digital but that should be it. Every time a manufacturer tries to put more then that in their TV it just makes it worse. I spent a day at best buy looking at TVs this month, not a single internet enabled had an interface that doesn't make you want to rip out all your hair. Added features shouldn't break the main ones.

The problem is the "brain" part is getting smarter. What used to take all of whatever it was to control the scaler and all that, barely takes any at all because the video processors are coming with GHz class ARM processors (because really, making them at 200MHz isn't much cheaper) so the control of the inputs and video scalers and switchers and all that, are leaving a lot of cycles free.

Enough so that while my first TV probably ran a very limited RTOS, my upgraded TV (it is "connected" in that it has a... web browser) runs Linux. And actually put my embedded platform I was working on to shame (my TV - 128MB of RAM, 128MB of flash, 533MHz ARM11 (this was 2009). The platform I used had 128MB of RAM, 64MB of flash, and was a 233MHz ARM9 and was doing GigE networking and all that). Today's smart TVs probably are coming with single core Cortex A8s or dual core A9s because the SoCs with them are so cheap.

Heck, many of them are becoming mixed-signal and handle HDMI(+HDCP), component, composite and S-Video natively just because the SoC guys were bored, and tossed in A8s/dual A9s because they also wanted to sell them as tablet SoCs. With camera interfaces and all that.

Basically, TV manufacturers are given newer and newer SoCs for their video processors with more and more capability because it's so cheap to do so. Unlike say, a calculator... which I'm sure for the BOM cost 10 years ago and all that , probably could sport A8s and A9s with impressive displays and memory capacity.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[kiddygrinder]

yeah, i never used my "internet" tv until i got a raspberry pi, now i have one each for my 3 tvs all running xbmc. as a bonus the remote feeds back through CEC to control xbmc. before anyone has a go i realise i can probably do this better but this currently works for me.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Low-end Philips sets are also slow on the interface. Weird thing is that the same functionality appears to be multiple times faster on their upper-end bluray player. Sorry to hear other manufacturers are equally bad on this department. Perhaps it's about the thermal environment in those tightly packed flat screen tv's?

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll piggy back on your experience except with LG.

We have the Netflix app and it has been nice when they have what we want to watch. We use the DLNA functionality the most of the "smart" functionality.
Occasionally, we'll use the Youtube app if we have guest and don't want everyone huddled around a laptop/computer of the conversation goes that way.

Unless something better comes along DLNA is fantastic. The TV came with Nero MediaHome 4 OEM (but Serviio is working very well too).

Re:walled gardens don't work

[jawtheshark]

Now that $80 HDMI cable, though, that they'd probably buy.

You'd be surprised about that. Recently I was at an acquaintance and his BlueRay was connected via composite. I wish I was kidding

Re:walled gardens don't work

[drinkypoo]

before anyone has a go i realise i can probably do this better but this currently works for me.

If it works for you that's great. My SHARP LCD TV has HDMI CEC, but it's not enabled on this model number, and I don't know anyone familiar enough with SHARP TVs to hack it on. But after you pay for the codec licenses and a case you have achieved price parity with something better.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[OolimPhon]

Fundamentally what's the difference between watching a dvb stream over the air, and watching a Netflix program?

The fact that a Netflix subscription costs money and receiving OTA doesn't?

Re:walled gardens don't work

[ThatsNotPudding]

Oh, and fair warning, dear TV makers: this isn't rocket science, and if Apple is indeed working on an Apple TV, it WILL eat your lunch. Because they will get it right, and people will fall over themselves to get a well-thought out, easy to use, pretty TV that integrates into the Apple eco-system.

They will then *ahem* emulate what Apple has done, but offer it at a fraction of the 'i' price and possibly even give you some semblance of ownership rights and access not available in the beautiful walled garden.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently people have forgotten the history of the iPod as well. It was *far* from the first portable digital music player.

I'm not saying it would be easy, worth the price, or necessarily successful, but given the rather poor standard that other TV manufacturers have set for a "smart" TV, I'm pretty confident that if Apple ever releases their own version of a smart TV, it will blow the other offerings away. Hell, if all they do is bolt an Apple TV box on the back of a half-decent LCD display, it would probably be better than most of the offerings out there from TV manufacturers.

About the only "smart" feature I want from a TV these days is comprehensive DNLA and as much support of playback encoding options as possible. Other than that, I'll plug a computer into it, because manufacturers have also shown that they aren't enthusiastic about updating the firmware in their "smart" TVs past about 2 or 3 years. I plan to keep my TV a lot longer than that, which means it may as well be a "dumb" monitor from the start.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[isorox]

Fundamentally what's the difference between watching a dvb stream over the air, and watching a Netflix program?

The fact that a Netflix subscription costs money and receiving OTA doesn't?

OTA can do, that what CAMs are for. Same as via satellite can be free.

There is no difference between my tv taking an mpeg stream via dvb over satellite and cable, atsc over terrestrial, rtp over ip, asi over a closed circuit, etc.

If your TV has an epg to select what you want, you might as well have YouTube.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Bigbutt]

Mine has the capability for internet connectivity however the router is downstairs in the computer room and the TV is upstairs in the living room. I'm not running a cable that far and I'm not putting the router and computer up next to the TV. If the TV was capable of wi-fi, I might check it out. I did do some quick searching to see if there was a reverse wi-fi connection device but didn't find any. However the Xbox360 I bought last Christmas in order to play Rocksmith is wireless. Unfortunately there's really nothing I want to use on the Xbox and using the controller to enter characters is a pain in the ass (and no, I don't want to buy another accessory (keyboard) so I can type quicker).

[John]

Re:walled gardens don't work

[orgelspieler]

Don't bother. If you've got your smartphone out to use as a remote, just use it to watch the Youtube videos.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[orgelspieler]

Oh my god. The Samsung Netflix app is a piece of shit. You can't even add new movies to your queue (c. 2011). I assume that was Netflix's fault, not Samsung. We fired Netflix after the whole price hike "apology" email, but we had pretty much given up watching it on the Samsung. The main reason was not queue issue, but streaming problems.

Let me explain. We also have a Toshiba BR player with Netflix. It did not suck as bad. Still couldn't add movies to it, but it would stream at a reasonable quality without any blips. Mind you, the Toshiba's connected over wireless. The Samsung TV is hooked right into the router, but for whatever reason, it would always try to download it at too high a quality. So here I am, not even able to watch an episode of Word World with my 3 year old. Not like it's some 1080p action flick. Every 90 seconds it would pause to buffer some more. Rather than just bumping down the stream quality. Seriously, WTF?

And don't even get me started about the updates. Sometimes it would download an update to e.g. the ESPN app, just to have another download in the same update cycle that deleted the ESPN app altogether. (why it has to download to delete an app is another mystery, but whatever) Look I'm not gonna let you lock up my TV for half a damn hour just to watch some Netflix. A cancel button, or an estimate on download time would be nice. GRRRRR.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[crazyjj]

It should be a crime for a blu-ray player to even HAVE a composite output.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[mcgrew]

Yep, I just got a Sony

My condolences.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[tompaulco]

After 4 months, it began randomly rebooting.
This is what annoys me about modern electronics. They put in all this unnecessary fancy fluff and then it gets in the way of the core functionality. Yeah, it's great that my Android can play games and movies and stuff, but it is really annoying when it reboots in the middle of a phone call. My old Nokia dumb phone never did that. I have also never had a "dumb" TV reboot in the middle of a broadcast. Since they can't stop these devices from rebooting, they need to include an extremely basic OS that is stable and does only what the device is supposed to do, ie make phone calls in the case of a phone, or display programming in the case of a TV.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[multi io]

That Smartphone app will just replicate the remote's keyboard 1:1 on your smartphone display, so forget it.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[1u3hr]

Don't bother. If you've got your smartphone out to use as a remote, just use it to watch the Youtube videos.

On a 2" screen, as opposed to 46"?

Re:walled gardens don't work

[mikechant]

Searching YouTube is a pain,...

Youtube app search sucks on my LG 'smart tv'. The only time I use it is when I'm very drunk, I'll do one search for a band I feel like, then just use the 'related stuff' facility to keep playing vaguely related videos until I've had enough.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[HaZardman27]

If you're by yourself, great. If you're watching Youtube videos with other people, the TV is much nicer.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[teg]

I have one of these TVs, and one major problem is that each manufacturer is trying to create a captive audience for their own variety of apps.

As a result, the number of apps available is pathetic, and almost all boil down to TV stations vanity apps

Walled gardens can work - just look at Apple's app store for iOS. And I have no doubt that an app store for Apple TV would be a large success.

