10 ms·

"Smart" TVs are dumb, by design, in their very conception. TVs get upgraded perhaps once a decade or so. They don't need to have software in them, and shouldn't

by Bud 13y ago

"Smart" TVs are dumb, by design, in their very conception. TVs get upgraded perhaps once a decade or so. They don't need to have software in them, and shouldn't. Leave that to people and companies who actually know how to produce software. TVs should display an image. That's it. Nothing else. There are no exceptions.

CSDude 13y ago
I bet Samsung knows how to do software, it is just a minor wrong practice of implementation, it should have another URLs for failsafe. SmartTV s makes some tasks easy, at least it allows you to Skype someone on a nice and huge screen. By your logic the cellphones should not be smart too, they should only call people, nothing else.
- Bud 13y ago
  No. Please don't put words in my mouth. :) Cellphones are an entirely different product in several ways. Most notably, they are portable, need to stand alone without other helper devices, function as complete computers, and are upgraded approximately every 1-2 years by most users. TVs possess none of these attributes. That's why it's great for a cellphone to run a full modern OS, and why it's NOT great for a TV to do so. TVs last across multiple tech generations. They should contain the bare minimum of software needed to display whatever content you pump into them. Nothing else.
  - frandroid 13y ago
    That TV above still has all the bare minimum to display whatever content you pump into it; the only part that's not functional in this post is its self-pumping, so to speak. As long as the TV can still function in dumb mode, having a smart mode is extra gravy that makes life so much easier. Now if I could pair a Bluetooth keyboard with it...
    - Bud 13y ago
      No. The part that's not functional is everything else. "Smart" TVs tend to have all kinds of idiotic things like splash screens (what? why?), ads (seriously? ads on my TV that I paid for? no thanks), stupid software vulnerabilities and instability that a TV has no business having (see the topic this thread is based on), and all kinds of other nonsense. Add in the fact that good TVs are basically always made by the companies who are the Very Worst at software (Samsung most prominently), and you have a recipe for digital heartburn. No thanks. Dumb TVs forever. Also, to respond to another comment, there's no correlation between a TV being "smart" and achieving a simple A/V setup with a single remote and a minimum of hassles. Unless you mean a negative correlation. It's very simple to achieve single-remote nirvana with a dumb TV. Plus you're not stuck with a dumb company's remote and software; you can pick your own, because a dumb TV will work with anything and not get in your way. Singled out for especially thorough beatings are those TV makers who put actual physical buttons on their remotes for websites that might be gone next week. Seriously? No. Dumb TVs forever.
      - jdsareault 13y ago
        I can sympathize with the fact that Smart TVs have a worse overall experience for you. The ads and crapware that you can't get rid of just mess up what was once a simple experience of turning on the TV. However I think smart TVs are a good idea because the way that people consume visual media is changing. More people are ditching cable and turning to services like Netflix. If HBO ever decouples itself from cable, I'd imagine this trend would increase more so. Why should I watch YouTube on my computer screen when I can watch it on a larger screen (and in a more comfortable room)? I don't think the problem is with Smart TVs, I think it's just the current execution of the idea.
        nitrogen 13y ago
        The point of the thread is that Netflix and .mp4 files are more appropriately processed by a cheap smart box that plugs into an expensive dumb TV.
        13y ago
  - Aqueous 13y ago
    'Most notably, they are portable, need to stand alone without other helper devices, function as complete computers, and are upgraded approximately every 1-2 years by most users. TVs possess none of these attributes.' Each of these statements could equally apply to TVs (except, possibly, portability) and the fact that they haven't is merely circumstantial. Yes, for the first 50 years of television's existence people tended to keep the same TV around for half a decade or more. But that's because fundamental changes happened between fifteen and thirty years apart - the switch from black and white to color, then the switch from broadcast to cable and satellite. The rate of innovation, and thus the turnover rate of individual devices, is increasing - just like with the telephone, which remained basically the same for the first several decades of its existence as well, until modern computer technology was invented. Come to think of it the same thing is possibly true of desktop computers. My family was on the same computer between 1984/85 and 1993 - a Mac 512k. Then in 1994 or 95 we got a Performa 475. That lasted for about 5 years until I got a Mac clone - a Motorola Starmax 3000, which had a PowerPC processor. This laster about 2 -3 years. Then I built my first PC - that lasted for about two years. And each year since then I've used the same computer for 1 to 2 years at a time. The turnover period halved exponentially as computers got more and more sophisticated.
- Mister_Snuggles 13y ago
  Why should it even have to check a Samsung URL? Why not just let each "app" decide if it can get to what it needs to? Imagine if your Samsung phone couldn't do anything that required an internet connection because Samsung's site was down. This is pretty much the same thing, IMHO. Samsung's site being down or unreachable should have no bearing on the performance of the Netflix app whatsoever.
  - lstamour 13y ago
