Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Feb 2013 14:15 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes "LG said today it was acquiring WebOS from Hewlett-Packard, with the intention to use the operating system not for its mobile phones, but in its smart televisions. With the deal, LG obtains the source code for WebOS, related documentation, engineering talent, and related WebOS Web sites. LG also gets HP licenses for use with its WebOS products, and patents HP obtained from Palm. The financial terms of the deal weren't disclosed." Completely and utterly pointless. Smart TVs are a dead end. The TV should just remain a dumb receiver for input - whether from a computer or console via cables, or wirelessly from a smartphone or tablet. Our phones and tablets are already smart so TVs don't have to be.
Thread beginning with comment 553601
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Invincible Cow
Member since:
2006-06-24

"Our phones and tablets are already smart so TVs don't have to be."

I don't have a smartphone. I don't have a tablet. But if I had, I'd surely expect my futuristic TV to be able to stream music from those devices, and in that case, it makes sense to make it a smart TV, unless I have a separate computer connected to it. (Which I do happen to have ... but average consumers won't.)

Many customers want something simple. If they can buy a TV with digital decoder, pvr, netflix and similar possibilities embedded, instead of buying a separate set-top box, they will.

Edited 2013-02-25 15:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I don't have a smartphone. I don't have a tablet. But if I had, I'd surely expect my futuristic TV to be able to stream music from those devices, and in that case, it makes sense to make it a smart TV, unless I have a separate computer connected to it. (Which I do happen to have ... but average consumers won't.)

Many customers want something simple. If they can buy a TV with digital decoder, pvr, netflix and similar possibilities embedded, instead of buying a separate set-top box, they will.


These days, you can buy a box for $50-$70 that can play Netflix and its ilk. Even my computer-illiterate parents can work a Roku-like device. You don't need all this crap built into the TV.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"These days, you can buy a box for $50-$70 that can play Netflix and its ilk. Even my computer-illiterate parents can work a Roku-like device. You don't need all this crap built into the TV."

Well it's inherently true that anything a smart TV could do could also be done with a dumb TV + external box (*). But is this really supposed to be an argument against integrated smart tvs?

Not to exaggerate the analogy, but the modern laptop itself is the pinnacle of this notion that everything should be built in to minimizing the dependence of external addons. Very few consumers object to having these features built in even if they don't intend to use them (SD card, camera, mic, bluetooth, etc).

It seems to me the primary reason to reject a smarttv is on the basis that it costs more, but people can still buy dumb TVs with external addons if that's what they want to do. In time, I believe smart features will become cheap enough to throw into all TVs whether they get used or not. And like with laptops, most of us will eventually appreciate the integration.

* Edit: please let us set the standard for smart tvs higher than the roku player...it's not good at interoperability between devices like a smart tv should be.

Edited 2013-02-26 05:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3