Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Why Do You Want a 'Smart TV'?
Reader kheldan questions the need for a Smart TV (edited for clarity): Yesterday we read about how Samsung is planning on 'upgrading' the firmware in its smart TVs so that it could inject ads into your video streams. This raises the question yet again: Why do you even need a 'smart TV' in the first place? We live in an age where media-center computers and DVRs are ubiquitous, and all your TV really needs to be is a high-def monitor to connect to these devices. Even many smartphones have HDMI connectivity, and a Raspberry Pi is inexpensive and can play 1080 content at full framerate. None of these devices are terribly expensive anymore, and the price jump from a non-smart TV to a smart TV makes it difficult to justify the expense. Also, remember previous articles posted on the subject of surveillance many of these smart TVs have been found guilty of. So I put it to you, denizens of Slashdot: Why does anyone really want a 'smart TV'?
I don't even want a regular TV. I watch Netflix on a 25" monitor that I plug into a laptop.
I don't.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
The link goes to the story yesterday on how Panasonic is stopping production of LCDs for TVs.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
In my experience no, I specifically bought a dumb TV last time round. The smarts come from an Apple TV when I need to run "Apps" on my TV.
I just bought a new TV over the weekend, so I have recent experience with shopping. When it comes to large screen 1080p or 4k monitors, I didn't see any in the stores that weren't "smart" in one way or another.
That said - I have no use at all for those features excepting one... The set I bought can act as a Chromecast receiver (and it does so marvelously, I might add). I won't use any of the other apps on it since I already have other devices that run those apps and more perfectly well, but I am definitely happy with the ability to wirelessly cast to it because none of my existing devices had that capability.
No, really, there are at least twice as many answers as there are potential buyers of this idea.
Some want a 'smart tv' because they like what their 'smart phone' can do.
Some just don't want to have to plan through the wiring to connect different components together.
Some are easily manipulated consumers who will buy anything a celebrity endorses.
As for me, I like obedient displays plugged into whatever data feeds I care to give them.
And should I ever end up getting a TV that has the capability, I'll never connect it to the Internet (internet tomorrow :) ). I can manage my laptop/workstation/whatever device to make sure it has the patches it needs. I can't do that for a TV.
Therefore, the only way a smart TV will be showing Netflix/Youtube/whatever is through a device that *I* have control over. Period.
Consumers want a Roku/Fire/Mythbox/AppleTV-like function that lets them play video on their TV with a convenient UI. They don't especially want a smart TV, although boy wouldn't it be nice if we could eliminate a box... dream on.
However TV makers, long under the knife of commodity bottom diving, would like to get a piece of the higher margin smart-device business. It is they who are forcing their lousy smartTV functions on us. We all know better: they are very slow, they end up being unsupported after a year, they rarely support all the apps that a user may want, and it takes 60s for your TV to "boot up" as a result of the cruft. They are forcing this crap on us in the hopes that we'll find it "good enough". It's not making them any money, so I expect it will eventually be dropped, I don't know anyone who bought a TV because of its "smart" functionality.
The price difference between a 'smart' tv and a 'dumb' tv is ~$50 USD, depending on brand & retail outlet. It's cheaper to get a smart tv than a dumb tv and an external box these days.
I have a 4k smart tv & two other devices that have a plex app... the tv's internal stack scales nicer than taking external 1080p & scaling it. Less noise, much less artifacts on screen... just better overall. However, when samsung breaks the plex app I have to fall back to the external players, cause ... samsung sucks with software?
Overall, smart tv = less cables & boxes generating heat. It's a cleaner setup.
Why wouldn't you want a TV with SystemD and a fucking web browser that tells all your data to HQ. If you get a hard one when the TV fails to boot again thanks to PoetteringD or you want to pay ransom to the hackers of the TV company who made photos of you naked to not release them then smart TVs are something for you.
As of right now, Netflix only plays in 4k directly on a smart TV or a few authorized media devices but no mention of a self made computer.
I have a 26" TV that's pretty old. I have regrets that I didn't get a slightly bigger TV back when TVs were a little dumber. I don't want a bunch of terrible software on my television that's just going to annoy me. I would literally pay up to $200 MORE for a high-quality dumb TV.
But your typical consumer doesn't want to mess with all those other devices. Think Grandpa, who barley manages to run the microwave, wants to mess with a RaspberryPi or string cables around and figure out input switching? No, a smart TV is (when done well) a simple solution for the less technically inclined among us. Which is most people.
I want a TV that specifically does NOT have those "smart" features.
Putting a EULA-requiring TV with a camera, microphone and internet connection in the bedroom. What could possibly go wrong?
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
I want a simple way to stream Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon using one remote control, but I don't need any more features---web browser, ads, etc.
Because you get to own one device instead of two.
Smart TV would let my parents plug in a power cable for their TV, and then after some on screen setup watch netflix, or amazon prime, or youtube... one more cable and they can watch cable TV, and/or broadcast TV.
Smart TV's are simple.
If I wanted one (I don't) it'd be to mount on a wall where I wouldn't need to worry about hooking up other wires etc... but a chromecast or similar makes that point increasingly mute.
There's a space on the wall where the TV goes. 55" is too big. 48" is about right.
So on walking into the store, there was exactly one TV available off the shelf with that size. It was a Samsung.
If it was a dumb monitor, then that would have been simpler. The 'smart' features remain unused. The TV isn't plugged into the ethernet (but the ROKU is).
I tried using the TV features a couple of times, but it comes across as a really, really bad attempt at a ROKU like thing. They add no value.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
TV is soooooo 20th century.
But soon we won't have a choice, given all TVs now sport the "Smart" tag, meaning they have a complete OS that can be patched (or rather twisted) to do exactly what Samsung is planning.
The only choice is the one we always have: vote with your wallet and tell Samsung you are not OK with this idea.
Frankly the market for smart TVs are people who don't want other devices. For example someone looking to install a TV over a fireplace. Now you can hide the connections to a Bluray player, Roku, cable box, but that is a lot more trouble. However, long-term smart TVs are rarely worth it especially when it comes to software updates. It's worse than the smartphone market because with Android you could theoretically root it and install your own software. With TVs there isn't much you can do if the manufacturer abandons that model for any sort of update/support.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
My 2 Samsung smart TVs will be permanently disconnected from the network if this happens -- the ultimate Ad Blocker...
>> Why do you even need a 'smart TV' in the first place? We live in an age where media-center computers and DVRs are ubiquitous, and all your TV really needs to be is a high-def monitor to connect to these devices.
The author seems to assume that we're talking about the big TVs in the living room or family room where you might have a separate audio setup. For other TVs in workout areas, kitchens and bedroom, the built-in speakers and "low cord-ness" of no separate media center or DVR is a big plus.
We may all be techies on this site who are happy with separate remotes to turn on the Tv, the surround sound receiver, the HTPC, but a lot of us have families who don't want that. It also gets a bit boring waiting for everything to boot.
As far as Smart TV functionality goes, most of the apps are junk. DLNA to play my media from the server, YouTube so I can play the videos on the TV without a cable trailing across the floor, and Netflix should cover most of it.
With chromecast, fire, apple tv, etc., I don't see why anyone would.
Especially when Streaming Service X can up and decide, "We're building our own device, and discontinuing service for yours", as Amazon did when the fire came out, essentially bricking the "smart" side of my smart TV.
And I have one, the Fire TV stick. It serves my needs just fine. I wish Amazon were a little more competent but I can always just run Kodi if I don't like their client.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I know it's weird but I just want this unitasking display that does ONE THING GOOD - Generates a purty picture with good resolution and color depth and supports the current HDMI standards and maybe displayport. I don't want or need to play angry birds on it or skype on it or any countless numbers of apps that I'll use my computer or iDevice to run and I certainly do NOT want it networked (unless you're going to allow me to update the HDMI controllers - which you guys never do anyway preferring to make me buy a whole new display)
YOU. SELL. TVs!!!
That's the extent of your access into my life!
The only processing I want my TV to do involves image artifact cleanup and frame rate smoothing (to prevent jarring pans and stuttery motion on a large TV where objects cross great distances between frames).
