8 ms·

>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 doll

by Shinkei 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.
    - josephlord 12y ago
      The same might happen with any add on box, (it may even be more likely). I wouldn't pay a large premium for built in Internet services (I don't want smart just connected with Netflix, DLNA, iPlayer) but I would throw the TV away if they stopped working either. 4 year old Sony TVs have internet services that still work fine, I like not turning on the PS3 with fan noise and power consumption, I like not buying an extra box and needing to manage an extra remote and interface. I record TV on a MythTV box and I like watching it over DLNA using the TV's decoder and scaler which are better than those provided out of the box by MythFrontend. Yes it may fail at some time in the future but for the $13 or so added to the BOM (for Wifi which I don't actually use) it is a definite win for me even if it stops working tomorrow and I need to get an extra box or rely on the PS3.
- ams6110 12y ago
  For me, until it stops working. That's why I still have tube TVs.
chavesn 12y ago
I agree with your well-placed sarcasm -- this is not a black and white issue. However, I disagree that there is fundamental value in built-in TV software supplanting third-party devices. That is, unless a software company is making the software. I have a Roku, and built-in software from Sony on a blu-ray player (on separate TVs). The Roku is so much better that it's painful to use the TV without it: - The buffering is much worse on the Sony. When it switches between ads and the video it takes several seconds to rebuffer. - The delay between menus is measured in seconds, while the Roku is almost instantaneous - It's almost like Sony didn't even have one UX designer working on their project. It will do idiotic things like when Hulu opens, create a modal dialog that says "The internet content is ready" and I must click OK to proceed. - The remote and other menus are slow and hard to decipher just like you'd expect from built-in software. The point is that building the user experience of a video client is not trivial. I can't even blame Sony, really -- a non-software company will never do a good job at that kind of thing. The Roku is a world of difference and until a company like that is building the built-in software, the mainstream of the market will be in third-party devices.
- ajanuary 12y ago
  I'm also a big fan of how the back button is on the opposite side of the screen to the remote for no reason.
- Nexxxeh 12y ago
  >The point is that building the user experience of a video client is not trivial. No, but "Sony" have done it before and it's been fine. PS3. (I've not tried the PS4's media player.) >I can't even blame Sony, really -- a non-software company Sony Vegas? ACID? Sound Forge? Sony is not short of software production, "Sony Creative Software" makes a few software products most people here would have heard of. Not to mention SCE, they've made quite a bit of software and no-doubt have some UI engineers.
  - dsl 12y ago
    Most Smart TV platforms are developed by outside companies anyway. Check out Beesmart, Yahoo Connected TV, Mediaroom, Wyplay, and dozens of others. It might even surprise you that Belkin and Dlink don't design or manufacture their own hardware or software.
CamperBob2 12y ago
...otherwise this multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation could've avoided the entire market. /s (Shrug) They could always focus on making the best TV display they possibly can, and see how that works out for them. Nobody asked them to build the next-generation WebTV.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> 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. The problem with "smart TV" is that it's inherently a conflict of interest. It would be great if Samsung sold a TV with SamsungOS on it and if I don't like it or they stop supporting it I could easily replace it with Android or Ubuntu, but they don't sell that. Because they want to spam your TV with ads and force you to buy a new one on their schedule. It's obvious why they want to sell it that way. It's not obvious why anyone should want to buy it that way.
ezy 12y ago
What makes Smart TV's basically useless long-term is that throwaway line you put on the end about the cable box. The same is true of AppleTV, playstation, xbox and every game console in existence. Some of this is obviously hardware based, but a lot of it is about differentiation. CableCard has existed for at least a decade now, but good luck trying to get your cable company to admit it. Every single one of these guys wants you to stay in their particular ecosystem, and "smart" TV is just another ecosystem Samsung wants you to buy into with the associated limitations -- either introduced by Samsung or the other vendors (lockout). What people really need is better integration between all the devices they hook to their TV. It's bizarre (but like I said, not totally unexpected) that a consumer electronics device is so hard to use that way compared to a radically more complex personal computer (plug most usb devices from a big box store into a mac or pc and it'll just work for its intended purposes without a hassle nowadays). One way to accomplish that is to shove all the functionality into one device, but as I mentioned above, it doesn't actually work except for a few limited cases. Honestly, the closest you get to a true "smart" experience is a top-end harmony remote -- and that's obviously not that close at all. My basic objection to smart tv is that I have the same experience using a harmony remote, it adds nothing. And the smart features are virtually guaranteed to whither away long before the actual tv outlives its usefulness. It's like the digital channel tuner on the same set -- useful in odd circumstances, but practically useless having long been long surpassed by cable tv.