    Which servers do you think your Apple or Google smartphones ping to check for internet connectivity? ;-) It's true that apps generally perform reachability tests on their own sites but global reachability checks can still affect the preference of wifi over cellular, for instamce. And the preferred method on Android to check for reachability, unlike iOS samples, uses the phone's checks rather than pinging a host of your choice.
    - 3825 13y ago
      I believe Apple has an agreement with Akamai. Here are some data points for just one household with two macs, two iPhones, and two iPads www.isg-apple.com.akadns.net 571 requests in the last day us-courier.push-apple.com.akadns.net 558 requests in the last day .akamai.net 709 requests in the last day and .akamaiedge.net 1967 requests in the last day -- I believe Google just uses *.l.google.com (my open dns says 1202 requests in the last day)
      - kalleboo 13y ago
        iOS and OS X uses http://www.apple.com/library/test/success.html http://www.apple.com/library/test/success.html for WiFi captive portal testing
    - Mister_Snuggles 13y ago
      So just for fun I turned off the WAN connection on my router. Effectively, I had no internet access but I do have a wireless LAN with some local devices. Safari on iOS did not tell me "you don't have internet connectivity", but it did say that servers were unreachable (not surprising) and it let me use local servers without issue. iOS seems to prefer WiFi to cellular when it's available as it didn't fall back during my limited test. This is the behaviour that I'd expect from the Smart TV. Just because it can't get to Samsung doesn't mean it can't get to Netflix.
- kiallmacinnes 13y ago
  I have to agree with the parent post, at least partially, current smart TVs are useless. But.. next gen? Maybe they'll get better. Smart TVs that exposed ubiquitous hardware - like i386 did for desktops and laptops - where you can choose to run Windows/Linux/BSD would be ideal.. I'd choose a mix of Plex and XBMC given the choice... They provide real value atop the TV platform. Samsung and friends have a huge amount of catch-up to do before they are real contenders when it comes to having the best software (and even then .. Plex/XBMC need to double down on their "Mom" useability..) (I have a Samsung TV, and recommend them, but always tell people to avoid the SmartTV gimmick. Plex and a Chromecast give a 1000x better experience for those who download, and Netflix etc + Chromecast cover those who don't)
  - josteink 13y ago
    > Plex/XBMC need to double down on their "Mom" useability.. I happen to disagree. Post installation Plex is literally a pleasure to use if you use your smartphone/tablet as a remote and just beam content to your TV. I've yet to see any semi-open system as powerful, functional, yet user friendly.
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  "I bet Samsung knows how to do software" Speaking as someone who is often forced to use Samsung software (particularly wrt/their Android phones), that would be a bad bet to make.
roel_v 13y ago
Eh, no. The single most useful tv I have ever owned is my current one, a 2011 Samsung, with a built-in dlna client. Fuck mucking about with two, three or more remotes, set-top boxes, and all that. I'm never going back to that.
sjtrny 13y ago
No software? So hard coded firmware like on CRTs? Personally I like having TV guide functionality, the ability to browse USB media and stream content from iView straight from my TV.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Or get updated iPlayer from the BBC though I do wish ITV would get thier act together and produce a working catchup service. Thats one ABC1 viewr you have lost right there guys I gave up on whitechappel as your crappy catchup service was totaly unusable.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
darklajid 13y ago
I agree. Worse, the software is crap from the start. I have one of these Samsung TVs. It is offline and will be forever in its lifetime. Not only is the software that comes with it really useless, it phones home the first time you do connect it and installs a sh*tload of crapware, depending on your region. In my case lots of useless stuff around sports and tabloids. These apps are then prominently featured in the TV's menu. No, you cannot diaable or remove them, nor reclaim that screen estate and put something else there. You install a couple things and have to scroll to find those, while the absolutely insane garbage sits in the middle of the screen. Only way back: Factory reset, never connect it again. Smart..
- platz 13y ago
  yep, this post laments the problems when "smart" automation often goes wrong - also touching on automating tasks where people need to pay attention at the same time, such as driving or aviation: https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140308200904-12181762-stupid-smart-stuff https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140308200904-1...
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    While I agree with some parts with that post, I think the conclusion is wrong. I believe the root of the problem are the wrong terminal values. "Smart" technology is not put there to really solve a problem, but to drive sales. Providing real utility for users is secondary, as long as the new feature has big marketing value. Therefore I see the problem not with engineers and designers, but with salesmen giving orders and marketing-driven development. As for lessons for driving, I see only two ways - either do actually train drivers like they should be, just like pilots are trained, or automate them out completely. Current level of training required for getting a driver's licence is a complete joke, and the attitude of most of the people who took or are taking the exam is just plain scary.
- pdonis 13y ago