If I want more, I have many devices of my own choosing and preference I can.connect. If I must view android on my TV I can use chrome cast. The overhead on price is a turnoff, and the built in hardware can't possibly keep up with how long I will have my TV, which is probably like 10 years. In 10 years I'm sure security issues in my TV won't be patched, they have trouble getting up to date OSes for 3 and 2 year old devices.
With a mic and camera and WiFi etc I don't want my TV to put me at risk for a robbery or invasion of privacy or simply an exploit that compromises my PC's documents and files, very important as I use a HTPC with PVR and all my home videos and pics.
Twinstiq, game news
When did you stop beating your wife? From anything false, anything follows.
My CRT TV that I paid $200 for in 2005 is still working fine. May work well for another 20+ years. No reason to toss it into the junk box in the back of the closet.
A computer monitor makes a great dumb TV. I use a Raspberry Pi with one as a media center.
Dog is my co-pilot.
the price jump from a non-smart TV to a smart TV makes it difficult to justify the expense
There is no price jump. All recent HD models come with smart-TV functionality. Even $50-80 disk spinners have that, sometimes working better than that a TV-integrated one.
The only features I use on my Netcast-OS bearing, mid-2014 LG model is Netflix, Youtube, Spotify, PCT and DLNA casting. The problem is, I know at some point, only the later will keep working due to TV-side firmware upgrades deciding to no longer support the model, thus not even including the app. level cast protocol anymore.
I think the new Vizio TVs and other Google Cast'able new products are going the right way in defining a long-term supportable framework across corporate interests. Why would I even consider a dedicated media-center when piracy is, in all it's glory, dying the hard death, and for better or worse we're all gonna stop storing terabytes and terabytes of media libraries we'll re-watch about 0.5% of it all. It's pointless. I hate to admit it, but this time the companies are actually doing something useful and finding better ways to deliver content end-to-end, affordably, yet if a bit lacking in content variety (but here's to hoping that improves...). Hell, I bet I would spend more on electricity and storage downloading the 40 or so hours I watch every month than I do in a 4-bucks per month Netflix subscription (I share a top tier account with 3 other people. Because I can!).
I think most people (myself included) don;t care about smart TVs. It didn't factor in at all the last time I replaced my TV (about a year ago). I did end up getting one, but that is because any TV that isn't super cheap is a smart TV. I do use the Netflix app on mine, but that is because I use Windows Media Center as my main TV control and support for the Netflix app for that has been dropped. If I couldn't use the TV app, I would have just used my PS4 instead, so it's not like it was a big deal for me. But I would guess 75% of the people with smart TVs never even set up the apps on them.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
And become really, really fat.
No, seriously.
Other than that, I can't see why.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's a bit strange to me to ask the question, "Why do you want a smart-TV when you can just buy a Raspberry Pi?" Because then I'd need to figure out and set up a Raspberry Pi, obviously. It may be that it sounds to you like a fun project, but a lot of people don't want to go through that process. I don't want a media center computer, adding another device that I need to manage and update, I just want the simplest way to watch Netflix without worrying about yet another device.
Now I'm playing the devil's advocate a little here. I have a Smart TV because the TV model I wanted at the time I was shopping for TVs came with those features. I don't use it, because I use an Apple TV (if I weren't in Apple's ecosystem for other reasons, I'd probably have gone with a Roku box). If there were a TV with a built-in Apple TV, I might buy that as a matter of simplification and convenience, but if I kept two separate devices, it would probably be so that I could upgrade the "smart" components without upgrading the screen. Still, if it were an option to have a TV with the Apple TV components integrated, I might go for that, just to make things really simple.
All I want is to watch Netflix/Hulu. As long as it has that functionality, I want the simplest, easiest, most elegant, and most trouble-free method of doing that. I suspect that many people have a similar approach to the problem.
I want a smart tv so that I too can unknowingly contribute with a node in a botnet. In the expected life time of a TV the "smart" stuff will be relevant for at most 30% and it will be safe to put on the internet for 0-10%
Assuming that people here are more technologically inclined than most, one would assume that a Raspberry Pi, Apple TV, Roku, Chromecast or Amazon Stick (What's it called?) is more than enough to play through all of your wishes. Personally, I have a Chromecast, with a Raspberry Pi connected to my NAS for high definition playback over HDMI. My TV is not smart in any way, and I like it that way.
From a layman's point of view though, they are not adveneturous enough to connect these devices to their TV, but still want to watch Netflix or their preferred movie vendor. In these instances (and I assume they far outweigh the numbers reading this website), I can very easily see the need for a Smart TV.
Serving advertising or spying on customers via the TV is unethical in my opinion. I find it a desperate move from companies to recover revenue, at the expense of alienating their customer base.
I actively look for TVs without the smart functionality. That's getting harder and harder to find with the larger models.
I want a TV that shows a great picture - and that's pretty much all it does.
Everything else, I will do for myself, thanks - the TV manufacturer can't possibly do microphone, camera, internet, and all the rest the way I want it. They can only dumb it down for the masses.
I will have to buy a new television someday to replace my non-smart samsung plasma - but I don't know of anything yet that qualifies. I even read an article that said some new TVs were almost as good as plasma - an assertion which their data did not support very well.
If anyone knows where my holy grail TV/Monitor is (4K resolution in a plasma-killing package?), please let me know. If you don't, please lobby the manufacturers to produce an actual 4K plasma monitor (don't even know if it's possible, but it can't hurt to try, can it?)
With the "smart" built in there is no upgrade path. Once a manufacturer stops selling the model you have you are guaranteed to not be getting any firmware updates sans any class action. Right now you buy a TV and keep it until it dies or you decide on a bigger set. OEM's want a way to get you to upgrade quicker. Enter Smart TV's. It's like all the auto makers now adding WiFi to their cars. When LTE2 or whatever rolls out will you be able to upgrade that? Probably not.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
But try to find a dumb one. I predict that in the near future it might even be more expensive to get a used TV that isn't infested with crapware than getting a new one that is.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Replacing my Roku when it becomes obsolete, or doesn't have a feature I want, that the new model has is easy and fairly inexpensive. (>$100) Having to replace my entire 50" TV for the same reason is lousy. It's many times more expensive, creates a ton more waste, and is just stupid because the screen still works just fine.
The fact that the manufacturers will do invasive things like inject ads and siphon viewer data is icing on the BS cake.
CyberKender
Apparently Appointed Lord Mayor of There
I recently bought a Vizio smart TV with internet apps +. I wanted to use my Roku on another TV in another room and decided to go smart TV instead of regular TV with another Roku. BIG MISTAKE! The Vizio apps are crap, there are barely any that are useful besides Netlfix. So I still use my Roku which is connected to ym Smart TV. My Roku is faster and streams better anyhow. Dont go smart, just get a regular HDTV and then a streaming device of some kind.
While I like the Roku on my non-smart TV for my soon to be ex-wife she would rather have less boxes around the TV. In addition to less boxes, that means fewer remotes. For a non-techie sometimes even a Harmony remote is frustrating. Also if there are problems with the home network, it is one less device to manage and troubleshoot.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
It's still a great TV... it's a 58" Plasma and still blows away LCD/LED TVs after 6 years.
That said, an Android TV box with Kodi is fully replacing the AllShare functionality on the TV, as I have better control over closed captions/subtitles, no aspect ratio issues, h.265 support, and a lot more options moving ahead into the future. After all the years of dealing with the quirks of Samsung's DLNA support, I'm ready to move on to a richer, "smarter" experience.
The threat of ads being inserted into my video streams is also weighing heavy on my mind, and I don't think a Samsung TV will ever be on my future shopping list now.
All I use is Netflix and Amazon Prime. My TV has apps for both, so all I had to do was route power and ethernet in the wall behind the TV and the installation is complete. No visible cables and no additional furniture required. A Roku behind the TV would have served the same purpose, but then I would have two remotes instead of just one...
My Chromecast makes my TV as smart as I want it to be. And when it's time to upgrade it the cost is $25.