by Shinkei 12y ago

differentView 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.
  - josephlord 12y ago
    The same might happen with any add on box, (it may even be more likely). I wouldn't pay a large premium for built in Internet services (I don't want smart just connected with Netflix, DLNA, iPlayer) but I would throw the TV away if they stopped working either. 4 year old Sony TVs have internet services that still work fine, I like not turning on the PS3 with fan noise and power consumption, I like not buying an extra box and needing to manage an extra remote and interface. I record TV on a MythTV box and I like watching it over DLNA using the TV's decoder and scaler which are better than those provided out of the box by MythFrontend. Yes it may fail at some time in the future but for the $13 or so added to the BOM (for Wifi which I don't actually use) it is a definite win for me even if it stops working tomorrow and I need to get an extra box or rely on the PS3.
ams6110 12y ago
For me, until it stops working. That's why I still have tube TVs.

chavesn 12y ago

I agree with your well-placed sarcasm -- this is not a black and white issue. However, I disagree that there is fundamental value in built-in TV software supplanting third-party devices. That is, unless a software company is making the software. I have a Roku, and built-in software from Sony on a blu-ray player (on separate TVs). The Roku is so much better that it's painful to use the TV without it: - The buffering is much worse on the Sony. When it switches between ads and the video it takes several seconds to rebuffer. - The delay between menus is measured in seconds, while the Roku is almost instantaneous - It's almost like Sony didn't even have one UX designer working on their project. It will do idiotic things like when Hulu opens, create a modal dialog that says "The internet content is ready" and I must click OK to proceed. - The remote and other menus are slow and hard to decipher just like you'd expect from built-in software. The point is that building the user experience of a video client is not trivial. I can't even blame Sony, really -- a non-software company will never do a good job at that kind of thing. The Roku is a world of difference and until a company like that is building the built-in software, the mainstream of the market will be in third-party devices.

ajanuary 12y ago
I'm also a big fan of how the back button is on the opposite side of the screen to the remote for no reason.
Nexxxeh 12y ago
>The point is that building the user experience of a video client is not trivial. No, but "Sony" have done it before and it's been fine. PS3. (I've not tried the PS4's media player.) >I can't even blame Sony, really -- a non-software company Sony Vegas? ACID? Sound Forge? Sony is not short of software production, "Sony Creative Software" makes a few software products most people here would have heard of. Not to mention SCE, they've made quite a bit of software and no-doubt have some UI engineers.
- dsl 12y ago
  Most Smart TV platforms are developed by outside companies anyway. Check out Beesmart, Yahoo Connected TV, Mediaroom, Wyplay, and dozens of others. It might even surprise you that Belkin and Dlink don't design or manufacture their own hardware or software.

CamperBob2 12y ago

...otherwise this multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation could've avoided the entire market. /s (Shrug) They could always focus on making the best TV display they possibly can, and see how that works out for them. Nobody asked them to build the next-generation WebTV.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> 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. The problem with "smart TV" is that it's inherently a conflict of interest. It would be great if Samsung sold a TV with SamsungOS on it and if I don't like it or they stop supporting it I could easily replace it with Android or Ubuntu, but they don't sell that. Because they want to spam your TV with ads and force you to buy a new one on their schedule. It's obvious why they want to sell it that way. It's not obvious why anyone should want to buy it that way.

ezy 12y ago

What makes Smart TV's basically useless long-term is that throwaway line you put on the end about the cable box. The same is true of AppleTV, playstation, xbox and every game console in existence. Some of this is obviously hardware based, but a lot of it is about differentiation. CableCard has existed for at least a decade now, but good luck trying to get your cable company to admit it. Every single one of these guys wants you to stay in their particular ecosystem, and "smart" TV is just another ecosystem Samsung wants you to buy into with the associated limitations -- either introduced by Samsung or the other vendors (lockout). What people really need is better integration between all the devices they hook to their TV. It's bizarre (but like I said, not totally unexpected) that a consumer electronics device is so hard to use that way compared to a radically more complex personal computer (plug most usb devices from a big box store into a mac or pc and it'll just work for its intended purposes without a hassle nowadays). One way to accomplish that is to shove all the functionality into one device, but as I mentioned above, it doesn't actually work except for a few limited cases. Honestly, the closest you get to a true "smart" experience is a top-end harmony remote -- and that's obviously not that close at all. My basic objection to smart tv is that I have the same experience using a harmony remote, it adds nothing. And the smart features are virtually guaranteed to whither away long before the actual tv outlives its usefulness. It's like the digital channel tuner on the same set -- useful in odd circumstances, but practically useless having long been long surpassed by cable tv.