Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vizio's New TVs Sport Google Cast, HDR and Android Tablets (engadget.com)

Posted by msmash on from the smart-tv-getting-smarter dept.

An anonymous reader writes from an Engadget article: Vizio's latest P-Series 4K HDTVs are more than just an annual upgrade -- they also completely redefine how you'll be accessing media. The TVs, which range from 50- to 75-inches, are still technically 'smart,' but they don't have any apps of their own. Instead, you'll have to stream content with built-in Google Cast -- a first for any TV set. You can shoot media to the sets using the Vizio SmartCast app, either from the included Android tablet remote, or any other iOS or Android device. SmartCast also serves as the central hub for discovering media, and it controls all of your TV settings. The 6-inch Android tablet that comes with every P-Series set isn't very exciting on its own: It's got a 1080p screen and a V8 octa-core processor. But it's significantly more interesting than the traditional remotes most TVs ship with. As for that SmartCast app, it's surprisingly well designed. You can search for TV shows and movies, and it'll point you right to it on the appropriate streaming service.

56 comments

  1. Battery life? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    ...But it's significantly more interesting than the traditional remotes most TVs ship with. ...

    I currently get a couple of months from the batteries in my remote.

    .
    Will I need to keep the remote for my new Vizio TV tethered to a charger?

    1. Re:Battery life? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Don't worry - the new Vizio fills the room with a soothing radiation which wirelessly charges the remote and anything else with a round conductive shape. It's kind of fun to watch my coffee cup with the metallic ring arc playfully as I browse YouTube with my giant remote. Just make sure you remove your wedding ring.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Battery life? by iamacat · · Score: 1

      "You can shoot media to the sets using the Vizio SmartCast app, either from the included Android tablet remote, or any other iOS or Android device"

      Most people have a charged phone around with them these days.

    3. Re:Battery life? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I have a Roku and it has an app for the phone. Despite my entire family having phones and tablets, we almost always use the remote instead of the app. If we were forced to use the app we probably would, but there's no preference for it as far as I can tell.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Battery life? by Adriax · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean the tingly sensation and first degree burn marks on my ring finger aren't from the spark coming back into my marriage?

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    5. Re:Battery life? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I currently get a couple of months from the batteries in my remote.

      That's terrible battery life for a remote!

      Even the "smart" remotes like my Harmony get around 6 months per 4 AAA batteries, while other remotes can go for at least a year, if not two or practically never (I've had some still with the original factory batteries - a wonder they didn't leak, and then the remote with new batteries works from the other side of the house bouncing the IR off the walls).

      In fact, it's usually why lots of jokes are written about remotes and batteries - they fail so infrequently that many people develop elaborate procedures to get them to continue working. And some people forget they take batteries altogether.

    6. Re:Battery life? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Don't worry - the new Vizio fills the room with a soothing radiation which wirelessly charges the remote and anything else with a round conductive shape. It's kind of fun to watch my coffee cup with the metallic ring arc playfully as I browse YouTube with my giant remote. Just make sure you remove your wedding ring.

      Also any piercings in sensitive areas...
      Unless you're into that slow cooked junk feeling...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    7. Re:Battery life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tv comes with a wireless charging cradle to rest the remote on between uses. Also, there is a standard IR pushbutton remote included for basic functions if you find keeping a device charged to be a hard task.

    8. Re: Battery life? by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      That depends on where you inserted your finger.

  2. No Tablet Please by Luthair · · Score: 1

    I'd rather not futz around keeping my remote charged on a daily basis then need to look at it instead of using it by feel.