Don't confuse the drawbacks with "can't work". Some (not all) examples of drawbacks

• The "gardener" gets to enforce policies that might be in conflict what customers wants. E.g. crazy American moral standards: Nipples are really, really, really bad, violence is for everyone
• Open source is harder
• The lead time for software to reach the user is increased

Even so, there are advantages to users as well. A single location to find, buy and update apps is easy - far easier than the mess that I had e.g. on my Nokia N95 in the pre-iPhone days. Finding apps was hard, and there was no update mechanism. You also decrease the chance of malware significantly, and at least in theory apps shouldn't misbehave as much.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the analogy i was seeing, the story reads like a smartphone review from the pre-iphone days.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a car expecting it to go real fast. The reality is that regardless of whether or not it can go real fast, I rarely drive much above the speed limit anyway. I bought a Wii expecting to use it to exercise. The reality is I sit on the couch and play games with wrist flicks. People buy based on expectations, not how they'll actually use it.

People buy based on how products are marketed to them, not how they'll actually use it.

that's what SJHillman said. "based on expectations". Identifying one of the reasons for these expectations and bolding it doesn't make you smart.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Farmer Pete]

Apple didn't revolutionize the smartphone world, they refined it. They took what was already there and made it better. If you want to talk about who revolutionized the market, it was RIM with some help from Palm and MS.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[krakelohm]

There is a huge difference in doing something and doing something the right, first out of the gate is not a guaranteed win.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Idbar]

I got the GoogleTV from Sony, and works great for me. Yes, it's underpowered, but it has what I need, Netflix runs fine and despite some random hangs (probably had two issues) they recover "gracefully" without me having to resort to hard resets or anything. Most of those issues have been related to Adobe Flash apps running on websites I try to visit.

Other than that, I like and enjoy using it, if I need something the TV cannot provide (some websites requiring particular browsers or flash versions), I connect to it using WiDi or HDMI and launch programs from my laptop.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[NIK282000]

It seems like they are going to turn into a full blown computer, but if you are making a TV with a big computer on the back why not separate them so that you don't have to buy a new computer every time you want a new display. Oh wait, I think I said that 4 or 5 posts ago. Not every hole needs to be plugged.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Snark if you want, but as someone who worked in the industry at the time I can tell you when Apple first showed off the iPhone in January 2007 it changed damn near everything (or at least it did when the other OEMs and carriers realized to their horror that people were actually buying the damned things). Full touchscreen-based UI, functional web browser, no carrier software deck and WAP store, real music player functionality and good video viewing, multitouch, visual voicemail ... It all seems old hat now but if you don't remember what it was like, go pick up a contemporary BlackBerry or Windows Mobile 6 phone and tell me if it doesn't just beat the shit out of it in terms of usability.

you can hate Apple for what they have become, but you cannot dismiss how that original iPhone changed the wireless landscape. If they can do the same for TVs, it could be very very interesting.

163007

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

You just described unix!

Each command/function/module should do one thing and do it well. (and should not be owned by Apple)

Re:walled gardens don't work

[Idarubicin]

When they spend all that money on a TV, they expect it to do cool stuff, out of the box. If you tell them they need to buy something else, they're going to think you're trying to screw them over.

That's right. That's why televisions with integrated cable boxes, VHS, DVD, and CD players have always been such big sellers. Wait...

Re:walled gardens don't work

[airdweller]

All Samsung "smart" TVs that I saw had YouTube apps (2011-2012). I'm not sure why you had to type in anything.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[airdweller]

I think most (if not all) smart TV manufacturers offer wifi dongles.

Re:walled gardens don't work

[1u3hr]

All Samsung "smart" TVs that I saw had YouTube apps (2011-2012). I'm not sure why you had to type in anything.

Silly me, I used the browser to go to the website. Didn't notice anything that looked like a Youtube app on the screen, but it was the first time I've ever used such a thing and the manual was totally void of help. Anyway, presumably you'd still need to type if you want to search for specific videos.

Sounds a lot like...

[Anonymous Coward]

the failed MSN TV debacle. People (for the most part) don't want to surf the net on their set top boxes.

Re:Sounds a lot like...

[tompaulco]

the failed MSN TV debacle. People (for the most part) don't want to surf the net on their set top boxes.
I don't know why they keep trying to recycle this technology. I guess the investors have deep pockets and short memories. Don't these people remember WebTV?

ads

[Anonymous Coward]

I use internet on my TV but I find almost all TV browsers are poor. When I do watch media on my TV its mainly because I don't want advertisements in my face. I much rather want advertisements in my face whilst playing games, apparently, because that's where they all are starting to pop up.

Because it's a goddamned mess!

[crazyjj]

300 different online video apps, no clue how to find the TV show or movie I want to watch. And when I do find it, no way to tell it to look for it free first (before amazon hits me up for $6 to rent it).

Re:Because it's a goddamned mess!

[nospam007]

I don't even have a cable/antenna connection on my smart TV. I just have connected a laptop in the garage to it and I watch my torrented series and movies on it, so it's just a smart monitor. I just use the remote to switch it on and to switch on 3D for the movies requiring it.

I got a keyboard which lights up when I come near it so that I can type in the dark and a large touchpad for the couch.

Let's think about this...

[Synerg1y]

When you expand a TV's capabilities outwards far enough what do you get?

A PC? A mini-PC? aka a computer.
Right now they act more like an embedded machine with preset apps & software limitations.
They'd have to have an app market & flash based storage for one, but let's think even more (head hurt? not really),
I can use my TV as a monitor making it a computer and the latest FF & IE > anything on that Sony for web browsing + I get a USB keyboard (I already own) to use, that kind of helps. The same goes for the rest of the apps including netflix, which I have a big red button for on my remote, the PC version is more stable, faster, and overall better.

I don't use my TV as a monitor however, so I appreciate the netflix button and the amazon video app all over wifi, can't say I use a whole lot besides that, but the webcam & bluetooth might have some uses every once in a blue moon.

My point is a TV should remain a TV, I'd rather pay for a better image processor than a crappy browser, but if they were to try and make them smarter, they'd have to follow the cell phone's evolution into a smartphone and add similar features in regards to UI design & customization.

Re:Let's think about this...

[Fluffeh]

I utterly agree with your sentiment.

The concept of "Smart" TVs is a marketing concept gone terribly wrong. Yes, the technology is here to allow us to do some wonderful things with the internet and through apps, but until a TV can do better than a PC as far as the internet is concerned, or better than a media player than is connected to it, or better than the media server that is connected to that, then why on earth would I want my TV to do any of it?

If I want to pay games, I will do so on a gaming system, not through the TV using the remote as a controller. If I want to watch a movie or show, I will do it via the easiest and most intuitive manner I can find - and that being in the TV is a LONG way off the features and maturity of more specialized items. Heck, when I look for features in a TV, I don't even care about sound, I want it to do nothing more than display a picture that is being supplied to it.

If manufacturers want to ween me off using a western digital media player, make the features of the built-in media player better than those of the western digital player I use. I admit that I did try the Samsung version that came with my TV. It was horrific. If you want me to use *your* software, make it at least as good as what I have - which will make it more convenient to have it built-in and therefore better overall, otherwise, stop wasting my time and money.

Re:Let's think about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped reading at "& IE". Your post immediately became junk when you typed the "E".

Re:Let's think about this...

[Synerg1y]

The simple solution here is don't ever become a web developer :) I've used FF for all my browsing, since v1.x, & probably before you knew what IE stood for...

Re:Let's think about this...

[h4rr4r]

I remember using it when it was called Phoenix.

Re:Let's think about this...

[Synerg1y]

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks TV apps are just crappy to begin with, you touched on two major points though, one is Sony & Samsung will ram features down your throat to get their profits up, whether you use them or not, they don't care, especially lately, I have apps on mine to services I've never heard of, much less want to pay for. The other is not so much a point as an observation and that's my older blu-ray player also by Sony has a stable netflixes app in the 100% stability range, go figure, the Bravia one doesn't crash, but every so often it can't be found and you have to refresh from internet apps... I've googled this and that's the way to fix it, unfortunately it comes with a 1 minute (yep 60 seconds)+ wait lag. I've always gotten a laugh out of it trying to watch netflix on it with somebody around and having to explain that this absolutely badass TV w a 980hz max processor is going to make us wait a minute to even boot up the netflix app.

Re:Let's think about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you never go to a site which requires IE?

Re:Let's think about this...

[future assassin]

If I want to pay games, I will do so on a gaming system, not through the TV using the remote as a controller.

We use a Logitech K400 and two XBox controllers to play emulators, Humble Bundle games and STEAM.

Re:Let's think about this...

[citylivin]

look at the bright side though, when people start ditching their smart tv's as their apps start getting older and buggier and buggier, there will be plenty of nice free hardware available on the curbside. Then some future open source project - ddwr-tv - will allow us to flash new firmwares to them!

Its amazing what some people throw away as "broken"

Re:Let's think about this...

[mrchaotica]

Good luck with that... I've been searching for such projects ever since I got a TV that displayed the GPL in the help menu, and I have yet to see evidence that any exist.

Re:Let's think about this...

[sjames]

Exactly. In my case, I would like to see it able to mount a volume on my LAN (NFS preferred, Samba is acceptable) and be willing to play any A/V files there. An HTML5 browser with flash will be preferred over a special youtube app. Available remote control apps for Android and iPhone would be nice.