  No, you cannot diaable or remove them But if the OP article is correct, you can prevent the TV from phoning home in the first place by spoofing the other way -- say, configuring the DNS that the TV sees to automatically return "no answer" for www.samsung.com. The question is, will the TV still see your local network? If so, you can stream to it from a DLNA server, as someone else upthread pointed out.
esonderegger 13y ago
I tend to agree with you, with one minor exception. If you're going to put an ethernet jack on a TV anyway because people seem to like having Netflix apps on their tv, I'd love it if there were some basic "dumb" software as well, like an RTSP/RTMP client. At work, we have five of these Samsung Smart TVs and if I want to get a video signal from my control room on to one of them, I have to send it via HD-SDI into the main video router, then run coax from the router to the tv, then use an SDI to HDMI adapter (the cheapest of which is the monoprice $100 one). The picture ends up looking great, but it doesn't exactly feel like 2014.
- kalleboo 13y ago
  > I'd love it if there were some basic "dumb" software as well, like an RTSP/RTMP client. No DLNA?
  - esonderegger 13y ago
    Thanks for suggesting DLNA! (Stuff like this is why I keep coming back to HN) I spent the afternoon trying various different approaches with my Sony Blu-Ray player that has DLNA support. It appears to only want to play files, not live streams. That said, I haven't exhausted all options yet and will have more tools to test with at the office. And from a video engineering perspective, RTSP/RTMP or even HLS as native formats would be way easier.
milkshakes 13y ago
but then how would they phone home with automatic content recognition fingerprints so that samsung could tool up its secret tv-retargeting department? oh, wait...
mobiplayer 13y ago
Au contraire. They know how to produce software, they just don't seem to get networking at all and that's an issue I've seen on my developers out there.
- mobiplayer 13y ago
  Not sure how it happened, but s/my/many. Also, I'm sorry guys, but most of you don't really get advanced networking concepts. Just like I don't get many advanced software architecture topics. It's a matter of specialisation.
Shinkei 13y ago
>There are no exceptions. Wow, well I guess the issue is closed. I wish they had contacted you from the start, otherwise this multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation could've avoided the entire market. /s I mean are you intentionally being dense? It has been a LONG time coming to supplant the multiple devices I have to keep around my TV just to use cable, streaming services, etc. Now I don't need to fire up the Wii if I want to watch Hulu or Netflix, movies off a media drive or USB. If only I could integrate the cable box into the TV, then it would really be a game changer. I don't know about you, but I consider myself an above-average tech consumer and I value simplicity and if companies can manage to keep my TV functional for the next 5-7 years with all of my services, then it is money well spent.
- differentView 13y ago
  How many years do you plan on keeping your TV? How long do you think TV manufacturers will continue to support an old TV model?
  - josephlord 13y ago
    So have the TV on its own for 5 years or so and then supplement it with a new box connected by HDMI. Also the manufacturers are hoping for revenue from the online services and can attract more services with a large user base so it is in their interest to at least keep supporting the existing services.
    - differentView 13y ago
      > Also the manufacturers are hoping for revenue from the online services and can attract more services with a large user base so it is in their interest to at least keep supporting the existing services. That may or may not be the case depending on the company and/or the strategy the person in charge at the time is pursuing. One CEO might completely agree with your strategy and make sure all old models are supported, another might just care about how many new TVs sold he can tell the shareholders. Then there are companies going out of business or being acquired and the acquiring company not caring about supporting any models made by the acquired company.
ryandrake 13y ago
We're going to look back and laugh at "Smart" TVs like we currently laugh at TVs with built-in VHS players.
kachnuv_ocasek 13y ago
Absolutely agree. Computers should only be used to crunch numbers for particle scientists and not for sharing information, let alone for entertainment.
- pyre 13y ago
  Right. Because the currently 'Smart' TVs are at the cutting edge of user interface design... If Samsung/Sony/etc thought that they had chops to make a good device to connect a TV to the Internet, then maybe they wouldn't feel the need to package it with the display device, and just release it stand-alone.
workhere-io 13y ago
Totally disagree. I love the fact that I can watch Netflix without some box or computer connected to my screen and an extra remote control. Having just the Smart TV is a cheaper and simpler solution, and is easier to set up. The fact that Samsung haven't gotten things quite right with their Smart TVs doesn't mean I'm going to buy an Apple TV or some other box.
amitparikh 13y ago
The TVs aren't "Smart" for the consumers. They are "Smart" for the producers/advertisers/etc that want to data mine your television consumption (now including various streaming services).
- null_ptr 13y ago
  There you go. Weren't LG smart TVs found to phone home the file names of media you play on it off your own external storage? No thanks.
  - ceocoder 13y ago
    Wow, I had no idea this[0] was a real thing. This actually makes me more nervous than Kinect webcam thing which is just small piece of duct tape away from getting resolved. [0] http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/smart-tv-from-lg-phones-home-with-users-viewing-habits-usb-file-names/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/smart-tv-from-lg-pho...
