TVs Are Still Too Complicated, and It's Not Your Fault (theverge.com)

In his latest column for The Verge, renowned journalist Walt Mossberg argues that TVs -- their UI, execution, underlying technologies, and remote -- are still too complicated. In the latest weekly, he has shared the experience of buying a new TV, setting it up, and the first few days of getting through it. The modern set, Smart TV for most, comes with a plethora of proprietary and standard features. But only a handful of people actually know what these features are -- and how they differ in the models offered by the same company. Mossberg says folks at Best Buy were of little use when explaining these features, but did a good job making false claims such as "you have to buy a sound bar because the TV doesn't have good speakers" even when that wasn't necessarily the case. Now Mossberg, having pioneered tech journalism as it is known today, knows a thing or two about TVs, but for a general consumer, it is an unnecessary thing that could spoil the experience, and make a bigger dent in their TV budget than it should have. But buying the TV wasn't the worst part. Following are excerpts from his column: But learning to use the TV is a whole other story. The Bean Bird (assistive cartoon feature) setup process was pretty straightforward, but it gets you going just enough to start watching something. Tweaking all of the TV's many features, including common ones like picture tones and uncommon ones like zooming in on a part of the picture or using a built-in web browser, takes hours. You must wade through menus containing scores of choices. And some controversial features common to modern TVs are buried deep in these menus. For instance, while I like motion smoothing others strongly dislike it -- it's sometimes known as the "soap opera effect." If you don't like it, the LG's interface doesn't make it at all easy to understand what's happening to your picture or what setting to adjust to turn it off. It's not even called motion smoothing in the menus -- LG calls it "TruMotion." The user interface is also somewhat confusing. There are at least three ways, for instance, to change inputs and at least two to bring up quick settings. The menu for launching apps like Netflix, inputs, and more appears to have a million icons in it and marches for what seems like miles across the bottom of the screen. So you have to edit it, which takes a bunch of time.Mossberg also found issues with the way the remote was designed to execute. "For instance, it's supposed to become a "universal" remote, controlling all your connected set-top boxes, but I can only get it to control some, but not all, of the basic features of my cable box, a TiVo Bolt. And its voice search is pathetic -- far worse than the one on the latest Apple TV."

Comments

Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[gurps_npc]

Of course, I wasn't stupid enough to spend 10,000 of my own money to give other people the right to spy on me.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[Frosty Piss]

Of course, I wasn't stupid enough to spend 10,000 of my own money to give other people the right to spy on me.

That's got to be a "mighty" TV for 10 grand.

HOWEVER, I predict that eventually *all* TVs will be "smart" TVs, even the cheap ones. So, we'll have to have a plan on midigating the "spying" thing.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Exaggerations are exaggerated

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, I wasn't stupid enough to spend 10,000 of my own money to give other people the right to spy on me.

Yea, I bought my modern TV in 1825 - the beginning of modern times.

Re: Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[WarJolt]

The problem is that the tvs with the good contrast ratio or improved led back lights are the ones that force you to get the smart features. I think the whole 120 hz or 240hz up sampling crap is bullshit and often creates noticeable artifacts. Also I've noticed that some devices operate poorly with this mode. My theory is that hdmi timing on these devices are marginal and the TVs fail to upsample when timing isn't that precise. You will never find hdmi source devices outputting greater than 60 Hz. Of course the whole reason they put the ultra high refresh rates in TVs anyway is to sell 3d.

Buy a TV that has the best picture.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[evilRhino]

It's already the case that if you wanted to buy a UHD model.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[dgatwood]

HOWEVER, I predict that eventually *all* TVs will be "smart" TVs, even the cheap ones. So, we'll have to have a plan on midigating the "spying" thing.

Step 1: Do not connect it to a network.

Mitigation plan complete.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[Rhipf]

It's actually quite easy to mitigate smart TVs spying on you. Don't plug them into your network. 8-)

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[sjames]

Step 2, hope neighbor doesn't put in an open WiFi.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[JohnFen]

So, we'll have to have a plan on midigating the "spying" thing.

Easily done. Don't connect it to the network.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[Guybrush_T]

Not true. Low-end 4k TVs (Sceptre, Seiki, ...) are not smart TV. Which is good, since I basically want my TV to be a computer screen, that I connect to my Shield.

But maybe it is not going to last.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[Anonymous Coward]

That's already the case in the UK. Go to any electronics store, and if you want a dumb digital TV, you'll have to settle for 32" or less. Anything above that and it's "internet ready, smart TV, HD, control with your smartphone".

You can always not plug the RJ45 cable into your TV.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Optional
Step 0: setup a static IP address for it in your router's DHCP config and block it's IP address from making outbound connections with IP filter.
Step 1: plug it in and still use it as a DLNA renderer device to stream all your content served locally.

Simple network admin tasks...FTW.

Re: Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[Anonymous Coward]

You will never find hdmi source devices outputting greater than 60 Hz. Of course the whole reason they put the ultra high refresh rates in TVs anyway is to sell 3d.

Buy a TV that has the best picture.

Life is a movie running at around 60 frames per second.. You don't need anymore than that.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[sudon't]

It's actually quite easy to mitigate smart TVs spying on you. Don't plug them into your network. 8-)

Easy enough for those of us who don't watch TV, but use them as monitors for a gaming console, or similar box. But I certainly don't want to have to pay for all that crap.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Use a computer monitor and a video-signal-generating device of your own choice?

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[salnikov]

Hard to find 60 inch computer monitor these days, and you'll probably be paying much more than for TV of the same size.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[evilRhino]

Might be true, but the parent was talking about spending $10,000 on a TV that would eventually spy on him. It might be possible to buy a high-end model that doesn't have smart TV features, but you are limiting your choices.

Re:Funny, my modern TV doesn't do that crap

[toddestan]

Step 2: Find out when the TV can't phone home it refuses to work.

No TV

[NotInHere]

I want no TV, I want a monitor. Simple as that. Then I buy a set top box or whatever to connect it to satellite or internet streaming or whatever I use for watching. I dont want a smart TV that sends all I watch and do to the internet. No thanks.

Re:No TV

[kamapuaa]

Every TV is a monitor. You don't need to use the built in apps or the built-in tuner; a lot of people don't.

Re:No TV

[lgw]

I want no TV, I want a monitor. Simple as that.

Even as a monitor, my TV was unwatchable until I found that damn "motion smoothing" setting and killed it. It also took a while to change it from "show room display settings" to something more reasonable for my living room. As a geek, I was able to get it all sorted, but it was pretty poor usability the whole way.

I dont want a smart TV that sends all I watch and do to the internet.

Heh, even if you're watching a torrent or something, if your smart TV has a network connection it's phoning home with what you're watching (or hashes of screenshots thereof). Sadly, no one is selling high-end panels without all the "smart"-ness unless you want to pay 2-3x for industrial stuff.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't give it a network connection.

Re: No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Not without a network connection it isn't.

Re:No TV

[saccade.com]

+1. Just buy a monitor and plug a cheap PC into it. Use a web browser to pull up content.

Re:No TV

[sexconker]

Yet when it's hooked up via HDMI, DisplayPort, USB-C (Thunderbolt or not), it can get a network connection if the host device gives it one.
For a closed box like an AppleTV or a PlayStation or a BluRay player, how would you ever fucking know?

Re:No TV

[PPH]

A Raspberry Pi will do nicely.

Re:No TV

[CastrTroy]

Personally I wouldn't mind that either, but then I would also want at least 5 HDMI ports, which almost n TV seems to come with. Think about it. DVD/BluRay player, Game Console, Cable Box/PVR, Roku, and 1 free cable to plug in an ad hoc device like a laptop and we are already at 5 devices. We should probably have 7-10 HDMI ports just to ensure we never have to move the plugs around. My current TV only came with 3 HDMI ports and they are being occupied with game console, Cable PVR, and DVD player. Good thing it's a smart TV so I don't have to rely on another box to stream from plex or accept a MIracast stream from my tablet.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, not so fast! I have an LG Smart TV from about 5 years ago. You cannot switch inputs on the god damn thing without using a built in app. Switching inputs goes like this:
1) pick up the remote (only used for switching inputs) and press the quick apps button
2) Wait 10 seconds while it loads
3) point at (it works like a mouse) the "input" app and click
4) Wait while it looks up inputs like DLNA, etc. Watch HDMI 1 and HDMI 2 get pushed off of the screen when it finds our computers.
5) Switch to screen 2, click HDMI 1
6) Curse in frustration as you find it didn't "highlight" HDMI 1, so it ignored your click. Try again.

It takes a minimum of 30 seconds to go through this - just to switch from the TiVo to the Chromecast. I WISH I didn't have to use their ridiculous app, but there is no simple, old school, "input select" button on the remote.

Re:No TV

[lgw]

Then don't give it a network connection.

Indeed. Making all the "smart" features worthless, sadly.

Re:No TV

[luis_a_espinal]

Yet when it's hooked up via HDMI, DisplayPort, USB-C (Thunderbolt or not), it can get a network connection if the host device gives it one.

I intentionally set my Smart TV network settings to a non-existing IP address on my local network. That way I drive it to the ground. I only let it connect to the network when I want to download updates for it.

I stream to it via a roku stick that connects to it via HDMI, with the stick connecting and logging in my local network. The Smart TV doesn't get a connection at all.

For a closed box like an AppleTV or a PlayStation or a BluRay player, how would you ever fucking know?

Packet sniffing. Oldest trick in the book (though obviously not something feasible for the general consumer.)

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Just buy an AV receiver that has all the hdmi inputs you need, then connect the output from the AV receiver to the tv. It is what I do. the AV receiver plus a cheap tv was much cheaper than paying for a tv nice enough that it had enough inputs for my needs. The added benefit is you don't have 5 hdmi cables snaking up to the tv, just the one.

Re:No TV

[danbert8]

I use my stereo receiver to switch inputs to the TV so there is only one HDMI cable running into the back of the TV. Of course that doesn't really solve your problem either since even receivers now are going "Smart" like I somehow need to duplicate the functions of the Smart TV and the computer hooked up to my home theater...

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a 42" TV with no smart functions hooked up to my HDMI computer. I can watch torrents, Netflix, or Sling without anything fancy. It's pretty nice.

Re:No TV

[Saithe]

Use it as a monitor hooked up to a badass receiver for your sound-system. One input used, rest are on the receiver end.

Re:No TV

[supremebob]

Everyone I know who's tried this says that the Raspberry Pi's (at least the older model 1 and 2 devices) choke when you try to play 1080p video on them. That was the same experience that I got as well.

Re:No TV

[HideyoshiJP]

My 2014 Sony Bravia does the same thing. That's really is the one of the only issues I have with the set. Luckily, most of my devices are HDMI-CEC compliant, so they'll turn the TV on and swap inputs even before the smart functions have booted up.

Re:No TV

[JohnFen]

Not sadly. This is advice being given to people who have expressly stated that they don't want the "smarts" in the TV.

Re:No TV

[JohnFen]

The newer ones are quite a bit faster. But still, a better solution for almost the same amount of money is to get one of the boards that is designed to serve as a media center controller.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet when it's hooked up via HDMI, DisplayPort, USB-C (Thunderbolt or not), it can get a network connection if the host device gives it one.

I use the cheap-ass HDMI cables that don't support ethernet, so I don't have to worry about that.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

> I only let it connect to the network when I want to download updates for it.