No surprise

[Bender Unit 22]

I spent around 3300$(converted to $) a few years ago on a so called "smart TV" from Samsung. Less than a year after I bought it, they stopped updating the software. They never fixed it's problems with remember subtitles settings.
The "Smart TV" part never got to be in any usable state and now after Netflix has entered my country, it is clear that this model will never get a downloadable app for Netflix.

So, no, I am not going to spend YET more money on a new TV when it is capable of showing a picture. Although I would have liked to have a all-in-one box, I guess it is not possible so I still have to buy boxes and then still use the tv as a monitor.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I really like the samsung smart tv, but artificial restrictions on youtube is bullshit.

Re:No surprise

[roc97007]

I spent around 3300$(converted to $) a few years ago on a so called "smart TV" from Samsung. Less than a year after I bought it, they stopped updating the software. They never fixed it's problems with remember subtitles settings.
The "Smart TV" part never got to be in any usable state and now after Netflix has entered my country, it is clear that this model will never get a downloadable app for Netflix.

So, no, I am not going to spend YET more money on a new TV when it is capable of showing a picture. Although I would have liked to have a all-in-one box, I guess it is not possible so I still have to buy boxes and then still use the tv as a monitor.

...but but but... I think that's the business model. You buy a TV, find that the apps are crap, and that you need to buy another TV for some of the apps to work, and then another TV comes along where more features work, so you have to have that, and so on in incremental improvements. It keeps workers in China, helpdesk people in India, and marketing people in the US all employed. As an added bonus, since the TVs are flat, the old ones stack really well in landfills.

Re:No surprise

[timeOday]

Nobody expects you to buy a new $3000 TV instead of plugging in a Roku for $50. It is almost inevitable that any "smart" functions purchased today will soon be obsolete. But they will keep including them, because they are cheap to include, and help to differentiate between products that are otherwise very difficult to differentiate.

Re:No surprise

[dgatwood]

That's certainly Samsung's business model, anyway. They break things in firmware updates, and then they stop shipping updates after about a year or so, so you never actually get what you paid for. From now on, the only thing I'm ever going to buy from Samsung is TVs, and even then, only the dumbest variety. I just don't trust them to do anything remotely complicated software-wise without completely screwing it up.

But in some ways, it's bigger than that. Consumer device manufacturers are good at hardware and generally suck at writing software. And they have no motivation to support that hardware after they stop selling it, or even while they're selling it. With the short product cycles of today's consumer electronics industry, by the time consumers discover how buggy the software is, the next version of the product is on the market, and potential consumers are reading a fresh set of reviews about that new product, written by people who haven't discovered the glaring flaws yet.

On a general-purpose device, by contrast, the software vendors are continuing to improve a single product over time to gain new customers, which means that everyone gets the improvements. This is why you're always better off with a general-purpose device—a laptop, an iPad connected through an Apple TV, an HTPC, whatever. And if the software sucks, you can always ditch it and install different software. You can't do that with specialized devices; if your Blu-Ray Player or TV's software sucks, you're stuck. Hence, there is no real benefit to having software-based features on those devices. If anything, the very existence of additional software on those devices is a waste of engineering resources that could be better spent making those single-purpose devices actually do the job they're supposed to do.

Re:No surprise

[roc97007]

That's a good argument to stay far enough behind the curve that you can find out what the typical user experience is (and the most common fixes/upgrades/workarounds) before buying the device.

It's often said that the user community acts as a gigantic unpaid QA department. This breaks down if nobody benefits. As you said, the manufacturers are generally not listening, and the early adopters will always adopt early regardless. It's the middle-to-late adopters that reap the benefits.

For instance, I have yet to buy a tablet, because I don't want another device in addition to my Windows laptop, I want a device that *replaces* my Windows laptop, and that includes media creative work. (As opposed to media consumption.) Until the apps I need are available in true touch-centric fashion, and vetted by other users, I'm not interested. (Counter-clockwise squiggle to emulate the right mouse button does *not* count.)

Back when I was looking at tablets, I noticed that a tablet would come out with a certain version of Android, and that would pretty much be it. So buying a tablet with Froyo and hoping to upgrade it some day to Ice Cream Sandwich (for instance) was a losing proposition. So I waited, and then I realized that the apps I wanted weren't available yet, so I waited some more. I'm still waiting. Why buy electronic junk that doesn't do the job? I choose not to contribute to e-landfill.

(My daughter bought a Win7 slate because her drawing programs ran on Windows, but it was so difficult to use that she went back to her digitizing pad on her desktop machine. Lesson learned. She hasn't decided yet whether to upgrade to Win8, attempt to load Android, or just dump it.)

I didn't buy my smart 3d TV for those features...

[megalomaniacs4u]

I have a smart 3dtv, I bought that model because it was the cheapest way to get an LCD/LED backlit TV with enough HDMI sockets for my gear.

All the cheap non-smart/non-3d TV on the market in my price range and target screen size maxed out at 2 HDMI sockets, moving up to a smart TV gained me an extra HDMI and 3D... Moving up a model again gained another HDMI...

I use none of the smart tv features - my dvr does them better...

Obvious study is obvious

[iamhassi]

Did they really need a study for this? Why would someone use their 52" TV for twitter or Facebook when they have a tablet or laptop already?

Re:Obvious study is obvious

[aaarrrgggh]

What is surprising is that you can't connect to Amazon or Netflix on some of the units despite being "smart." They have their own video store and other such nonsense.

Re:Obvious study is obvious

[future assassin]

My kids do 13/16 and they love it on the big screen though a HTPC. They have laptop and Samsung phones but they prefer to sit there and use the TV as a computer. If there was an 10 Foot UI linux distro the TV would get way more computer time usage between watching HULU/Netlix/Cracle, playing games/STEAM and watching video from websites.

Re:Obvious study is obvious

[adolf]

What is surprising is that you can't connect to Amazon or Netflix on some of the units despite being "smart."

All of the "smart" BFTs I've installed recently had a big, fat Netflix button right on the remote.

I've never used it (indeed, we make a point of not connecting the television to the network), but it's there...

Re:Obvious study is obvious

[HappyEngineer]

Buying a TV without Netflix support was recently classified as a form of mental illness which can be treated by forcing the patient to watch nothing but political ads for 8 hours straight. After that point the cured patient is unable to hear the name Comcast without recoiling in terror and bursting into tears. Patients are reported to lead much fuller and happier lives thereafter.

I have purchased two TVs (one 55" and one 65") in the last few years. Required features: Netflix, DLNA, not Sony.

Re:Obvious study is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to DRM. Ive got 2 TB of movies and TV shows without DRM, and my PLEX system works just fine with any screen I connect to it with. I plan ot buy a Connected TV, but only one that can run PLEX or XBMC.

Re:Obvious study is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

(indeed, we make a point of not connecting the television to the network), but it's there...

Quite right. Never know when those Cylons might try and compromise the TV set.

Re:Obvious study is obvious

[OolimPhon]

(indeed, we make a point of not connecting the television to the network), but it's there...

Quite right. Never know when those Cylons might try and compromise the TV set.

Or the manufacturers will try and install an update that screws with your TV...

Re:Obvious study is obvious

[iamhassi]

My kids do 13/16 and they love it on the big screen though a HTPC. They have laptop and Samsung phones but they prefer to sit there and use the TV as a computer. If there was an 10 Foot UI linux distro the TV would get way more computer time usage between watching HULU/Netlix/Cracle, playing games/STEAM and watching video from websites.

RTFA: Netflix/crackle/YouTube/playing games is considered "watching TV", study was trying to see who was surfing with their TV, like going to /. or Facebook and reading. Your kids watching video on your tv is not "using the TV as a computer"...... unless you think computers were made for watching videos, in which case your geek card is formally revoked and you may leave thru the door on your right.

Re:I didn't buy my smart 3d TV for those features.

[h4rr4r]

No one buys them for these features.

I am buying a 60" 3d tv soon, try to find one that does not have these pointless features. I don't have cable nor an antenna it will purely be for my HTPC and PS3.

Apps suck, but works great as a media player

[89cents]

Yes, I agree the apps are useless, but my Samsung SmartTV is great for playing .mp4 and .mkv files. It will even play .mt2s files you can find on Blu-Ray disks. I just plug in a 1 TB WD Passport portable hard drive to my TV, and use this as my media center. No extra devices need to be turned on. It can also play directly from computer shares, but my wireless access of the TV to the living room is quite poor.

Re:Apps suck, but works great as a media player

[longbot]

This and the Netflix app are the ONLY things I use my (Samsung) TV for, actually!

Remember Web TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

William Shatner promised this was the next big thing!

Re:Remember Web TV?

[Raistlin77]

WebTV, haha! Someone brought one to me a few months ago that they bought at a garage sale for $50. He wanted me to show him how to use it. After I finally got through the laughter and explained to him how worthless it was, he promptly took it back to the garage sale and somehow managed to get his $50 back.

Re:Remember Web TV?

[bmo]

WebTV, when even the keyboard was an *option* for using the Internet. You had AOLers, and then you really scraped the bottom of the barrel in Usenet with WebTVers.