    - Silhouette 13y ago
      Samsung Smart TVs have a dubious track record on security/privacy issues, too: http://mashable.com/2013/08/02/samsung-smart-tv-hack/ http://mashable.com/2013/08/02/samsung-smart-tv-hack/
amiramir 13y ago
Samsung seems to understand that TVs get upgraded at a slower rate than the TV's smarts evolve and that software updates can only get you so far. They have started to ship something named the Evolution Kit. For around $200 it allows the user to unscrew the CPU module from their existing TV and install a more modern CPU/software combo. https://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-accessories/SEK-1000/ZA https://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-accessories/SEK-1000/ZA
- dublinben 13y ago
  That upgrade is twice the price of the highest-end Roku or AppleTV. Samsung still doesn't get it.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  Completely worthless. The CPU in a TV is never the problem. That's why they use such low powered CPUs to begin with. Nobody even makes a TV with a Core i7 even though there is no technical reason why they couldn't, because there is no demand for it. All anyone cares is that it can decode video at the native resolution, which the original CPU will be able to do until all the pixels wear out.
  - kabdib 13y ago
    Well, power is a huge concern. We were looking at CPUs embedded in TVs, and 10 watts was about the limit for the processor board. Regulations (esp in the EU) get into the game as well. Life is better as a component that attaches with a cable. You can't really put a gaming console in a TV, not yet (not one you'd want to actually use, anyway).
nilsimsa 13y ago
There are usually multiple models of the TV. You can buy one without the "smart" features if you like or even disable them on an existing one.
- skyebook 13y ago
  Unfortunately, the non-smart choices pretty much leave you with tv's that have a real lack of connectivity since they appear to be the 'lower end' now.
nanidin 13y ago
What's next - cell phones should only call people and nothing else? Watches should only tell us the time?
- krapp 13y ago
  The whole idea of using phones to "call" people is absurd, practically barbaric. No one even does that anymore, having to do your own talking, memorizing numbers... it's too much work. This so-called 'feature' should be removed from all future phones and replaced with an app which correlates the social media posts from your friends and translates them to audio using natural speech synthesis.
Pxtl 13y ago
The problem is that the TV industry has l lagged behind the monitor industry in this understanding. A monitor knows it's justa screen... It does nothing without an attached system. I want a TV like that. Let the attached device control the on/off of the TV and the volume, and if you need to attach a peripheral, then it attaches to the device. TV ports are digital now, they could power and give control to another device. Just stick a port on the back for the box . I actually love the stick form-factor that's growing now, let's you hide the device and get the sleek appearance of a smart TV without the cruft.
- Too 13y ago
  Define "attach peripheral". Is wireless display over DLNA ok? Smart TVs actually have many nice features many people don't know about, dlna being the most prominent. Universal remote being another of them, with my TV I just say I have device x on hdmi2 and the TV remote will then be able to do almost anything I need to control on that device. The built in apps are usually crap but I do see the value in having the ability to install them, why should I have to buy yet another device if I just want to watch Netflix, the TV already has the processing power to do so. Although arguably a chromecast is practically free compared to the price of a TV.
Nick_C 13y ago
Despite the other commentators' views, I completely agree. My Panasonic's YouTube app cannot ffwd or rewind. WTF! For a video streaming app! Unbelievable. What I do is fire up the XBox. It's a brain-dead app there too+, but at least I can rewind a few seconds if I missed a word or two. + Titles truncated too much; no comments viewer; unresponsive UI.
nl 13y ago
TVs get upgraded perhaps once a decade or so. Wrong. I've upgraded my TV twice in the past 5 years, and the average TV replacement cycle has decreased to 4 years[1]. They don't need to have software in them, and shouldn't. Yes they do. How else do I watch Youtube and Plex on it? Plug another box in, with another remote? Leave that to people and companies who actually know how to produce software. I agree that would be nice. Fortunately Samsung has a completely inadequately documented but reasonably open API for building SmartTV apps. TVs should display an image. That would be called a monitor. There are no exceptions. I'm one. Does the fact that I use the Youtube, Vimeo, iView and Plex apps on my Samsung TV more than I watch broadcast TV not apply for some reason? [1] http://gigaom.com/2012/01/05/tv-replacement-cycle/ http://gigaom.com/2012/01/05/tv-replacement-cycle/
- timdiggerm 13y ago
  >Yes they do. How else do I watch Youtube and Plex on it? Plug another box in, with another remote? Frankly, that other box should be the one handling the TV tuning too.
stronglikedan 13y ago
Of course there are exceptions. My girlfriend being one of them. She's not capable of switching and input and using a different remote to control a different device - or even a universal remote to control both devices, for that matter. If she cannot get to Netflix with the push of a button, then I get a call every time she wants to watch Netflix when I'm not home. Smart TVs make technology accessible, and that's why they are popular.

