For anyone who has, at some time thought a 'smart' TV was a smart idea...
https://9to5mac.com/2016/09/02/apple-television-set-opinion/
Meh, any reason Sony can't just do a firmware update?
Losing YouTube after 4 years on one specific model is no reason to dismiss Smart TVs.
no, if the hardware isn't up to it.
first and always buy a tv as a screen of the size and quality you want. any other features are transient....but then at the lower end of the market it doesn't cost much to buy new to update smart tvs as second screens, kitchen screens, bedroom screens....why not?
Meh, any reason Sony can't just do a firmware update?
But they don't do they ? There are numerous stories of Smart TV's losing functionality. As many of us say on TV threads just buy the best scree you can and add the "smarts" externally
AppleFanBoi site posts critical review of another manufacturer's products.
Shockah!
An article that explains that youtoob is not just cat videos. And for that reason...
Many of them have all the same problems old Windows PC's do on startup. While the file index is being checked the menu controls, changing channels etc are slow and sometimes don't respond at all.
Some constantly send telemetry back to the manufactures server of every action performed.
Some apps are dogshit think Redbull TV but worse and are withdrawn when the various companies have contractual spats.
I bought a smart TV, I rarely use its features as sky does most of it better now...
I think smart TVs are a waste of money these days. I've just bought a Chromecast and it's easier to set up and considerably more portable than my Samsung smart TV. Other Smart devices exist obviously, but I think the separation of screen and smart device has sounded the death knell for an integrated smart device.
If people want useless apps, try using the iPlayer on Virgin's TIVO box. Like a WinMe box from 2002.
Anyway, can you even buy a TV without a fair degree of Smart stuff built in? Hasn't it gone from being an optional extra to standard trim?
Got two smart tvs.
2010 top of the range Panasonic Vieira. Smart features all but dead. Iplayer, itv player no longer work.
2012 mid range Panasonic viera. Smart features all but dead. Iplayer. Netflix, none work anymore.
Amazon fire stick and chromecast do the job.
CaptainFlashheart - Member
AppleFanBoi site posts critical review of another manufacturer's products.
Shockah!
^^^ This.
Just reads as an Apple ad to me.
Meanwhile Samsung Smart TV is doing fine for me. I don't use the YouTube stuff in it but I could. In the main I use Plex app with my NAS and it works great.
Has Netflix, Amazon and iPlayer amongst others. The TV is a bit underpowered in the Smart TV department (despite going for higher spec) but only issue is the Amazon app, and that's not surprising as Amazon want you to buy Fire TV which is apparently fairly flawless.
and there's the other solution if Smart TV is not amazing... get Amazon Fire TV. Still infinitely better than Apple's proprietary garbage and you're not tied to the walled garden of iTunes.
Given most TVs come with the stuff now there's no reason not to get one with Smart TV, even if you don't use it. Your option other than Smart TV is not limited to Apple though.
Got two smart tvs.2010 top of the range Panasonic Vieira. Smart features all but dead. Iplayer, itv player no longer work.
2012 mid range Panasonic viera. Smart features all but dead. Iplayer. Netflix, none work anymore.
Amazon fire stick and chromecast do the job.
This.
That makes no sense to me as an article. So the real reason Apple didn't make a smart TV was because they wouldn't support it for long enough or couldn't future proof the hardware for a decent length of time?
Rich I think the logic is it's not worth creating a single integrated product as the future lies in seperate boxes also the business logic is quite simple the market for external boxes is much bigger than for selling new tv's
Losing YouTube after 4 years on one specific model is no reason to dismiss Smart TVs.
It's one of the features on my mates old Apple TV...
But in reality the smarts should be no more than a mobile type device with no screen.
no reason for a smart TV is there though... to have the apps in the tv really, its just a display screen. If it can do the HD, the 3D and whateverelseD then its fine and the the stuff you send to it is just stuff to watch
All of these above problems I can fix in 2 minutes tops. Netflix guy.... log into Netflix on a PC and click on terms and conditions and accept. The TV does have a script that allows you to do this so won't work.
Got two smart tvs.2010 top of the range Panasonic Vieira. Smart features all but dead. Iplayer, itv player no longer work.
2012 mid range Panasonic viera. Smart features all but dead. Iplayer. Netflix, none work anymore.
Amazon fire stick and chromecast do the job.
I have pre-smart Viera. I have Viera-cast. I think I've said enough at this point.
So if you buy a smart tv and it becomes outdated ( just like any other piece of tech) you could get a second box to recieve and play the media and just use the tv a screen.
