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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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%
I actively look for TVs without the smart functionality. That's getting harder and harder to find with the larger models.
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.
3-5 years ago it was, though the 'smarttv' SKUs also have/had better screens also.
Well, considering the size of the panel and all, they're still cheaper than most PC monitors...
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
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ask Slashdot: Why Do You Want a 'Smart TV'?
Who says I do?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Get a harmony remote. Wife presses watch movie button all the right bits come up etc etc, wife presses off button things all go off.
No sir I dont like it.
Yea cause a roku stick is so hard to find space for?
No sir I dont like it.
"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.
This.
I can set up a computer for my HTPC, and have a remote for it, one for my surround sound, one for my TV, plus navigating the inputs for my XBox, maybe putting it all through the HTPC so I can recor..
But I'm married. My wife needs simple. TVersity was almost too much for her; Netflix, Plex, antenna. All controlled from the TV and the same remote that is designed specifically for that TV.
I also have visitors. They'd much rather not learn the intricate in's and out's of some weird cobbled-together (as they see it (and as it really would be!)) system just to watch TV.
No, instead I can tell them, "The big V button in the middle opens up the option for Netflix of Plex. Plex is my own movie collection. Navigate it the same as Netflix." That's it, done. And I didn't have to spend hours and days configuring user interfaces and setting up remote controls.
"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 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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Why do you want to throw your money away? I have a smart TV. I never use any of the smart functions, and they never bother me. It just does what it's supposed to do.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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.
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
Because the external box is much much better than any built-in smarts. The networking is usually better, and if not it will be better in a year or two. The apps are more up to date and better supported on the external box, whereas the TV maker has already taken your money and feels no need to continue keeping you happy and those apps will start getting out of date over time.. When the next big video fad comes out your TV won't be making an app for it (hypothetically, Facebook on TV for example). If you want 4k, the external boxes do that also and if they don't it's easier to upgrade them than to ugrade the TV.
Also when I bought my dumb tv, the price difference was basically the cost of the external box, as they were still selling smart tvs at a noticeable premium.
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
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.
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 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.
It is obvious. Buying a smart TV is dumb.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...