"SmartTVs" are WebTV but with even less functionality and more walled-garden. It's simply better to have a dumb device that only receives signal from various devices like computers, game consoles, and video-storage devices and acts like a "receiver" of sorts, much like how a stereo receiver takes input from various audio sources.

This "television cum internet terminal" was always a dumb idea, mostly because instead of being used to enable people, such devices are used to separate people from their money in the crudest ways possible.

And manufacturers wonder why the uptake isn't as much as they'd hope.

--
BMO

It Should be Simple (but it's not)

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD players have this mostly figured out (game consoles as well I guess) if I'm going to plug a video playing device to my network it better damn well play videos FROM MY NETWORK, simple right?

I should be able to attach to a network share or DLNA server or hit up any number of services and just pull content across the wire. Any content. Content of my own choosing.

I shouldn't have to bounce out to the internet to do it

I shouldn't have to verify who I am

I shouldn't have to log in to anything

But nope, all we get are little toy apps and NETFLIX which is hamstrung by ancient covenants that adhere to imaginary lines where content may exist on only one side.

Save the money you'd flush down the toilet buying an SMRT television and just buy a set top media box.

If it isn't plainly obvious I'm getting pretty fucking sick of all this VAST technology being used to deliver a half-assed solution that can be solved with a cheap "unlocked" DVD player I bought at the mall in Chinatown and Plex Media Server running on my 7 year old XP machine.

we need some kind of cable / satellite gateway box

[Joe_Dragon]

we need some kind of cable / satellite gateway box that let's use your own boxes / tv's linked useing a conman system. With no per tv / box outlet fees or mirroring.

Wholesale vs. Net TV Services ...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so most people watch TV on their Internet-Ready TV. When all that is available is Hulu, Netflix, Pandora, Redbox, and maybe some other obscure media sites, what exactly do you expect people to view on their TV's over the Internet?

Do Internet based games run on my TV? What controller would I use? Can I play flash games in the built-in browser? (Actually not sure on this one ...) Would I necessarily want to? Were Mfgr's expecting people to switch solely to Internet only media portals, completely ignoring what's coming in over Coax/Dish/etc..? If so, why?

Is bandwidth an issue? Are people hitting their monthly caps, or are media sources being deprioritized, some of the fears we had during the 'Net Neutrality' broohaha a while back?

This sounds like an 'if you build it, they will come' scenario. Well they built it. Sadly, the content online isn't their for them to come to. Or perhaps the TV and Advertising cartels still want their share of the cake when moving across to different distribution mediums. They don't like the contracts being proposed for Internet distribution, so why bother jumping into that viewing space.

Case in point, why does it cost $20 a month for HBO Online (Internet portal), yet I can get HBO through my Cable provider for an additional $10? And that's 3 HBO channels! I'm sure someone will say this is false equivalence, but the point remains. Same content is available afaik, so why the monetary discrepancy? Contracts! Which you nor I have any control over.

Not Surprised

[organgtool]

I have a "Smart" TV and I've never attempted to use it other than a monitor because I assume the "Smart" features are difficult to set up as well as broken and/or crippled. For instance, my TV may have access to Hulu, but I know for a fact that some networks prevent devices other than PCs from accessing their content. That is one of many reasons why I set up an HTPC with a four-tuner card running MythBackend and XBMC. Yes, it was incredibly painful to set up, mostly thanks to confusion and quirks in mythtv-setup, but now that it is running, it is incredibly slick. Live TV, DVR, downloaded movies, TV shows, and music, YouTube, Hulu, and Pandora all running through a slick and responsive interface. The next step is to buy some Roku HDs and install a Plex client to hook into MythBackend and sling live TV to remote televisions (and say goodbye to renting cable boxes).

I do believe there will come a time when people actually use features of Smart TVs, but first they will need to be convinced that the setup process is easy and that the features aren't broken due to poor implementation or greed from the networks.

Re:Not Surprised

[airdweller]

"my TV may have access to Hulu, but I know for a fact that some networks prevent devices other than PCs from accessing their content."
My guess would be that if your TV has a Hulu app, then the manufacturer already had an agreement with Hulu to let you have access.

People want TV

[91degrees]

Both articles are quite right. TV is a medium. It's a successful medium like music and books. In this case, people want to be told an audiovisual story. They don't really care to interact. There are other media for that that do that job better.

What people do like is better delivery mechanisms. MP3 players and kindles allow data to be delivered across the internet. So do smart TVs but not very well.

The big problem is that people aren't using internet streaming/downloading. Why? I don't know but I know why I don't. Because it doesn't behave how I want it to. I don't want to splash out on a TV that supports iPlayer, netflix and LoveFilm (UK centric here but the same could apply to the US) unless I know it will also support the next media provider that I might be interested in. I want a standard here. I want to buy TV that supports a standardised streaming mechanism that is supported by all these providers. If I upgrade my TV I can be sure to find one that works. If I switch to a different streaming video service I know it will work.

I do think wired.com has a valid point as well. From my experience with Tivo, the apps that are available are difficult to use. I need to navigate through menus which make it feel very much like the afterthought it is.

So, where are all the realists on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

when it comes to 3D printing or colonizing space?

Re:So, where are all the realists on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Busy mining bitcoins so they can buy 3d printers to print spacecraft?

Too slow....

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was looking at TV's 2 years ago, Smart TV's were the current rage, sold at a premium of $200-$500 more than the "stupid" one's. I went with a dumb TV and simply spent extra for the higher-end model with better color and contrast. However, I did get a Blu-ray player with "smart" features at the same time. So far, i've used the smart features of the Blu-ray player twice in two years. It's terribly slow, for example: it takes 15-20 seconds for Netflix to load. Each button press to scroll left/right/up/down within an app can take a full second to respond, and many times the apps fail to load at all.

To date, there has been one update to the apps that didn't improve performance at all and simply removed an app that was no longer working. I have no faith that the manufacturer will ever update it any further to improve performance or even maintain compatibility with the various services.

The best solution was simply to move my computer into the living room and hook it up to the TV. I use it for everything now: iTunes, Amazon VOD, Netflix, Justin.TV, Youtube, and so on. Performance is screaming fast since it's also my gaming rig, and updating is under my control.

Over the years i've tried various external devices connected to the TV like the AppleTV, Roku, WDTV, and Boxee Box. They all sucked compared to having a proper computer hooked up.

My "Dumb-TV" Technology.

[MindPrison]

I have what I like to call a "Dumb-TV", made by the brand Denver Electronics. No seriously, it's the dumbest TV on the planet. It's marketed as a "Smart-TV", but read on, and make your own judgement:

It's your typical super feature filled tv, with recording capabilities, Digital TV (DVB-T & C etc.). Media Playback, Pictures, Videos and whatnot...
Wonderful ...if it actually worked...

1) Every time I turn on the TV, the TV goes into Schizo-mode. I'll give you 2 channels today...no...4 channels...if you wait 10 more minutes, maybe 10 channels.
2) If you try to watch video via the scart plug (eg, the DVD player), sometimes it comes up with a message: No activity, want to turn off? (It waits until you press ok or cancel)
3) Sometimes it falls asleep - while still on, then a menu will sit and wait for you, until you press OK. (means...backlight still on, a small square saying "No activity for a while, sleep? OK or CANCEL"
4) When you insert a USB memory...it will let you watch TV for 20 seconds, before this HUGE menu covers the ENTIRE screen, geefully informing you of all your amazing multi-media experiences awaiting you. USB CARD INSERTED - OK? OK or CANCEL... The idiot TV will block your TV viewing until you take action.
5) It's amazing schizophrenic mode will be sure to forget that your USB CARD has already been inserted the last time, so the next time you turn on the TV, it will let you watch TV for half a minute before finally ....UH OH...You have an USB CARD INSERTED...HERE's a GIANT menu to block your TV, now make a choice!!!
6) Sometimes it will FIGHT you for ON/OFF mode. Is it on? Maybe it doesn't WANT to be turned on?! You press ON...the LED indicates that it understands, starts searching but decides to fall asleep instead.. OH you meant ON?! OK...press TWICE...and the TV is ON!
7) And it loves to inform you about useless stuff...such as.... CHANNEL 7 or 9 aren't currently transmitting, want to delete these unused channels? YES, No, Cancel!
8) It'll do this until you run out of channels. :)

Yep, dumb TV technology at it's best.

Re:My "Dumb-TV" Technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

I...

If you live in the US, you should have returned that television. It sounds like it doesn't meet the Fitness for Advertised Purpose test that everything not sold "As-Is" or "Without Warranty" must meet. If you live in the EU, you definitely should return that TV.

Re:My "Dumb-TV" Technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

When oh when are you going to learn how to write without abusing ellipsis punctuation? And learn how to spell the very basic and simple word "its"?

Re:My "Dumb-TV" Technology.

[servognome]

Dear confused owner:

Thank you for purchasing our product. We would like to address your concerns, as they are unique patented features of this device.

1) Schizo-mode(TM) has been developed after years of research and development to provide the maximum enjoyment for the viewer. It allivates what the industry has called "channel overload." By limiting the number of channels, viewers do not experience the initial 3-5 minute distraction of trying to decide what to watch. As the user becomes acclimated, their options are incrimentally expanded.

