7 ms·

TV, mobile and the living room

25 points by aaronbrethorst 11y ago

walterbell 11y ago
For those who dismiss immersive shared viewing experiences from couch distance: do you think consumer VR will succeed?
- exelius 11y ago
  I dismiss immersive shared viewing experiences from couch distance (also known as "lean-back" viewing). You can have "lean-forward" experiences on the TV, but they need to be continuously interactive like a video game. But at couch distance, you have to pick whether an experience is "lean-back" or "lean-forward": consumers dislike switching back and forth frequently. And whether or not I think consumer VR will succeed depends on the definition of success. Do I think it will be a multi-billion dollar market? Absolutely. Do I think it will remain a niche within the larger video gaming / media market? Absolutely. I do not think consumer VR will ever be the norm, but I think that there will also be some compelling VR experiences that will draw a significant number of people into them. Augmented reality has far more promise as a consumer technology that's more than a fad. VR is pretty much only useful for media consumption; when you're immersed in a virtual world you're not immersed in the normal world, so its use will be reserved for those times you can ignore what's happening around you. Augmented reality is a multi-purpose tool: it's a general purpose display that enriches the world around you, and can thus be used to enrich every day experiences. But the display technology for augmented reality is a lot trickier.
saturdaysaint 11y ago
Interesting, then, that Amazon is so eager to go to war over TV (by refusing any sales of chromecast or Apple TV). This could end up just being another Fire Phone style blunder, but Bezos' strategy points to a decent counter argument - content is actually becoming king, just in a different form than the console makers have long envisioned. Instead of big budget first person shooters, long form serialized storytelling is increasingly capturing the popular imagination. If Google or Apple decide to draw battle lines here and build studios, Evans argument could look shortsighted pretty quickly. I think he also underestimates the ability of software to enhance what he dismisses as "linear programming" (sports, live events, etc). Fantasy sports are a rudimentary example - tech and 24/7 access to stats allows fanatics to build a deep, addictive experience on top of the game. Imagine this built into TV apps that can automatically cut between pivotal games across the NFL. American Idol is an antique now, but it's not hard to imagine new popular programming that could handle viewer feedback in far more sophisticated ways than "dial in to vote".
- jmduke 11y ago
  What you're describing in terms of how software can change the act of watching sports is halfway there already, with RedZone (for the uninitiated: basically a live clip show that shows all red zone / scoring possessions and highlight plays, falling back to live football when necessary). An evolution of the same thing except it weights the clips shown in favor of the starters on my fantasy football team would be incredible.
- longnguyen 11y ago
  Totally agree with you. InAir TV (https://www.inair.tv https://www.inair.tv) makes dumb TVs smarter. With ACR technology, it's not hard to determine what program currently playing. It had NFL & EPL app already. We tried playing around with it and are quite happy with the experience
chiph 11y ago
I think PCs never made it to the TV because the control options were never right. Using a bluetooth keyboard in your lap is inconvenient if you're snuggling with your spouse (or cat). Much less using a mouse or other pointing device (even the Wii remote). Just awkward. I think the future for PC on TV is going to be voice control. Either the upcoming Cortana on XBox, or something like Amazon's Echo combined with their Fire unit. You could tell it to skip a movie forward 40 seconds to jump past the scary scene that would frighten your child. Or if you're cooking in the kitchen and your hands are covered in flour, tell it to play some Top 40 hits.
- ghaff 11y ago
  In general, designers/manufacturers have long not paid sufficient attention to interactive modes. I've wasted way too much time and money over the years setting up PCs as media stations only to conclude yet again that the various wireless keyboards and pointing devices I had--combined with software designed for a keyboard/mouse/monitor experience--was just more trouble than it was worth. Traditional remotes on the other hand are also an incredible frustration whenever you need to do something other than a simple pre-defined function. I tend to agree with you about voice control. Voice recognition/AI is finally starting to get good enough that it's a useful rather than just a frustrating control mechanism. The ready availability of rich touch interfaces (whether tablets or phones) is also a big win.
  - chiph 11y ago
    The Windows 8/10 UI of having big boxes as program icons is a plus for a living-room PC, as they give you a very large "hit box" for a Wii-type remote. But then you need to enter a URL or search for a movie title/genre/etc, and it falls down.. Lenovo has a home-theater style remote [0] that is wireless and has a keyboard + mouse on it, but again the usage is awkward and doesn't solve the hands-free scenario. [0] http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/catalog.workflow:item.detail?hide_menu_area=true&GroupID=460&Code=888011668 http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPo...
    - 11y ago
camillomiller 11y ago
I'm wondering why no single producer is trying to go a different route with their tv sets. Would there be a market for a super dumb TV set born to be paired with one of set-top boxes or TV sticks we have at our disposal now? I'm looking for a new TV right now and I'm struggling: I don't wanna buy any Smartcrap tv set, I don't need any smart feature. I need a friggin' living room monitor with nice picture and audio, that's it. I want it for my Apple TV and my Playstation. Nothing else. Wouldn't that be a good product to offer in the current scenario? Strip off all the extras, gimme good picture quality, the most basic digital signal tuner, decent audio and nothing else. Wouldn't margins be even higher without all the overhead for software and interface developers, smartcrap marketing and stuff? Am I just totally daydreaming?
- flavor8 11y ago
  What you want is sold as a "commercial TV monitor", e.g. http://www.lg.com/us/commercial/led-tvs/lg-55UX340C http://www.lg.com/us/commercial/led-tvs/lg-55UX340C You can find them on craigslist fairly often.
  - camillomiller 11y ago
    Not really, they're way too expensive usually, and aimed at business (basically they're made to be always on, which you wouldn't need for a TV).
- prostoalex 11y ago
  TVs are a very mainstream market, as opposed to TV sticks, and hence sells on features when placed against a competitor in a typical retail lineup. For someone like Samsung there's probably corporate reasons beyond technological - they own the TV device, phone and tablet UI layers, so theoretically could deliver savings and seamless integration to a Samsung household.
- jimbobimbo 11y ago
  Buy a TV, don't use the 'smart' part? Both TV and Blu-ray player I have, are 'smart'. As long as I don't invoke their 'smart' features, they're not getting in the way, really. Blu-ray player plays discs, Roku plays Netflix, TV simply shows the picture.
OldSchoolJohnny 11y ago
The author perhaps has neglected the most common compelling use-case for large tv sets in living rooms: live sporting events. Edit: also, it peeves me when a page intended to convey simple text continually attempts to load something in the background.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

