Hacker News Reader

Comment by simplexion | Hacker News Reader

I agree with this. There was a time where smart TVs were useful but it is dying out. The other big issue with Smart TVs is they try to put the lowest powered SoC in that they can and tiny amounts of RAM.

They should all just be monitors now. The cost of a Chromecast, Raspberry Pi, or Apple TV is so low that it makes Smart TVs redundant. I actually don't understand why these manufacturers haven't moved to making their own versions of casting/streaming devices. I remember when I bought my Bravia a long time ago it didn't come with WiFi but you could buy their wireless USB device for AUD$80 (they blocked all others). Why don't they do that but instead a Chromecast like device (without blocking out 3rd parties)?

View on HN

I don't disagree, but I've gone the opposite way. Just last week I replaced a 46" Samsung 1080p set from 9 years ago with a brand-new top-of-the-line Sony 4k set that has all this fancy AndroidTV stuff I neither knew I wanted nor really understood.

Thing is, it's the ONLY way I can get 4k content. I have an HTPC, WDTV, AppleTV, FireStick, PS3, and TiVo all plugged into my receiver (which was a very high end unit just 1 year ago). However, while the receiver supports 4k, it does NOT support HDCP 2.2 which either is required for 4k content, or WILL be once they start using HDCP 2.2. (I'm not quite clear on this point.. I don't know if today's UHD BluRay discs use HDCP 2.2).

And I'd argue that the SmartTV stuff is not really a reason many people buy a TV; regardless, having it does not remove your ability to use external devices in the future. If Sony drops my AndroidTV apps in 4 years, it probably won't much matter because the devices of the future will do far more for $35 than the software on the TV.

It's a frustrating situation, but, IMO, the Smart TV stuff only adds value (unless you're talking about the microphone in my remote and the possibility of said devices being used to backdoor my network, of course).

I forgot to add, new things pop up all the time that you don't know you want until they arrive. I noticed Google Photos being advertised on TV. I gave it a go on my iPhone and notice a Google Cast button. I don't have any of Google's streaming devices yet, nor do I have an HDMI port free on my receiver to support another device. Well, I hit the button, and what do you know, it automagically knew all about my TV and displayed my pictures at the touch of a button. Sometimes having fancy new stuff is cool, and you get added features you never expected. I sure wouldn't buy a Google streaming device just for this one novelty, but I'm not going to complain about having it.

About the latter part, I've noticed the same thing on my Sony Bravia TV as well. I believe the TV's may have a sort of "inbuilt chromecast": so I can cast youtube and netflix on my TV, and it will play the content via the TV-native app. I found this a LOT more convenient than having to deal with chromecast per-se; since I can't really control the TV much with the remote control once chromecast is in play.

I think that Chromecast supports HDMI CEC so it should work with compatible TV's remotes.

Yes and no. Support varies by the "app". Currently Netflix/PlayMusic works great with pause/stop, but no support for other buttons (next track, fast forward, rewind, etc...). I mostly just want pause though, so it works for me.

> I actually don't understand why these manufacturers haven't moved to making their own versions of casting/streaming devices.

Well, because streaming as a service to a customer is largely about the contents and about customer support. This is area that Internet providers are controlling exclusively (over here anyway). Every triple play offer has a TV part which comes with a set-top box, and a random streaming device simply cannot compete with "state-supported" traffic (CDNs in close proximity, multicast channels).

Why do the ISPs provide their own set-top box device? 1) They are trying to reduce the volume of calls to hotline, and this area of tech can generate many; 2) They use the customer-premises device as a shop front in selling even more VOD contents. A streaming stick would require lots of customization per every ISP in order to address these points.

>They should all just be monitors now. The cost of a Chromecast, Raspberry Pi, or Apple TV is so low that it makes Smart TVs redundant. I actually don't understand why these manufacturers haven't moved to making their own versions of casting/streaming devices.

The vast majority of TV viewers do not use and do not even understand how to use these devices.

Chromecast/Firestick is at least somewhat usable to the masses, some of the other streamers are more complicated but do you really expect some random person to buy and build a RasPi streaming set top box?