At which point it uploads all the data it's been storing whilst waiting for the network to eb available.

Re:No TV

[jedidiah]

The old PIs play video fine, it's the UI that's sluggish. Special purpose silicon handles video playback. It's everything else that that has to depend a system that's underpowered for general purpose use.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that it is tempting, but please, don't buy a Sony.

Re:No TV

[NotAPK]

Er, no.

When using HDMI the new 4K TVs limit what sources they will accept or the sources limit what displays they will output to.

The current HDMI specification with HDCP is a complete joke, and I've wound up attempting and failing to help fiends, family, and neighbors connect their laptops to their new TVs via HDMI.

Each time I tell them to take the TV back and choose another. Of course they don't...

Re:No TV

[haijak]

Nope. Even ignoring all the "Smart TV" features. No TVs these days are "monitors". Monitors, weather you're talking about screens or speakers, are built with the expressed purpose of accurately rendering the signal you feed into them. TVs these days do all sorts of video processing to make the picture look "good" not "accurate". They intentionally increase (distort) the contrast and color saturation. They apply additional sharpening, predictive motion smoothing, and who knows what else. You have to dig into the settings and try to find and disable all those setting to get an accurate picture that looks like it was intended to. Computer monitors don't do any of that. They have a few settings to adjust contrast, brightness, and color; but those are only there to fine tune for better accuracy. I want my TV to be a monitor, not a video filter processor.

Re:No TV

[NotAPK]

I can tell you that my RPi v1 will play most 1080p content "perfectly" but with some caveats.

1. I purchased the hardware decoder keys ($2 or something).

2. Newer H265 content will not play smoothly at all, even at lower resolutions.

I've never tried higher resolution than 1080p, since that works fine and the TV is only roughly 720p (one of those "HD Ready" abominations) anyway.

PS: Am running OpenElec, streaming media over a home made Ethernet-WiFi-WiFi-Ethernet bridge to a local media server. No special hardware any where, it's all old and re-purposed kit.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You don't need to use the built in apps or the built-in tuner; a lot of people don't.

Unfortunately, giving them access to anything resembling an Internet connection means the apps can still do whatever they like, and we are rapidly reaching a point where that Internet connection might be provided wirelessly without the knowledge or consent of the owner. Unless you plan on building a Faraday cage around your home or moving to the middle of nowhere, any "smart" devices you have are going to be a threat to your privacy and security soon, whether you like it or not.

The sooner we have regulations that at least require full disclosure of things like sensors and phone-home behaviour in these devices and impose liability and laws that impose meaningful penalties for security/privacy violations on the manufacturers and supply chain, the safer we will all be.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does a TV need a network connection at all? If you are netflix user, you are probably already using another device to stream it (Xbox, ps4, media PC, etc..)

All those extras that no one uses is complete nonsense.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The thing is, other than streaming or catch-up services that provide online alternatives to receiving broadcast signals, probably nothing of value would be lost by turning off all those smart features for most people. And even then, you could provide the actually useful online sources via a separate device that just feeds signals to the TV anyway, meaning if you needed to update anything as those services change, you could swap the device out or mess around with its firmware safe in the knowledge that your expensive TV hardware would still work just fine.

The smartest TV is still the one that lets me watch stuff with as much quality as possible while doing as little as possible to get in the way of that experience. The only controls I have actually needed on any TV in at least a decade are input selection and things that affect the display/sound. Everything else is just junk that gets in the way, slows things down, breaks long before the hardware does, compromises security or privacy in some way, or too often all of the above.

Re:No TV

[kamapuaa]

and we are rapidly reaching a point where that Internet connection might be provided wirelessly without the knowledge or consent of the owner.
Uhhh....so don't give the TV your wifi password? Are TV apps really "dangerous"??? Your post is predicated on nonsense that even a small child could see through.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a 4K TV and it will accept whatever I plug in, I've never heard of anything different. And "monitor" that plugs in to another TV? Why would you want to do this...in case your friend comes over with a 2nd, big TV? Why are you posting this gibberish?

Re:No TV

[lgw]

The problem with a different box is that it's a different remote, which is a show-stopper for many.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

That sucks.

Too bad that you didn't do your research before buying that piece of shit.

Re:No TV

[bn-7bc]

Ah a color acurate monitor, yes rhat would be nice, try searching for a rec.709 monitor (used for broadcast ab blu-ray mastering). Those ae very exspencive unfortunatky :(

Re:No TV

[NotAPK]

I recommend that you educate yourself a little:

http://www.howtogeek.com/20891...

Here is an excerpt from an email I recently wrote to my friends helping them to understand why they can't plug their laptops into their new 4K TV:

---
Anyway, I wanted to point out that the symptoms you describe are in line with how HDCP works. Remember this feature is not actually your friend and unfortunately far from a "winner".

So what happens when the laptop is connected to the TV is the laptop tells the TV "hi, I'm a computer" and the TV replies with "hi I'm a TV" and then they discuss "do you do HDCP?" and they both say yes, then the laptop asks "do you promise to only play DRM content with a valid HDCP signature?" and the TV goes "nah, I'll play anything, that shit's for losers" and the laptop goes "yikes!" and drops the display and you see nothing.

All of that happens regardless of whether a video is playing or not, which would be incredibly frustrating for many people: imagine you'd bought such a screen for use in a school foyer to show news updates...

Anyway, HDCP was dreamed up by the content owners and has wide-spread fallout. Of course collateral damage is just accepted, and really is to be expected, when you treat everyone like a criminal...which brings up an even more important point: copyright infringement is a civil matter and is not a crime, despite what the lobby groups would have everyone believe...

Right, so there are (in theory) some nuclear options for dealing with this. It may be possible to flash the firmware of the TV so that it "lies" about it's promise to only display DRMed content. It should also be possible to flash the graphics adapter firmware so that it doesn't bother with the BS and just pumps out the HDMI signal as it should.

You can also buy "in between" boxes that sit between the computer and the TV and lie to both sides about what is going on, and basically pass through the image so that everything just works.
---

Re:No TV

[yzf750]

3) point at (it works like a mouse) the "input" app and click

Use the other remote that came with the TV, not the mouse remote. I have 10 LG TV's from that era at work, they all came with a standard remote with number buttons, vol + -, channel + -, input, etc and the stupid mouse remote that we never use.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

... don't want a smart TV ...

That's why my minimally smart Tv is connected (via HDMI) to a media player which runs a crippled version of Android, that is connected to the internet.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Your post is predicated on nonsense that even a small child could see through.

No, you just apparently aren't familiar with trends in the industry. There are already plenty of devices that make their own arrangements for remote communications.

Do you give the SatNav in your car a WiFi password? Of course not, if it's one of the models with real time traffic updates, then the vendor normally has a deal with one of your mobile/radio networks to push those updates out. Various accident/breakdown functions built into modern cars also come with their own plan for literally phoning home.

Here in the UK, certain major ISPs already offer packages where you install their device as your wireless router, but it doubles up as an access point to another network the ISP operates, piggybacking on your own landline/fibre connection to allow others who aren't on their own WiFi network to gain access via your ISP. In any big city here, you're probably within range of several such access points most of the time.

Those might be the two biggest examples by total number of connected users/devices, at least here in the UK, but there are plenty more.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Also, in response to this:

Are TV apps really "dangerous"???

That depends. A lot of TVs and other "smart" devices sit in your main living areas. Many have sensors like cameras and microphones attached. Many are connection to household networks and to the Internet. Few of those network/Internet connections have any sort of isolation or firewall to limit access to only relevant systems.

Personally, I find it creepy that people across the Internet could be watching and listening in as a family do or discuss whatever they do or discuss in the "privacy" of their own home.

I also find it worrying that someone could be sitting there exploiting a vulnerability in something like a "smart" TV to download whatever else is available on the home network or to access other connected devices with sensors of their own.

And that's just what a remote attacker could do. The same vulnerabilities are a gift to burglars or worse who are willing to physically visit the property, since they potentially give the criminal a real time feed of when a home is occupied and who is in or out (which could also be recorded over time to look for patterns of occupation).

Seriously, none of this is news. Nor is it a hypothetical threat: many "smart" devices, including plenty from major brands, have already been very publicly compromised. Anyone paying attention should be terrified at the potential intrusions these systems can and evidently often do allow.

Re:No TV

[psyclone]

And the Roku is also a closed box like AppleTV. It's quite chatty over the network. Hard to packet sniff HTTPS communication when you cannot modify anything on the device (like the trusted certificates).

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Personally, I don't really understand that. We have a few different remotes in our main living room, because all the other devices we plug into the TV have their own anyway. The remotes just go next to each other, within arm's reach, on a table near wherever one of us is sitting.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Try using THX tune up. It is free to use and uses the camera on your phone or tablet to help get the settings correct. Even if you don't follow their advice, it is easier to fix up the TV to your liking if you know what setting is wrong with it.

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.thx.tuneup.free&hl=en
iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/thx-tune-up/id592624594?mt=8

Re:No TV

[aXis100]

Logitech solved that problem with their Harmony remotes quite some time ago. Very reasonably priced and they just plain work.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a logitech remote that can talk to like 10 different devices. All I have to do to do when I want to watch Netflix is hit the "watch a movie" button, it powers up my TV, my receiver, whatever that box I have that does netflix is called, switches everything to the appropriate inputs, etc. It can take a while to set up - you have to use logitech's software to tell the remote what you have and how it is all connected, but I have ONE REMOTE. For EVERYTHING.

So maybe the people that think two remotes is one too many should look into that, eh?

Re:No TV

[houghi]

Why do you need an update for your tv if you don't use any of the features. Remember: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:No TV

[thegarbz]

The RPi would only choke when attempting to decode AC3 audio. The GPU has ample grunt to handle 1080p. That goes even more so for the RPi 2. The RPi 3 should be able to handle anything thrown at it.

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a non-smart LG TV from about that era and it supports far more commands than are on the included remote, including commands to change to specific inputs. Have you tried a decent universal remote?

Re:No TV

[luis_a_espinal]

> I only let it connect to the network when I want to download updates for it.

At which point it uploads all the data it's been storing whilst waiting for the network to eb available.

What data could it possibly be passing? The OTA channels I watch on occasion? It is almost certain that it is not passing the credentials I use to log in to the high speed modem I use. I don't stream through it, and unless the TV can by some sort of magic parse and build intelligence through the data it receives from the roku stick via the HDMI port, what does it have? What it could possibly have that I should probably be concerned about. At this point these aren't security concerns but hand-wavings.

Re:No TV

[luis_a_espinal]

Why do you need an update for your tv if you don't use any of the features. Remember: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Firmware updates for its NIC and wifi adapter, updates for the software drivers it use for its USB and HDMI ports, software updates for other functions such as its function to scan available OTA channels. The fact that I do not use it to stream over the internet does not mean there aren't other useful functions.

Moreover, it's not like I avoid connecting to the internet with it for security reasons (there is more tin foil than reason in this topic). It was more that Samsung SmartTV interface sucked a bit for streaming, Roku was/is much better, and that there is no reason to lease an IP to a device (the TV) if it is not going to use it.

Re:No TV

[RailRide]

My LG 47VL5500, from about 4 years ago works like this:
--hit the Input button on the remote. List of inputs comes up. (usually it's on HDMI1)
--Either hit the Input button twice to select HDMI 3 or tap the D-pad twice
--Hit OK.