This thread is like the data geeks at work arguing about android smart watches, nobody but them will give a ****.
like this sort of thing? [img]I think the logic is it's not worth creating a single integrated product as the future lies in seperate boxes
[/img]
^^^^^
I use one of them as a smart tv.
Surely the issue is that Sony aren't supporting their own hardware?
Not much they can do about it. The changes on Google's end puts a demand on the Bravia hardware it just can't handle. So they couldn't support it they wanted to.
Wilburt is right tho. It's like oh no I have lost YouTube and all I can do is either plugin a chromecast, nowtv, ps4, ps3, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Apple TV, android box, roku, Sky+ box, Virgin TiVo, FireTv, fire stick etc, raspberry pi etc
That may be the case but when it has been specifically marketed and priced to include those features I'd be pretty pissed off if they were left unsupported after such a relatively short time.
And a few of those listed, the cheaper ones as it happens, cant support iPlayer or Netflix due to the need for a processor that supports the secure protocols used by them as part of their integrated DRM.
Knowing this I wouldn't be opting for anything with a closed OS like the apple TV or consoles either as they are just as vulnerable to support being pulled, leaving an HTPC or something readily modifiable as the only options.
how many more times? Buy the TV with the image size and quality you want. Chances are it will most likely be smart. Be prepared for it to go out of date and stick a smart box of your choice on it.
Other benefit to smart is just being able to control the TV with your phone/tablet or other home automation device to a degree that's not possible with a simply IR controlled TV. I can browse listings on my phone and then select and the TV switches over. That was I get recommendations and can set reminders etc handy if you dont watch much TV so might miss something you would be really interested in.
Look at their ridiculous pricing as well, $6-9k? That's the real hig end market. There are plenty of smart TVs and other brands than Sony, selling good sets well under those prices.
Also, 9to5Mac bashing a competitor...
Just buy the panel that gives you the picture you want and deal with the content by buying the add-on stick/ box /streamer thing that gives you the media you require.
I have a Sony with a fantastic picture but no 4od app and the convoluted process I had to go through to add Muuvi (that Samsung owned art house cinema subscription) to it was ridiculous, having to load 'play memories' apps and sign up to some PlayStation sharing service thing plus spin round three times while saying 'Betamax was better than VHS'
4od wouldn't work on the inbuilt browser so that is run off the laptop through hdmi.
I'll put up with the faff but a chromecast/Apple TV/ rocku is probably the way to go if you are not a sky/virgin/BT subscriber.
How many people are like me? They buy a smart tv as they have no idea that such a thing could go out of date or not work. They loath computers because they change for no good reason ( because they rarely use them they have n need of modern tech) and don't therefore understand the options.
I have looked at Firesticks etc but nowhere do the suppliers explain in plain English what they do. Do they plug into the dumb telly and talk to the router like the smart tellies do? With no costs involved?
Anything using a mobile signal is not wanted as why have the mobile on at home? And the signal is thankfully crap anyway. 😀
I suspect that the above is why smart tellies sell as we are not all techno freaks.
chances are if you buy a TV with smart stuff you will use it every now and then as sometimes you just want to use 1 remote and the TV one is easily to hand.
Buy another box if you find it lacking or know there is stuff you want. Our sony crrently works fine for youtube, amazon, iplayer. I use the youview box sometimes as it has all the TV channels.
One nice thing about having an external box is you can leave it set up on an app but flick back to the TV tuner and then back to the external box without having to reload unlike a TV which will close the app. No harm in having multiple options
Smart TVs have always been mince, and I suspect always will be. There's little point in actively avoiding them, but as a selling point it's a feature best ignored.
Do they plug into the dumb telly and talk to the router like the smart tellies do? With no costs involved?
That's exactly what they do, only generally much better, which is why we're advocating it over inbuilt smarts.
We've got a smart TV. The smart apps get used a lot more than the normal TV functions, we could probably get rid of the Virgin box entirely except the OH likes to watch GBBO.
This discussion sounds a lot like those Hi-Fi geeks arguing that separates are always better 😉
(Got Chromecasts too, BTW - they're much more of a hassle as they don't have a remote)
This discussion sounds a lot like those Hi-Fi geeks arguing that separates are always better
Indeed 🙂
Who makes better TV screens Sony/Panasonic or Apple/Google ?
Who makes better "computer stuff" Sony/Panasonic or Apple/Google ?