by Bud 13y ago

CSDude 13y ago

I bet Samsung knows how to do software, it is just a minor wrong practice of implementation, it should have another URLs for failsafe. SmartTV s makes some tasks easy, at least it allows you to Skype someone on a nice and huge screen. By your logic the cellphones should not be smart too, they should only call people, nothing else.

Bud 13y ago
No. Please don't put words in my mouth. :) Cellphones are an entirely different product in several ways. Most notably, they are portable, need to stand alone without other helper devices, function as complete computers, and are upgraded approximately every 1-2 years by most users. TVs possess none of these attributes. That's why it's great for a cellphone to run a full modern OS, and why it's NOT great for a TV to do so. TVs last across multiple tech generations. They should contain the bare minimum of software needed to display whatever content you pump into them. Nothing else.
- frandroid 13y ago
  That TV above still has all the bare minimum to display whatever content you pump into it; the only part that's not functional in this post is its self-pumping, so to speak. As long as the TV can still function in dumb mode, having a smart mode is extra gravy that makes life so much easier. Now if I could pair a Bluetooth keyboard with it...
  - Bud 13y ago
    No. The part that's not functional is everything else. "Smart" TVs tend to have all kinds of idiotic things like splash screens (what? why?), ads (seriously? ads on my TV that I paid for? no thanks), stupid software vulnerabilities and instability that a TV has no business having (see the topic this thread is based on), and all kinds of other nonsense. Add in the fact that good TVs are basically always made by the companies who are the Very Worst at software (Samsung most prominently), and you have a recipe for digital heartburn. No thanks. Dumb TVs forever. Also, to respond to another comment, there's no correlation between a TV being "smart" and achieving a simple A/V setup with a single remote and a minimum of hassles. Unless you mean a negative correlation. It's very simple to achieve single-remote nirvana with a dumb TV. Plus you're not stuck with a dumb company's remote and software; you can pick your own, because a dumb TV will work with anything and not get in your way. Singled out for especially thorough beatings are those TV makers who put actual physical buttons on their remotes for websites that might be gone next week. Seriously? No. Dumb TVs forever.
    - jdsareault 13y ago
      I can sympathize with the fact that Smart TVs have a worse overall experience for you. The ads and crapware that you can't get rid of just mess up what was once a simple experience of turning on the TV. However I think smart TVs are a good idea because the way that people consume visual media is changing. More people are ditching cable and turning to services like Netflix. If HBO ever decouples itself from cable, I'd imagine this trend would increase more so. Why should I watch YouTube on my computer screen when I can watch it on a larger screen (and in a more comfortable room)? I don't think the problem is with Smart TVs, I think it's just the current execution of the idea.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        The point of the thread is that Netflix and .mp4 files are more appropriately processed by a cheap smart box that plugs into an expensive dumb TV.
        13y ago
- Aqueous 13y ago
  'Most notably, they are portable, need to stand alone without other helper devices, function as complete computers, and are upgraded approximately every 1-2 years by most users. TVs possess none of these attributes.' Each of these statements could equally apply to TVs (except, possibly, portability) and the fact that they haven't is merely circumstantial. Yes, for the first 50 years of television's existence people tended to keep the same TV around for half a decade or more. But that's because fundamental changes happened between fifteen and thirty years apart - the switch from black and white to color, then the switch from broadcast to cable and satellite. The rate of innovation, and thus the turnover rate of individual devices, is increasing - just like with the telephone, which remained basically the same for the first several decades of its existence as well, until modern computer technology was invented. Come to think of it the same thing is possibly true of desktop computers. My family was on the same computer between 1984/85 and 1993 - a Mac 512k. Then in 1994 or 95 we got a Performa 475. That lasted for about 5 years until I got a Mac clone - a Motorola Starmax 3000, which had a PowerPC processor. This laster about 2 -3 years. Then I built my first PC - that lasted for about two years. And each year since then I've used the same computer for 1 to 2 years at a time. The turnover period halved exponentially as computers got more and more sophisticated.
Mister_Snuggles 13y ago
Why should it even have to check a Samsung URL? Why not just let each "app" decide if it can get to what it needs to? Imagine if your Samsung phone couldn't do anything that required an internet connection because Samsung's site was down. This is pretty much the same thing, IMHO. Samsung's site being down or unreachable should have no bearing on the performance of the Netflix app whatsoever.
- lstamour 13y ago
  Which servers do you think your Apple or Google smartphones ping to check for internet connectivity? ;-) It's true that apps generally perform reachability tests on their own sites but global reachability checks can still affect the preference of wifi over cellular, for instamce. And the preferred method on Android to check for reachability, unlike iOS samples, uses the phone's checks rather than pinging a host of your choice.
  - 3825 13y ago
    I believe Apple has an agreement with Akamai. Here are some data points for just one household with two macs, two iPhones, and two iPads www.isg-apple.com.akadns.net 571 requests in the last day us-courier.push-apple.com.akadns.net 558 requests in the last day .akamai.net 709 requests in the last day and .akamaiedge.net 1967 requests in the last day -- I believe Google just uses *.l.google.com (my open dns says 1202 requests in the last day)
    - kalleboo 13y ago
      iOS and OS X uses http://www.apple.com/library/test/success.html http://www.apple.com/library/test/success.html for WiFi captive portal testing
  - Mister_Snuggles 13y ago
    So just for fun I turned off the WAN connection on my router. Effectively, I had no internet access but I do have a wireless LAN with some local devices. Safari on iOS did not tell me "you don't have internet connectivity", but it did say that servers were unreachable (not surprising) and it let me use local servers without issue. iOS seems to prefer WiFi to cellular when it's available as it didn't fall back during my limited test. This is the behaviour that I'd expect from the Smart TV. Just because it can't get to Samsung doesn't mean it can't get to Netflix.
kiallmacinnes 13y ago
I have to agree with the parent post, at least partially, current smart TVs are useless. But.. next gen? Maybe they'll get better. Smart TVs that exposed ubiquitous hardware - like i386 did for desktops and laptops - where you can choose to run Windows/Linux/BSD would be ideal.. I'd choose a mix of Plex and XBMC given the choice... They provide real value atop the TV platform. Samsung and friends have a huge amount of catch-up to do before they are real contenders when it comes to having the best software (and even then .. Plex/XBMC need to double down on their "Mom" useability..) (I have a Samsung TV, and recommend them, but always tell people to avoid the SmartTV gimmick. Plex and a Chromecast give a 1000x better experience for those who download, and Netflix etc + Chromecast cover those who don't)
- josteink 13y ago
  > Plex/XBMC need to double down on their "Mom" useability.. I happen to disagree. Post installation Plex is literally a pleasure to use if you use your smartphone/tablet as a remote and just beam content to your TV. I've yet to see any semi-open system as powerful, functional, yet user friendly.
georgemcbay 13y ago
"I bet Samsung knows how to do software" Speaking as someone who is often forced to use Samsung software (particularly wrt/their Android phones), that would be a bad bet to make.