Maybe the UI changed between your model year and mine? I could do it via the menu system like you describe, but this just seems to work.

---PCJ

Re:No TV

[Anonymous Coward]

These "enhancements" are coming to cameras as well. I've ordered several different brands of security cameras, each one includes a contrast enhancement feature that cannot be disabled. If you want a good camera, you have to get an old one from before the days when the image sensors had enough computing power to do this bullshit.

My GoPro Hero applies contrast enhancement to its photos to such a degree that they look like someone ran them through the "oil painting" filter in a graphics program. It's awful in that, while it initially makes you think "OMG, it's so sharp," when you really look at it, you realize it's fucked up all of the fine details.

Re:No TV

[CanadianMacFan]

Could you get a manual switch (like a KVM) and hook everything up to that and then the switch would connect to the TV? Then you would just change the input on the switch and leave the TV alone. Yes it would mean getting up but it would be faster than using the remote.

Re:No TV

[toddestan]

They even make them with remotes, seems like the perfect solution to me:
https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=8202

Disclaimer: I have no experience with that product and it's from Monoprice so it could be a pile of crap.

Same goes for car stereos

[Anonymous Coward]

what i wouldnt give for a quality car stereo that just had a volume knob & a usb port & didnt try to razzle-dazzle me like some kind of hopped up slot machine.

Re:Same goes for car stereos

[bjb_admin]

Yeah what is with that?

Re:Same goes for car stereos

[PPH]

Full sized touchscreen displays are the thing these days. Too bad they didn't think to include a 'power-off' screen saver that looks like a hole in the dashboard with a couple of hanging cables so car thieves would think your stereo was already stolen.

Re:Same goes for car stereos

[ArylAkamov]

Build one!

I've been working on a few designs in Eagle. Until then, I tossed my stereo in the trash and got a small 1/2 DIN equalizer and plugged a cheap bluetooth dongle into the back (RCA plugs), run it into a small amp and out to the speakers. Works great.

The modern spaceship flashy bullshit looks too out of place, especially in a classic car.

Re:Same goes for car stereos

[danbert8]

What I wouldn't give to actually have additional capability from my ridiculous touch screen infotainment stereo than what I'd get from a simple unit with buttons... My Ford Touch offers no real features over the non-premium small screen with buttons option other than being able to customize the background. Oh except the button version can store 10 radio presets per FM station vs the 6 that the computer system with a huge fucking touchscreen can handle.

Re:Same goes for car stereos

[Anonymous Coward]

"Build one!"

I said QUALITY car stereo.

Re:Same goes for car stereos

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely there is or will be an Android app for that? Some new car models come with the Android and a very extensive touch display "experience."

Re:Same goes for car stereos

[ArylAkamov]

You can build quality stereos just fine, git gud

Re:Same goes for car stereos

[imidan]

Also: microwave ovens. You know how, when you go to someone else's house, their microwave is utterly incomprehensible? Every single microwave oven ever made requires a different esoteric incantation to do the simplest goddamn thing. I had one, many years ago, that just had two knobs. One was a cook time knob, and the other might have been power level. I can understand the desire for some slightly more complex controls than those, but that was by far the simplest microwave oven I've ever seen. Rarely did any visitor need help operating it, and if they did, I could just say, 'put in your food and turn the knob' and that was the 95% use case instructions.

Re:Same goes for car stereos

[Dutch Gun]

No kidding. On my microwave, there's a button that's labeled "bacon". Seriously? What the hell does a "bacon" button do? I've never dared to press it. I'm going to be really upset if I find out that pressing that button magically makes bacon appear in my microwave, and I never read the instruction manual to find that out.

Re:Same goes for car stereos

[CanadianMacFan]

So you want Apple to start making car stereos? They like making things with one button/knob.

Actually car stereos should have physical buttons and knobs for the most important functions. Same thing for the environmental controls. When you are driving you can keep an eye on the road and use tactile sense to find the functionality you want. With the touchscreen you have to look at the screen to see what you are selecting.

So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[SensitiveMale]

That is news.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[skids]

As an aging techy, Smart TVs are among the gadgets that I look at and say "Is there something I am missing here, am I finally going over the hill, or is this really just the crappiest dogpile of UX malpractice, feature bloat, and scamware ever created?" It turns out the be the latter (this time).

So no, it's no surprise -- older people are old enough to remember the world of software before it turned to utter crap, when we had well designed UX experiences with crisp response times and common sense discoverability. So naturally we'd be the ones in a position to complain.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[bluefoxlucid]

Not to mention Best Buy's employees trying to con you into shit. People don't realize Best Buy puts their employees under enormous pressure; in the early 2000s, they started telling their sales people to proudly inform customers that Best Buy is a modern company operating without commission (because of high-pressure sales tactics commission employees engage in), while tracking employee sales numbers and punishing them for not making sales.

In 2006, Geek Squad employees had to get $245/day of sales to avoid disciplinary action--that applied whether you were a tech bench employee (front of store, one customer ends up paying $400 just for walking in) or a dedicated service add-on employee. In the latter case, every sales person gets credit for hardware sales, plus for attaching things like anti-virus and set-up services; if the sales person fails to attach anti-virus or other services, he passes the customer (who has already refused an add-on) to a Geek Squad tech whose job is to convince the customer to change his mind. The Geek Squad tech gets zero sales credit for attaching hardware (routers, etc.) if that occurs; he has to attach software (which the sales person has tried and failed to attach). Again: that add-on employee is often scheduled in that role 100% of the time, and has the same sales requirement as a front-bench employee.

Front tech-bench employees got into a routine of charging $60 for a diagnostic on any computer problem (non-refundable). For a virus, they'll run an anti-virus scan ($30), which fails to remove the virus, and cease trying (manual removal gets disciplinary action from the tech supervisor). They inform the user that he needs an OS reinstall. That incurs $70 for a back-up service and $60 for an OS re-install. Then it's $30 for each additional software--if you want your new OS to not die immediately, you'll pay $30 to install anti-virus and $30 to install anti-spyware, plus $30 if you wanted MS Office installed again. Everyone who walked in was $300 of sales.

Sales people would explain that the trial AV did nothing, and that a computer is 100% guaranteed to get a virus the instant it's on the Internet without shiny new AV. Failing that, they'd hand off to Geek Squad whose job depends on selling enough $50 anti-virus packages every day to hit $240, and who only gets people who were unconvinced by the portents of doom and credit card theft. High-pressure sales doesn't begin to describe it.

Everyone's angry at Comcast and AT&T and Tesla and ignoring Best Buy, I guess because if you're retarded enough to shop at Best Buy you deserve to be poor.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

As an aging techy, Smart TVs are among the gadgets that I look at and say "Is there something I am missing here, am I finally going over the hill, or is this really just the crappiest dogpile of UX malpractice, feature bloat, and scamware ever created?"

That's been my experience when I go to Best Buy or Frys or whatever and look at the new gadgets, especially TVs.

I look at them and think, "I don't need this shit, just give me a TV without all the 5-level nested menus and other horsecrap." But almost no one makes a TV that doesn't include loads of useless shit. My last TV (a couple years old) has firmware that never seems to have an update available and loads of picture settings that don't seem to do much at all. Adjusting settings is frustrating as fuck, and I speak as someone that's been in tech for 40 fucking years.

My Blu Ray player came with a load of utter bullshit like screen savers and some of the lamest games you've ever seen, and it also doesn't ever seem to have an update available either.

The Blu Ray player's craptastic "Opera Store" doesn't even have a browser available (!!) nor does it have an Amazon TV app, and there's no way to get one. The USB port on the front is WORTHLESS, it's only for showing stored pics and movies, and it won't recognize a keyboard (or any other device), which is really too bad since the on-screen keyboard is the WORST, most user-unfriendly piece of shit in the known universe.

Seriously, fuck you, TV manufacturers, fuck you in the ass with a telephone pole wrapped in barbed-wire.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[supremebob]

Don't forget that Mossberg is a big Apple fan. He tends get cranky when he runs into UI experiences that aren't as slick or easy to use as Mac OS X or an iPhone.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[dfghjk]

Your use of the term "UX" suggests you aren't nearly as "aging" as you lead on. UX is a term invented after "the world of software turned to utter crap".

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[laurencetux]

well walking into a BestBuy and dropping enough CASH money that they had to do a double count (and most likely a safe drop) gets you very good service especially when

1 You know more or less exactly what you want
2 you do this 3 times in a week
3 you have an aura of ALPHA GEEK!
4 you are nice about it

but yes as a former RadioShack Sales Support person (hi if you know where 01-1909 was) i have to grit my teeth to not laugh/cringe when i hear BestBuy clerks talk to customers.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[JohnFen]

and ignoring Best Buy

That's what I do. After the first time there, the only time I've been back was for an emergency cable purchase.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[Anonymous Coward]

...well designed UX experiences ...

Well designed user experience experiences? You have been infected by the modern crap.

In this context the word "experience" is a marketing term, they don't want to sell you a computer program but an "experience", I guess. To me that sounds as if they can't distinguish between the program they sell and a theme park.

And designed user experiences? I know there are people calling themselves UX designers, and I'm sure many of them do a good job. But what I experience when I use software is not designed by the people who designed the software. They designed software, my experience is how I react to their design and to the exact circumstances in which I use it at that moment. They did not design those circumstances and they did not design me or my preferences, so there is no way they can have designed my experience. To me the term "UX designer" sounds as if they say "I'm God, you're just a user I designed". That's about as arrogant as it gets.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[c-A-d]

Front tech-bench employees got into a routine of charging $60 for a diagnostic on any computer problem (non-refundable). For a virus, they'll run an anti-virus scan ($30), which fails to remove the virus, and cease trying (manual removal gets disciplinary action from the tech supervisor). They inform the user that he needs an OS reinstall. That incurs $70 for a back-up service and $60 for an OS re-install. Then it's $30 for each additional software--if you want your new OS to not die immediately, you'll pay $30 to install anti-virus and $30 to install anti-spyware, plus $30 if you wanted MS Office installed again. Everyone who walked in was $300 of sales.

It's cheaper to buy a new machine at this point.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[ShaunC]

Your use of the term "UX" suggests you aren't nearly as "aging" as you lead on

His UID is barely six digits; unless he was about 10 when he found Slashdot, he's "aging" as far as mainstream marketing demographics go. If you aren't 18-35 they don't really care what you want or don't want, most products are being designed for the next generation despite many of them not having any dollars to spend. I'm pushing 40 and I find myself asking the "am I just getting old?" question too, but I'm perfectly capable of using more recent terminology like UX, DevOps, etc.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some might argue the world of software has always been utter crap. :)

What I can't figure out is, with all the supposed focus on UX and interactive design, we still have such shitty interfaces. I mean, really.

I just helped my roommate replace her Dish Hopper (hard drive crash on the old one lost all our DVR recordings). We waited over an hour for the device to do a software update that it said should only take 20 minutes. We called tech support, and they told us to unplug it for 10 seconds. Worthless time-sucking crap.

The Onion got it right with "Sony's Stupid Box Thing."

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[skids]

Heh. After I posted I said "Damn I wish I had thought to link that," so thanks.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is only a problem if you want to do that stuff.

Once set up, the TV has ONE control and only ever ONE control that I ever use -- the ON/OFF switch. Period. Full-Stop. End-of-Line.