Many, many people want one device with one remote that just works. My mom has trouble with just the dumb tv and cable box. A media box on top of that is a non-starter.
To bad the cable co's just about killed tru2way.
Now that was a good idea that got pushed to side and we got stuck with the iguide shit and still in use DCT-2000's.
Some of us bought Smart TV's back when that was the only realistic option to run something like Plex without needing four remotes and a list of a dozen buttons that have to be punched in some magic sequence to make it all work. I want one basic remote to control the whole thing, one usable user interface, and for everything to be nicely integrated. That ruled out a ton of hardware back in 2010-2012, and a lot of it since then too.
Today, the AppleTV 4, with its Plex client and HDMI CEC capabilities, comes within striking distance of being as competent as a D-generation Samsung SmartTV running Plex. Which isn't saying all that much.
I expect that we'll continue to see more "Smart TV" gear because it is so relatively inexpensive to bump up the internal specs of the TV, which is already basically an oversized monitor attached to an undersized computer.
That's being said, I just love when my "Smart" TV show me a popup, telling me that a 248MB patch is needed...
(My "Smartass" tv is now disconnected).
I can't call that English
Its more likely to ask why wouldn't you want a smart tv. Otherwise its one more device, two more wires, one more power brick wasting energy, one HDMI port used and extra complexity for non nerdy gadget types.
The answer is because Smart TV UI's always suck (performance too) and that the tv manufacturers can be counted on to do stupid things no one ever asked for. Like including microphones and cameras (could easily be add-ons for the rare people who actually want it), and injecting ads into tv streams.
Thes extra gadgets only exist in the wake of the TV manufacturers ineptitude.
Look at any 4K TV listen on amazon and find just one that isn't "SMART". I just did and failed. You position like it's a choice when beyond basic TV's it's not a choice. It's becoming a forced option like power locks & windows. My blue-ray player is "smart". I haven't used those features since I got it. I wish they would have taken the $100 of components and dev time to put towards the primary function, play bluerays. I would love if mono-price came out with a 4k TV that was just a TV. Even if they took the money for SMART functions and put it towards extra ports or better clarity, I'd be happy.
This is becoming a non-choice for many consumers and I don't like it. Which is why I haven't gone 4k yet. I would today if that were different.
Everyone wants a 'smart' device until they realize that all the smart logic is designed to take control away from the user and give it to someone trying to sell you something. Your device (phone, tv, home security system, appliance, etc.) becomes an another avenue to push advertising at you or sign you up to some subscription service. That might be something you actually want. For the rest of us, it is just annoying chatter that we want to turn off.
That's not so bad, I'd pay an extra 50 bucks for a new TV that's just a TV.
I mean, I have a remote for Roku, one for the TV, one for the cable box, one for the dedicated skype device, one for Bluray, one for the speakers and two not-as-universal-as-I-thought remotes. Sure, 4K on 60 inches with some apps was what I thought I wanted but being able to sit down and turn on Netflix with a single remote? Priceless.
They'll use the same micro processor to drive the settings menus as their smart TVs.
Sure the parts cost of a lesser processor is lower, but it won't pay for the software development time.
I wanted a dumb 1080P 65" TV a couple years ago. :-).
The smart 1080P 65" TVs were cheaper than the dumb TVs.
A smart 4K 65" TV was even cheaper.
Caveats:
The 4K TV had horrible reviews on its smart TV apps and remote. But great reviews on picture
I'd already built a Raspberry Pi based media PC for the 26" TV it was replacing.
At this point it's "Hit the knee on the cost/quality curve. And the manufacturers that inject ads seem to be poor quality for high cost without considering the ads."
.
If a content origination device starts doing something stupid because of a software "upgrade," then that device is history.
e.g., the AppleTV that was a part of my home entertainment system is now history because of the disaster that is AppleTV gen 4. What a buggy pile of goo that was. So it's been replaced (along with iTunes and my sole Mac). I've been using AppleTV since gen 1, but Apple's lost me as a customer because of the bugs and because the walls got way too high.
The TV is usually a more expensive part of the home entertainment equation, so I try to keep it to a singular purpose: Display.
Why? No extra box, limited headache, decent UI.
All the other Smart stuff is pretty worthless IMHO.
When are we going to get a decent UI that lets me watch whatever I have access to in a single UIX? Let me put Netflix, Amazon, Hulu credentials in and have a common interface. I know Amazon opened up some, but a wider standard would be idealtastic.
You don't want a smart TV.
You want a smart computer connected to the "dumb" TV.
We have Smart Cars Smart Phones Smart TVs
when are we going to get smart USERS???
I had a lengthy conversation with netflix support, apparently, there is NO way to view 4K netflix content except for a smart TV that supports "software" as they call it. Essentially, its DRM as demanded by studio.
So as in my case, I have 40" 4K monitor, all the hardware, a 4K plan with netflix, 50mbps internet, but I cannot get 4K because its only available on these so called Smart TVs.
Before we argue, 4K content is a lot lot sharper. I do want it, but Netflix won't stream it to my PC.
I don't even want a regular TV. I watch Netflix on a 25" monitor that I plug into a laptop.
While there is nothing wrong with that, I personally prefer watching video on my 65" screen while sitting on a couch. Much more pleasant and comfortable, particularly if more than one person wants to watch which is pretty routine around my home. It's especially nice for movies with a significant other.
That said, I really don't use any of the "smart" TV features. I really just want a huge monitor with inputs for video and sound. I don't even need a tuner since my TiVo handles that. Problem is that all the best screens aren't available without the SmartTV crap.
It's hard to find a television with the same features (as a television alone) when comparing "smart" televisions with non-smart models, and the boot times have improved, along with the price difference. My solution is to just simply not allow it to network...by not plugging it in. Problem solved.
My TV mounts right above the fireplace and there is no place to put any external devices. I have a plex server that I use heavily, but having everything else built directly into the TV just makes things easier.
I always tell people not to spend the extra money because it's a "smart tv." I recently challenge myself to that assumption and bought a Samsung smart tv for the bedroom and I can say it still sucks. I suggest buying a Roku if you want plug and play streaming: Netflix, Amazon prime, slingtv, and it even talks to my media server running Serviio (plex works too).
I will add my mother in law just bought an LG with their webos software and I was really surprised by it. It works pretty smoothly, close to my favored Roku.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Suppose someone has a TV and wants to view Netflix on it. A smart TV can allow that, and that would be a natural way to go about it for a normal person. A techie, on the other hand, likes things to be complicated, so would prefer adding another device, or reusing an existing device (which we typically have), because that's more fun. So sure, I have an HTPC (partly created with old parts and upgraded over time), but for other people that would be quite insane. And when you mention the Raspberry Pi, it's clear that your deep in geek territory (which is a totally natural place to be on Slashdot).
My dad's TV stopped getting updates, a bunch of the Apps slowly stopped working since then. If I were him I would feel ripped off every time I turned on the TV for spending extra to get a smart TV just to see a bunch of apps that don't work anymore.
Though getting spam on your TV and having it spy on you sounds worse.
I think the really winner is a cheap dumb TV with lots of inputs.
Let some one use your computer and they will use it for the day. Give or sell some one a computer and you will be tech s
Dumb Consumer.
Truthfully, everyone I know who has a "smart TV" only purchased it on some kind of sale where it seemed like it didn't cost any more than TVs without the smart functionality. We have a 42" LCD we bought last Xmas at Best Buy that has some smart functionality in it. (One button press on the remote takes you into Netflix, and it supports a couple of other services too.) But we really only bought it because it seemed to have a good picture, was priced right on a sale, and it's the size we wanted for an upstairs bedroom TV as a gift for grandma (who is currently living with us). She won't ever use the smart features. She just wants to use her DirecTV satellite hook-up.
I'm pretty sure this stuff is easy enough to implement, it will just come standard with new televisions before long. Enough people want to "cut the cord" and stream content that the TV makers will start viewing it as a basic function of a television set.