The TV makers can't take out features because people would not buy that TV, people want features, and these features are what the guy at the store can sell TV's by.

And for Samsung/Sony and the likes to get into the streamer business it's pointless, and it would not change the issue it would just move it to another component albit considerably cheaper one. Streaming devices also need to be constantly updated, many of them need to be updated more often than the TV their SoC's get obsolete just as fast if not faster and YouTube can make changes tomorrow that would make the current version of Chromecast incompatible as well.

If you are an Advanced user you don't care for all that crap, my best TV still by far is now what a 7-8 year old Toshiba 42" with a 10 bit panel which was actually made in Germany, dumb as you can get (it can show images, play MP3, maybe some MPEG) it has a PCMCIA slot which I used to hack into it and the image quality is still better than virtually every TV out there that doesn't cost 1500 GBP. But I can use it because I'm an "advanced" user I run my own streaming and transcoding server and have a media center PC. But for some one who wants a no hassle turn on TV and get netflix this isn't really an option, even Chromecast isn't very ideal quality isn't that great and it can lag pretty badly on congested networks. The more expensive streamers give you quality that matches the TV native app but they also tend to cost considerably more than the cheap sticks, unless you buy the Android unbranded chinese SoC sticks.

I remember a certain TV manufacturer [1] making a system with a separate tuner and monitor, they were able to sell it as a high end product.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20060627134424/http://www.sony.n...

Selling a high end "gimmick" by forcing people to pay for features that are needed for the TV to work like speakers because you can sell a few rich yuppies the idea of a minimalist design is a nice anecdote but nothing more :)

The point is that tv manufacturers can still sell all of those features in-the-box, but provide it as a dumb screen + a separate device that's replacable when it becomes obsolete before the screen does.

I think a key competitive feature would be to have their own device integrated better than third-party devices. A usb connection to share commands from the tv's remote, for example. Maybe integrated menus of some sort.

If the add-on device is fairly cheap, and major upgrades require replacement rather than just software, the tv manufacturers could get more upgrade sales than they can get for whole tv upgrades.

But this isn't mutually exclusive, you are complicating a design for no reason, 99% of the people would never upgrade either, and if it's too complicated they wouldn't want to use it.

You can buy any add-on yourself they work with every TV you don't have to worry about brand compatibility or lockouts why ask the TV makers to make the market worse? The minute that Sony or whoever starts selling dongles is the minute they block all other dongles from working on their TV's and everyone would do the same.

As for the TV remote thing this already works, HDMI-CEC is a protocol that allows you to send commands from the TV to the device via HDMI and virtually every TV I had for the past what almost 10 years with HDMI had the support for it. I have several streamers at home that all work with it without any issues.

Every TV is a dumb panel, removing the "smart" features from it won't make it any cheaper those SoC's are cheap as dirt, you gain nothing by removing it and you lose the simple crowd that doesn't want to add other devices and worry about setting them up or figuring how they work, they want to turn on the TV and click on netflix and that's it.

When it comes to the point where it doesn't work anymore they have the choice to buy a dongle or buy a new TV they do not have to do it and there is no commercial trickery or anything that forces them to buy a new TV over a Chromecast or a Roku or Firestick or w/e.

Because they'd rather take your $500-$1000+ for a new TV every couple years than your $100 for a new streaming stick

How many people can afford to spend that much every couple of years on a new tv? I'd bet most tvs in most us homes are 5-15 years old. My tv, which happens to be a bravia, is 13 years old and still works perfectly.

EDIT: for what it's worth, my tv is predates smart tvs by a year or two. I use an old Tivo with a lifetime service plan and a roku (3rd gen I think, upgraded once) for the smarts.

They may make more profit from the latter if the margin is higher and upgrades more frequent.

This. No matter how you spin it, shipping and handling large TVs is costly. Even a small % of failed units is going to cost you plenty for shipping returns alone. And the margins on TVs are as slim as modern TVs, I think the likes of Sony could get the same amount of margin on a small 'smart' box packing something like a PS3 equivalent in a tiny box mounted behind the TV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com