  3. Why bother with smart TV's by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    In terms of a TV I want good picture quality, good sound, and a lot of port options to plug in the smart devices as I see fit.
    We had 1080P for over a decade now. and while the 4k are out, still most do not broadcast for it. Over the decade that I had a 1080p tv. I went from VHS/DVD to BlueRay, to Streaming on the Wii to the Wii U (I am not a big gamer) with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime... And still I will go back to the Older tech to the newer... I don't want a smart TV as I will probably will need to update the whole TV, vs just a smaller device.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I'm in the market for a HDTV (replacing an older SD set - it still works but we're using savings from cutting cable to upgrade). I'm not looking at 4K TVs at all right now since they are more money for very little 4K content. For the same reason, we're not looking at 3DTVs. As far as SmartTVs go, I'd rather plug in a Roku than have built-in SmartTV apps. It's a lot easier to replace an older, Roku box if it becomes unsupported than it is to replace the TV if the manufacturer stops supporting SmartTV features.

      (At the risk of hijacking the thread, if anyone has recommendations for 40" or under HDTVs, I'd love to hear them.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samsung or Vizio. Find something in your price range. Cross-shop anything you see on Google with Amazon.

    3. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I'd recommend a refurbished E-series Vizio. You could get new, but if you were happy with an SD for so long, the minor improvements probably aren't worth the spend. You could probably get ~ 40" for under $300 and still have a decent picture. Up from there, if you want an improved picture/color quality, I'd go for either an older P-series Vizio or a Samsung. I shy away from particular model numbers, because so many stores have their own vanity model numbers anyway.

      Regardless, the biggest influence on picture quality is post-purchase color setup. They all look like garbage when you get them home (if you know what the colors are supposed to look like). And turn off things like dynamic contrast, lower the brightness setting and possibly the contrast a bit, and you could go further with color calibration but you'd get 60% of the way there with just the first two settings.

      And if you don't want a Smart TV, you may just buy one anyway to save money. You don't have to use the smart features. I also use a Roku.

    4. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I'm in the same boat as you are. I have a DVR (TiVo) and don't need or want the TV itself to be anything more than a monitor for that.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    5. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They come out with a tv that really is a basic display with tuner and a chromecast, and you still feel the need to come along and shit on it? Good god go away. No one cares that you're a tv purist with a Wii U.

    6. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as SmartTVs go, I'd rather plug in a Roku than have built-in SmartTV apps. It's a lot easier to replace an older, Roku box if it becomes unsupported than it is to replace the TV if the manufacturer stops supporting SmartTV features.

      Or the best of both worlds - use the TV smart apps until you can't any longer.

      I have a Panasonic plasma from about 2010 that was amongst the first "smart" TVs. The pz850u series, absolutely the best picture quality on the planet in its day - I got extremely lucky whilst internet shopping for the much cheaper mid-range series, but I digress. That TV introduced VieraCast, which promised great things. YouTube, Amazon Prime, Fox News, the weather, and "others to be added!". It wasn't a selling point to me - I just wanted a great picture. YouTube didn't yet have compelling content in HD, Amazon was a fledging service, and Fox News was (and still is) abhorrent.

      Over time, the Amazon app and content improved, and YouTube became intereresting; so we found ourselves using VieraCast a lot. But that TV never did get any more great apps, for example, Netflix. It's been relegated to another room now, replaced in the main viewing room with an even better Panny plasma that has many more apps, including Netflix. Just recently my son went to watch something on Amazon on it (I was mid-binge on "Better Call Saul") and he discovered that the Amazon has disappeared. No warning, just Poof! Gone. YouTube is gone too.

      I got mad for a bit, but in the end just bought a Roku for it. There's more functionality and a better interface.

    7. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      I'd rather plug in a Roku than have built-in SmartTV apps. It's a lot easier to replace an older, Roku box if it becomes unsupported than it is to replace the TV if the manufacturer stops supporting SmartTV features.

      That's one of the nice things about this new Visio, they are dropping their own proprietary "app store" for a slightly more open google standard. The are essentially baking a version of Chromecast into the TV. I really wish everyone would get together and come up with a standard for casting apps but this is better than everyone trying to do their own apps. The streaming providers are much less likely to drop support for the entire Google ecosystem vs some one off smart TV.

