4 ms·
That's true to some extent, but I think that in part, smart TVs are a terrible idea for the same reason that combined music player and phones are a terrible ide
by comex 12y ago
That's true to some extent, but I think that in part, smart TVs are a terrible idea for the same reason that combined music player and phones are a terrible idea. Er, that is, were widely considered a terrible idea, thanks to ubiquitous clunky software, until 2007 when Apple did it right. And ever since then it's been considered obviously beneficial that you don't have to deal with two separate physical devices.
With TVs you're not usually lugging the devices around, but the TV has to be turned on and have volume (and sometimes other settings) managed with a separate remote. Since they typically have multiple HDMI ports, while the set-top boxes you mention don't have HDMI passthrough, you're encouraged to multiplex devices from the TV too, which requires manually selecting between numbered inputs with only a dumb OSD to help coordinate things. (If you have external speakers you might use a receiver to multiplex instead, but now you have a third remote and another dumb UI, not to mention potential latency issues for gaming.) In practice, the result is that among regular users, nobody can use someone else's TV without first being coached on their particular idiosyncratic combination of remotes, let alone try to play their own content by plugging a device in or wireless streaming or something shocking like that. Supposedly HDMI CEC helps with this somewhat by letting the device control the TV; I haven't used a setup with it, but there's only so much a standard for connecting disparate devices can do.
I want one remote - with the option to use my phone or voice control if I lose the remote - and a single, good UI that controls everything. That's only going to happen with a smart TV, but maybe the right device has yet to be made.
(One potential solution to obsoletion is for a manufacturer to make the brains of the TV a separate detachable part that fits into the design, like a laptop battery. Another would be to standardize on one HDMI port per TV, with CEC support and no UI when something is plugged in, so that you're basically required to plug in a box that then takes over the experience. Yeah, like that's going to happen.)
- Evolved 12y agoHardware combinations are mostly a terrible idea unlike software combinations that can be patched with updates. If your music player on your phone malfunctioned it shouldn't be a difficult remedy to push out an OTA update. Try that when your printer won't align thus relegating it to a bulky and expensive scanner (if that part still works). There isn't a solution to devices becoming obsolete because manufacturers would sell less of a new product if the old one worked fine in perpetuity. Not only this but old iPhones, for example, run worse with new iOS versions because new versions are coded for new hardware. Hence the need to upgrade periodically. How many of us have a 486 that will run Dragon Age?
- comex 12y agoThat's why I suggested making the brains of the smart TV separable - in other words, somewhat similar to the current situation, but with tighter integration between the TV display, speakers, and ports and the box. Samsung seems to be doing something like that: http://www.samsung.com/us/2013-smart-evolution/ http://www.samsung.com/us/2013-smart-evolution/ It being Samsung, the hardware upgrade was apparently offered after a single year and completely redid the UI, but there's no reason the same principle can't be executed competently.
- Evolved 12y agoIf you're the real Comex of iOS JB lore then I very much appreciate your work and you have my utmost respect. So from what I understand about the Evolution Kit, it attaches to TVs 2012 and later and provides them with a boost to put them almost on par with 2013/2014+ TVs? Doesn't this cannibalize sales of new Smart TVs?
- Vendan 12y agoThey already did that kind of thing, but it seems to have died off. My TV has an MHL port, and I've got an MHL roku plugged into it. One remote controls both the TV and the roku. Specific buttons get passed through to the roku. It's actually really nice.
- fps 12y agoI have a 2014 non-smart LG TV and a FireTV at home and have been fighting the "I only want a single remote" fight for quite a while. The FireTV is able to switch on the TV using HDMI CEC (and shut it off after 30 minutes of inactivity) but I'm still using the TV remote to control the speaker volume. Funny enough, I had a single remote setup for one brief shining moment in 2008 with the second generation Apple TV; the AppleTV would switch on and off my HDMI TV using some precursor to CEC - the same sleep/wake function that modern PC monitors use - and could also control the volume using the up/down buttons on the remote by modulating the sound going over the HDMI connection. Unfortunately, Apple ripped this audio control functionality out with a software update a few months after the product was released and I was forced to break out the second remote again and eventually replaced the AppleTV. But the point is it is possible to have only one remote with an HDMI connected set top box, but that feature isn't a priority in the world of cable boxes and audio receivers. Anyway, my experience with smart TVs is that they're a waste of money and incredibly frustrating compared to set top boxes like Roku/Chromecast/FireTV/AppleTV. On top of that, my experience with TV remotes is that I don't want manufacturers like LG, Samsung or Sony making my primary remote control. They invariably feel cheap, slow and clunky whereas Amazon/Apple and even Roku do a very good job.