You turn it on and it displays the video sent to it. You turn it off and it stops displaying the video sent to it.

Sound? In a TV? Have not used the speakers in any TV for 3 decades. They get disabled within 5 seconds of unpacking the thing, never to be enabled again.

Tuner? Haven't used one of those in a TV for 3 decades either. Within 3 seconds of unpacking the TV the input gets set to the line input from the source and never needs to be changed again.

Colour, white/black balance, geometry? They get set once. Usually within 30 minutes of unpacking the thing. Once set they properly they never need to be adjusted again (well, old analogue CRTs need to be spruced up about once every three months or so -- modern LED backlit LCD panels, never).

So, within a very short time the only thing that is needed is the ON/OFF switch. And that is it.

And maybe some putty to fill in the wholes left by removal of any spy devices (camera's/microphones). No network connection, no wet-behind-the-ears kiddy Wiffy.

It will work for the next 50 years exactly as it worked 30 minutes after being removed from the box. And it only needs one control -- ON / OFF.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you for not doing your research before you spend your money. There's plenty of good kit out there, but it's not all cheap-as-shit NAME BRAND.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[mekkab]

I use another button: input select. But otherwise, yes to all of this.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[bluefoxlucid]

That happened a lot when eMachines were $250.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[crispin_bollocks]

I worked at a new car dealer for a miserable year. None of this sounds unfamiliar.

Re:So an old man says TVs are too complicated?

[Anonymous Coward]

They pick on Sony, but it could just as well be any of the major consumer electronics companies... Samsung, LG, even Apple!

Problem is antiquated remote controls

[tatman]

There is no need for push button remotes any more. LCD screen remote should be the standard. It's a 1970s technology that has barely evolved with other changes in consumer entertainment.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[chris234]

A problem I've heard from people about touchscreen remotes (and did experience with my old Pronto remote) is the lack of tactile feedback. You don't know what you're hitting without looking down at the remote as you can't do it by feel.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no need for push button remotes any more. LCD screen remote should be the standard. It's a 1970s technology that has barely evolved with other changes in consumer entertainment.

What advantages does an LCD screen remote have over push button types?

captcha: computed

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[kamapuaa]

There's apps that let your phone do this, and you can buy LCD remotes. 95% of people don't bother, because remotes are easier to hold, easier to use, and have tactile feedback.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[Anonymous Coward]

Push button remotes are completely logical for arrows, enter, volume, play/pause, rewind, fast forward, and skip. Standard controls that can all be done without looking at them, especially in the dark backlit only by a television.

LCD makes some sense for weirder controls like screen temperature or programming a wake-up time. The fact that there's a giant LCD screen already on the TV makes it a little weird still, but it's not a touchscreen and people are getting used to that.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm busy watching TV. I'm not interested in LOOKING at the remote to turn the volume up, that would distract me from what I'm trying to do... watch TV. Tactile buttons only make sense. Unless you don't watch TV. What did you buy a TV for, again?

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[Anonymous Coward]

No the Problem is every component wants to be the master. They will not talk to each other, by design.
Yet they all are networkable. And the TV,TIVO,DVD,ect all want to be the Netfilx player /web browser..
Who knows why samsung makes to turn on the sound bar with a separate remote.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[mlw4428]

Why? What's wrong with buttons? I literally do not understand this comment. Does a piece of technology just become outdated because it's old? SCREW THE WHEEL GUYS AND FIRE IS JUST SOOOOO LAME MAN!

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[tatman]

I was trying to convey that LCD screens allow a much richer UI over fixed buttons. Push button remotes are limited by the number of buttons on the remote. I find it very frustrating to navigate a menu by pressing combinations of pressing menu and exit. And then remembering what the combination is when I switch to another TV.

LCD screen is effectively a GUI. So there are opportunities to make the remote far more functional, even colorful or animated. For example, LCD screen could show very different controls for volume adjustment vs audio configuration.

There is the option of using apps on smart phones and tablets. However, I have found that not all apps work 100% perfectly with all TVs. A missing command or the TV vendor didn't comply completely with IR code standard...things that make apps harder to use.

Others that commented made a great point: tactile feedback. LCD doesn't offer that at all. In the dark, that tactile feed back is critical to finding the right button to press. This is probably the most compelling reason push button remotes remain the standard over new technologies.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[Anonymous Coward]

No the Problem is every component wants to be the master. They will not talk to each other, by design. Yet they all are networkable. And the TV,TIVO,DVD,ect all want to be the Netfilx player /web browser.. Who knows why samsung makes to turn on the sound bar with a separate remote.

great point. mod up.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no need for push button remotes any more. LCD screen remote should be the standard. It's a 1970s technology that has barely evolved with other changes in consumer entertainment.

Dear god no. Please, PLEASE no. The worst thing that can happen to remotes is if the LCD trend kick in there. If you like an LCD remote, use your phone.

I don't know about you, but I don't look at the remote when I use it 90% of the time. I operate by touch. I don't mind having an LCD area for overflow controls but the basics for a DVR should be physical buttons near the middle of the remote. And if you look at all the successful remote, this is the case. In fact, Logitech learned that the hard way with their Harmony Ultimate. That's the Harmony remote you regularly see deeply discounted because prior models are so much better.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[JohnFen]

I was trying to convey that LCD screens allow a much richer UI over fixed buttons.

Yes, but for the use case of a TV remote, the most important thing is to be able to use it without looking at it.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[sjames]

Sure there is. Durability.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[NotAPK]

The remote should be very simple with nice easy push buttons.

On/Off
Channel Up/Down
Volume Up/Down

Menu/Back/Exit
Arrow Keys to navigate pretty and efficient on-screen display
Yes/No buttons for the menu options

That would be it as a bare minimum. If you want to go all out and add a keypad for digit inputs then I'll allow it, but the usefulness of this is waning, especially as cable TV with gobs of channels is becomming less useful.

What I would consider in addition to the list above would be 4 or 5 shortcut buttons, ideally programmed using the OSD. If not programmable, then the basic shortcuts would be:

Channel Browser
Input Browser
Sound Settings
Picture Settings ...and that's about it...

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[NotAPK]

Sorry, of course a mute button, and maybe a smattering of one or two other things I've forgotten about.

Something I'd like to see (and never have) is a "picture mute" button. It's basically an advertisement mute button. The sound goes off/down to a pre-set level, and the screen goes monochrome and darkens. The bullshit from the ads doesn't disturb you, allowing the audience to chat among themselves, yet someone can look and see if the show has resumed. I know the time-shift features make this less attractive.

OK, damn, more buttons for time-shift features, etc... :)

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice for the very occasional time you have to delve into the settings, but 99.9% of the time you just want to be able to channel surf, change the volume and mute, ideally without looking away from the tv or whatever else you're doing. That's where a simple remote with physical buttons that stick out reins supreme: muscle memory and direct feedback from buttons you can feel, no looking at the remote or paying attention to menus required.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[real gumby]

Yes, but for the use case of a TV remote, the most important thing is to be able to use it without looking at it.

Cars too, but "ooh, shiny" seems to have taken off there as well.

Re:Problem is antiquated remote controls

[toddestan]

What I would do is give the user the option of plugging in a mouse for the complicated initial set up and for navigating the menus of rarely used functions. Would also come in handy for smart TVs I suppose.

As for the remote, I'd make it simple and easy to operate by touch without having to look at it. 99% of the time I'm only using a handful of buttons anyway.

Why should it have a remote?

[SeattleLawGuy]

Why should each TV come with its own remote these days? The default should be that people use an app on their phone, with an option to buy your own universal remote. Instead we're wasting resources with the sale of every piece of living room electronics and middle-class houses get cluttered with remotes to different devices. It's inefficient.

Of course, only a portion of the market would acknowledge that, so you would need a good marketing strategy and probably a phase-out period.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should each TV come with its own remote these days?... It's inefficient.

I know, right?!? If we could only apply all those resources to space exploration, we'd be gasping for breath on Mars by now.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[Anonymous Coward]

The default should be that people use an app on their phone, with an option to buy your own universal remote.

no phones allowed when the TV is on, take your noise elsewhere

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[PPH]

Some people need a remote that they can throw in the dishwasher occasionally. Just saying.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a good idea. Then you have to have 2 phones, because you can't change channels or mute the damn thing, when you are talking on the phone etc.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[Anonymous Coward]

... you lose your phone and you can't watch tv, your phone has 1 year birthday and the app isn't supported on the old software anymore etc etc. No thank you. I'll take the remote.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[The-Ixian]

Yes, what a wonderful idea. I would love to put all my controls in the same device... oops hold on, I have a phone call... damn, where's the mute button? Oh, gotta launch that app... oh wait, I have to unlock the device first... ah crap! the battery is dying...

That seems so much easier than just having a nice, dumb IR remote.

An IR remote with tactile buttons, on the other hand, is a great design. It just works and needs line of sight to work which means that if I drop it into the couch or sit on it or look at it funny, it won't register... unlike an RF remote or app (looking at your Roku remote control)

Plus, there is something to be said about tactile feedback... all this touch screen stuff is driving me crazy.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[Anonymous Coward]

"use an app on their phone"

Ever tried it for a while? That is basically how the Chromecast works, don't get me wrong its a useful little device but after a few months I was shopping for a device with a remote (Amazon Fire, etc). Phones have batterylife measured in hours, TV remotes have battery life measured in months. Trust me it gets pretty annoying pretty quick to have to fumble with a plugged in phone to change TV programs or to hunt down a charger to bring to the living room because your phone is dying. I fully agree that remote protocals need to be simplified so one remote can easily control multiple devices/systems, but until phones are much easier to charge or have a much longer battery life they aren't going to be an appropriate replacement.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[HideyoshiJP]

So, just because you don't like a device that costs less than five bucks to manufacture and requires no network connectivity, no TVs should have a remote? Yeah, it's annoying to have a million remotes. HDMI-CEC is helping some, and a Logitech Harmony can be a godsend. Having said that, the only way a manufacturer would likely implement something like that is with bluetooth or wifi. That'd make it pretty difficult to fully disable the smart functions. It's also nice to be able to limit access to change what's on the TV to what is physically present in the room. I take it you've never had someone prank you when you're watching something they don't like.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a truly horrible idea. My av equipment ranges in age from 2 to 20 years old. All the remotes still work just fine, give or take the tape holding some of them together. It's a mature get and forget technology.

Can you imagine a phone lasting that long? Can you imagine an app being supported that long?? No, didn't think so. And I don't even want to think about the joys of regular "updates" to my remote control's UX, or the inevitable "I'm sorry, we no longer support that model" messages... shudder. While it is technically possible to standardise so you don't need a separate app for every device, and to do the app right, in practice there is precisely zero chance of that happening.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[jedidiah]

Even when I'm using my phone for nothing else, it goes to sleep after I use it. Then I have to wake it up again when I want to do something. That turns a trivial thing into a bothersome thing.

Sometimes I wonder if these ninnies actually do any of the things they suggest that others do.

Been there, done that. Not amused.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[jedidiah]

Those paired Roku remotes are annoying. I really should label all of mine so I can keep track of them. My Myth remotes are fine. I have the same model for every machine in the house and they are all interchangeable. They even congregate together (they must all get lonely) and it's all good.