2) The Exercise Suggestion(TM) feature, has been developed to comply with 2020 EU health guidelines. Using patented methods, the system can determine the user's fitness level via the DVD button. In response to a low fitness rating, the television will remind the user that they have not engaged in recent physical activity and suggest they turn off the device.

3) The Sleep Suggestion(TM) feature, has been developed to comply with 2020 EU health guidelines. Our patented system can determine user fatigue by measuring pupil activity while watching the device. If the pupil activity drops below a specific threshold, the system will prompt the user and suggest they sleep.

4) Unlike competitive products which pop-up a menu upon USB insertion, your device includes USB Insertion Regret Prevention(TM). This is a patented feature designed to provide users the opportunity to remove the card without interruption in the event that they decide to continue watching their current program.

5) This is another feature of USB Regret Prevention(TM). Users are given a brief opportunity to view what is currently airing, so they can make an informed decision on whether they prefer to engage in the amazing multimedia experiences enabled by using the USB card.

6) Program Pre-Scanning(TM) is a patented feature where upon start-up the television scans the channels available and determines based on the user's viewing history if there are any programs they might be interested in. If there are none, the system will go into sleep mode. This can be overrided by pressing the power button twice. Please note that the accuracy of this feature will improve over time as it gains more data about the user's preferences.

7) This is an extension of the Schizo-mode(TM) feature, and is designed to assist the user by removing unnecessary channels.

8) Schizo Continuous Program Scanning(TM) allows the user to experience the best of Schizo-mode(TM) and Program Pre-Scanning(TM) while they are using the device. Based on user preferences from their history, the device will reduce the number of channels available. By removing channels with programs the user is not interested in, the user can more quickly find programs they are interested in. If you find that all available channels are removed, we suggest you contact your cable provider and order a package that includes programs you are interested in.

We thank you for your continued business.

Re:My "Dumb-TV" Technology.

[MindPrison]

So, you're saying my TV is smarter than I give it credit for?

(BTW: awesome reply!) :)

Re:My "Dumb-TV" Technology.

[MindPrison]

When oh when are you going to learn how to write without abusing ellipsis punctuation? And learn how to spell the very basic and simple word "its"?

Ah, so YOU are the one who wrote the firmware for my television set!? Bad coder, BAD coder!

I admit to liking the features

[mu51c10rd]

I like my Smart TV's apps and internet capability. I much prefer using the builtin Netflix/Hulu+/Amazon apps than running cables to another device. As it is, I ran power into a outlet in the wall behind my mounted TV. No cables, entertainment center or any other furniture are needed. I also got a sound bar mounted right above the TV for better sound. Not everyone wants a PC sitting in their room (and some of us like the simplicity of a single device).

Re:I admit to liking the features

[R3d M3rcury]

I have a Sony Bravia and I got the USB/WiFi adapter more as chuckle than anything else. But it's been fun.

I've used the YouTube and Crackle apps. It has NetFlix and Amazon's movie stores, but I haven't bothered to use them. Usually every few months I'll flip it on, update the Internet content, and see if there's anything new.

But is it life-changing? Nope.

People Said The Same Thing About Smart Phones Too

[EXTomar]

In my experience, my TV habits have shift radically since getting a Google TV. Instead of connecting a bunch of boxes to it, they've all gone to the older HDTV. Things I've noticed off the top of my head and in no particular order:

- The DLNA features is a necessary thing for all my TVs now. I've relied on less and less live TV due to this feature alone.
- Apps like Netflix run just as well if not more directly when it is on the TV itself instead of a secondary box.
- Since Google TV has Chrome, if there is not an app for something that offers video or a stream I can just browse to it, play it at full screen and enjoy it like watching a TV channel.

The only "traditional" thing I can think that TV does any longer is that it has a console connected to it where the console has duplicate features too which I would never run since they are all on the TV.

I wish it was smart enough to "scrape" a web page that has been book marked for video or audio content or stream and show it like a channel. Although Youtube and Chrome works fine, crossing between them is a still a bit clunky since it requires minimizing one/activating the other but that is something all tablets and phones. I also wish it would have a more intelligent guide where the information on a show should be available across all sources instead of "Now search Live TV", "Now search Internet" etc.

In the end I will admit that I'm not sure having "fancy TV" changed how I use it as much as my taste and habits changed. I no longer spend much time watching "Live TV" where an net aware and internet connected TV has been more useful.

Show me a survey of Tv users

[Anonymous Coward]

Who have a TV that supports HD but aren't even aware that they're getting a SD signal.

Heck, I've known people who don't know they have HD channels available to them. They can't understand going to channel 203 instead of 3.

Re:Show me a survey of Tv users

[dead_user]

203? Lucky. Our channel 3 went to 1258 or equally bizarre channel. Then again, I don't know what "channel" anything is any more than I KNOW my dentist's phone number. Ever since I got my first Tivo 10 years ago I have never watched a program by tuning to the channel. I tune to the show, and record it if it's on in the future. At this point I mostly review the new series coming out each tv season to add the shows I want the Tivo to grab and delete the cruft I don't have time for. So I really don't care if the channel numbers are sane.

rest of the headline

[slashmydots]

'Connected' TVs Mostly Used Just Like the Unconnected Kind...until they get hacked and/or infected. Then they work significantly differently.

Vidoe Game Consoles

[ZombieBraintrust]

Game consoles won the smart TV war. They have more realiable apps. They provide better games. They have better browsers.

Re:Vidoe Game Consoles

[Anonymous Coward]

And no one outside of gamers are using them for that. And even then, not many of those are using it. So that isn't much of a victory.

Re:Vidoe Game Consoles

[Anonymous Coward]

Game consoles won the smart TV war. They have more realiable apps. They provide better games. They have better browsers.

I take it you've never used the abominable browser on the PS3 then?

My 46" Samsung is used for Skype and Netflix...

[Assmasher]

...and according to some exploit news, spying on me.

Seriously though, I used Netflix on it constantly (I play comedy shows/specials/stand up on it as background noise during the day - or old movies) and I have it logged into Skype all the time (it has a nice webcam in it) as it makes a great teleconferencing device.

Without a good keyboard though, I'd never use it for inputting text (ye Gods and little boarlets that sounds like torture...)

Leave the tuner out too

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd leave out the tuuner too. The tuner in the TV is what maked hooking up an AV system so much harder than an audio only system. Audio systems would be a mess too if speakers included a tuner.

Re:Leave the tuner out too

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry the FCC requires TVs to have at least an ATSC OTA tuner.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/30/fcc-deadline-july-1st-2006-tv-25-inch-and-larger-must-have-an/

Re:Leave the tuner out too

[cayenne8]

I'd leave out the tuuner too. The tuner in the TV is what maked hooking up an AV system so much harder than an audio only system. Audio systems would be a mess too if speakers included a tuner.

Err...you know, they do sell large format, HD monitors out there, with no tuner, etc.

Unfortunately, most everything I've seen is LCD or LED LCD, and I prefer Plasma for my main television type device in the living room, and bedrooms....more of a cinematic look that I prefer.

Re:Leave the tuner out too

[realityimpaired]

Err...you know, they do sell large format, HD monitors out there, with no tuner, etc.

They can't actually call it a TV if it doesn't have a tuner, though, which means that they're harder to lay your hands on, and at least in my experience more expensive than an equivalently sized "TV" despite having *less* electronics. Supply and Demand. :)

Besides which, the tuner is very useful to folks like me who'd rather buy a pair of rabbit ears than pay a monthly tithe to a cable company. It's also really not that difficult to connect it back into the A/V system. I put the TV on an HDMI input from the A/V system and plug my BluRay, etc. into the A/V system by HDMI. I plug the optical audio out from the TV into a different input on the HDMI. When I want to watch an OTA broadcast, I switch input on the TV and set the A/V system to the input from the TV. When I want to watch something else, I switch back to the input from the A/V system and use it as a switch.

And if *that* is too difficult for people, then buy a TV with more than one HDMI input, and just run optical audio out to the A/V system. Use the TV as the input switch. A reasonably high end TV will pass the HD audio through the optical without breaking the HDMI authentication chain. The only reason I'm not doing it that way myself is that the TV only has 3 HDMI inputs while the stereo has 6.

Re:Leave the tuner out too

[robthebloke]

Which is why I bought a monitor and a smart blu-ray player. Same functionality, but with no need to pay for a UK TV license.

Vizio Smart TV

[theurge14]

I just purchased a smaller HDTV (32") very recently and I made my purchase based on what many of you would, the screen quality. The Vizio I picked has a brighter and more clear display than the others on the shelf and it has a thinner bezel. Additionally it has built-in WiFi and "Smart TV" features even though the price was the same as the others around it.

The TV has apps for Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and many others. Apparently it checks in with Vizio for firmware updates and app updates on its own, I'm ok with that. I only have a Netflix account so I tried that first. The app interface is nearly identical to the one on the XBOX, so I prefer now to use the TV's built in Netflix then powering on the XBOX and going through all the motions of logging in and launching it. Accessing Netflix with the TV remote is about equally clunky as the XBOX controller so nothing lost or gained through that, but without the added noise of the XBOX fans it's a gain.

