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 553864
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

"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."

It should have been your first example instead of the roku. ;)


"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)."

I'm pretty sure I've already admitted that it could either be built into the TV or an external device. But if we stuburnly insist on keeping tv's dumb, then you'll find that it actually holds back external smart devices as well because they be forced to cator to the lowest common denominator of a dumb tv. The sooner smart networkable tvs become mainstream, the sooner we will start seeing network addressable media devices which take advantage of advanced integration features which could be supported by these smart tvs.

Assume for the moment that future smart netork addressable media devices already existed now, I think you'd be very hard pressed to make a case for TV's not having the capability to access them directly because TVs should be dumb. If you condemn TVs dumbness today, then that's a significant impediment to the smart networked devices of the future.

Reply Parent Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I don't mind TVs getting smarter in regard to their ability to control other devices (and vice versa); I just don't need the full functionality of these devices built into the TV, unless they can be upgraded independently of the manufacturer, and more cheaply than the external devices.

Reply Parent Score: 2