For the last five years in my house, TVs have just been large computer monitors. So I don't really care what the TV has, as long as it has an HDMI port, the price is right, and it works out of the box.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Smart TVs are like "infotainment" head units in cars: wildly out of date within a year of purchase. Give me a dumb TV/monitor with HDMI inputs and I'll connect a Roku/Chromecast/Amazon Fire/Apple TV. The Roku / Chromecasts are cheap enough to upgrade if and when needed.
I know I was going to watch OTA TV channels that are sent at a glorious 576i, so I wanted a good SD decoder, an extremely good deinterlacer and a brilliant upscaler. You will not believe that brick and mortar shops had horrible demos with 576i and 1080i video formats. Do you know these scrolling text boxes? They appeared either as if the image was line doubled (you loose one every line!) or with artifacts like stutter (wrong cadence detected) or black lines. Unfortunately, manufacturers do not advertise these important features, or the color accuracy. They just give out extremely high numbers. If half images are sent at 50Hz, what is the purpose of telling refresh rate of 4000Hz? I will tell you - CCFL backlight LCDs and their LED backlight siblings are just crap, you need a lot of preprocessing and predistortion to make this thing work as it should.
I personally would not choose the TV for its smart TV features. However, I would also not like set top boxes at all either. At most I will use sticks like Chromecast that can be powered by the TV itself. I do not know why TV manufacturers keep advertising their TV tuners work with cable when there is no cable provider that allows you to do that.
A smart tv isn't target marketed to the stereotypical slashdot reader. It's marketed to the stereotypical candy crush user.
I bought my TV to be a TV. I measured the space it needed to fit in, then looked at candidates at the store and picked the one that looked best. It has an ATSC tuner and various inputs with various things (Apple TV, Roku, DVD player) plugged in to them.
My Apple TV and Roku do all the smart TV stuff I've ever wanted to do. I've never seen a standalone smart TV that was worth the money.
...laura
You just answered your own question: smart TVs are an idea for making those extra things less ubiquitous. One fewer power cords. Put the Pi inside the TV's enclosure and you just made everything better.
(Why would you want a camera in your phone, in an age where cameras (and GPS devices and game consoles) are ubiquitous?)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The smart TV has become standard in all but the smallest screen sizes. If you are shopping for a new set, 4K UHD in large screen sizes is becoming very affordable and those are all smart sets and that isn't changing no matter how loudly the geek bitches and moans.
It is a marketable feature that adds next to nothing to the cost.
The geek may enjoy trying to get multiple devices to interconnect properly, wired or wirelessly, ideally with seamless remote control, but most people don't have the time or patience to set that up. If the Netflix app is one click away, it gets used.
Huh? If your TV can show the original source — without the transcoding — then you've misconfigured your server. It should only be transcoding, if the original is not playable directly.
And if it is not playable directly, then is not it better to have a system capable of transcoding it (even if at high CPU cost), than not be able to watch it at all?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Smart TVs typically support DLNA and HDMI-CEC which are nice to use with a Raspberry Pi and/or media streaming server.
Ask Slashdot: Why Do You Want a 'Smart TV'?
Who says I do?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
... you can get a PC, some speakers and have all the 'smart-ness' delivered to a dumb big screen, from a PC running MediaPortal ?
"Smarts" on televisions are like factory stereos in your car -- a poor substitute usually lagging behind the technology curve. Why would you want to rely upon the smarts of a $$$$ device when you can plug a $ or $$ device into it with all the brains that you can continue to replace/upgrade as needed?
Firmware updates for the TV are the best reason -- but that could be addressed by periodic maintenance.
Evolution: love it or leave it
A system designed to be a TV — rather than a general-purpose computer — is ultimately more usable for the rest of the family. It also has a working remote control. I do resent the manufacturers' idiocies (Sony, for example, would not show "progressive" JPEG photographs, what?!), but a TV looks better and works better, than whatever you cook up yourself.
They also tend to have special processing chips inside, which can deal with video conversions without too much heat.
I wish, IPTV-sources have agreed on a format, though... For the time being we are using a separate "media center" here — would've been nicer, if the TV could just show the streams itself.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
...is a hell of a lot cheaper than a "smart" TV.
"Smart" TVs are the next gimmick after 3D TV failed again. TV is a completed technology, much the like the internal combustion engine. Until video can be delivered as 3D projection, there's no real upgrade path.
I don't. I want a display platform, not a privacy invading, insecure, DRM complicit contraption.
I have no use for a smart TV. The only smarts I would like in a display is the ability to alter its brightness via a sensor, like phones and tablets do. Where my main PC is the light changes all the time, being in a room that's mostly windows.
But people that read slashdot are hardly representative of the People at Large, no? There's no telling why Joe Sixpack would want such a thing as a smart TV. The convenience of having the streaming apps built in? Last I played with one (bought by a friend 2014, Samsung curved 65" the built-ins were atrocious. He drives everything from a built-it-himself game / HTPC so the TV is not hooked up to the lan after the initial experimentation period.
Oddly enough, his *fridge* is wifi'd into the lan!
I personally use a 1920 x 1080 home cine projector in a room built to be a true miniature cinema, fed by an AVR, which in turn is fed from an apple tv, a blu-ray player and a comcast HD DVR, all controlled by a harmony 700 remote. None of them hear nor see me. The only one that pitches ads at me is the comcast box, it puts banner ads at the bottom of the Guide screen -- and only there. It has done this since I got it in 2007.
I haven't had a "TV" since 2005, when I got my first home cine projector. That last TV was a sweet 35" Trinitron.. sold it to a co-worker. Best "TV" I ever had.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
No 'Smart' tv. 4k resoultion would be nice, but I dont have cable, netflix, dish, or UVerse.... All DVDs.
My way of protesting cable/internet tv prices. $5 bin at walmart usually, sometimes specials...
I also use my 55" TV as an image device for tracing images ( usb image display ) for art work... actually cheaper than the ARTools light boxes...
No.
No way for ads to sneak in, no feedback to the manufacturer or sales people.
No cameras to watch me watching 'Serenity' or whatever. NO!
Enough of this infiltration, I say, Loudly and with Conviction!
Got a Visio "smart" tv. I agree, no desire for the dated UI or the inaccurate weather. I keep the network cable unplugged.
The thing is though that it gets the last word. Often the smart menu will pop up. Remote is in a drawer somewhere but it doesn't matter.
The smart features just appear un-requested. Last smart tv I'll ever buy.
I only got it because the image features weren't offered on a dumb model at the time.
Hey coffin, here is another nail.
I want the shittiest, ad-injectingest, support-dropped-after-six-monthiest, eavesdroppingest piece of fucking garbage to make an example of the manufacturers and either A) Shame them into stopping the production of crappy half-thought out smart features or B) Alarm the general public to the point that they stop paying to be monetized.
I don't particularly want a "Smart" TV. It's however unfortunately harder to get one without the so-called "smart" features now. If forced to get one the only flavor I'd trust would be Firefox OS.
I don't want a smart TV, I don't own a smart TV, and I will not have one in my home.
I want the dumbest possible display with the best screen quality and lots of inputs.
My latest TV is from before SmartTVs came out, and I will not ever buy another TV if it's "smart".
There's really only one "smart" thing I want my TV to do and that is have a buffer. If it could just buffer 30 minutes of video I'd be incredibly happy. All the streamers have shitty interfaces that lag and there's only one solution I have found that really works and that's Tivo. Even though Tivo supports Netflix, Hulu, Amazon ,etc. each one of these services has their own quirks and button functions and none are close to being as good as Tivo when it comes to UI. I'd pay a lot to be able to have the Tivo responsiveness and UI for all video and that means buffering the video at the set.
Why this hasn't been done yet baffles me.
I bought a smart tv for netflix, and the odd youtube video. It's nice to only have one remote. If they start fucking with it I'll go back to dumb TV with Android box and maybe chromecast too.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Samsung's smart TV features are pretty slick. That said I do have a Roku 4 and a PS 4 hooked up to it and use those devices far more than the built in functions.
The 2 things I use the built-in functions for are:
1. Web browser - The browser is nice and it has a predictive typing assist technology that I have not seen elsewhere that really makes typing things very easy with a remote control.