Half the time with the Roku remotes I just don't bother and I use the app. That's still a little awkward though.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[paulpach]

Why should each TV come with its own remote these days? The default should be that people use an app on their phone...

It sounds so logical and wonderful in theory. But as someone who tried it a while ago I can assure you phones are absolutely horrible remotes.

Suppose you just saw Janet Jackson flash a boob during the Superbowl. A reasonable person would want to watch it over and over to make sure they catch every detail of what just happened. What do you do?

1) reach for your phone in your pocket.
2) slide to unlock it
3) enter your password or fingerprint
4) browse to where the remote control app is
5) click on it, wait 3-5 seconds for it to open.
6) select the device you want to control (the tv, or dvr or whatever)
7) and finally you are ready to hit the rewind button.

Even if you cut half these steps, you are talking about at least 10-20 seconds to get to that damn rewind button. You will need to keep your eyes on the phone screen the whole time. That boob is ancient history by now, people have already discussed it on twitter, made thousands of memes, laws have already been enacted to prevent the unholiness of a nipple from destroying more childhoods. Now, your friend who has a real remote wants to talk about wardrobe malfunctions. He could be calling you right as you are in the middle of working towards getting to the rewind button.

Compare that to the remote that comes with your dvr

1) Pick it up
2) click rewind.

You don't even have to look at the damn thing, you can keep your eyes on the nipple the entire time. It takes 1-2 second.

Now imagine this every time you want to fast forward a commercial or pause it to get a beer. You have just invented a new very effective technique for interrogating prisoners in Guantanamo.

I got fed up with the phone as a remote very quickly and bought myself a real remote with damn physical buttons.

Re: Why should it have a remote?

[Anonymous Coward]

But I was born yesterday and yesteryears tech sux.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[swillden]

oops hold on, I have a phone call... damn, where's the mute button?

If your phone is your remote, it should mute the TV automatically when you get a phone call.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[antdude]

Yep, I don't like the touch screens either. I can't even type fast like Data. I can type fast and loudly, like a machine gun, on clicky keyboards though.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that would be annoying as all fuck if you just happened to be in the room with someone else watching TV, or a ton of other situations that I can come up with in a couple of seconds thought...

Think first, then comment.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[swillden]

Well, that would be annoying as all fuck if you just happened to be in the room with someone else watching TV, or a ton of other situations that I can come up with in a couple of seconds thought...

I don't think so. I think it would be ideal, even in that case. Especially if it didn't mute unless you actually took the call.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[gzuckier]

Why should each TV come with its own remote these days? The default should be that people use an app on their phone, with an option to buy your own universal remote. Instead we're wasting resources with the sale of every piece of living room electronics and middle-class houses get cluttered with remotes to different devices. It's inefficient.

Of course, only a portion of the market would acknowledge that, so you would need a good marketing strategy and probably a phase-out period.

as a connoisseur of obsolete but functional hardware that I get from Goodwill for $15, I attest that any manufacturer who builds equipment where vital functions are only accessible via the remote and not on the equipment itself, and furthermore only via proprietary codes which no "universal" remote can duplicate, needs to go out of business ASAP. Because that remote is going to vanish magically at some point and never reappear.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[gzuckier]

Yes, what a wonderful idea. I would love to put all my controls in the same device... oops hold on, I have a phone call... damn, where's the mute button? Oh, gotta launch that app... oh wait, I have to unlock the device first... ah crap! the battery is dying...

That seems so much easier than just having a nice, dumb IR remote.

An IR remote with tactile buttons, on the other hand, is a great design. It just works and needs line of sight to work which means that if I drop it into the couch or sit on it or look at it funny, it won't register... unlike an RF remote or app (looking at your Roku remote control)

Plus, there is something to be said about tactile feedback... all this touch screen stuff is driving me crazy.

like when your remote car unlock is an app in your phone, and the battery dies. ah, fun.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[gzuckier]

Some people need a remote that they can throw in the dishwasher occasionally. Just saying.

Anybody remember when Audio magazine reviewed the A11-1n-1sky audio system by Lirpa Laboratories of Bucharest, in the April 1983 issue? The system achieved a tiny shelf space footprint by moving many of the functions to the remote, which was the size of a small refrigerator and required a 12 volt car battery.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[SeattleLawGuy]

All true. But that is also all solved by having one remote, packaged separately from the half dozen devices in your living room, which you can use to control all of them. Currently we waste resources (albeit a small amount) by having many middle class living rooms with multiple remotes.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why ? Maybe I don't want to interrupt my movie to answer every robocall I get.

Re:Why should it have a remote?

[swillden]

Why ? Maybe I don't want to interrupt my movie to answer every robocall I get.

So don't answer.

Or, if you insist, have the phone app pop up a TV mute (or unmute) button so you can make the decision after you answer. There are lots of ways to solve this.

Thanks Sony

[pushing-robot]

http://www.theonion.com/video/...

(nsfw/language)

Re:Thanks Sony

[PPH]

Doesn't even have a front panel SCSI-1 port. Sony, WTF were you thinking?

Re:Thanks Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

Score: +9001, Funny and completely appropriate

Re:Thanks Sony

[HideyoshiJP]

I already know which video you posted. "I'll pretty much buy any piece of crap they tell me to." I love that video.

Re:Thanks Sony

[pr0t0]

I hadn't seen that one before. F-ing hilarious!

Pushing-Robot is our friend!

Setup should be via web interface

[Anonymous Coward]

Connected TVs should have a web interface that you can configure from a browser, eliminating the need to click through remote menus. You could also save your configuration locally.

Re:Setup should be via web interface

[GrumpySteen]

Because there's no chance at all that TV manufacturers would screw up the security on a web based configuration interface, right?

The next wave of malware extortion would be "pay us x bitcoins to remove the password-locked goatse screensaver from your TV."

Re:Setup should be via web interface

[ewhac]

That presupposes that the household also has a local network with other computing devices on it, which is not always the case.

It seems the "Smart" TV kids are beginning to learn what some of us have known for decades -- that a rubber-domed joypad is a terrible input device, barely good enough for games, much less controlling a complex computing device.

Re:Setup should be via web interface

[Archangel Michael]

My default assumption is that the MFG already screwed up security. Everything I do flows from that understanding. Because even if it isn't true today, some hacker somewhere will find out a way to get into it and steal my soul.

Re:Setup should be via web interface

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a web based interface for your "Smart" TV to be hacked. Many have been hacked through browser vulnerabilities and malicious apps, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some instances of debug access or default passwords on some being used to gain access. One of the reasons why I'll never directly hook a major appliance (TV, Fridge, Stove, Furnace, etc) to the internet. Secondary devices (Amazon Fire, etc) that have no direct control of the appliance sure, but never the appliance itself unless the manufacturer can prove that the hardware where the web interface lies has no control of the basic function hardware.

Re:Setup should be via web interface

[jedidiah]

Put a motion controller in it and it's great actually. It makes a very nice mouse replacement.

Although simple cursor keys can replace the mouse (or finger) in most GUIs. If that's not the case, then you probably did it wrong.

Chinglish doesn't help much, either

[turkeydance]

don't forget your thing

No problems

[riis138]

I had no problems setting up my Sony Bravia. Walks you through the process pretty seamlessly

don't buy complicated tvs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I turn my tv on, I turn my media computer on, and I turn my 5.1 reciever on. Then I just do whatever. Nothing new or exciting to learn.

Re: don't buy complicated tvs?

[Anonymous Coward]

And motion smoothing off, and auto shutdown off, and front middle volume up...

Re: don't buy complicated tvs?

[jedidiah]

That's "initial setup".

Give it a big O of O(c).

To bad cable card failed and tru2way hit the same

[Joe_Dragon]

To bad cable card failed and tru2way hit the same fate. RVU seems cool but it has some of the same faults as tru2way.

A new FCC mandated gateway system with no forced UI's no per device fees no forced DRV fees is needed to help make people to be able to use one UI / one remote to view TV.

I'm sorry but if a TV is too smart for you..

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got bigger problems.

Shill

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta get that apple tv plug in and disparage the competition. Apple tv needs voice search because their remote is painfully slow and clunky.

SUMMARY BRITANNICA eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No blaming people because of TV's though. I guess not and shit.

Bumping front page I see?

I have no sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

1st world problems

Bad UI design is common in IoT

[Scutter]

Too many producers of consumer electronics completely ignore the software side of things. From bad UI design to security, in their rush to market they skimp on the things that make that sort of thing worthwhile.

Re:Bad UI design is common in IoT

[The-Ixian]

Not just the television device manufacturers.

Streaming app creators are much worse.

It is rare to find a well designed streaming app. Hulu is terrible and has gotten more terrible now that they took away the queue (wtf is with that?!) but it is far from the worst app out there.

I recently looked at the SeeSo app on my Roku... holy crap... that is a poster child of doing it wrong.

So yeah, the user experience is only as good as the weakest app, imo.

Intentionally so

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember years ago i found out that if i used the parental controls on my cable box to block the 24 hr shopping channels, they wouldn't even show up on my list. I could just cruise through the channels & nobody was going to try to sell me a zirconium ring. It didnt take long before the cable company figured this out & changed the parental controls (so that they basically didnt work anymore)

If our tv/cable boxes were as configurable & user friendly as we'd like them to be... we'd block out all this crap, & nobody wants that.

Nobody touches the settings

[Dorianny]

I know more then a few unfortunate souls with their TV's in the Retina Burning, Vomit Inducing DEMO mode

Reading all the comments...

[darkain]

Reading all the comments here on this story, and honestly only one thing comes to mind... (yes, an obligatory XKCD comic) https://xkcd.com/927/

Content!

[k6mfw]

Give me great shows and programming, I'll figure out how to deal with the TV set (basically like every other gadget I will use only 10% of its features). Current TV is a 10 year old SD set (but it's a flat screen), I haven't seen a need to get a huge whiz bang 80inch set.

The Gran-o-meter

[bettodavis]

My personal metric if some technology is too complex is if it can be used or not by my grandma.

And she definitely can't setup and exploit the many bells and whistles of a SmartTV, no matter if she wants to do it.

But she has gotten pretty good at using her cell phone. Probably because she's more motivated by talking/chatting with the family and friends, but she could learn the most common social apps in a short while.

Whatsapp, Twitter, Pinterest are no problem for her. But getting Netflix started and watching a series she wants to see in the Smart TV is like an unsolvable problem.

I had to use Smartphone analogies for getting her to start getting how the damn remote control works. But it seems the many buttons on the evil black box are too intimidating, compared to swiping your fingers over pictures in a sleek glass screen.

Long running problem that has to be solved

[XSportSeeker]

Smart TVs are riddled with underpowered hardware, security issues, outdated or plain abandoned apps, empty stores, and they are condemned to get completely abandoned after a while, unless you replace your TV sets as much as your smartphone or something, which doesn't seem to be something most consumers will do.

My Samsung TV came with smart tv functions (I didn't want it, but the price was right for the set), after initially testing the Samsung Hub or whatever they called it, I packed the smart tv remote and other crap that came with it (a bluetooth accessory, 3d glasses, and all that crap) away, and never looked back at them. And afaik, after a couple of years it's basically unusable - outdated, slow as molasses, and now a security issue.

The horrible mess that has been created by a bunch of TV manufaturers wanting to push proprietary shit on consumers has got to stop, that is if TV manufacturers still wants to offer usable smart tv solutions for consumers.