It's not like I was seeking these features out, but they do seem to have a place just as long as they don't try to do too much. I have no desire to open a web browser up using a TV remote. However, if there was a way to wirelessly stream a laptop screen to the TV without too much added hardware or software then that would be the way to go. Or control the TV with my touchscreen smartphone. Vizio sells some stupid dongle for the iPhone to accomplish this along with some badly programmed app. No thanks, let me know when it doesn't suck.

Re:Vizio Smart TV

[drinkypoo]

Accessing Netflix with the TV remote is about equally clunky as the XBOX controller so nothing lost or gained through that, but without the added noise of the XBOX fans it's a gain.

The 360 sucks down power pretty well, so it's a big benefit to not have that going on. It is notable though that many say that the Netflix app on the 360 has only gotten crappier over time, and also that the 360 is one of the worst platforms on which to run Netflix. Personally I find a PC to be the only place it doesn't make me mad, largely because it's the only place I've found it to have adequate buffering.

Rage against the machine....

[spagthorpe]

Last month I bought my first new TV, having owned a lot of castoffs from friends. A shiny new Panasonic plasma "smart TV". My first thought was that I'd never use that stuff, but the picture was the deciding factor. Since the router was nearby, I went ahead and attached an Ethernet cable to it. Next thing you know, I'm surfing around on the built in Netflix and Amazon Prime apps, and less than a month later, I actually cancelled the cable TV service that I stopped watching.

Maybe it's just that I value my time differently, or that I don't spend hours randomly cruising through the channels on the off chance that I catch a show when I want to watch something. I want something on demand when I have time, and at least on my TV and internet connection combination, Netflix HD looks absolutely amazing.

Of course the cable providers know this, which is why heavy caps are in place in a lot of markets, and why I had to up my internet plan with my ISP to give me a higher cap, but if I was a big TV watcher, I'd still bust it.

meh

[jameshofo]

TV's have a bit of an interface problem when it comes to that, not many average consumers really want a keyboard sitting around in their living room and a lot of the apps that just require the remote tend to suck a lot in days past, such as the youtube search that was woefully underwhelming. I know my grandfather bought a web enabled TV, they just switched from dial-up to get on it, but he didn't use the web before...

the apps suck and are snail slow

[alen]

my father in law bought a smart TV because the person in best buy sold it to him
the apps suck
they are so slow its like watching trees grow
netflix is OK but the interface is better on the consoles and apple TV
my mom bought a smart TV with no wifi adapter and doesn't want to spend more money

when i showed her my x-box and what it does and explained that a smart TV only streams content for more money she lost interest. when i showed her how to stream russian TV over the internet to my apple TV without a cable sub her interest peaked.

the best smart TV i have is my apple TV. i can stream the apps from my iphones or ipad to the TV. and some apps are custom built for it so you see the picture on the TV and data stays on the device. like the wii u and 3ds do with their multiple screens

Re:the apps suck and are snail slow

[Anonymous Coward]

the best smart TV i have is my apple TV. i can stream the apps from my iphones or ipad to the TV.

Yup, the AppleTV is great at what it does. Not as flexible as some of the Android solutions but it works great for the majority of people. Integration with iOS devices and MacOS is excellent - most people I know bought it solely for this feature.

The problem with any external box is it doesn't integrate entirely with the TV. What should happen is when you connect your iOS device to the AppleTV, the TV should automatically switch to the correct input - and turn on if required. The volume should adjust from the iOS device as it does with AirPlay speakers. In essence, the TV should be nothing more then a screen. The extra "smart" features added by manufacturers really take away from the experience. The devices providing the content should be in control.

Of course I don't need an internet-connected TV

[Khyber]

You know why they suck? Because we have devices far more powerful than what they put in these TVs, which are more capable in the department of handling internet stuff.

This is why my 32" Samsung is a TV/monitor ONLY. Every other device I have hooked to it has all the 'smart' capability I need.

I use my Samsung Smart TV

[BenJeremy]

We mostly watch Netflix, YouTube, etc... and also use it to connect to our DLNA server for movies and TV shows.

Crappy Javascript games and apps, though? Why would I?

Still... as long as the "Smart" in the TV is geared towards watching content, we will always use it.

For our "dumb" other TVs we are forced to use "Smart" Blu-ray players to get our content.

How can I remoe ads from my smart TV?

[Crookdotter]

I don't like paying for the thing and then it serving me ads over the internet. Can anyone detail an easy way to find where my TV is getting these ads from and block / replace them?

I've thought about a linux transparent proxy between the TV and my router, analysing the logs, then writing a script to replace the offending ad, but that just seems like too much bother, although replacing the ad with my own image has a definite appeal. Is there a decent router than can block a specific address or two to stop these ads?

Re:How can I remoe ads from my smart TV?

[EmperorArthur]

I have a suggestion. But first a little background to make sure we're on the same page.
Routers typically have a DHCP server built into them. This not only tells your Computers and smart TV what IP address to have, they tell it what DNS servers to use.

DNS review. Whenever your computer browses to a domain name like "example.com" it sends a request to the DNS server. If the DNS server doesn't know the answer then it asks another one. Eventually one of them know's the ip address for "example.com" and then the original DNS server returns that to the PC.

Here's the good part.
What you can do on most routers is tell them to use a custom DNS server, if you can't then you can always run your own DHCP server as well. Basic proxying DNS servers are a dime a dozen. Just tell them to use OpenDNS as the next resolver, and you should have an override file somewhere. (might be the system's hosts file)

Now you have a hosts file for your entire LAN.

I can't help you with what domain is used by your TV, but you can certainly log that with your own DNS server.

Sucks - Canadian Style

[rueger]

I bought Sony BluRay specifically because I wanted to access content via the 'net instead of paying robber baron cable company prices.

My immediate thought was NetFlix, until I found out that we low-life Canadians only are allowed to access one quarter of the content available in the US. Despite paying the same price. So as well as paying Netflix their $8 a month, I pay a second company another $5 a month so that it looks like we're living in the US. Of course the Sony box is the one Internet unit in the house that won't let you set the DNS address - despite being the only thing that needs it, so the entire house is now pretending to be American.

I still have to say that Netflix interface sucks big time, either on the 'net, or on the TV. The only way to use it is to search, as there's no sensible browse method.

Because we're in Canada our Sony box doesn't get us stuff like Hulu or Google TV or Amazon Prime. We do get Crackle. Oh joy. And the option to pay Sony on a pay per view basis for whatever they're flogging.

What I found with this box: I can't use the built in browser to play back content on the web. I mean really folks?? My hometown TV station streams their newscast, but you won't allow me to see it? There's a thing called vRadio that plays streaming radio stations, but again you only get what Sony decides you want. There's no option to add other stations.

Gave Servioo a whirl, and Plex, but haven't had the time or patience to figure out why they won't get video from my Ubuntu box to the TV via the Sony.

Really, my complaint isn't that I'm locked into Sony's choices, it's that I'm locked out of 95% of the Internet.

Including, and this really surprised me, any and all sports programming.

I guess I'm spoiled by using Linux and Android/Cyanogenmod, but I really feel that this box needs to be jailbroken so that the user can make full use of it's capabilities.

Re:Sucks - Canadian Style

[Monkey]

I also messed around with Servio, Plex and some other open source DLNA servers. I found that the best DLNA option was Wild Media Server which will run fine in Wine on your Ubuntu box. That shit just worked with my Sony Bravia without a lot of hassle and the license for WMS is only 15 bucks.

Re:Sucks - Canadian Style

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you want the Sony BluRay Google TV. It addresses most of your complaints; it's an Android device with a Chrome browser and (IIRC) Flash.

Of course, us lowly Canadians aren't allowed to buy them. So you have to have a friend in the US ship you one. What lunacy!

I've used the 1st gen quite extensively, it's white; the black one was released in May, I haven't got one yet. It's supposed to have the same software and a faster CPU. The big deal is that the white one is x86, whereas the black one is ARM. There is much better support for Android on ARM than x86 in the aftermarket.

Re:Sucks - Canadian Style

[rueger]

Checking it out - installed easily and thus far "just works." bizarro licencing.....

Roku TV

[na1led]

I'm really surprised we haven't seen a TV with Roku built in. IMO Roku is the best IPTV box out there when it comes to simple design interface, and lots of Internet channels. If they could add UPnP it would be even better. I'm curious about Ubuntu TVs which should be coming next year.

My kingdom for a keyboard

[aXis100]

I have an LG Smart TV, and it has USB ports, but it wont accept a USB keyboard. As far as I can tell you have to buy some proprietary air mouse thing.

If the keyboard worked I'd be using it for youtube and web browsing regularly, but unfortunately they have made it too painful to use. My XBMC box plays media far better and I can use a regular keyboard if I want, so the SmartTV features rarely get used.

Re:My kingdom for a keyboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. And not some halfassed over priced one like samsung, it should be bluetooth standard based or an app on your phone/tablet.