2. Local video - I was very surprised when the Roku and PS4 couldn't play Matroska (mkv) files. Yet the TV itself saw the local USB device and played the files without an issue...
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
My multimedia setup was meant to use the UNIX philosophy, i.e. with components that do one thing each but do it well.
Unfortunately it is getting harder by the day to get equipment that does one thing only -- at least at a reasonable price.
The BluRay player can install apps! The TV can show FreeView, FreeSat and some types of USB-attached multimedia (but neither cable nor DNLA content), the Sky Box can show BBC iPlayer and other catchup programs and the TalkTalk box can show Netflix.
The sound system is, in fact, the only thing that is unable to perform a song and dance show.
What has the world come to?
I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
I just want a screen, and lots of HDMI connectors, so I can plug whatever I want into it, and not buy a shoddy smart "thing" that stops being supported in the next 6 months. I want a cheaper TV without this new crap that's no longer optional.
What do I get for them to advertise on my hardware? On youtube I get free video streaming, on cable I get lower cost content (could be argued), on CNN I get free news...
What are the ads paying for that I haven't already paid for?
I got it for 4K Netflix before other options were available. Now I'd probably get a Roku.
That's right. You absolutely have to have a Smart TV to be part of the Win10 Botnet. Help everyone in the area get Windows 10 by pushing it out to all of their devices, including their microwaves, washers, dryers and yes even their Pace Makers and personal defibrilators.
As so many others are noting, I don't want a "smart" TV. A TV is a pretty big investment (hundreds to thousands of dollars), so its generally something you want to last. Technology/services advance however at a mayfly's pace, everyone is using them for a few years but then something else comes along and any hardware you have is nothing more than a paperweight. If that happens with an attached device you simply toss it in the electronics graveyard and buy one of latest and greatest. If however the device is integrated with the TV you can't generally remove or disable it, even if it is effectively useless. And as others have noted having it integrated can cause all kinds of headaches. It can slow boot up times, if it crashes it can take the TV's base functionality along with it, it can get infected/compromised, it can be used to serve up SPAM/advertisements. If any of these headaches occur with an attached device you simply toss it and get a replacement, sure you can do the same with the TV itself but its going to be quite a bit more expensive. Oh, and there is the tendency of integrated "Smart" functions in TVs to be crap, I know someone who had one that we had to factory reset several times because it would get a bug in it (probably related to web browsing) which would make most of the smart functions virtually useless.
That will do zilch to address the complaints you have about anything that's not a Tivo.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I bought my most recent panel right around Thanksgiving. It seems like all the manufacturers like to trot out their least expensive models around that time of year for their "sales". I was able to get a 48" 1080p panel with 2 HDMI ports, no smart features at all for under 400 bucks. It was exactly what I was looking for. Since I bought it a week before black friday I didn't have to deal with crowds either.
2016 Vizio "TV's" are shipping with "SmartCast", basically GoogleCast with some extra Vizio stuff thrown in. Although they really aren't TV's because they don't have tuners anymore. I have the P65-C1 and so far I have been pretty impressed. The latest firmware fixed a lot of my casting issues, and now it works flawless.
I cast Vudu, Netflix, and Youtube, and yes I cast 4k from Netflix. In fact I cast 4k Dolby Vision from Netflix and Vudu.
Unfortunately Google and Amazon aren't playing nice, so I will need to keep my Roku for Amazon content, and/or upgrade it when my new "TV" gets the HDR firmware upgrade.
a large, OLED monitor with a few inputs and NOTHING ELSE! No speakers, no tuner, no network connectivity (period), maybe a PiP function, but most of all, NO lame, half baked apps that barely qualify as functional. Doesn't even need a remote, it just needs to support HDMI-CEC to power on/off with my HDMI receiver.
Why? I already have a 6 year old Panasonic Viera plasma with so-called "smart" functionality. I think it received one update from Panny in 6 years. Haven't touched any of the inputs or any of the smart functions on it (even its sorry ass Netflix player) in at least 5 of those years. I seriously doubt any of them work at this point and I don't really care.
If I really want any smart shit on my TV, I'll strap a RasPi to the back and roll my own.
Now Samsung wants to throw ads up in the interface? I'm doubling down on not buying a TV for a while. I'll hold out til the price of OLED comes down and see what happens.
So I don't have to buy and connect a media center computer, streaming DVR, smartphone with HDMI, or Raspberry Pi to my TV just to stream shows.
This is a non-question. So TV manufacturers want to inject ads. You really think the "small box" makers won't?!?! HAHAHA. Revenue is revenue. My needs are simple, so I'd rather have it all in my TV then a few little boxes next to my Blu-ray player, cable box, audio receiver, and wireless antenna. I have enough crap clogging up my entertainment center.
As for the actual ads, we'll see how well they go over. Could be much ado about nothing. I'll get concerned when it starts to happen.
When the "smarts" become obsolete, you must replace the entire TV (assuming the TV manufacturer doesn't offer a firmware upgrade). This happened to a bunch of people who owned 2013 Sony TVs when Google changed the YouTube API and Sony didn't offer a firmware upgrade. I would rather replace a relatively inexpensive device (such as a Blu-ray player) or have a dedicated HTPC than replace a $2k TV.
I bought a smart TV several years ago. It wasn't because I wanted one. I needed a TV with at least 3 HDMI ports, and all of the dumb TVs only had 2. Ironically, I needed 3 ports so I could connect my Roku, but with the Smart TV the Roku wasn't needed (it was just for netflix and youtube). .mkv files, which the roku[2] could not (without reencoding), so that was an added bonus.
The smart tv could also decode the audio from my
Google added drivers for the Raspberry Pi's SoC to Android Open Source Project (AOSP). That doesn't mean Android with Google Play, as Google Play is only officially available preinstalled on a device's soldered flash memory. So an AOSP user would have to obtain the app not through Google Play Store but instead through Amazon Appstore, and even then it may rely on digital restrictions management (DRM) components available only through Google Play services or Fire OS services.
I Agree with you, you can pay for a 60" screen by the same price that a smart tv of 50".
Don't discount the downsides of of the "smart" display fuckery most modern HDTVs insist on forcing on the viewer. I've moved to a wonderful "dumb" 1080p DLP after being unable to find a TV which wouldn't fuck with my picture in ways I didn't want. (One of the TVs even adjusted the backlighting dynamically depending on how dark the scene was, making it impossible to watch movies such as Alien or a lot of old Noir films since the dark scenes turned nearly completely black. No kidding. Whoever thought of that "feature" truly deserves being shot. The only way to disable it was to set the input source name to "Game" (as if the name means anything anyway), and it would only allow a single HDMI input to be named "Game". So the TV really had 1 usable HDMI input since all three of the other ones destroyed the picture quality). There is more than one way these modern TVs try to be "smart", and it's all awful.
I can't see ANY reason to get a "smart" tv. I prefer a dumb TV. Anything I want to stream, I can, using a cheap Blu Ray player (legal) or a laptop with a video out port (otherwise). 1080p is no big issue for even a moderate store bought laptop nowadays. Nope, no added value. Sorry.
I don't want it, and would never connect a TV to the network anyway.
I don't even want a regular TV. I watch Netflix on a 25" monitor that I plug into a laptop.
Ah, the single life. Still thinking like you are living out of the dorm. But for social engagements with your wife and kids, friends and family, you are going to need that big screen TV and the sound bar to match --- say hello to the pre-order Disney Blu Ray from Amazon Prime, and goodbye to the rip off from the Pirate Bay.
I built my house a few years ago and I installed flat screen TVs in quite a few rooms in the house. When the kids were really young they liked the one in the toy room.
Now my wife and kids all watch "TV" on their iPads. The other TVs hardly ever get used.
I watch sports on the big TV in the family room - but that's about it. I'm pretty sure if I offered to hang flat screen TVs in the kids rooms, they wouldn't want them.
I have one. I do not use the "Smart" features any longer, and I mostly loathed them while I did use them. The only useful app was Plex. See more below.
Now, I have a TiVo box, an Apple TV and my receiver connected to it, and I do all "smart" stuff via them, rather than the TV. The TiVo deals with all regular TV, which the wife still wants access to. The Apple TV deals with everything else, including Plex which is glorious on there.