      Also, you do know you are allowed to use a Roku on a SmartTV, right? You can even add one on if the built-in SmartTV stuff stops working, instead of replacing the entire TV. I did this with a chromecast and an ancient HP (yes, don't laugh, I got it on sale new) smart TV. Just saying.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    8. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you suggest the two WORST brands in the market?

      Vizio is just plain garbage, they rarely last over 2 years without issues. That is why they are cheap.

      Samsung is not cheap, but they heavily under-power the system with cheap/slow CPUs (reason why the menus are freaking slow) and have the bad habit of installing capacitors of half the required specs (capacitors that are usually bloated by the time you make the purchase).

    9. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I'm planning on using my Roku with whatever TV I get. I meant that I don't care about SmartTV features. If two TVs are essentially the same but one has SmartTV features and the other doesn't, I'd probably go with the non-Smart one. However, if a TV looked nice but had SmartTV features, I'd likely get it and just not set up the SmartTV - instead using my Roku to add "SmartTV" capabilities.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      http://www.woot.com/plus/tvs-u...

      Woot is currently (today only likely) selling 40"+ TVs for low prices. They even have smart TVs. If you aren't looking for 4k or 3D, you don't need to really buy anything expensive. I would suggest with any flat panel TV though that you get some kind of surround sound, or even a speaker bar, as due to the size constraints, the speakers inside modern TVs are awful.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:Why bother with smart TV's by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I really wish everyone would get together and come up with a standard for casting apps

      Someone did, but as usual the big names don't want to use someone else's standard when they can sell you their proprietary junk.

      http://www.howtogeek.com/20079...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. Been doing this for a few years by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    I put Cyanogenmod on my ancient Barnes & Noble Nook Color and have been using it as a remote for a few years now. I never liked having the app built into the TV since it would always end up neglected. I have numerous devices with the Netflix client prior to them rolling out profiles. None of them got updated so no profiles for those devices.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  5. Not even a subtle advert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you could embed the associated video too?

    Wow, you can stream to them directly from your tablet/phone. That'll be just like the Samsung, Sony, LG, et al, TVs that have been out for years. Such "redefinition" is incredible. That's full on Apple doesn't exist until we do it mode.

    1. Re: Not even a subtle advert by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Is there another display that has dumped the "smart" crapfest and offloaded that intolerable devices that will actually get updates and users can customize?

      Honest question because this seems like the ideal device for people who get tech and want a 4K device. My current "TV" is a 1080p dumb Vizio with a Chromecast sticking out the side and I've had no interest in "upgrading" to the aforementioned crapfest.

      A new product category in consumer tech is certainly noteworthy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  6. More importantly... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Do they still send fingerprints of everything you display on them to the vendor for some sort of undesirable purpose, with an implementation lousy enough to be a network hazard?

    1. Re:More importantly... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I disabled all networking on my Vizio and reverted it to a dumb TV. The last thing I want is my own appliances spying on me. The decision was made easier by Vizio's utter lack of ability to keep its apps updated, so the Amazon Instant Video app on ours didn't work for over a year because it was coded against old APIs.

      I'd never willingly use a Vizio smart TV again. As a dumb display they're great, but I'd much prefer attaching my own set top box. I love our Apple TV, but a Roku or standalone Chromecast would be just fine.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot should not cover Vizio without a disclaimer. They should not be trusted.

    3. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean they're only great if you don't care about picture beyond resolution. They source roughly the worst panels and have the worst backlights / color accuracy around.

    4. Re:More importantly... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I can't/won't argue that, but: it looks good to us and our guests. We've been very pleased with it other than the whole 1984 TV-spies-on-you thing.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  7. Do we really need 4k TV? by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Is there really any actual, noticeable difference in picture quality between 1080x and 2160x? Or is this just another solution in search of a problem?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by Higaran · · Score: 1

      There is and there isn't, it all depends on the source, if your watching cable tv, then not really, if your on a blue ray, or even netflix, then the 4k looks better. I had a 50 in Phillips 1080 tv for many years and it was fine, but when I finally upgraded to a 4k, I do notice a difference, especially when i switch to a channel that is broadcasting on like 720 or something, the lower rez looks like crap.

