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 553681
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Fergy,

"You have to go all the way with your analogy. In smarttvs you get something that looks like the real thing(a tablet) but isn't as fast, fun, smooth, easy etc."


That's completely presumptuous isn't it? Why in the world would the TV have to be less powerful? In fact without the power constraints, it's likely the smart tvs can afford to use more powerful chips/more cores than the portable counterparts.

"So your smart laptop would have an sd card, camera, mic, bluetooth that are of such low quality that you would rather attach a seperate sd card, camera, mic, bluetooth."


"Would have"?? Haha, it sounds like your speaking hypothetically...It's not hypothetical at all and in fact I'm much happier with the integrated laptop I have today than the old one I had that didn't have a webcam or mic.

I don't understand what your complaint is though because you can still use external peripherals when you want to. However, if you buy a laptop meeting your specs in the first place then you won't need them. Just as laptops come in many feature combinations, so will smart tvs. If someone wants to cheap out on integrated features, that's their right, ultimately noone should expect to get more than what they pay for.

In the end, do you agree it should be left to the consumer's choice? I personally would buy a TV with an integrated computer for NAS streaming (more points for an open/hackable unit). We're entering an era where such functionality should be offered as an integrated feature especially as the cost differential becomes insignificant.


I mentioned it already but I think it's such a good idea so I'll mention it again: Ideally the smart tv computer would be located in a user serviceable slot that could be upgraded independently from the rest of the TV. This could be even less wasteful than a tablet where a CPU upgrade implies throwing away the peripherals like a touchscreen, speakers, cameras, battery, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I mentioned it already but I think it's such a good idea so I'll mention it again: Ideally the smart tv computer would be located in a user serviceable slot that could be upgraded independently from the rest of the TV.


So in other words, you're advocating having a box in a slot that you upgrade every few years, vs a box that you hook up to an HDMI port? I guess I'm failing to see the difference. The advantage to an external box is that you can use any one of them that you want. If you had, for example, an LG smart tv that could be upgraded via a slot in the TV, those upgrades are going to come from LG, and they're either going to charge through the nose for them, or stop providing upgrades when they think you need to buy a new TV. We see this kind of thing on Android devices all the time.

Of course, ideally, we'd have a standard that all smart TVs would use so that you can use anyone's box to put in the slot, but again, even assuming that pipe dream were to become a reality, we're right back to where we originally started from. So we might as well just use the HDMI port as we do now.

As for everything being integrated, if you get a good tv, it's likely to last for 8-10 years, and there's no way manufacturers are going to keep the updgrades coming that long. With an external box, you can simply replace it as needed every few years or so, to get access to all of the latest streaming services. If you got a TV a few years ago with Netflix and Amazon, when Hulu was barely a blip on the radar, you probably had to get an external box anyway if you wanted access to it.

Edited 2013-02-26 19:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"So in other words, you're advocating having a box in a slot that you upgrade every few years, vs a box that you hook up to an HDMI port? I guess I'm failing to see the difference."

Like I said before, it's not different. In terms of capability a dumb tv+external box could be identical to a smarttv.

I don't think most people will actually need to/want to upgrade the smarttv computer that regularly, but it would be a good idea to appease people like you who feel like it's important.


A big problem with the non-integrated external solution, is that every external box tries to bringing different "smarttv" features to the table to make up for dumb-tv deficiencies, but none will be well integrated for the overall experience because they're all layered on top of each other like a recursive RDP session. Which device controls things as basic as volume, picture in picture, channel, selection, online moving streaming, nas streaming, etc.

Without integration, these always end up producing a fragmented solution where some remotes are for this function, others are for that function, I might like to play a wii game with tv in the corner but that requires that I rewire the damn boxes because the cable box is connected to a DVR which is used as a front end for the wii but doesn't do picture and picture or whatever... Then I need another device for streaming, etc. We have to actually remember how everything is wired in order to know how to use it correctly. This fragmentation results in a jarring experience and I've had many occasions to curse the dumb TV's at not having any good integration.

Maybe standards can come into play to make smart devices inter-operate much better than they do today, but this would only increase the logic in deploying smart tvs to make use of it. Integration is a key selling point without the requirement of (what I consider) a ridiculous array of set top boxes.

Edited 2013-02-26 20:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I mentioned it already but I think it's such a good idea so I'll mention it again: Ideally the smart tv computer would be located in a user serviceable slot that could be upgraded independently from the rest of the TV. This could be even less wasteful than a tablet where a CPU upgrade implies throwing away the peripherals like a touchscreen, speakers, cameras, battery, etc.

And that is exactly what the people who don't want a smarttv want. Multiple companies could build the best smarttv card and could all provide their own software. So your tv remains a dumb device just like your pc monitor but you can drive it with a small settopbox that slots in the tv.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Fergy,

"And that is exactly what the people who don't want a smarttv want."

Not sure how you missed it, but *I* want a smart tv and it *is* what I want. Ideally the smart tv computers would be interchangeable between brands, but that's probably a very long ways off after one brand wins the market over and becomes a defacto standard with everyone building peripherals for it. We could do better if everyone would only work together towards a unified standard today, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards with today's manufacturers wanting exclusive control over the entire experience.

Edit: It's kind of too bad, third parties are often ahead of the manufacturers with regards to innovating software, and this is true whether the smart tv is integrated or external.

Edited 2013-02-26 22:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2