The TV is just acting as a display, these days.
As soon as a big-enough 4k non-Smart TV/display becomes available for purchase at a decent price, I will pick one up.
I don't, but I do buy tv's as HDMI monitors...
Roku is taking steps to license their OS to TV manufacturers. http://cordcutting.com/intervi... TV manufacturers should concentrate on what they do best and build TV's and leave the OS to someone who's in the business of making software.
I bought my first new TV in like 20 years last Christmas and since I was splurging I wanted a great screen. I decided on a Samsug Plasma screen that was very highly rated. However to get that screen I had to buy the crappy smart TV features. If I could have bought the same screen as s dumb TV I would have.
In generally the TV companies bundle all their highest end screens with crappy 'smart' features.
Peace, or Not?
Your LG tablet's copy of Google Play may be pirated.
Short answer of why "people" want "smart TV's" is:
People are 'dumb'; nobody wants to hook up "extra stuff" (they don't understand how any of it works anyways) and want "everything in one device that's easy to understand"
Is it to keep the 1337 h@X0r d00d2 out of my TV? Not plugging it into the Internet works just as well for that.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Sure you can get a smart TV with everything built into it. And complain that the TV is dreadfully slow at running it's 'Apps'.
Or you can stick all your devices on the TV's 4-5 HDMI ports. And complain of all the wires in a tangled mess behind the TV.
Or spend a few minutes and understand what a receiver does. At which time you will understand that you can plug all your media devices into the receiver and a single HDMI cord from the receiver to the TV and do just about whatever you want. If you want to get rid of most of the remote controls, then get the Logitech Harmony 650 or similar universal remote control with lots of hardware buttons on it.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
I don't want or need a "smart TV". I have a Sony from a few years ago that has Netflix and iPlayer and a few other things that I've never wanted to explore. Same as I don't want to use Netflix or YouTube or even Catchup services via my cable box.
I do have a Chromecast and Pi hooked up to my TV. These give my TV smart capabilities, just not built into the TV. Whilst I have them hooked into Home Assistant and the Pi is linked to a Synology which automatically downloads new episodes, the average person isn't really interested in the effort required and is happy enough to be able to use Netflix or YouTube on a Smart tv - after all, why spend £30 on a Chromecast when the facility is already there?
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
It's reasonable to want to see a TV in person before buying it, especially if it's expensive. Well, most high-end displays for display at retailers are smart TVs.
It's reasonable to hedge your bets. You may not want a Smart feature now, but it's such a marginal extra cost that you may go ahead and buy it following some sort of misguided "future-proofing" idea.
It's reasonable to buy one thing that does many things instead of many things that do one thing. I could have bought a dumb TV and a Roku, but I bought a Smart TV which performs the Roku functions I needed.
Do I regret it? Sure I do. But the reasoning that got me there was pretty sound, just missing some data about how crappy the whole Smart TV experience is.
If they just start by separating the all-in-one box into a viewing panel and a 'smart'-device connected to each other with a hdmi connection, then the panel can be thin, light weighted, high quality and easily put on a wall, and extra gear can get stuffed away in a corner or so. But the best thing about it would be we can replace the smart-device part with a brilliant-device of our own liking.
I thought there is a company in the use selling such setups...
They couldn't think of a number so they gave me a name
We don't need any smart devices, we want predictable, reliable devices. We disapprove of MS paper clip "intelligence", but we like devices that we can hack and ssh into.
When I got one, it was the only way I could find one with 3D. Which I've used... um... twice maybe...
The included apps are crap though. I was about to rent a movie on one of them, but it wasn't able to get through the sample versions without crashing. Sometimes when using the Youtube app the TV freezes and I have to unplug it to make it work again.
It can be nice to be able to decide what to watch on Youtube from my phone, but that's actually the only "smart" feature I use nowadays.
But given all the other things I wanted (refresh rate, price, size, etc) I ended up with a Samsung unit.
I tried using the app features - as a whole are a remarkably poor experience. The network connection takes about two minutes to become active after powering on the TV, so if you want to use, say, the Netflix app, it's WAY faster to fire up the XBox 360 and use it there.
The ONLY smart-ish feature I use on the thing at this point is the USB connection - it turns out that the XBox 360 won't read from an NTFS filesystem (really, M$?), but the TV will, so for > 4GB video files, the TV is the only thing (that's already hooked up) that will do the job.
I need to experiment and see if the TV will work normally if I take away it's network connection - I'd just as soon NOT have it doing stuff on the network unnecessarily.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
... which really implies that what I am looking for is an HDMI equipped dumb monitor that does nothing more than that. No speakers, no volume control, no add-ons, no scaling, not even a second HDMI port or a DVI-T tuner or a smart card socket or USB or wifi or RJ-45 or ANYTHING apart from an on/off switch and a power cord.
Advantages include:
- No additional boxes/wires
- Fewer remotes without mucking with a Harmony, etc.
- Built-in Netflix/YouTube/Internet
- Built-in screencasting
- Built-in WiFi
Disadvantages:
- Eula
- Ads
- Privacy
- Frequent crashes
- Laggy interface
- Boot times
- ~30 min. system update
- Abandonware
- Lack of control
The last few TVs I've purchased have been 'dumb' and 'last year's models'. They've also trended to be a major savings because I gave up features i'll never use.
Really, all I want is a big dumb monitor with an audio connection. I want it to be able to display what ever I throw at it and I don't want it listening for commands or reporting anything back to the manufacture.
My display unit has no need for any sort of network connection -- it has one job and that is the only job that it ever gets, so it had better focus on that job and not anything else.
Because I love my 126" projected screen too much and can't avoid a $10,000 4K projector. Hopefully by the time the 4K projectors drop to sub $2k, there will be plenty of material.
I love it... the proper name for a TV is "The idiot box". I learned this from my friend's grandmother while I was growing up. She stomped around yelling "Quit sitting in front of that idiot box. Your brain will fall out of your heads".
I don't watch TV anymore. I have better things to do with my time. Movies are for airplanes and sometimes while sitting at a restaurant waiting for my food. There's absolutely no value what-so-ever to spending money on another one of those idiot boxes. In all fairness, while I do in fact own an idiot box capable of meeting the requirements mentioned, it's because I needed a low cost 4K screen to fit more code on. I have never used it for watching videos of any type... though my kids watch YouTube on it once in a blue moon.
So... do yourself a favor... don't waste your money... you'd be absolutely amazed at how awesome life is without one of those things.
My SMART TV is not connected to my home network or the internet, so No. I don't want a SMART TV.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
I have a PC, why would I want my TV to be a crappy version of one?
Actually, because I watch TV on my couch, and I have no desire to use a keyboard while sitting on my couch.
Sure there's a ton of solutions like media centers, Chromecast, all that great stuff. But at the heart of it that's an unnecessary level of complexity between me and the content that I want to enjoy. I want to be able to sit down, pick up a TV remote, and get to Twitch / Netflix / YouTube in the press of a few buttons, and I want my TV to work like that out of the box. Using my phone as a remote is a great start but it has its limitations, and I think in a perfect world the smart TV that I imagine in my head probably wouldn't have anything to do with my phone.
And seriously Amazon- why isn't there a Twitch ap for Smart TV's? Get your shit together.
I don't want a Smart TV. In fact I've never possessed a TV.
Wait a minute, I actually did once own a TV.
Back when I was 18 I had a black and white TV. I used it as a monitor for my C64.
Other than that any dumb monitor with an android mini pc / rasberry pi / whatnot hooked on to it is smarter than any Smart TV. And I can update it myself. And chances are it's actually cheaper and has a higher screen resolution.
That aside I'd also argue that even my XBox 360 is smarter than any TV will ever be.
Bottom line:
I *don't* want a Smart TV and I don't know anybody who does.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
We have 1 smart TV, a samsung. I bought because I wanted to be able to deal with TV remotely over ethernet. Yet, what happens is that Samsung did not put their code in it for controlling the TV. Oddly, the CPU has the chips and ability, but Samsung decided to NOT include the code to do this. Why? Because they wanted a massive cost increase for that. Same interior, in terms of chipset, LED, etc. Basically, the only real differences is the code.