roel_v 13y ago

Eh, no. The single most useful tv I have ever owned is my current one, a 2011 Samsung, with a built-in dlna client. Fuck mucking about with two, three or more remotes, set-top boxes, and all that. I'm never going back to that.

sjtrny 13y ago

No software? So hard coded firmware like on CRTs? Personally I like having TV guide functionality, the ability to browse USB media and stream content from iView straight from my TV.

walshemj 13y ago
Or get updated iPlayer from the BBC though I do wish ITV would get thier act together and produce a working catchup service. Thats one ABC1 viewr you have lost right there guys I gave up on whitechappel as your crappy catchup service was totaly unusable.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

darklajid 13y ago

I agree. Worse, the software is crap from the start. I have one of these Samsung TVs. It is offline and will be forever in its lifetime. Not only is the software that comes with it really useless, it phones home the first time you do connect it and installs a sh*tload of crapware, depending on your region. In my case lots of useless stuff around sports and tabloids. These apps are then prominently featured in the TV's menu. No, you cannot diaable or remove them, nor reclaim that screen estate and put something else there. You install a couple things and have to scroll to find those, while the absolutely insane garbage sits in the middle of the screen. Only way back: Factory reset, never connect it again. Smart..

platz 13y ago
yep, this post laments the problems when "smart" automation often goes wrong - also touching on automating tasks where people need to pay attention at the same time, such as driving or aviation: https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140308200904-12181762-stupid-smart-stuff https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140308200904-1...
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  While I agree with some parts with that post, I think the conclusion is wrong. I believe the root of the problem are the wrong terminal values. "Smart" technology is not put there to really solve a problem, but to drive sales. Providing real utility for users is secondary, as long as the new feature has big marketing value. Therefore I see the problem not with engineers and designers, but with salesmen giving orders and marketing-driven development. As for lessons for driving, I see only two ways - either do actually train drivers like they should be, just like pilots are trained, or automate them out completely. Current level of training required for getting a driver's licence is a complete joke, and the attitude of most of the people who took or are taking the exam is just plain scary.
pdonis 13y ago
No, you cannot diaable or remove them But if the OP article is correct, you can prevent the TV from phoning home in the first place by spoofing the other way -- say, configuring the DNS that the TV sees to automatically return "no answer" for www.samsung.com. The question is, will the TV still see your local network? If so, you can stream to it from a DLNA server, as someone else upthread pointed out.