I dunno why Google stopped Android TV development, but that's the way to go. In fact, just throwing regular Android there would be a huge improvement over the shitshow that smart tvs currently are. I mean, nothing like Chromecast and other streaming pendrive/small tabletop devices selling like water to show how ineffective the smart tv strategy was.

Even if smart tvs worked well, were secure, and had good features overall, it's just a failed strategy. You really don't want to combine a product that is supposed to last 10 years or so, with something that will get outdated in less than a year.

Re:Long running problem that has to be solved

[Anonymous Coward]

You really don't want to combine a product that is supposed to last 10 years or so, with something that will get outdated in less than a year.

Sure you do. How else are you going to get consumers to replace perfectly good hardware every year?

Re:Long running problem that has to be solved

[Anonymous Coward]

You should not have bought a Samsung. My Philips Ambilite smart-TV actually runs Android by default.

And if your set is unusable after 2 years, maybe you should try to connect it to a network and update it? Maybe?
Lots of manufacturers issue GENUINE updates and corrections OTA. You're a luddite ...

And if you don't want a fancy pants TV, that's fine, but you're an asshole for saying "TV manufacturers wanting to push proprietary shit on consumers has got to stop". You know, as a consumer, if I don't want the proprietary shit, nobody, not Samsung, not Philips, not even fucking Apple, can make me buy their gear.
But if I do, I don't want idiots like you removing my options.

Luddite ...

Re:Long running problem that has to be solved

[thegarbz]

There is nothing underpowered about the hardware smart TVs are built on. The problem comes from people who don't have a clue about writing software for a platform just throwing the easiest framework and their most inefficient and useless devs at the problem.

The obvious solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring in the GNOME guys -- They Gno a lot about putting the GUI in your UI. (Read that aloud)

Provocateur

Wow Slashdot

[luis_a_espinal]

Some of the comments in this story give me the impression half of slashdot members have no fucking clue how networks operate.

Use Consumer Reports

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumer Reports does a really good job of evaluating and reviewing TVs. Subscribe to the magazine, subscribe online, or buy the annual book.

Simple, Don't buy a "Smart" Tv.

[Anonymous Coward]

"SMART" TVs are the most useless devices in the past decade. They're buggy, their interfaces are un-intuitive, limited & become obsolete far too quickly. It's much more reasonable to get the most basic TV you can get with the features you want (resolution, inputs, etc) and get addon devices like Chromecast, Amazon Fire, etc. The biggest thing that could be done would to simplify the remote protocols so that one remote can control your entire entertainment system more easily (without buying big expensive remotes that are troublesome to program).

With recent experience, I agree

[Quirkz]

I bought a new TV last Christmas, and my recent experience tends to agree. It wasn't even a smart TV, just a standard one. I still had a whole bunch of problems.

* Terrible interface for trying to figure out how to adjust color/brightness
* Terrible interface for trying to scan for over the air channels. Ran through this probably 5 times to get it right.
* Discovered a firmware bug which would turn the TV on once every 24 hours. This could not be disabled. Spent two weeks trying to upload patched firmware, which included a web site that said the model number was wrong even when it wasn't (no ability to browse, you've just got to know and type it from the box), multiple calls to the main vendor and then sub-vendors, finally getting the firmware patch with no instructions, calling back to find out totally unintuitive process for uploading the firmware, part of which includes "wait for 5-20 minutes while it takes care of itself in the background, and if you interrupt this invisible process you may brick your TV".
* Found that patched firmware didn't actually fix the bug, but that it at least allowed for a sub-feature that, if there's no signal to the TV, it will turn back off 15 minutes later.
* TV had terrible sound. Tried multiple versions of traditional (audio jack) and USB speakers, none of which worked for inexplicable reasons. Eventually took a big risk spending $80 on a soundbar that would handle digital audio, hoping it would work, and got lucky. (Sub-issue: soundbar goes to sleep if the TV is paused for a while, and when you wake it back up, the TV doesn't recognize it. You've got to turn the TV on/off to get sound working again. Sub-sub issue: sometimes Netflix loses track of sound, even when the TV had located it; same fix.)
* I've got 3 remotes: TV, streaming device, and sound bar. The wife and kids get it, but none of our visitors or relatives can figure anything out. I'm *this* close to printing a laminated cheat sheet of instructions, which they probably won't use because it's too complicated.
* Relatives tend to leave the TV either tuned to an over the air signal or a powered-on streaming device, so that when the firmware bug kicks in, then the TV stays on until someone realizes it was accidental and turns it off hours later.

Re:With recent experience, I agree

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I think I bought the same thing. It's soooooooooooo tempting to just pull out a gun and shoot the fucker full of holes.

Re:With recent experience, I agree

[crtreece]

You took all that time to create a detailed, well formatted post, but didn't name and shame the manufacturer and model? Please let tell us how to avoid the pain you've gone through.

Re:With recent experience, I agree

[Insightfill]

You took all that time to create a detailed, well formatted post, but didn't name and shame the manufacturer and model? Please let tell us how to avoid the pain you've gone through.

Agreed. This is the sort of detail that you won't often find on a regular online review. I'd love to have this info, if anything to at least add to a list of manufacturers to avoid for a while, even if the model goes away.

Re:With recent experience, I agree

[Quirkz]

Sorry. RCA 48" LED HDTV. Couldn't remember the details offhand, had to look it up.

It was a Wal-Mart Black Friday and/or Cyber Monday special, so it may not be coincidence this is a particularly inferior model, but that doesn't excuse all the problems I've had with RCA-specific aspects.

Re:With recent experience, I agree

[Quirkz]

Sorry. RCA 48" LED HDTV.

Re:With recent experience, I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus. Why didn't you return it? Nothing that broken gets to stay in _my_ house.

Re:With recent experience, I agree

[crtreece]

Thanks for the follow up. Sounds like that might be one of those SKUs that are released for a specific retailer and/or event like Black Friday, and I agree that isn't an excuse for a shoddy product.

Operatoring Systems are still too complicated

[Camel Pilot]

And it is not your fault either... err well maybe it is.

So wait...

[argStyopa]

Let me see if I understand?

Buying a complex piece of electronics is a complex process.

Getting it set up to perform basic functions is pretty simple.
Getting to perform more complicated functions turns out to be more complicated?
More options means more complicated.

Is that about it? When has that ever NOT been true?

How stupid-proof does the world have to be?

Further, "...folks at Best Buy were of little use when explaining these features, but did a good job making false claims such as "you have to buy a sound bar because the TV doesn't have good speakers" even when that wasn't necessarily the case..."
Now, I'll agree that the drones at Best Buy are alternately stupid and rapacious motherfuckers (they sold my 85 yr old aunt a 36" flatscreen tv and sound bar for $1600), but ultimately it's caveat emptor, not caveat auctor. The speakers on tv's generally DO suck, and even a cheap soundbar is going to sound much better generally. Generally.

Re:So wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a magical time in history when if you wanted to operate a television there were three basic controls: power, channel, volume. Wanted a VCR? Plug it into the only jack in the back. Game system? Same thing.

Re:So wait...

[argStyopa]

If all you still want to do is just WATCH TV, it still is that simple (even TFM admits that).

"The Bean Bird (assistive cartoon feature) setup process was pretty straightforward, but it gets you going just enough to start watching something. Tweaking all of the TV's many features, including common ones like picture tones and uncommon ones like zooming in on a part of the picture or using a built-in web browser, takes hours."
So his ACTUAL complaint is that accessing the scores of special high tech or niche features, some of which require integration online, is actually complicated? No shit, Sherlock.

If you just want the function of a tv from your "golden age" you can get that with about as much effort (let's not forget that in that era a tv was at best 27" inches across, might weigh hundreds of lbs, was 20" deep, and cost $2000+ in 2016 dollars?).

If you want to stream netflix using your existing account, tweak your motion smoothing, and integrate your voice command system with your bluetooth headset on your HD media center 60" LED flatscreen that cost you maybe $800, yeah, that's going to be more complex.

It is our fault

[Nkwe]

It is our fault because we (the TV purchasing public) continue to buy. If we refused to purchase things that were overly complicated, manufacturers would create simpler products.

As a side note, I don't personally think TVs are too complicated. That being said, without regard to if they are or are not overly complicated, the quality and complexity of products in the marketplace is ultimately the consumers fault.

Re:It is our fault

[Anonymous Coward]

It is further "our" fault because of what TV's have represented to a large portion of the population: a status symbol.

Larger TV's were considered better and showed that you were successful. Then huge TVs got so cheap that going bigger didn't make sense. Now even your nearly homeless friend has a 60 inch TV. But the idea that TVs are a status symbol did not go away. How to differentiate between your wealthy ass and your poor friend? 3D, smart features, fancy remotes, voice recognition, etc. Then you can still have a more expensive TV than your poor friend, right?

I understand not everyone thinks this way about TVs but enough people do.

Don't use all that shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple answer to your woes are, do not connect it to the internet, EVER. Do not allow it to connect to your WIFI, do not plug in an ethernet cable or even allow it to connect to other internet connected devices via bluetooth. Just use it as a dumb slab of lights with multiple HDMI inputs. Buy a ROKU 4, connect it to the slab of lights with an HDMI cable. Set up a PLEX server on a system within your home where you store and control your personal libraries.
Between a ROKU and PLEX there is NOTHING that you can't get. ROKU works with all known streaming services (AFAIK) and while it may have some privacy issues of it's own you can mitigate those externally. On my ROKU 4 it came with the remote that has the useless buttons for shit like rdio, sling, etc..
And the microphone which I refuse to allow in my house. I opened the remote and put tape over the contacts to render the "services" buttons inoperable and I desoldered the TWO microphones from the circuit board. Now the remote works perfect, I can't accidentally press some stupid button for some stupid service I will never subscribe to and the device is physically incapable of listening in on my home. And it you're so fucking lazy that you have to talk to a machine to get it to do something, then please, do not reproduce. Despite having neutered the objectionable "features" of the ROKU remote it still works as a remote. And if I need to type something in I can just use the ROKU app on my iPhone 6S+ to have a full keyboard for logging into services then kill the app after.

All this "smart" bullshit is getting out of hand. My next TV, I'm going to buy a 4K slab of lights that has no smart features at all, just inputs and nothing else.

All we need are large dumb displays

[Number42]

I've been wanting to buy a 65" OLED display to replace my old 50" plasma TV from 2003 for a few years now, because the color contrast on standard LED displays isn't as good as the latter's. I don't even need it to be 4K; it won't matter at the distance I'm using it. However, all monitors after a certain size seem to be bundled with extraneous UIs that function like their own OS. I just want a big screen with good colors. It shouldn't need software updates or its own remote. The best way to make UIs simpler is to eliminate them. Maybe have some buttons on the side to change inputs, but that should be it.

Re:To bad cable card failed and tru2way hit the sa

[Anonymous Coward]

The Cable card failed because the Industry worked hard to make it fail.

Built in TV speakers

[Anonymous Coward]

Built in TV speakers are terrible, and have gotten even worse since the switch to flatscreen TVs with nearly no space for speakers. Even a very poor quality external speaker system would be vastly superior. If the author doesn't notice this, he is completely unqualified to write an article about TVs and certainly doesn't "know(s) a thing or two about TVs" and should immediately go to a specialist to determine why his hearing is so deficient!

Doooooonnnn't get me started.