    2. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. Especially in a movie theater where you have a 30 foot wide screen. You have to sit fairly close or have a 60"+ TV for it to really matter at home.

      However, if 3D content libraries start to expand, I'd love to get a passive 3D 4K TV because I hate active shutter glasses and I hate the 50% cut in resolution you get on 1080p passive 3D TVs. I own three 3D Blu-Rays and a player, but still haven't bought the TV yet because I haven't seen anything I liked. They dropped out of the market pretty quickly. Passive 3D uses alternate lines for the left or right eye, so you would still get 1080 lines on 4K.

    3. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      ~9+' projector screens will LOVE 4k.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I've worked with 3D TVs. It's cheesy as hell. Even the 3D in movie theatres is rather cheesy by my standards; everything is still perceived as flat. It's not as bad in movie theatres but it's really bad on a so-called '3D TV'. I would never pay for that. I also don't ever see where I'd want an entire wall taken up by a TV, or having a projector, or anything like that. I have a 39" 1080p TV now, and it's plenty big enough for me. So I guess for me there's no point in a 4K TV. I also watch OTA, don't really have any interest in streaming, and don't have (and will resist getting) Bluray. The closest I get to streaming anything is uploading transcoded video to TiVo that I downloaded from the Internet, and I don't even do that very often.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    5. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by Dusthead+Jr. · · Score: 1

      I often hear about the suggestion that if you TV is a certain size you should sit so many feet away. The bigger the screen the farther away you can sit. Those are good suggestions, but only suggestions. I one the other hand like my screens much closer. Where most people place their coffee table is where my 42" TV sat until I got a projector. I could tell the difference between HD and 4K.

    6. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      There is a lot of bad or gimmicky 3D content. When it's used as a subtle addition of depth, it can really have a positive impact. But if 3D in a movie theater seems flat to you, you might just not have working stereoscopic vision? If anything, I think a lot of the gimmicky stuff is over-exaggerated.

      See the movie Hugo in 3D for an example of where it actually improves the movie. And I've seen this both in theaters and on TV (at a relatively close distance).

    7. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      ..you might just not have working stereoscopic vision?

      Or maybe it's better than for most people, or I just have higher standards, and not some profound defect?

      Really, the 3D in movie theatres is cute, but it's not worth paying extra to see. I'd much rather go see a quality movie that doesn't need a gimmick to make it work.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    8. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Is there really any actual, noticeable difference in picture quality between 1080x and 2160x? Or is this just another solution in search of a problem?

      Depends on the source. High bitrate 4K videos look amazing. Netflix 4K looks good but nothing to write home about. Adding in HDR makes the difference much more noticeable however. Anyway, as the panel producers move over to 4K the price is dropping rapidly, so 4K TV are hitting prices comparable to what 1080p sets of the same size/feature set were selling for not long ago. Even if the content isn't there yet, there soon won't be any reason to not go with one as they are essentially going to displace 1080p in the retail market.

      Plus 4K TV panel production is pushing the cost of 4K monitors down, and 4K monitors bring so much screen real-estate with them. I never want to go back to a claustrophobic 1080p or even 1440p again. NEVER!

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    9. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. Especially in a movie theater where you have a 30 foot wide screen. You have to sit fairly close or have a 60"+ TV for it to really matter at home.

      However, if 3D content libraries start to expand, I'd love to get a passive 3D 4K TV because I hate active shutter glasses and I hate the 50% cut in resolution you get on 1080p passive 3D TVs. I own three 3D Blu-Rays and a player, but still haven't bought the TV yet because I haven't seen anything I liked. They dropped out of the market pretty quickly. Passive 3D uses alternate lines for the left or right eye, so you would still get 1080 lines on 4K.

      Then you should probably run out and get a 4K 3D LG TV while you can. They are dropping support for 3D in new sets (along with Samsung, RIP 3D at home) but LG does have a line of 4K TVs with passive 3D at the moment. I have one of their 1080p sets and it's OK. Still kind of a gimmick but fun once in a while and i don't get that "my eyes are being pinched" feeling that active shutter glasses give me.