Re:My kingdom for a keyboard

[Cederic]

My Samsung tv came with a 'free' galaxy tab that has TV remote control software on it.

I can use it in place of any/all of the remote control functions from either of the two physical remotes (except the voice activation), with the bonus of a touch-screen keyboard, or I can use it as an additional screen, displaying whatever the TV's showing at the time.

Useful if I'm watching something and want to go and make a cup of coffee without missing it - e.g. the cricket.

Re:People Said The Same Thing About Smart Phones T

[adolf]

I take it that you have a TV with "Google TV" built in.

How does any of your experience differ from having a dumb TV with the "Google TV" functionality in an outboard box?

Consumer confusion

[scotts13]

My Significant Other can afford the best of everything; not stupid but not a computer/internet specialist. She has a high-end internet-enabled TV, an internet-enabled BluRay player, and a TiVo (with internet features). All have the ability to access, say, YouTube, but each component has a slightly different interface and capabilities. She's gotten lost and frustrated in the interface(s) so many times (Was it the YouTube viewer accessed through the TV, or the other one? What interface on the receiver do I use?) that she no longer uses ANY of the features. She's locked all the remotes but the one for the TiVo in the closet; she doesn't even play DVD's anymore, because if she switches to that input she's afraid she won't find her way back.

Thanks, consumer electronics industry.

Re:Consumer confusion

[Monkey]

You should check out one of the programmable universal remotes like the Logitech Harmony line. You can build a sort of "macro" set that rolls of that input switching shit into a single button press. You only have to set it up once and you're good to go.

Re:Consumer confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

A familiar situation. Let me introduce you to this little thing called a Logitech Harmony Remote. I use the Harmony One remote. They aren't perfect, but this allows even my non-technically-minded spousal unit to press one touchscreen button to "Watch TV" or "Watch a DVD" or "Listen to Radio" or "Play a CD", and manage to only occasionally press a wrong button and get the system horribly confused. Once I explained that in the worst case she could hit the power button to turn everything off and then press the same simple touchscreen buttons to get back to what she wanted, the chaos was tamed. If I could somehow lock out all other buttons but the main ones, maybe I could make it completely immune to her magical ability to get lost in the system, but it's pretty close already, and sometimes I want to use those other buttons.

On the down side, these units aren't cheap (but watch for when they are on special -- I got mine for $100 off) and the software is clunky and only some models are supported by open-source software alternatives, but it's still the best investment in home entertainment equipment I've ever made. Admittedly, I haven't tried to set up access to YouTube or any other "smart" features with it yet, but for the main functions, it's fine.

It's to the point that when I recently got an HD TV box and was showing her the new features with the standard remote that came with the box, her first question was "Oh no, do I have to use another remote?" To which I said "No, I just haven't set it up yet." It took 5 minutes to do so, and now she's happy again. The default button layout for the HD box was fine as-is -- nice. Most painless addition of a new piece of equipment I've ever experienced.

Re:Consumer confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Since money isn't the object it sounds like, look at the harmony one remote. Activity based means you don't have to remember all that.

Not with my 2 SmartTVs

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 2 smart TVs. One for the wife. She watches 'normal' tv about 85% of the time and Netflix the other. My TV watches about 10% TV and the rest Netflix, Youtube downloads, and my own video library.
As 'normal tv' today is worse than ever, I don't see how people can watch it more than an hour a week.

Re:we need some kind of cable / satellite gateway

[Anonymous Coward]

It's coming, at least for cable:
http://www.motorola.com/mediaexperiences2go/2009/09/the-transport-gateway-ip-and-qam-in-one-box/

out of step, yet again

[PopeRatzo]

Man, I'm really out of the mainstream, I guess. The only thing our TV is used for is Netflix, via Roku, and occasionally DVDs and sometimes some of the other Internet TV streams. My daughter used to watch some Saturday morning cartoons, but that was over a decade ago. I remember a particular show she watched that had animated foodstuffs fighting with martial arts. Since the quality of network offerings in that area were nowhere near the quality of the Saturday morning cartoons when I was a kid, my daughter's interest only lasted a few years (whereas I can still be transfixed by Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, George of the Jungle, Rocky and Bullwinkle, et al.

We've never had any cable or satellite service. If it wasn't for an occasional sporting event, there wouldn't even be a need for a tuner.

Oh, and we watched a few minutes of the election returns.

But I've learned over the years that I am absolutely not unique, so there's a a good chance that there are some (or maybe a lot) of people out there who are using their TVs the same way we're using ours.

"Smart TV"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I have a smart tv -- a freaking PC with a dirt cheap pci tv card in it. Works a treat.

Dumb TV with Android

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently picked up the Panasonic TC-50PU54 plasma at Costco, about $300 cheaper than a similar "smart" LCD from Samsung. Then I bought an MK802 mini-PC from Amazon for $50, Lenovo keyboard for another $50. It doesn't work with every app, but does enough to keep me happy. I just added a wired Ethernet adapter for another $20 and am now able to stream 1080p and high bit rate stuff easily.

I was going to build a HTPC, but now... why bother?

Oh C'mon

[MikShapi]

TVs with REAL brains (read: Android or iOS) not out yet.
We know that.

Nobody else (that includes you, Samsung) has either invested heavily in developing a suitable OS, has not published capable APIs, nor have they worn the long hard slog of gearing up an app and app developer ecosystem. The "feature-rich" UI's of current televisions are rubbish.
We know that.

You can attach an android or iOS brain to the TV and do more with it.
A very small subset of the population does this (and we here on this site happen to correlate nicely with it.)
We know that.

TVs with android brains are still rare but forthcoming.
They are (still) (unneccesarily) pitched as high-end and expensive (most people buy the 800$ loss leader unknown-brand 55'' at the isle entry, not the 4000$ samsung).
We know that.

In five years time, there'll be a brain - same brain powering $50 android phones in Asia today - in everyone's TV running Android. That TV will be sold as the $800 loss leader at the entry to the isle in the store.
And I suspect we all know that that's where the harsh competition will lead the industry.

Re:Oh C'mon

[Pastis]

a mk802 costs about 50$ now. this is the future. let a TV be a display device.

It's too painful...

[CohibaVancouver]

My Sony TV and Sony Blu-ray player are connected to the internet, but I view very little online content. Crackle is available on the TV but the content is regionally-limited here in Canada. It's top-heavy with Anime I've never heard of and episodes of Sanford and Son and Fantasy Island. My Blu-ray player has a YouTube viewer, but searching content is painful on a remote and, as near as I can tell, Sony doesn't make an all-in-one with a keyboard. Both of them have Netflix decoders, but I'm not paying another $120/year for Netflix. There are also apps like Flickr but they're so painful to use they're next to useless. I've never even opened the web browser.

Poor software ruins the concept

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would people use smartTVs when the software fails horribly?

Take my TV and youtube. You can't write a link, you will have to search each time. You have to use an onscreen keyboard using arrow and enter keys on the remote. You will always get 480p even when higher is available (the TV has a 1080p screen).

Even displaying TV is flawed. I can watch live TV just fine, but if the very same video/audio stream enters through a recording on a disk or though DLNA, then some channels gives an unknown audio codec error. The official reason for this error is that they didn't implement it because it's a rarely used codec, yet it's used by the vast majority of channels in my area.

Eventually I gave up fixing all the problems and bought a 15 m DVI/HDMI cable and connected the TV to the computer. Now it works flawlessly, but I'm basically using the TV as a monitor. I even got USB cables+boosters to provide a keyboard and mouse in front of the TV.

My next TV is going to be just a dumb monitor because:
-it's cheaper
-the image quality is better (assuming high end monitor, which is still cheaper)
-using an external DVB-T receiver box makes it easy and cheap to upgrade to new signal standards (like MPEG2 -> MPEG4 or DVB-T -> DVB-T2)
-some high end monitors has SCART and HDMI inputs in addition to DVI and displayport, making the screen compatible with whatever you would have connected to your TV. There might be a need for a HDMI switch to compensate for just one port, but those are fairly cheap.

It is limited to 27" though. However I consider that a bonus as I would have liked something around 25"-30", but couldn't find anything worth buying at that size at that time.

Re:People Said The Same Thing About Smart Phones T

[Anonymous Coward]

I just spent a weekend at my sisters and realised the hell that some people live in with their TVs.
Sony VHS player.
Toshiba DVD player
Sky Decoder
Component Receiver and 5.1 speaker system.
Connecting it all to a really old school Plasma (no DVI, only 1 PC input and one component input)
To turn it all on requires using no less than three remotes! And then because she is 100% legal, is reliant on Sky's timetable, and has given up trying to record to watch later because getting the VHS or DVD recorder to get teh right channel is near impossible for her.
TV hell!