[QuietLagoon]

Mossberg is correct on this. I've had to explain a complicated remote (for a non-smart TV) to one of my parents, who has hearing problems.

.
The only functionality on the remote he really needs is power on/off (turning both set-top box and TV on and off), volume, mute, numeric keypad. closed captions on/off. That's pretty much it.

Yet I get phone calls asking why the closed captions switched over to a different language, or what happened to the closed captions, etc., etc., etc., etc.

I asked the cable company (Time Warner) for one of their "senior citizen" remotes, and it was more complicated than the one that came with the TV.

Comibination of two things:

[kheldan]

1. TVs are too complicated; nobody needs a goddamned 'smart TV' to start with, it's stupid.
2. People are getting dumber and lazier so it's no surprise they can't figure out how to run their TV.

Reset.

[sims 2]

I recommend sanyo tvs for anyone with basic tv needs it has this nice reset button on the remote just press it twice and it resets all settings back to default and rescans the channels.
Saves lots of time when dealing with people over the phone.

SmartTV deleted Applications after bought

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a smartTV and mutliple times applications which are selling points of the smartTV were deleted by the manufacturer. What other device exists where the manufacture reduces the capability after you've bought it? For example, fitness tracking or yoga instructions (and logging) were deleted from the TV -- I agreed to pay more for the TV and no longer pay for yoga classes -- that is now gone. They have even deleted Netflix and YouTube for a few days, then re-enabled them. Next unit is going to be a plain vanilla monitor.

A Standard Master /Slave Approach is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not the modern TV it is the entire entertainment system. From your cable box, to your surround system that wants to route everything for you, to the TV. In most cases the TV is not the culprit. Most of the time it is having one remote to turn on the TV, Another for the cable box, another for the suround, and back to the cable box remote to go up and down channels.

If we designated one of those components a master and have all the others (Slave) communicate via a standard cable interface and a standard command deck, the user could simply set one device to master the others to put them into their modes, (turn them on/off) and the problem would be solved. All these other special features could still be set by any master or slave device independently.

 

Maybe...

[mister_playboy]

What if the TV refuses to function without a network connection?

Re:Maybe...

[flargleblarg]

What if the TV refuses to function without a network connection?

Don't buy a TV that refuses to function without a network connection.

Re:Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, don't worry. We'll never make our TVs refuse to function without you having to connect them to a network. All of them are equipped to establish a connection to our network via a nearby cell tower. Some of our models (and we won't say which) are even able to talk to satellites!

Re:Maybe...

[Drethon]

What if the TV refuses to function without a network connection?

Bored Walmart employee: "Why are you returning this item."

Shopper: "The TV doesn't work."

Bored Walmart employee: "OK, please sign here."

UX nightmares.

[petes_PoV]

we had well designed UX experiences

Nope, a good UX is pure fantasy. I'm still waiting for one.

They all try to put too many options together. They all still have a pile of "miscellaneous" functions that all get lumped together. They still all use the technical / marketing terms of the designers (rather than the real-world experience descriptions of actual users). Almost none have sensible default settings or logically connected changes and it's a rarity to see them structured in any sort of workflow: good or bad. They always seem to be designed "logically" (captain) rather than with the most frequently used options the least number (i.e. 1) key-click away. And the layout of the remote control needed to operate them is frankly, awful.

Re:UX nightmares.

[gzuckier]

we had well designed UX experiences

Nope, a good UX is pure fantasy. I'm still waiting for one.

They all try to put too many options together. They all still have a pile of "miscellaneous" functions that all get lumped together. They still all use the technical / marketing terms of the designers (rather than the real-world experience descriptions of actual users). Almost none have sensible default settings or logically connected changes and it's a rarity to see them structured in any sort of workflow: good or bad. They always seem to be designed "logically" (captain) rather than with the most frequently used options the least number (i.e. 1) key-click away. And the layout of the remote control needed to operate them is frankly, awful.

reminds me of the days when the TVs would come with an "automatic picture improvement" button, or similar, which would just lock out the brightness, contrast, color, and tint controls and set them all to fixed midrange values. I'm looking at one of those sets right now, an old Sony Trinitron.

dumb tvs are teh future

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why dumb tvs are the future

Not so bad

[jmhysong]

I bought a smart tv a few months ago. It wasn't any trouble to set up and the UI isn't bad. The remote is just a remote, nothing special or difficult about it. I don't understand why so many here have such trouble setting up a tv. I guess people just like to complain.

UI Design was a thing once

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a time in the recent past when UI design was done to software and physical products. Due to rush to market there is no longer time to do such a thing for the cheap and medium priced products. Badly structured menu with lots of items is utilized for all use cases, without considering any use cases.

And in related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

In his latest column for The Verge, renowned journalist Walt Mossberg argues that GUNS -- their UI, execution, underlying technologies, and triggers -- are still too complicated. In the latest weekly, he has shared the experience of buying a new GUN, setting it up, and the first few days of shooting it. The modern gun, semiautomatic for most, comes with a plethora of proprietary and standard features. But only a handful of people actually know what these features are -- and how they differ in the models offered by the same company. Mossberg says folks at "Guns R US" were of little use when explaining these features, but did a good job making false claims such as "you have to buy a holographic scope because the GUN doesn't have good sights" even when that wasn't necessarily the case. Now Mossberg, having pioneered tech journalism as it is known today, knows a thing or two about GUNs, but for a general consumer, it is an unnecessary thing that could spoil the experience, and make a bigger dent in their firearms budget than it should have. But buying the GUN wasn't the worst part. Following are excerpts from his column:

But learning to use the GUN is a whole other story. The Bullet Buddy (explanatory cartoon booklet) setup process was pretty straightforward, but it gets you going just enough to start shooting someone. Tweaking all of the GUN's many features, including common ones like windage and uncommon ones like elevation adjustment or using an add-on beavertail back-strap, takes hours. You must wade through different configurations with multiple back-strap sizes. And some controversial features common to modern GUNs are buried deep in the manual. For instance, while I like adjustable recoil others strongly dislike it -- it's sometimes known as the "soap opera effect." If you don't like it, the Glock's manual doesn't make it at all easy to understand how to disassemble the slide, or how to remove the hammer. It's not even called a hammer in the manual -- Glock calls it a "striker." The manual is also somewhat confusing. There are at least three ways, for instance, to change from a left handed to a right handed pistol. The magazine eject button appears to have a million options for aftermarket alternatives. So you have to pick just one, which takes a bunch of time.

Mossberg also found issues with the way the recoil was designed to execute. "For instance, it's supposed to be a "smooth" recoil, controlling all the connected parts of the weapon, but I can only get it to control some, but not all, of the basic features of my holographic site and my tactical light. And its oiling diagram is pathetic -- far worse than the one on the latest from Colt."

And in still more related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

In his latest column for The Verge, renowned journalist Walt Mossberg argues that CARs -- their UI, execution, underlying technologies, and remote keyless entry fobs -- are still too complicated. In the latest weekly, he has shared the experience of buying a new CAR, setting it up, and the first few days of driving it. The modern car, an automatic for most, comes with a plethora of proprietary and standard features. But only a handful of people actually know what these features are -- and how they differ in the models offered by the same company. Mossberg says folks at Cars R US were of little use when explaining these features, but did a good job making false claims such as "you have to buy an option package because the CAR doesn't have good speakers" even when that wasn't necessarily the case. Now Mossberg, having pioneered tech journalism as it is known today, knows a thing or two about CARs, but for a general consumer, it is an unnecessary thing that could spoil the experience, and make a bigger dent in their TRANSPORTATION budget than it should have. But buying the CAR wasn't the worst part. Following are excerpts from his column:

But learning to use the CAR is a whole other story. The CarPlay (assistive connection feature) setup process was pretty straightforward, but it gets you going just enough to start listening to something. Tweaking all of the CAR’s many features, including common ones like fader and tone, and uncommon ones like stereo separation or using a built-in web browser, takes hours. You must wade through menus containing scores of choices. And some controversial features common to modern CARs are buried deep in these menus. For instance, while I like quadraphonic audio, others strongly dislike it -- it's sometimes known as the “stadium effect." If you don't like it, the MG’s interface doesn't make it at all easy to understand what's happening to your car or what setting to adjust to turn it off. It's not even called quadraphonic audio in the menus -- MG calls it “Motability.” The user interface is also somewhat confusing. There are at least three ways, for instance, to change inputs and at least two to bring up quick settings. The menu for launching apps like fuel efficiency, torque, and more appears to have a million icons in it and marches for what seems like miles across the bottom of the infotainment screen. So you have to edit it, which takes a bunch of time.

Mossberg also found issues with the way the remote was designed to execute. "For instance, it's supposed to become a "universal" remote, controlling your car’s door locks, as well as your garage door, but I can only get it to control some, but not all, of the basic features of my garage door opener. And its voice search is pathetic -- far worse than the one on the latest Chevy.”

Re:And in still more related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and to any moderator types who are wondering what the deal is with these "in more related news" posts to this story... the story itself reads like some whiny, crying, old luddite who is mad at all this, "modernization," and adds, "fliberty flue! In my day, TV's only had 13 channels, and we LIKED IT THAT WAY!" I wrote these to highlight the fact that you could change out "TV's" with any one of a number of things, and with few changes, the story makes the same basic sense, and sounds about the same.

Yes, competition has forced manufacturers to add more features to try to differentiate their products from the others as patents expire on various technologies, or patentable workarounds are found and implemented that DON'T violate earlier patents and give the same or similar results, which is a good thing, because without that force, TV's would have one channel, it would be set at the factory, and so when you'd go to Woolworth's or Sears and Roebuck's, you'd have to make a choice THEN as to which network you want to watch on this thousand dollar device. You could have a TV compatible with ABC's broadcasting frequency and modulation, CBS's, or NBC's... and that'd be IT. THOSE would be your choices.

TV's would still be black and white, have small, circular screens, and emit high volumes of X-Ray radiation at the people watching them, so after 20 or 30 years, you'd actually see shadows on the wall from where the paint was less bleached, by the radiation, as an old couple got slowly shorter and shorter, and eventually one would be bleached brighter than the other, when one passed away, and the other would get progressively shorter, then the bleaching would stop for a while, after the widow dies, then a young family buys the house, and puts THEIR TV in a different part of the room, and thus the process would begin anew, only this time on the opposite wall.

The summary at least, is poorly written, and reads like the sort of thing someone writes while grumbling to himself about kids playing on his lawn, or how the world has "gotten itself into a big damned hurry."

Buy a new TV, or don't buy a new TV.

(Brooks was here. So was Red.)

