Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Nov 2011 22:17 UTC
Permalink for comment 497039
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
I'm not sure they are fundamentally incompatible, but I think that there is one remote and AUX channel too much in current solutions, where you have a TV and a separate box connected to it.
The AUX channel problem would be addressed by bringing back a very useful feature of the analog days. In the past, it was possible to make TVs switch to any connected SCART device (VCR, paid television decoder) simply by turning said device on. Why was that functionality removed in the HDMI successor ? I have no idea.
As for inconsistent remote workflow, I have seen IP TV setups which use a handful of dedicated remote buttons (channel grid, enter, exit, and arrows) to great effect. Guess other "smart TV" devices should take inspiration from that.
And then there is again the issue of convenience. The core reason why my parents use TV over ADSL and not a better-working satellite setup, to the best of my knowledge, is that with ADSL, you subscribe to a monthly plan with the ISP, they give you a white box to connect to your router and TV, and it (mostly) works. Satellite is far from beating this setup simplicity and low initial cost.
If so many video game consoles have managed to deal well with TV sets, it proves that computer-TV interaction is possible, if done properly
Edited 2011-11-12 14:53 UTC