esonderegger 13y ago

I tend to agree with you, with one minor exception. If you're going to put an ethernet jack on a TV anyway because people seem to like having Netflix apps on their tv, I'd love it if there were some basic "dumb" software as well, like an RTSP/RTMP client. At work, we have five of these Samsung Smart TVs and if I want to get a video signal from my control room on to one of them, I have to send it via HD-SDI into the main video router, then run coax from the router to the tv, then use an SDI to HDMI adapter (the cheapest of which is the monoprice $100 one). The picture ends up looking great, but it doesn't exactly feel like 2014.

kalleboo 13y ago
> I'd love it if there were some basic "dumb" software as well, like an RTSP/RTMP client. No DLNA?
- esonderegger 13y ago
  Thanks for suggesting DLNA! (Stuff like this is why I keep coming back to HN) I spent the afternoon trying various different approaches with my Sony Blu-Ray player that has DLNA support. It appears to only want to play files, not live streams. That said, I haven't exhausted all options yet and will have more tools to test with at the office. And from a video engineering perspective, RTSP/RTMP or even HLS as native formats would be way easier.

milkshakes 13y ago

but then how would they phone home with automatic content recognition fingerprints so that samsung could tool up its secret tv-retargeting department? oh, wait...

mobiplayer 13y ago

Au contraire. They know how to produce software, they just don't seem to get networking at all and that's an issue I've seen on my developers out there.

mobiplayer 13y ago
Not sure how it happened, but s/my/many. Also, I'm sorry guys, but most of you don't really get advanced networking concepts. Just like I don't get many advanced software architecture topics. It's a matter of specialisation.

Shinkei 13y ago

>There are no exceptions. Wow, well I guess the issue is closed. I wish they had contacted you from the start, otherwise this multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation could've avoided the entire market. /s I mean are you intentionally being dense? It has been a LONG time coming to supplant the multiple devices I have to keep around my TV just to use cable, streaming services, etc. Now I don't need to fire up the Wii if I want to watch Hulu or Netflix, movies off a media drive or USB. If only I could integrate the cable box into the TV, then it would really be a game changer. I don't know about you, but I consider myself an above-average tech consumer and I value simplicity and if companies can manage to keep my TV functional for the next 5-7 years with all of my services, then it is money well spent.

differentView 13y ago
How many years do you plan on keeping your TV? How long do you think TV manufacturers will continue to support an old TV model?
- josephlord 13y ago
  So have the TV on its own for 5 years or so and then supplement it with a new box connected by HDMI. Also the manufacturers are hoping for revenue from the online services and can attract more services with a large user base so it is in their interest to at least keep supporting the existing services.
  - differentView 13y ago
    > Also the manufacturers are hoping for revenue from the online services and can attract more services with a large user base so it is in their interest to at least keep supporting the existing services. That may or may not be the case depending on the company and/or the strategy the person in charge at the time is pursuing. One CEO might completely agree with your strategy and make sure all old models are supported, another might just care about how many new TVs sold he can tell the shareholders. Then there are companies going out of business or being acquired and the acquiring company not caring about supporting any models made by the acquired company.

ryandrake 13y ago

We're going to look back and laugh at "Smart" TVs like we currently laugh at TVs with built-in VHS players.

kachnuv_ocasek 13y ago

Absolutely agree. Computers should only be used to crunch numbers for particle scientists and not for sharing information, let alone for entertainment.

pyre 13y ago
Right. Because the currently 'Smart' TVs are at the cutting edge of user interface design... If Samsung/Sony/etc thought that they had chops to make a good device to connect a TV to the Internet, then maybe they wouldn't feel the need to package it with the display device, and just release it stand-alone.

workhere-io 13y ago

Totally disagree. I love the fact that I can watch Netflix without some box or computer connected to my screen and an extra remote control. Having just the Smart TV is a cheaper and simpler solution, and is easier to set up. The fact that Samsung haven't gotten things quite right with their Smart TVs doesn't mean I'm going to buy an Apple TV or some other box.

amitparikh 13y ago

The TVs aren't "Smart" for the consumers. They are "Smart" for the producers/advertisers/etc that want to data mine your television consumption (now including various streaming services).