And in yet even MORE related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

In his latest column for The Verge, renowned journalist Walt Mossberg argues that FLATWARE -- their UI, execution, luster, and decorative flourishes -- are still too complicated. In the latest weekly, he has shared the experience of buying a new set, polishing it, and the first few days of eating with it. The modern fork, with four tines for most, comes with a plethora of proprietary and standard features. But only a handful of people actually know what these features are -- and how they differ in the models offered by the same company. Mossberg says folks at Silversmiths and Beyond, were of little use when explaining these features, but did a good job making false claims such as "you have to buy a sharpening kit because the set doesn't have good steak knives” even when that wasn't necessarily the case. Now Mossberg, having pioneered foodie journalism as it is known today, knows a thing or two about steak knives, but for a general consumer, it is an unnecessary thing that could spoil the experience, and make a bigger dent in their domestic budget than it should have. But buying the set wasn't the worst part. Following are excerpts from his column:

But learning to use the sharpener is a whole other story. The sharpening guide (assistive angle feature) setup process was pretty straightforward, but it gets you going just enough to start getting a decent edge. Tweaking all of the sharpener’s many features, including common ones like blade angle and stone wetness, and uncommon ones like automatic serrations or using a built-in tine straightener, takes hours. You must wade through menus containing scores of choices. And some controversial features common to modern flatware are buried deep in these menus. For instance, while I like spoons with a bowl that lets the handle lay flat against the napkin, others strongly dislike it -- it's sometimes known as the “soup in your lap effect.” If you don't like it, the Oneida’s interface doesn't make it at all easy to understand what's happening to your spoons or what setting to adjust to turn it off. It's not even called straight handling in the menus -- Oneida calls it “continuity.” The user interface is also somewhat confusing. There are at least three ways, for instance, to arrange dinner and salad forks, and at least two ways to arrange the soup and dessert spoons. The manual for polishing the fork tines, spoon bowls, and more appears to have a million icons in it and marches for what seems like miles across the pages of the manual in 50 languages. So you have to find the language you understand, which takes a bunch of time.

Mossberg also found issues with the way the butter knife was designed to spread. "For instance, it's supposed to become a "universal" spreader, spreading jam, jelly, and butter, as well as caviar, but I can only get it to spread some, but not all, of the different soft cheeses on my cracker. And its voice search is pathetic -- I say, ‘where are you, butter knife?’ but it does not answer.”

Re:And in yet even MORE related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and to any moderator types who are wondering what the deal is with these "in related news" posts to this story... the story itself reads like some whiny, crying, old luddite who is mad at all this, "modernization," and adds, "fliberty flue! In my day, TV's only had 13 channels, and we LIKED IT THAT WAY!" I wrote these to highlight the fact that you could change out "TV's" with any one of a number of things, and with few changes, the story makes the same basic sense, and sounds about the same.

Yes, competition has forced manufacturers to add more features to try to differentiate their products from the others as patents expire on various technologies, or patentable workarounds are found and implemented that DON'T violate earlier patents and give the same or similar results, which is a good thing, because without that force, TV's would have one channel, it would be set at the factory, and so when you'd go to Woolworth's or Sears and Roebuck's, you'd have to make a choice THEN as to which network you want to watch on this thousand dollar device. You could have a TV compatible with ABC's broadcasting frequency and modulation, CBS's, or NBC's... and that'd be IT. THOSE would be your choices.

TV's would still be black and white, have small, circular screens, and emit high volumes of X-Ray radiation at the people watching them, so after 20 or 30 years, you'd actually see shadows on the wall from where the paint was less bleached, by the radiation, as an old couple got slowly shorter and shorter, and eventually one would be bleached brighter than the other, when one passed away, and the other would get progressively shorter, then the bleaching would stop for a while, after the widow dies, then a young family buys the house, and puts THEIR TV in a different part of the room, and thus the process would begin anew, only this time on the opposite wall.

The summary at least, is poorly written, and reads like the sort of thing someone writes while grumbling to himself about kids playing on his lawn, or how the world has "gotten itself into a big damned hurry."

Buy a new TV, or don't buy a new TV.

(Brooks was here. So was Red.)

There's still more news.

[Anonymous Coward]

In his latest column for The Verge, renowned journalist Walt Mossberg argues that SHOES -- their UI, pattern, insole technologies, and fastening -- are still too complicated. In the latest weekly, he has shared the experience of buying new SHOEs, lacing them up, and the first few days of walking in them. The modern shoe, sneakers for most, comes with a plethora of proprietary and standard features. But only a handful of people actually know what these features are -- and how they differ in the models offered by the same company. Mossberg says folks at Foot Locker were of little use when explaining these features, but did a good job making false claims such as "you have to buy special shoe shampoo because the leather doesn't repel dirt enough” even when that wasn't necessarily the case. Now Mossberg, having pioneered shoe journalism as it is known today, knows a thing or two about SHOEs, but for a general consumer, it is an unnecessary thing that could spoil the experience, and make a bigger dent in their footware budget than it should have. But buying the SHOES wasn't the worst part. Following are excerpts from his column:

But learning to tie my shoes is a whole other story. The Big Bird (educational children’s television character) shoe tying process was pretty straightforward, but it gets you going just enough to start walking. Tweaking all of the SHOE’s many features, including common ones like shoelace tension and uncommon ones like pumping up the insoles or using a shoehorn, takes hours. You must wade through manuals containing scores of choices. And some controversial features common to modern SHOEs are buried deep in these manuals. For instance, while I like motion control others strongly dislike it -- it's sometimes known as the “pronation reduction.” If you don't like it, the Nike’s interface doesn't make it at all easy to understand what's happening to your midsole or what setting to adjust to make it soft. It's not even called motion control in the manual -- Nike calls it “Pegasus.” The user interface is also somewhat confusing. There are at least three ways, for instance, to change insoles and at least two to lace up speed-laces. The manual for cleaning uppers like nubuck, suede, and more appears to have a million instructions in it and marches for what seems like miles across the page. So you have to read it, which takes a bunch of time.

Mossberg also found issues with the way the laces were designed to tie. "For instance, it's supposed to be able to “tie with ONE bunny ear, or two,” controlling the ends of the laces, but I can only get it to work some of the time, but not all. A basic knot works, but then the ends are too long and I end up stepping on them. And its voice search is pathetic -- I cry out, “shoes—where are you?” but they don’t answer.

I'm gonna save this one for later reading.

[Anonymous Coward]

But let me state my own views (FWIW... feel free to skip).

a) People sometimes are annoyingly mentally lazy. They don't try to understand and even get angry when they figure things out ("why did I have to think? it sucks!"). I find it dismaying. Sometimes, I can't even explain that a TV has several different inputs.

b) TVs are overcomplicated. They want to have lots of functions, nonstandard names for them (for patenting reasons, probably) and they don't offer all the options on the same screen (because it would scare customers). Instead you get to dive into lots and lots of menus trying to find where the hell some setting is located (remind me of trying to find something in that Office ribbon... these days I google to know where they moved a Word feature I need).

c) TVs are dumb (yeah, even the smart ones). Just yesterday I tried to configure a friend's wi-fi password. With the remote. Very hard to type alphanumeric passwords with only 10 numeric keys... Netflix comes up after you press the SmartTV button -- but the TV got a network input... which means DLNA. Apparently, the TV processor has the bare minimum specs to work, because functions appear slowly. Did he hear me when I said buy a simple TV and connect the computer to it? Nooo, he had to buy a smartTV and have a lot of problems to configure it.

My current problems are somewhat related: I'm thinking about how to make the Linux desktop more appropriate for Seniors and more resilient when used by kids, while still not getting dumbed down when daddy here wants to surf the net at warp speed.

Yes, with a stupid tuner

[drinkypoo]

Why would I want a tuner in my TV? It's just about guaranteed to be garbage, I can't upgrade or alter it without replacing the rest of the TV... and frankly, it's of no use to me where I live now, and to me it's just a very annoying input which I can't disable (unless someone out there knows something about SHARP TV special menu hacking that I don't... still, it's not a GUI option) and to which I sometimes switch accidentally when my multifunction remote is in the wrong mode.

Get that stupid tuner out of my TV. Leave me lots of inputs. Make sure one of them is VGA if it's only 1080p, and report all the modes the TV supports correctly. Done and done.

Most Appliances have appalling UI design

[maxcelcat]

Every day, I wonder who exactly designs the interfaces for appliances and other gadgets we use every day. It shouldn't be that hard! But anything with more than four buttons now seems to not be designed for intuitive operations. The worst example of this would have to be my car stereo. It's some mid-range thing with a graphical display. Things that annoy me about it: Toggle control which both navigates and controls the volume and in some modes the settings.Many buttons with multiple uses: Band/Esc, Power/Source. Buttons with mysterious labels on them, "List" for example, which could mean anything. Settings for the same thing in two separate places. One set of settings which are only accessible by turning the unit off and then starting it in a certain way. And it came with a remote control which I have never ever used. What am I going to do, change the volume from the back seat??? My kid often fiddles with it, and get it into states where it's even less usable.

1080 p and no issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I've a Samsung TV, pretty recent. Took a tour in the menus and disabled the junk...this isn't new, "edge enhancement" used to be a CRT thing, and the first thing you disabled. Find movie mode, turn off soap opera, find a local news outlet which doesn't enhance, and adjust colors. Nothing new.

My TV recorder is a $40 Homewerx box, HW 180, feeding a Hitachi HDD. It records OTA with no issues, The box is best outputting 1080p, and the TV is happy with that. When I got my first HDTV, I thought 1080 p was the Blu Ray peak...and not ever for RCA cables, the analog hole...but here, a cheap (couldn't be cheaper) PVR sends out 1080 by HDMI. No issues.

What do you get if you cross a TV with a computer?

[Anonymous Coward]

You get a computer.

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

The smarter the TV...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the longer it takes to change channels! What's up with that?! :-)

TV;s should be fairly dumb.

[polyp2000]

The TV should just be a display device and we need an app that agregates content from different providers (Netflix / Amazon / Hulu / Whatever) I dont care about whether what I want to watch comes from Netflix or Elsewhere . I want to use the same interface to access all my media from my subscriptions , local content and other sources. My user experience should be : select item for viewing and play on tv. Thats it - I dont want to spend half an hour browsing netflix for something to watch , and then another half an hour checking Amazon because i couldnt find anything suitable.

Camera & Microphone

[spiritwave]

I just hope the future doesn't contain the sole option of buying a TV or monitor that has a camera and microphone built in.

With those two features inevitably embedded, all bets are off in terms of fully guaranteeing the avoiding of privacy infringement.

I want full control over the cameras and microphones in my home (car, business, and so on).

That includes ensuring my 'smart' phone is on the other side of the 'do not disturb' sign, but that probably goes without saying.

Not my experience.

[sabbede]

I have a Vizio 3d smart TV. It's around 4 years old, so things may be crazier now but I never had any of the issues described. My only problem is that they stopped updating the software and I don't think the Yahoo! platform it's based on is still supported. Pretty sure it was deprecated the year after I bought it. Its also pretty slow. That said, most functions are easy to access/find, have sensible names, and the remote has buttons for things like Netflix, Amazon, 2d/3d modes, etc.

Wrong problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the technology but the underlying culture that cause TV to suck.

strip it down

[Anonymous Coward]

I took the workathome monitor my employer gave me and connected it to the digital box via HDMI, connected an old Altec Lansing PC speaker set with subwoofer to the box audio outputs, bingo, up and running in 5 minutes.
But the stupid digital box remote will not turn off the digital box or control the volume on it, even though the previous analog box's remote did do that stuff.

umm, yeah, but

[gzuckier]

have you bought a new car lately? with a 7,000 page manual that tells you things like the secret combination of keys to press to alter the speed-sensitive volume adjustment on the sound system, or how to calibrate the compass in the rear view mirror to optimize it for your particular location? (that's a real thing, btw)
or the weird little 500 page, 2 by 3 inch manual thagt comes with your new smartphone; meanwhile you can't get any sort of instructions for 90% of the apps you might want to use.
what a world, what a world....