My Config:
Sony 40" TV, out to a 7.1 Amp and speakers.
2008 Mac Mini running PLEX front end, and a torrent client with TVShows for getting what I want to watch, and a superdrive to rip DVDs I buy.
FreeNAS runing PLEX Media Server and 2TB storage.
One remote with full mini qwerty keyboard and mouse function, programmed to operate the TV and Amp from the classic remote control buttons, and the KB/Mouse for driving PLEX.
Even my 6-year-old can turn all this on (press the spacebar on the keyboard)

Oh, and dont mention Netflix or Hulu, we dont get those here, and internet bandwidth is still expensive and capped, and often very laggy to the US, so instead of streaming, I prefer to download and play without buffering.

New TV

[Darinbob]

I'm probably getting a new TV soon as the current one is dying. I'm going to do my best to not get one with any internet features whatsoever, it's in the same category of uselessness as 3D. I just want a nice picture, closed captioning enabled, and maybe switchable inputs so I can skip my old video switcher. It won't be a monitor and my computer will never connect to it. I don't even care about HDTV, though I suspect it's impossible to get a new TV without it. If in the future I decide that I was wrong, I can always get a third party box.

Really it's a content problem

[medcalf]

We have a Roku and an AppleTV connected to a shiny new dumb (but big and with a pretty picture) TV. The Roku gives us Amazon prime video and a USB connection so we can burn stuff we already own. The AppleTV gives us YouTube, and iTMS for renting or buying movies, and access to our music in the cloud so we don't need a radio tuner. If all of these were in one device it would be great, but ...

it still would not really do what is needed. What is needed is a TV that will show you what you want when you want, with you only paying for that. In other words, either Hulu+ with ALL the episodes of ALL the shows, plus Netflix with ALL the movies, or some service with all the shows and movies on an a la carte basis. It doesn't exist because the content companies won't license it to anyone that way. They only want to license with 50 crap shows and one that someone would pay for. They don't want to be disintermediated like the music companies are being; they'd rather fail like newspapers.

The thing is, if they would license a la carte, they could quickly figure out where profit lies and charge more for that and less for other stuff. Anything then not making money could go away. Their business model would be better and their portfolio going forward more profitable. But they are too scared, which means that in a few years, they will start being undercut and replaced by things like Dr Horrible and The Guild, and more mainstream versions of the same idea, which will kill them entirely.

Might I suggest

[lightknight]

Might I suggest SmartTVs become a little more useful? How about ones which play .mkv files, or allow the browsing of folders rather a flat file hierarchy? Subtitles? Multiple audio tracks?

There's a perfectly good reason for that

[Crypto Gnome]

Every "connected tv" I've ever used had a cheap-n-nasty user-interface, was PAINFULLY slow to do even the most basic operations, and more often than not had surprisingly LIMITED "applications".

Fugly, slow, and limited functionality spells "nobody will ever use this" in every language.

What's up with these companies, do they hire retarded baboons to develop their products?

LG took me hostage recently

[Marrow]

They chose to change their "Terms of Service" and anytime I tried to use the menu to do -anything- it would force me to accept the TOS or I was kicked out. Basically, they sabotaged my TV until I accepted their terms. I couldnt change any setting because the menus were frozen. No choice but to accept. I complained and got no response. Needless to say, I am done buying LG and I was a very good customer for them.

Not correct

[SuperKendall]

You can't put your iTelevision up on the table at the restaurant to show off.

With the iPad likely being an extension of such a thing, it seems very likely you would be wrong about that.

A true "Apple TV" would mean apps oriented around video, and there is no reason said apps would not also run on the iPad with video.

My TV is dumb as a box of rocks, the way I like it

[waferbuster]

While marketers are trying to upsell to the latest and greatest "Smart TVs," I have a very simple TV that's smarter than any "Smart TV":

1. Older (circa 2008 or 2009) Core2Quad PC, with VLC, XBMC, etc. There is a dual-tuner Hauppage tuner card installed, which is hooked to an external antenna. The mouse and keyboard are Gyromouse products, you just wave the remote around in the air to move the mouse cursor.

2. Epson 8350 HD Projector, mounted on the ceiling

3. 115 inch diagonal Grey screen (actually, a sheet of Formica-like laminate material mounted to the wall using 3M Command strips)

4. Carver 200WPC amplifier driving a pair of B+W Matrix 805 speakers. These speakers were great in the 90's and are still sounding incredible.

5. Carver Amazing Subwoofer. Awesome room shaking tight bass.

Note that the only part that was purchased specifically for video were the projector and the screen. Everything else was left over from previous projects and households. Heck, I've had the audio equipment since the early to mid 90s. If any one part gets obsoleted, I can upgrade for a minimal cost without trashing the entire system. For example when the new laser projectors come out next year, I may buy one to replace my existing projector.

I only have 2 remotes (3 if you include the wireless keyboard), one to turn on the projector and one that is the gyromouse for the PC. People have no problem using it, because "it's just like using a Windows PC". That's because it *is* a Windows PC with a fancy mouse-remote! There's really 3 parts to a smart TV:

1. Image: The high-resolution display with the best possible image quality

2. Sound: The audio equipment. Amplifiers and speakers that can reproduce the soundtrack with good fidelity and frequency response

3. The brains. In order to be truly a "Smart" TV, the software *must* be upgradable and *must* not be limited to what the TV manufacturer slaps together. The manufacturer has a vested interest in 'encouraging' people to upgrade to a newer model. Also, once a product is no longer being sold, how much engineering resources can reasonably be allocated to doing software patches and upgrades on the TV?

'Smart TV'? No, my TV will always be smarter because it's a general purpose PC with awesome sound and video attached.

And then Apple will solve it

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's what they do. Then it it will seem obvious. Like all simple solutions.

Re:I didn't buy my smart 3d TV for those features.

[CodeheadUK]

For me, the refresh cycle is much longer for TVs than it is for boxes underneath. I try to buy a decent screen with plenty of connectivity once every 5 years, the boxes underneath handle the media and tech and gets replaced or upgraded much more often.

The TV manufacturers want to sell more TVs, so they're trying to shorten the screen's refresh cycle by bundling all the tech in that box so you'll replace more often. Beyond the leap from CRT to LCD/Plasma and HD, I've never NEEDED to replace a working TV.

And Pandora and Netflix

[gelfling]

And THAT's it.

Way too many "smart devices"

[Sedated2000]

I have a smart TV. I also have a blu-ray player, which replicates basically all of the functionality of the smart TV. I also have a 360, which does exactly the same as all of the above. The only one of those devices that has netflix, youtube, etc and doesn't drag its feet is the 360. It is also the only device that gets regular updates. I didn't buy the TV because of the smart features, but the features it has could have been cool. It came with a separate remote that can be used similar to a wii-mote and is pretty handy for using the interface. Sadly, bad coding and slow chips in it kill the experience.

Re:People Said The Same Thing About Smart Phones T

[Clockwurk]

So your elegant solution is a $500-700 mac that you use to pirate all of the TV you watch?

Its not hard to read between the lines

[Clockwurk]

Basically, the grumbling that we see here is the precursor to an AppleTV announcement. People (paid or otherwise) start the cycle by whining about the current status quo.

  It doesn't matter that almost everyone has their TV (smart/dumb) hooked up to a cable/satellite box and probably a DVD/Blu-ray player for movies.

It doesn't matter that most people are interested in watching television on their television and aren't interested in tweeting or facebooking when using their TV.

What matters is that the situation is so terrible, that only the dead may know peace. There is no other solution. No Roku, no appletv, no smartTV. What we need is a new iproduct.

I don't know what the "next big thing" will be...

[Orange Crush]

I don't know what the next killer app I'll want connected to my TV will be (Redbox? HBO, Showtime, Cinemax bypassing the cable companies? Some yet-to-be founded Internet channel?) but I'm willing to bet whatever it is will never get added to the Smart-TVs being sold today. Services change too fast. I'd rather replace a less expensive streaming device than a whole damn TV.

Redundant.

[djnforce9]

To me, Internet capable TV's are kind of redundant. I think it's safe to say that most people who own a TV also have a computer or tablet they can use to browse the Internet.

If you want to push the silliness even further, I used to have a Samsung 27" T27A950 which is a computer monitor that also happens to be "connected" as well. So my first question is why you would use the monitor to access the Internet rather than the computer it is connected to. Granted it can be used as a regular TV as well (even had a port for a coaxial cable) but that is beside the point.

Use the right to tool for the right job.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what Microsoft had in mind with Windows 8. It doesn't work. Desktops are not Smart phones; are not Smart T.V.s. Why would you want to run an application designed for 5" screen on an 10", 21" or 32" ? And there's the touch \ keyboard \ remote \ gamepad issues...

Consoles and XBMC gives us a pretty good idea of what we can expect in the future. I don't see how Android will fit in that environment.

Up next

[Anonymous Coward]

Up next: 3D TVs mostly used like TVs - DUH

Seriously, it's more mysterious why a tuner is even included instead of 2 more HDMI . . .

And once all of our TVs are connected, we'll pay the same price for tomorrow for today's old display tech for just more junk on it . . but it's a monitor, it's meant to stream video from another device, why would you imbed something that you want to upgrade/replace every year or two into a screen that you can get five or more good years out of?

Seriously, I don't see it; this is why I hate OEM car stereos; give us a touch screen to plug the brains into and let it be.