For those who dismiss immersive shared viewing experiences from couch distance: do you think consumer VR will succeed?

exelius 11y ago
I dismiss immersive shared viewing experiences from couch distance (also known as "lean-back" viewing). You can have "lean-forward" experiences on the TV, but they need to be continuously interactive like a video game. But at couch distance, you have to pick whether an experience is "lean-back" or "lean-forward": consumers dislike switching back and forth frequently. And whether or not I think consumer VR will succeed depends on the definition of success. Do I think it will be a multi-billion dollar market? Absolutely. Do I think it will remain a niche within the larger video gaming / media market? Absolutely. I do not think consumer VR will ever be the norm, but I think that there will also be some compelling VR experiences that will draw a significant number of people into them. Augmented reality has far more promise as a consumer technology that's more than a fad. VR is pretty much only useful for media consumption; when you're immersed in a virtual world you're not immersed in the normal world, so its use will be reserved for those times you can ignore what's happening around you. Augmented reality is a multi-purpose tool: it's a general purpose display that enriches the world around you, and can thus be used to enrich every day experiences. But the display technology for augmented reality is a lot trickier.

Interesting, then, that Amazon is so eager to go to war over TV (by refusing any sales of chromecast or Apple TV). This could end up just being another Fire Phone style blunder, but Bezos' strategy points to a decent counter argument - content is actually becoming king, just in a different form than the console makers have long envisioned. Instead of big budget first person shooters, long form serialized storytelling is increasingly capturing the popular imagination. If Google or Apple decide to draw battle lines here and build studios, Evans argument could look shortsighted pretty quickly. I think he also underestimates the ability of software to enhance what he dismisses as "linear programming" (sports, live events, etc). Fantasy sports are a rudimentary example - tech and 24/7 access to stats allows fanatics to build a deep, addictive experience on top of the game. Imagine this built into TV apps that can automatically cut between pivotal games across the NFL. American Idol is an antique now, but it's not hard to imagine new popular programming that could handle viewer feedback in far more sophisticated ways than "dial in to vote".