      The downside is I don't know if they have one with 4K 3D and HDR. HDR is a much better feature than 3D IMHO.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    10. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I still have no idea how HDR is different than the "Deep Color" (16 bits per channel) spec that came with HDMI 1.3. I don't know if it ever saw any adoption or implementation. And HDR sounds like it would require the same thing - but press releases are a lot thinner on details.

    11. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't have (and will resist getting) Bluray

      Bluray does look great on a 1080 TV, and players are dirt cheap. As to feeding it, a RedBox account is free, and you pay only $2-3 to rent a Bluray for a day, never pay for something you don't use.

    12. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note: as always with TVs, not all HDR screens are equal. Last I checked, no one has full Rec.2020 support yet, but some sets are coming close.

    13. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4K is so that Peeping Toms get an HD picture as well.

    14. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I know exactly what you're talking about. The 3D effect in movies is terrible... which makes sense because it's not actually 3D, it's just a trick. In a real 3D movie, each person in the audience would have a different perspective and it would change as you move around.

      Most of them seem to have a pretty obvious background plane, then an action plane, then very occasionally some motion out of the action plane towards the audience. That's about it.

    15. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Bandwidth mostly, due to being 4K vs 1080p. Well that and the fact that it's actually being supported and you can get UHD Blurays with HDR transfers now. Like I said, given the choice between 4K 3D and 4K HDR, I'd have to go with HDR. But in a while, after they get the kinks worked out. Right now it's actually causing problems for people.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    16. Re:Do we really need 4k TV? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      True, but it's getting harder to distinguish which TV's have a good panel in them. Sure, you can tick a box for UHD, but if the picture quality doesn't improve from it it doesn't matter (like having an 8-bit or 12-bit panel anyway).

  8. NO TV TUNER by jupiterssj4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They seem great however they lack a TV tuner, so it kills it for people that want to use an antenna to watch local OTA HD content.

    1. Re:NO TV TUNER by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What is OTA HD content?

      Quite frankly there are many parts of the world where OTA content is either poor, non-existent, not HD, or cable bundles are so incredibly cheap that they are almost gifted to you (I pay 4€ per month for 70 channels many of which are in HD, none of the OTA stuff is HD ... or good).

      Every product may not be suitable for every single market in the world. But there are plenty of people who just couldn't care less about a TV having a tuner.

    2. Re:NO TV TUNER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, none of that applies in the US. Cable bundles are generally very costly and HD is an add-on (I don't know of any cable company which includes HD for free). However, our OTA channels ARE HD now. We are a very large market, so this omission is probably going to piss some people off when they can't find the coax connector on their new TV.

    3. Re:NO TV TUNER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's at least, what, $500 less than a comparable display (4K, HDR, full-array local dimming LED backlighting)? More? Couldn't you buy a Tivo for that? Consider also that TV built-in tuners are kind of crap and don't support recording.

  9. um by wardrich86 · · Score: 2

    So basically it's just a huge monitor with a built-in Chromecast, and a built-in Vizio-equivalent of a Chromecast?

    1. Re: um by adolf · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      Why wouldn't everyone want that?

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    2. Re:um by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I'm still scratching my head wondering where the IoT folks are, not screaming about this.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  10. Terms of Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this one also have a "don't talk about sensitive information in front of or near the TV or tablet" caveat in the TOS? What about embedded ads on the TV, or refuse to work unless connected to the internet? We're going to need a new category of ratings added to tech site reviews indicating how much shit of yours is leaked back to manufacturers, or as I like to call it fucking trushtworthyness.

  11. STOP IT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build a good monitor, PERIOD! Just have 1 HDMI/display port, PERIOD! The monitor comes on when the single is on the port, PERIOD! So no remote, no turner, no google, no amazon, no roku, not cable... lock in.

    I want to choose AND NOT PAY TWICE first on the "TV" and then on he media I want to display from.