4 ms·
The right way to fix this is one single smart device, which is the only device connected to the dumb TV. The best of these types don't have a remote. They're co
by throwaway09223 6y ago
The right way to fix this is one single smart device, which is the only device connected to the dumb TV. The best of these types don't have a remote. They're controlled by a phone.
If the intelligence is built into the TV then it cannot be updated or replaced -- so either there will again be multiple devices, or the TV will need to be replaced on a frequent basis.
A smart TV makes the problem you describe even worse
- icedchai 6y agoMy smart TV's built in apps (Netflix, mainly) are incredibly unstable. About 5 years back I started to use a Firestick instead. The TV is best as just a TV.
- thebean11 6y agoCompletely disagree on the lack of remote. Hitting a button on a remote is better UI than needing to unlock a phone and hope that it's actually connected to the streaming device (not always the case). I think the new Chromecast is an admission from Google that the average person still wants a remote.
- throwaway09223 6y agoPerhaps I should say that the best of this type offer the option of using a phone. I personally prefer a phone but I also understand the preference of a remote. With a separate smart device these types of preferences can be accommodated over time, unlike with a one size fits all smart TV.
- smileysteve 6y agoI agree with this. And in this context; in my 30s and I don't always know where my phone is; My parents, don't always have their phones accessible or know where they are without looking. Also, it's less tactile in the dark.
- sneak 6y ago> If the intelligence is built into the TV then it cannot be updated or replaced Wait until a decade from now, when all computers are like this, too.
- pishpash 6y agoPlanned obsolescence is a feature. Not an accident.