jmduke 11y ago
What you're describing in terms of how software can change the act of watching sports is halfway there already, with RedZone (for the uninitiated: basically a live clip show that shows all red zone / scoring possessions and highlight plays, falling back to live football when necessary). An evolution of the same thing except it weights the clips shown in favor of the starters on my fantasy football team would be incredible.
longnguyen 11y ago
Totally agree with you. InAir TV (https://www.inair.tv https://www.inair.tv) makes dumb TVs smarter. With ACR technology, it's not hard to determine what program currently playing. It had NFL & EPL app already. We tried playing around with it and are quite happy with the experience

chiph 11y ago

I think PCs never made it to the TV because the control options were never right. Using a bluetooth keyboard in your lap is inconvenient if you're snuggling with your spouse (or cat). Much less using a mouse or other pointing device (even the Wii remote). Just awkward. I think the future for PC on TV is going to be voice control. Either the upcoming Cortana on XBox, or something like Amazon's Echo combined with their Fire unit. You could tell it to skip a movie forward 40 seconds to jump past the scary scene that would frighten your child. Or if you're cooking in the kitchen and your hands are covered in flour, tell it to play some Top 40 hits.

ghaff 11y ago
In general, designers/manufacturers have long not paid sufficient attention to interactive modes. I've wasted way too much time and money over the years setting up PCs as media stations only to conclude yet again that the various wireless keyboards and pointing devices I had--combined with software designed for a keyboard/mouse/monitor experience--was just more trouble than it was worth. Traditional remotes on the other hand are also an incredible frustration whenever you need to do something other than a simple pre-defined function. I tend to agree with you about voice control. Voice recognition/AI is finally starting to get good enough that it's a useful rather than just a frustrating control mechanism. The ready availability of rich touch interfaces (whether tablets or phones) is also a big win.
- chiph 11y ago
  The Windows 8/10 UI of having big boxes as program icons is a plus for a living-room PC, as they give you a very large "hit box" for a Wii-type remote. But then you need to enter a URL or search for a movie title/genre/etc, and it falls down.. Lenovo has a home-theater style remote [0] that is wireless and has a keyboard + mouse on it, but again the usage is awkward and doesn't solve the hands-free scenario. [0] http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/catalog.workflow:item.detail?hide_menu_area=true&GroupID=460&Code=888011668 http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPo...
  - 11y ago

camillomiller 11y ago

I'm wondering why no single producer is trying to go a different route with their tv sets. Would there be a market for a super dumb TV set born to be paired with one of set-top boxes or TV sticks we have at our disposal now? I'm looking for a new TV right now and I'm struggling: I don't wanna buy any Smartcrap tv set, I don't need any smart feature. I need a friggin' living room monitor with nice picture and audio, that's it. I want it for my Apple TV and my Playstation. Nothing else. Wouldn't that be a good product to offer in the current scenario? Strip off all the extras, gimme good picture quality, the most basic digital signal tuner, decent audio and nothing else. Wouldn't margins be even higher without all the overhead for software and interface developers, smartcrap marketing and stuff? Am I just totally daydreaming?

flavor8 11y ago
What you want is sold as a "commercial TV monitor", e.g. http://www.lg.com/us/commercial/led-tvs/lg-55UX340C http://www.lg.com/us/commercial/led-tvs/lg-55UX340C You can find them on craigslist fairly often.
- camillomiller 11y ago
  Not really, they're way too expensive usually, and aimed at business (basically they're made to be always on, which you wouldn't need for a TV).
prostoalex 11y ago
TVs are a very mainstream market, as opposed to TV sticks, and hence sells on features when placed against a competitor in a typical retail lineup. For someone like Samsung there's probably corporate reasons beyond technological - they own the TV device, phone and tablet UI layers, so theoretically could deliver savings and seamless integration to a Samsung household.
jimbobimbo 11y ago
Buy a TV, don't use the 'smart' part? Both TV and Blu-ray player I have, are 'smart'. As long as I don't invoke their 'smart' features, they're not getting in the way, really. Blu-ray player plays discs, Roku plays Netflix, TV simply shows the picture.

OldSchoolJohnny 11y ago

The author perhaps has neglected the most common compelling use-case for large tv sets in living rooms: live sporting events. Edit: also, it peeves me when a page intended to convey simple text continually attempts to load something in the background.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]