Smart TVs are dumb • Hacker News Board

Re: Smart TVs are dumb

#81

Post by chaostheory » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 3:06 AM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #73

chaostheory wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too late. Roku's already done it.

I've heard the roku3 is different, but the roku2 I found really irritating. First you pay extra for the roku with USB so that you can plug in a hard drive and play local content, but the roku doesn't even support .avi files - in fact it basically supports nothing locally. The interface is also terrible, but I can forgive that since the box itself is a little under powered. What I found really obnoxious was that they…

> First you pay extra for the roku with USB

The Roku 3 with the USB either is the same price or cheaper compared to an Apple TV, Google TV, and other variants. Before the Roku 3, Roku's were almost half the price of competing products.

> First you pay extra for the roku with USB so that you can plug in a hard drive and play local content, but the roku doesn't even support .avi files - in fact it basically supports nothing locally.

Plex is free on Roku. I can't say video playback was perfect on competing devices as well.

> The interface is also terrible, but I can forgive that since the box itself is a little under powered.

Yes, but it's also the easiest to use. It's even intuitive for non-techies.

> The only redeeming quality the roku had was the third part channel you can install on it, Plex (http://www.plexapp.com/).

IMO that's the only redeeming quality of Google TV devices.

Re: Smart TVs are dumb

#82

Post by trhtrsh » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 4:20 AM UTC

philsnow wrote: post #19

pavanky wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of TVs that are doing it right. Apple doesn't need to "show everyone how it's done". This particular example is of one manufacturer messing up one product line.

It's unfortunately endemic to the whole industry. My "smart" TV is a Vizio. Really I wish TV manufacturers would offer "monitors" (screens without TV tuners). If one manufacturer goes this way, people who only want a screen for e.g. their Roku might buy that one instead.

The example you picked, Vizio, is the lowest-end brand on the market. Nothing wrong with cheap, for the price you pay, but the whole point is that it cuts corners and isn't as good as the name brands.

Re: Smart TVs are dumb

#83

Post by trhtrsh » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 4:22 AM UTC

incision wrote: post #42

I get the impression that "Smart TV" has largely, to this point been treated as an incidental add-on, not a selling point. If buyers care primarily about price, which it seems they do [1] the half-assed features make a certain kind of sense. Add bare-minimum functionality while keeping prices down above all else. If/when "smart" becomes an essential feature, I'd expect the experience to improve. While an unresponsive…

People care, they are just too lazy to do any research or return crappy products to the store. They just pay their money, hate the product, and be miserable, and forget the whole thing next time they buy from the ad or the salesperson at the store.

Re: Smart TVs are dumb

#84

Post by jdboyd » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 4:57 AM UTC

philsnow wrote: post #19

pavanky wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of TVs that are doing it right. Apple doesn't need to "show everyone how it's done". This particular example is of one manufacturer messing up one product line.

It's unfortunately endemic to the whole industry. My "smart" TV is a Vizio. Really I wish TV manufacturers would offer "monitors" (screens without TV tuners). If one manufacturer goes this way, people who only want a screen for e.g. their Roku might buy that one instead.

Perhaps consider buying a commercial display then. Not only do thye lack tuners, but if there is an ethernet port, it is most likely there for you to use to remote control the display. The only downside is that they typically cost a bit more.

Re: Smart TVs are dumb

#85

Post by gonehome » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 5:26 AM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #81

gonehome wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard the roku3 is different, but the roku2 I found really irritating. First you pay extra for the roku with USB so that you can plug in a hard drive and play local content, but the roku doesn't even support .avi files - in fact it basically supports nothing locally. The interface is also terrible, but I can forgive that since the box itself is a little under powered. What I found really obnoxious was that they…

> First you pay extra for the roku with USB The Roku 3 with the USB either is the same price or cheaper compared to an Apple TV, Google TV, and other variants. Before the Roku 3, Roku's were almost half the price of competing products. > First you pay extra for the roku with USB so that you can plug in a hard drive and play local content, but the roku doesn't even support .avi files - in fact it basically supports no…

I don't know if best of the worst is that exciting of a title, but I agree with you.

The apple TV has much nicer hardware and better interface, but it's only good if you live in apple's universe and buy things from itunes.

Re: Smart TVs are dumb

#86

Post by tmzt » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 5:43 AM UTC

Wouldn't it be so much simpler to have a good HTML5-capable browser and an extended URI scheme for the video tag to support live content?

Samsung TVs seem to be powered by a single Linux blob for the DSP functions and another for the "Smart" functions.

Ethernet/wifi in TV's is a great concept but the execution so far is sad, it can't pair with a cable DVR in another room, you can't down Roku as an app (or Plex) and have it run as a native full speed application on the TV cpu, and if even if you can, it won't run across different brands of television or even different models from the same company.

Re: Smart TVs are dumb

#87

Post by the_gipsy » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 6:22 AM UTC

I bought a TV with an ethernet port a few month ago, thinking "hey, I'll be able to stream stuff from my pc or something!". You cannot really stream, you only get some crappy media-center listing of files which fails like 90% of the time.

Now we have a laptop hooked with HDMI.

Re: Smart TVs are dumb

#88

Post by verygoodyear » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 7:57 AM UTC

An Apple TV is a good device for me - especially if you just want a device that works simply, has Netflix etc. and has a fairly decent UI. Plus airplay and the music streaming stuff if you have iTunes match is pretty nice.

Would love to be able to plug my hdd in and play videos from it, but it's not that kind of device and jailbreaking seems like a bit of a hassle at this point. Plus, when the girlfriend wants to watch Netflix and it's running some strange Linux distro I might get a bit told off...

It doesn't fit all of our video needs (we have Sky, PS3 for dvds etc.) but it's worth it for netflix alone, imo.

Re: Smart TVs are dumb

#89

Post by bni » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 8:02 AM UTC

For me the most important thing about a living room TV is that it delivers the best image quality possible for its price. Internet, content and "computery stuff" I get elsewhere and connect to the TV as needed.

The solution is not to improve the software here, it should not exist in the first place. If I could buy the most high end Panasonic plasma without smart TV "features" I would.

Re: Smart TVs are dumb

#90

Post by touristtam » Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 11:34 AM UTC

DaneelO wrote: post #44

I recently bought an LM558600 and my experience has been contrary to almost everyone elses here. I've found that the remote is very sensitive and usable, and a large improvement over standard n/s/e/w remotes due to the nature of modern interfaces requiring more complex input. It makes entering alphanumeric input far easier too. It takes a little getting used to, but I didn't have the problems others mentioned, nor th…

I have a similar experience. This thing has replaced an Xtremer Ultra box running XBMC on an atom cpu, and despite the slow start, it is still better than a dedicated htpc (one remote). Plus the plex software is working adequately. Sure not the best experience ever, but for the price, it has been a confortable experience. (added bonus: 3D with passive glasses).