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 553755
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Well, I get where your coming from, and it sounds good in theory, but the problem is that, since TVs can operate for 10 years or more, manufacturers would need to keep updates coming through the lifespan of the TV, and they're just not going to do that. I'd say at best, you're going to get 3-5 years of updates, and then you'll be buying a Roku to hook to your TV, because your vendor isn't updating it anymore.

When I bought a Panasonic TV in early 2010, they had a more expensive model with Amazon instant video built-in. But even that service was just a shell of what it is now, so I passed on it; the streaming for Amazon Prime members (which I am one of) didn't even exist back then. And Hulu Plus didn't launch until late 2010. That's how much the landscape can change in just 3 years, so you really don't want to be stuck with a device that won't get updated for 5+ years.

BTW: As to which remote will control which device, a universal remote goes a long way in that regard ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"Well, I get where your coming from, and it sounds good in theory, but the problem is that, since TVs can operate for 10 years or more, manufacturers would need to keep updates coming through the lifespan of the TV, and they're just not going to do that."

To me, this is just one example of why open computers are better for consumers than proprietary ones because the community can support itself even after the manufacturer has stopped doing so. As you know, this often falls upon deaf ears. And to make things even worse, manufacturers have an incentive to deliberately EOL their electronics to help sales of future products. I think modern capitalism has fundamentally failed here and gives corporations the entirely wrong motivations for engineering products that are intentionally wasteful and restrictive.

Eventually I hope the world re-learns the importance of open computing and backlashes against the regression to closed devices. But in the mean time I have to concede that we're taking losses in the war on the open computing and consumers are paying the costs. The situation sucks in every way.



"I'd say at best, you're going to get 3-5 years of updates, and then you'll be buying a Roku to hook to your TV, because your vendor isn't updating it anymore."

That point has merit generally speaking, but the roku available today is a complete counter-example. The roku (brought up earlier by myself and Bill Shooter of Bul) doesn't fit the bill because it only streams commercially DRMed content. Additionally even the jailbroken models often require video transcoding on a real computer (the forums suggest using "handbrake" with a powerful computer). That holds no advantage whatsoever to transcoding video for the smarttv directly, which will likely support all the formats of the roku and then some.



"When I bought a Panasonic TV in early 2010, they had a more expensive model with Amazon instant video built-in. But even that service was just a shell of what it is now, so I passed on it; the streaming for Amazon Prime members"

Early adopters are always taking these kinds of risks regardless of the circumstances, but once smart tvs are well established, I don't think anyone is going to look back since they are a superset of dumb-tvs.


"BTW: As to which remote will control which device, a universal remote goes a long way in that regard"

We already own one to consolidate the remotes, but it doesn't solve the disjointed "recursive RDP" syndrome that having many non-integrated external devices has brought upon us because they're physically hooked up in a recursive master/slave hierarchy.

Lets say an education instructor operating within copyright law needs to load his DVR with excerpts from NASA's TV channel, a few DVDs, and his own camera interviews. Using today's dumb devices he'd have to rewire his "dumb" recording device several times. Eventually (in the long term), with new devices able to take advantage of new smarttv integration features, everything will communicate via ethernet where there is no hierarchy and each device can communicate with any other via ethernet without ever touching a wire (DRM, ahoy!). Devices don't even need to be in the same room. Each device is equally accessible through a smart tv, a computer, a tablet, phone, etc. With the TV being smart like a tablet there are so many exciting potential applications in this space that are bound to erupt (especially if the devices are open to creative independent 3rd party development).


When talking about innovation and ideas, there are so many things to talk about and it's easy to get lost in one's thoughts, so I'll just leave it here.

Reply Parent Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

That point has merit generally speaking, but the roku available today is a complete counter-example. The roku (brought up earlier by myself and Bill Shooter of Bul) doesn't fit the bill because it only streams commercially DRMed content. Additionally even the jailbroken models often require video transcoding on a real computer (the forums suggest using "handbrake" with a powerful computer). That holds no advantage whatsoever to transcoding video for the smarttv directly, which will likely support all the formats of the roku and then some.


Well, Roku isn't the only kid on the block. For example the Sony SMP-N200 can stream pretty much everything the Roku can, plus it can do DLNA, and has a USB port that can play everything I throw at it. And I got it new for $50. For $50 more, you can get all of this built into a blu-ray player. I'm just not seeing a reason why I need all this built directly into the TV, given all the disadvantages I cited (esp having to depend on the manufacturer for updates).

As far as 'well, these TVs should be more open'. Perhaps, but they're not at the moment, so we have to work with what we're given, and right now, HDMI ports allow for plenty of flexibility in regard to what devices you want to hook up.

Reply Parent Score: 2