null_ptr 13y ago
There you go. Weren't LG smart TVs found to phone home the file names of media you play on it off your own external storage? No thanks.
- ceocoder 13y ago
  Wow, I had no idea this[0] was a real thing. This actually makes me more nervous than Kinect webcam thing which is just small piece of duct tape away from getting resolved. [0] http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/smart-tv-from-lg-phones-home-with-users-viewing-habits-usb-file-names/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/smart-tv-from-lg-pho...
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    Samsung Smart TVs have a dubious track record on security/privacy issues, too: http://mashable.com/2013/08/02/samsung-smart-tv-hack/ http://mashable.com/2013/08/02/samsung-smart-tv-hack/

amiramir 13y ago

Samsung seems to understand that TVs get upgraded at a slower rate than the TV's smarts evolve and that software updates can only get you so far. They have started to ship something named the Evolution Kit. For around $200 it allows the user to unscrew the CPU module from their existing TV and install a more modern CPU/software combo. https://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-accessories/SEK-1000/ZA https://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-accessories/SEK-1000/ZA

dublinben 13y ago
That upgrade is twice the price of the highest-end Roku or AppleTV. Samsung still doesn't get it.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
Completely worthless. The CPU in a TV is never the problem. That's why they use such low powered CPUs to begin with. Nobody even makes a TV with a Core i7 even though there is no technical reason why they couldn't, because there is no demand for it. All anyone cares is that it can decode video at the native resolution, which the original CPU will be able to do until all the pixels wear out.
- kabdib 13y ago
  Well, power is a huge concern. We were looking at CPUs embedded in TVs, and 10 watts was about the limit for the processor board. Regulations (esp in the EU) get into the game as well. Life is better as a component that attaches with a cable. You can't really put a gaming console in a TV, not yet (not one you'd want to actually use, anyway).

nilsimsa 13y ago

There are usually multiple models of the TV. You can buy one without the "smart" features if you like or even disable them on an existing one.

skyebook 13y ago
Unfortunately, the non-smart choices pretty much leave you with tv's that have a real lack of connectivity since they appear to be the 'lower end' now.

nanidin 13y ago

What's next - cell phones should only call people and nothing else? Watches should only tell us the time?

krapp 13y ago
The whole idea of using phones to "call" people is absurd, practically barbaric. No one even does that anymore, having to do your own talking, memorizing numbers... it's too much work. This so-called 'feature' should be removed from all future phones and replaced with an app which correlates the social media posts from your friends and translates them to audio using natural speech synthesis.

Pxtl 13y ago

The problem is that the TV industry has l lagged behind the monitor industry in this understanding. A monitor knows it's justa screen... It does nothing without an attached system. I want a TV like that. Let the attached device control the on/off of the TV and the volume, and if you need to attach a peripheral, then it attaches to the device. TV ports are digital now, they could power and give control to another device. Just stick a port on the back for the box . I actually love the stick form-factor that's growing now, let's you hide the device and get the sleek appearance of a smart TV without the cruft.

Too 13y ago
Define "attach peripheral". Is wireless display over DLNA ok? Smart TVs actually have many nice features many people don't know about, dlna being the most prominent. Universal remote being another of them, with my TV I just say I have device x on hdmi2 and the TV remote will then be able to do almost anything I need to control on that device. The built in apps are usually crap but I do see the value in having the ability to install them, why should I have to buy yet another device if I just want to watch Netflix, the TV already has the processing power to do so. Although arguably a chromecast is practically free compared to the price of a TV.

Nick_C 13y ago

Despite the other commentators' views, I completely agree. My Panasonic's YouTube app cannot ffwd or rewind. WTF! For a video streaming app! Unbelievable. What I do is fire up the XBox. It's a brain-dead app there too+, but at least I can rewind a few seconds if I missed a word or two. + Titles truncated too much; no comments viewer; unresponsive UI.

nl 13y ago

TVs get upgraded perhaps once a decade or so. Wrong. I've upgraded my TV twice in the past 5 years, and the average TV replacement cycle has decreased to 4 years[1]. They don't need to have software in them, and shouldn't. Yes they do. How else do I watch Youtube and Plex on it? Plug another box in, with another remote? Leave that to people and companies who actually know how to produce software. I agree that would be nice. Fortunately Samsung has a completely inadequately documented but reasonably open API for building SmartTV apps. TVs should display an image. That would be called a monitor. There are no exceptions. I'm one. Does the fact that I use the Youtube, Vimeo, iView and Plex apps on my Samsung TV more than I watch broadcast TV not apply for some reason? [1] http://gigaom.com/2012/01/05/tv-replacement-cycle/ http://gigaom.com/2012/01/05/tv-replacement-cycle/

timdiggerm 13y ago
>Yes they do. How else do I watch Youtube and Plex on it? Plug another box in, with another remote? Frankly, that other box should be the one handling the TV tuning too.

stronglikedan 13y ago

Of course there are exceptions. My girlfriend being one of them. She's not capable of switching and input and using a different remote to control a different device - or even a universal remote to control both devices, for that matter. If she cannot get to Netflix with the push of a button, then I get a call every time she wants to watch Netflix when I'm not home. Smart TVs make technology accessible, and that's why they are popular.