Smart TV's can't stream from any sources other than those the manufacturer supports, a mobile/streaming box/computer can do wtf you want it to
As Cougar says you can't buy a decent tv now without smarts but they should not be a key factor in purchase decison
This discussion sounds a lot like those Hi-Fi geeks arguing that separates are always better
It's horses for courses really. The fact is that (most?) smart TVs are hampered in some way. This could be underpowered hardware so menus etc are really sluggish, lack of support for whatever service you're trying to use, limited codecs for decoding different file formats, lack of updates for apps rendering them inoperable, and so on. Whether or not this affects the user is wholly dependent on what they use it for. If all you use is iPlayer say, and iPlayer works, happy days.
Where an external box wins is that you've got a device specifically designed solely to do what it does, rather than a feature randomly added on the cheap as an afterthought to sell more TVs. Ergo, it generally avoids all of the problems in the previous paragraph, and if it does obsolesce you can almost certainly replace it with something better for pocket change. But like I say, whether this is relevant is wholly dependent on how you're using it.
mattsccm, I just got a NowTV box from Argos for £15. Has it's own apps, plus some subscription services. These are basically satellite channel packages like Sky Sports, Cinema etc. We've got kids TV (free for 4 months with box, £3 monthly after).
You get a free trial and just need to cancel before period is up to avoid monthly fees. It plugs into the TV via HDMI and then connects to wireless or ethernet. Had a pretty poor wireless signal in the room but it seems great. DTV reception isn't great in the room so very happy all in.
For the wider argument, in total agreement that smart features wouldn't be a defining feature. This is relevant for some low end TVs but spend more cash and there's no option's really. Would bet that market defines these features as essential and they're cheap to implement, so that's why they're omnipresent.
limited codecs for decoding different file formats, lack of updates for apps rendering them inoperable, and so on. Whether or not this affects the user is wholly dependent on what they use it for. If all you use is iPlayer say, and iPlayer works, happy days
Well, yes, if you're at a level where "codec" means something to you, then a smart TV probably isn't for you. If you just want something that can play Netflix etc with zero hassle, then at least from my experience it works very well - certainly a lot more user-friendly than a plug-in box.
I'n not sure it's an add-on feature any more, either - phones aren't primarily phones any more, those screens in the corner aren't primarily for receiving broadcast TV any more, and I'm sure Samsung et al have worked that out.
In much the same way that you can defend a BSO to the sort of person who knows about head angles and gear ratios, you're absolutely right.
Well, that analogy doesn't quite work - riding a BSO is demonstrably worse than riding a decent bike. Watching Netflix is the same either way.
I have looked at Firesticks etc but nowhere do the suppliers explain in plain English what they do. Do they plug into the dumb telly and talk to the router like the smart tellies do? With no costs involved?
Anything using a mobile signal is not wanted as why have the mobile on at home? And the signal is thankfully crap anyway.
I suspect that the above is why smart tellies sell as we are not all techno freaks.
Darwinian evolution in action.
Well, that analogy doesn't quite work - riding a BSO is demonstrably worse than riding a decent bike. Watching Netflix is the same either way.
Is it? Riding a BSO round the park is probably demonstrably exactly the same as riding a five grand bouncybike round the park (in fact it's arguably better).
If all you do is watch Netflix, then of course it's the same either way. You're not really comparing smart devices, you're just comparing Netflix apps.
We have a smart Samsung that works fine with what we want but I'm sure at some time it will become non smart, no big deal as I know how to plug other devices into things and set them up, will be a pain with another remote though!
And this is the big deal as both my MiL & step mother have non smart TV's but now they have faster BB want smart features iPlayer mainly so I thought I know I'll get them a fire stick each, local Argos will only sell me 1 at a time so I said "forget it" and bought 2 of the latest Roku units from Sainsburys.
Now I understand if I was buying 22 Fire Sticks as I might be sticking Kodi on them and selling them on eBay but 2 is hardly bulk buying?
jambalaya - Member
Smart TV's can't stream from any sources other than those the manufacturer supports
Most support DLNA and that lets you stream to from any DLNA source generally fine in my experience.
Doesn't really need to be that "smart" though as a TV. No real need for the apps, just support remote streaming.
Anyway, thing with the article is Apple are really just saying they couldn't strike any good deals with manufacturers to make money out of, and aren't geared up to make actual TVs (and they'd have to pay Samsung for panels given they make most of them anyway), so they don't like smart TVs.
Doesn't matter if Smart TVs are any good, it's stuff that sells. A lot of people don't want to buy another box (though Amazon Fire etc are good). The stuff in the TV becomes obsolete and sure it's not good for the consumer, but it's great for the manufacturer flogging a better model. Had Apple had a deal to provide the kit/software, they'd be saying it's great too as they'd be selling more stuff.