Skip the smart TVs. They buy you NOTHING. Instead, keep the smarts over on a HDMI unit, which as chromecast. Cheap and easy to upgrade.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Every" smart tv I have had to look at for customers is just a steaming pile of, "I would totally just get a nice 4K monitor and dedicated 'stream' box instead". _All_the_tv's_ fail on the "smart" side. Their interfaces are wildly clunky, unintuitive, laggy and sometimes lock the tv up requiring a reboot of the tv (and yes, some tv's take over a minute to fully boot). The whole scene is a laughing stock to the gullible fleecee's out there. I had one customer brag to me about his "smart" tv and proceeded to show me his sony uberavia some piece or a rather only for me to pull it apart bit by bit. It suffers the exact same android shit as all the others, hard to work the apps, install, once removed how to reinstall, updates, network shares, all fail.
So yes, get a 'dumb' tv, heck get a nice response uhd monitor with stream box and leave the 'big' for a projector when you want real immersion.
It is obvious. Buying a smart TV is dumb.
We don't need Smart TVs. We just need nice dumb displays and smart set-top boxes.
From experience I can assure you that the TV manufacturers were not prepared for the kind of software development process required to deliver quality. The vast majority of consumers are not considering CPU, RAM, OS and software and user experience quality when they purchase a TV. Manufacturers work with cut-throat margins and any dollar one manufacturer spends on software quality and *real* user experience design more than another manufacturer is a dollar they consider they have lost in the never ending price war. The result is that software development on these devices is painful and much of it consists of developers finding workarounds for bugs.
Any 'smarts' in early TVs used to just show a basic channel number display or EPG listing so there has been financial and technical inertia against providing something powerful enough to provide a great user experience. Some high end devices are the exception but generally the CPUs are underpowered, there is not enough RAM. Cutthroat margins again, etc etc.
The economics is forever not in their favour. A TV is upgraded on average every 7 years. Its CPU is obsolete within 18 months. A set-top box can be swapped out every 3 years without breaking a consumers budget. Set Top boxes are almost always going to provide a better quality user experience.
The manufacturers made a lot of money from the upgrade to digital and HD. They then managed to convince many people to fork out for 3D, which was a total flop. Consumers are now very wary. They didn't dive into buying the first generation of Connected TVs. The manufacturers tried to set themselves up as 'Apple' with their own App Stores. The initial user experience to launch an application on many early TVs was... unpleasant. A third of people don’t even plug their connected TV’s into the internet. Another third use it once and give up, frustrated.
With the up and coming generation of TVs what is important, in order, is “Dynamic Range”, “Brightness” and then “Resolution”. Software quality is not even on the average consumer’s radar. Quality of experience and performance is what consumers have been 'trained' to consider when they purchase a computer, and in this case consumers see a set-top box as being equivalent to a computer.
A smart Smart-TV manufacturer would buy Roku or develop their own line of boxes with a great user experience and switch to making fantastic quality dumb flat screens.
I love it but not as you would expect. I do NOT connect it to the internet. My Samsung ST can except external disk drives(over 3TB) via its USB port. I use that as well as a home modified version of PS3Media to stream all of my video to my TVs. It is the most reliable and best setup I've had. I've tried other PC server software and it all has too many weaknesses and too many unwanted features.
But as using the ST to do what they want me to do with it, forget it. Everything on it SUCKS! The browser, the apps, everything. lol.
Also, I don't do updates for the tvs, as the last one broke my streaming. I had to do a hard-factory reset. ( a "hard" factory reset is not the factory reset the SamDung tells you about, but a special serious of key strokes.
I'll carry on watching content on demand on my LAPTOP.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Vendors do not sell high-end devices without "Smart-TV" crap.
Vendors insist on putting in tinny garbage sound systems (which I have not used for more than 4 decades) -- which they tout as "wunderbar supersound virtual surround super-bass wonderfulness" but in reality sound like the $50 one-transister portable radio I bought at Canadian Tire in 1974.
Vendors also insist on including "tuners" as well (which I have not used for 4 decades either).
Of course, there are a lot of people out there that cannot tell quality picture and sound from a moneys arse -- and these are the people being targetted by the vendors.
There is no market in creating "just displays" of decent size and quality (though I suspect this is probably because the vendors do not make them and merely ass-u-me that there is no market -- and that if they did make them available, they would be surprised at the huge demand).
Same thing goes for 3D in a TV. Bloody useless garbage. However, if you want a display of a certain calibre, you have to suffer with "Smart", "3D", "tinny sound system", "useless tuner (sometimes even two useless tuners)" simply because the device is not availabe without all the skanky crapware.
Folks here are more likely to put enough thought into this question to inevitably arrive at the simple conclusion of "no thanks" but that's just not the buying public. They want Netfilx and Amazon and whatever else, and they want the box to look good in their living room, to be simple to use, and to all work off one remote. They don't care about things like privacy and intrusive ads or image/sound quality or upgrade cycles or anything else.
Kodi/XBMC is all I have used for TV entertainment for the last 10+ years. There is no need for anything else.
I don't view ads. I don't pay for TV in any way. If it all went away, I wouldn't give one shit. I view it because it's available, if it wasn't, I don't care at all.
I just want a big, dumb, high-def monitor that I can plug other, cheap things into (and upgrade those cheap things as needed).
If you are the person who enjoys tinkering with Raspberry Pi and doesn't need proprietary Netflix and HBO apps, you are not the target market of smart TVs. If you have 3 TVs in the house, care about room aethetics, host a lot of guests who are not familiar with your HDMI port setup and spend $200 on weekly groceries, you might have a different perspective on the matter.
The problem is that all of the large sized, highest picture quality panels are only availible with a bunch of "smart" crap tacked on that I will never use.
I didn't want a smart TV and still don't want one. However I do have one. It was cheap and a really nice upgrade from the very old (and second hand) 32" CRT. Watching netflix on it is nice, cos on Tivo it's horrible. I still would probably rather have a dumb TV though.
Just my opinion - Like mobile phones and tablets, you are at the mercy of the manufacturer to provide updates to the installed OS - and that the OS will have a good ecosystem of apps. In addition to that you need to consider that after only a year or two you can expect the manufacturer to potentially stop issuing updates and even deprecate functionality. My next TV will be purchased on panel quality and hardware features such as amount of HDMI ports, power consumption and other physical attributes. If the smart features are good then i will use them - but for the most part my PS4 & Chromecast will provide most of the features a smart TV offers. N
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
For the avoidance of doubt, "that old" refers to consoles with a 15-16 kHz analog video output and no HDMI output, which includes all pre-Xbox 360 consoles as well as the original Wii.
You suggest emulation as a workaround for PCs' failure to support older consoles' video outputs. But that fails for any game marked as incompatible with your emulator. An original console is usually cheaper than hiring the emulator's publisher (for proprietary emulators) or anyone else (for free emulators) to add support for a particular game to a particular emulator.
In addition, lawful emulation requires you to make a copy of the game from your own authentic cartridge or disc to the the computer pursuant to 17 USC 117(a)(1) and foreign counterparts. Just owning an authentic cartridge or disc and downloading a cartridge or disc image from a ROM site isn't enough.* And for cartridge formats not supported by Retrode (such as NES) or for discs with a nonstandard sector format that common USB optical drives for PCs cannot normally read (such as Dreamcast, GameCube, and Wii), the original console can be easier to find than a dumping device. The same is true of extracting the BIOS from an authentic console for use with an emulator, for those platforms whose emulation requires a BIOS. Not all consoles with a BIOS have it high-level emulated the way the GBA BIOS traditionally is.
Finally, emulation requires putting the PC in the same room as a 32 inch or larger monitor, and previous Slashdot discussion over the past eight years or so has uncovered the existence of plenty of people unwilling to do that for reasons that include installation complexity, maintenance complexity, and spouse acceptance factor. I can provide more details if you wish. Or should emulator users just buy a Steam Link device and add the emulator to Steam as a non-Steam game?
