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 553618
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Bill Shooter of Bul,

Obviously I know what you mean, but...

"1) Try to plug in usb disk into 3-4 year old smart tv... Dang it doesn't support usb 4.0 devices"
"2) find adapter cable, plug it in."

To date, new USB devices have always been backwards compatible.

"3) Dang, smart tv doesn't support this new super codec."

Hell, you're right. But it's not just smart TVs at risk though, even mobile devices have this problem. Apple dictates that their users can not install google's webm format. Microsoft has an on/off relationship with support for the full mpeg family of codecs, but in their case at least desktop users have not been prohibited from installing 3rd party codecs (anyone know if their winrt tablet has codec restrictions?)

Fundamentally *if* the embedded computer were open, this wouldn't be a problem. But that's a quite large assumption; everything is going the way of walled gardens. As great as it would be for LG to buck this trend, I'm not terribly confident that they will.


"4) Buy new smart tv($800) or converter box ($50) that has more intelligence than older smart tv."

I honestly haven't found any network streaming box for NAS content at $50, more like $200 and that's only for something completely locked down. Might as well go for a full blown mini-board computer. However if I'm overlooking something obvious please let me know. It'd be fun to tinker with the raspberry pie, but in this case I'd be looking for something ready to use.

Reply Parent Score: 4

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Hell, you're right. But it's not just smart TVs at risk though, even mobile devices have this problem. Apple dictates that their users can not install google's webm format. Microsoft has an on/off relationship with support for the full mpeg family of codecs, but in their case at least desktop users have not been prohibited from installing 3rd party codecs (anyone know if their winrt tablet has codec restrictions?)


That is being slightly unfair. I am perfectly happy to rail against set top boxes (non portable devices) and their poor codec support, but I recognise the reality that mobile devices ultimately need fixed function hardware in order to support media due to lack of processing power and energy efficiency.

Seeing as ARM devices still choke on h264 1080p without a hardware decoder, I see this trend continuing especially as HEVC is on the horizon.

Edited 2013-02-25 18:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

3.0 did add a new connector, which isn't backwards compatible( The USB 3.0 Micro-B connector ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0#Connectors

There are $50 network streaming boxes for nas.

http://www.roku.com/roku-products
$50.

roksbox channel
http://roksbox.com/home/

The $70 Wd TV play also works for those who want something to work out of the box.

http://store.westerndigital.com/store/wdus/en_US/pd/ThemeID.2198630...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Bill Shooter of Bul,

"3.0 did add a new connector, which isn't backwards compatible( The USB 3.0 Micro-B connector )."

This I was not aware, however it looks like the end of the cable which plugs into the "camera", is it not? If this is indeed the case, then it's not really relevant. My laptop doesn't have a micro-USB port corresponding to the one on my camera, yet I can still make the connection via means of a simple cable since the signal is electronically compatible.


"There are $50 network streaming boxes for nas."

I specifically mentioned the roku because I looked at it and it is not adequate, it only streams DRMed media from commercial services. It is not a candidate for even the simple use case of streaming common videos from a NAS, at least not the model's I've tried.

Jailbreaking might eliminate the artificial restrictions, but in this case reveals that the device is underpowered and still requires trans-coding video on a real computer first (which is what roksbox users do). Even if you are happy with this route (I'm not), you still have to admit that it still defeats the purpose for which you suggested a $50 device in the first place.


"The $70 Wd TV play also works for those who want something to work out of the box."

Thank you for the suggestion, I will definitely take a closer look at this one to see if it could fit my needs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I am sure that is the same as 2 micro-connectors.

Please. There is a big difference between using an adapter and complete lock-out.

Reply Parent Score: 2