* UMG Recordings v. MP3.com. Some Slashdot users mention that it's possible to ignore this ruling, but if I'm setting up a media center PC for someone, I don't want to be held liable for inducing infringement.
I solve that by plugging my laptop into the TV.
And what do the other people in your house do when you and your laptop aren't around? I'm not being critical at all of how you view things - I totally get where you are coming from and it makes sense. But it isn't a viewing style that works for everybody, particularly larger households. If I was a single guy I could see it working for me but as things stand it makes less sense in my particular circumstances. Where I do agree though is that I don't need any smarts in the TV itself. Just a good image, a number of inputs and outputs for sound. Let the devices I decide to attach to it (laptop, DVR, Blu-ray, whatever) have the smarts. That makes FAR more sense even if it makes for a messy bunch of devices.
What really grinds my gears though is that nobody has come up with a two way communication protocol for remotes and devices that lets them communicate information about their state without human involvement. My remote has no idea if the device it is signaling is currently on or off, what volume it is set at, etc. So even if I use a fancy Logitech Harmony remote, it routinely gets confused because it has no way to track the state of the devices it is controlling. It has to guess and troubleshoot if wrong.
I don't. Thats's why I bought one of the Samsung dumb plasmas before they stopped selling them and started forcing everyone over to LED "Smart" TVs. At the time we were using a dedicated HTPC, but these days we just use an AppleTV and a Plex server. External boxes are generally updated more frequently, faster and easier to replace than a "Smart" TV.
I haven't found SmartTVs to be a significant cost increase over the regular ones since last fall with the rise of <$1000 4k televisions. There are lots of premium TVs which heavily exhort their SmartTV capabilities, but comparing actual comparable models (size, panel quality, etc.) seems to be very little difference in price. Where there is a huge difference is getting larger, premium quality panels with superior color reproduction and refresh rates. Those ones are already going to cost a nice premium, and universally that halo market includes Smart functionality.
Let's go through a few specific statements:
1) "media-center computers and DVRs are ubiquitous" - Umm nope, not even close. They're common with middle and upper class white techy males and their families. Heck, I have XBMC on a PC hooked up to my TV and still use the native "SmartTV" functionality for Netflix and Prime because dealing with those on XBMC is extra steps and inferior. XBMC is for playing stuff I've downloaded almost exclusively.
2) "smartphones have HDMI connectivity" - Most do NOT, more have Miracast/AllShare or similar wireless tech. They literally overheat or lose battery while charging and mirroring whether wired or wirelessly.
3) "Raspberry Pi is inexpensive and can play 1080 content at full framerate" - This is a lot of extra work for non-technical common folk. You might have gotten more mileage from saying AppleTV, Roku, Chromecast, or FireTV. Of those, only AppleTV and Roku have a user interface and setup which isn't vastly more painful than the average SmartTV. Chromecast and FireTV are actually a huge PITA for non-techy people, and even as an IT engineer, I found FireTV to be a piling steam of slow crap, eclipsed in speed and usefulness by a $600 black Friday special (read: cheaper components) 4K SmartTV's native software (Tizen?). Further the $100 price tag for the AppleTV or better model Roku is more than the SmartTV price jumps in most situations.
4) None of these devices are terribly expensive anymore, and the price jump from a non-smart TV to a smart TV makes it difficult to justify the expense. - See original point.
To say I have one. Just like people move into bread boxes on the upper East side just to say they live there.
I've never wanted one and I don't have one; what I have is a rare UHD TV with no smart features. Smart features in a TV generally become obsolete within three years anyway. A media box or stick (Roku, Fire TV, Chromecast, etc.), a DVR (TiVo, etc), or a home theater PC are much better ideas; they're more likely to get updates and they are also cheaper to replace if necessary.
These days it's hard to buy a TV that doesn't have any form of smart features. (My buying advice: don't reject them if they come along with the TV you want for other reasons, but don't pay extra to get them.) You can always ignore the smart features and refuse to connect the TV to a network. It's easiest if you get a TV without WiFi, in which case keeping it unconnected is a simple matter of not plugging in an Ethernet cable. If you have one with WiFi, turn it off in setup if you can. If you can't turn off WiFi it might glom onto an unsecured network if one is available, so the safest course is to do the network setup for your secured network and then firewall out the TV's address in your router.
If anybody ever markets a smart TV that flat out refuses to work properly as a TV if it is not connected, just say no and buy something else.
I don't want a smart TV, who would? Is it too much to attach your PC to the TV and press "source" on the remote control? Lazy people.
'Smart' Tv or 'Smart' anything is now just a euphemism for a 'incredibly invasive privacy destroying product a company can modify at will to force feed you advertisement after you buy it'.
I don't want one.
I have an android box and a chrome cast.
Back in the day only 8 track tapes would support this technology, which in fact was cool. But.. No stores really sold quadrophonic (4 speaker true separate channels) regularly. Most were promos. It was a weird time.. "It was a commercial failure due to many technical problems and format incompatibilities. Quadraphonic audio formats were more expensive to produce than standard two-channel stereo."(wikipedia) *sigh* History repeats itself.
Back in the day only 8 track tapes would support this technology, which in fact was cool. But.. No stores really sold quadrophonic (4 speaker true separate channels) regularly. Most were promos. It was a weird time.. "It was a commercial failure due to many technical problems and format incompatibilities. Quadraphonic audio formats were more expensive to produce than standard two-channel stereo."(wikipedia) *sigh* History repeats itself.
I have different opinion from most of these posters -- I like the Smart TV functionality, maybe as long as it's Android TV. And it's the only way to access 4k content right now.
Last week, I bought a Sony 4k/HDR TV with built-in Android TV. It came with Netflix (4k/HDR10-capable for a couple of extra $/month), Amazon (4k-capable, even Prime), Google Play, YouTube, VuDu (use that for Ultraviolet), Hulu, Crackle, Sony's 4k-capable streaming service, and a built-in media streaming client that works quite well.
I went to Google Play and installed Plex, which looks like a slightly older version from my Roku but works perfectly.
There is also built-in Google Cast -- formerly Chromecast and a Sony streaming service where I got 4 semi-recent 4K/HDR10 movies for signing up.
After experimenting with these built-in options and ensuring that the HDMI connection with the audio return channel works, I unplugged the Roku 3 and Chromecast from my A/V processor. For the last week, used just the built-in apps over the set's wireless AC streaming.
They work perfectly with the exception of Plex, which detects that the TV is not DTS-capable, so it converts streams to Dolby. This is true -- but the A/V preamp does decode DTS and DTS works fine over the HDMI audio return path. So for DTS content, I use the built-in media client and connect to the DLNA server built into Plex which doesn't transcode video or audio. The quality is absolutely fantastic and no glitches, even streaming 4K Netflix or Amazon Prime over my wireless network.
I watched a bit of 4K content from Netflix and Amazon Prime -- while from our seating distance, the 4k is a bit better than upscaled 1080p, HDR is what really seems to make the difference. It'll be a while before that's available on outboard boxes and I'll either have to plug it into the TV's HDMI 2.0 ports and hope the ARC to the processor still works or replace my A/V processor.
I also enabled all the privacy options. The TV tells me that it can't install firmware updates unless I disable an option, but I can temporarily do that, check for and install an update, and then re-enable the option.
So having this all built into the TV is beneficial. With Android TV, maybe smart TVs have finally caught up.
Bought a Samsung 65" smart TV last year, it was about $1,500. Very nice screen, but the browser is excruciatingly slow and no longer plays Flash. The apps are OK (Netflix), but I do not have as many apps as I can get through other streaming devices. I have plugged a $39 Fire Stick in it and it plays 90% of what I want to see. For the other 10%, I can always plug my $200 Chromebook into an HDMI socket, or use screen casting from my phone. To the extend that I can, my next TV will have HDMI, screen casting and USB, but it won't be otherwise "smart. It's better to keep the "smart" into whatever you are going to plug in the TV. It used to be a TV would last 15 years. Of course, nobody wants that...