Maybe PCs…where software can run, even if not supported, for many years…or a decade or more.
Tablets and mobiles, apps can stop dropping off after a number of years (maybe 3-5), but usually device can still be used with some reduced functionality as there is an extensive list of available apps. Most phones and tablets also have a relatively short lives until they are upgrade (3-5 years?).
TVs seem similar to phones/tablets … with a difference being the suit of apps available is severely limited and once one starts to lose the functionality of a few, functionality is compromised severely. The expected life of a TV generally is greater than that of phones and tablets. The other challenge is different brands (and some models) use different operating systems (or customised built shell to that particular brand) and versions. This must be a nightmare for app developers and possibly why they prefer to drop apps from older TV operating systems…due to cost and potentially ever reducing audience.
With TV boxes, they are similar to tablets and phones, that there is an extensive list of apps and losing a few might reduce functionality, it doesn’t render the device to be useless. Don’t know about life, but maybe 5+ years.
I think you will find over time that this is a thing of the past. With everything moving to online / cloud / hosted / service … what used to be a standalone program that will continue to work for decades (as long as the hardware doesn’t die) is no more - and is vulnerable to changes by the service provider - for the same kinds of reasons that you give above 'Smart' TV Tests - #19 by phb but also including that the service provider ceases to exist (either by shutting down or by being bought out).
No need to split hairs, but the online ‘supply’ is a viable ‘solution’ for long lasting apps as much as downloaded programs and apps that continue to be supported in the traditional manner(s). No matter how delivered apps not ‘burned’ into TV firmware are [usually] dependably fixed and updated for many years, no matter how or in what format, whether free or by subscription.
My original point was that is not the case on TVs where at a seemingly random time the manufacturers wave their customer goodbye, and good luck at their whim (business decision).
The manufacturers could be reasonably called out for their marketing slights of hands regarding what and how long their products are ‘smart’. From their perspective their products are ‘smart’ if they were ‘smart enough’ for ‘you’ to buy it because it had ‘apps’.
In the future does a connected device just become a conduit with the App running in the cloud? IE similar to the ‘Thin Client’ business IT solution.
Back to a TV simply offering a single product such as an integrated browser - Safari, Firefox etc. this offers the tightest product control with no need to store content locally, and greatest opportunity to commercialise access. Fortunately Australia appears wedded to repeated releases of short lived technology and a substandard internet service that precludes the dumb device business model?
Of course the TV retail and manufacturers stand to loose if all the smarts can be done off device. This then requires only a panel and sound bar or 3-D augmented wearable device. Beyond the concerns well raised over lack of Smart TV Software support, should we all be watching for the traditional manufacturers to refocus on other product solutions? Except for markets in third world countries which have not caught up with the Revolution in high speed internet. Australia may be well supplied with TV’s made only for that market.
Yes, potentially. Mobile phones too. All that is required is to render audiovisual content, not run any application, with a small back-channel for user events.
Then you will lose even more control over your device.
I wonder with TV boxes coming down in price for a reasonable one (sub $100), if TV manufacturers are considering incorporating a TV box as the smart TV architecture and allowing the user to run any apps from the generic OS. This may overcome some of the issues with app redundancy over (short) time and also allow app developers focus on maybe 3-4 operating systems (Android, Apple, Amazon etc) rather than the potentially hundreds of bloatware type OS which are currently used.
I love Grahroll’s thinking, but I can see labels of the future – “Apps accompanying this machine may not work after two years.” It’s like many food products these days that “might contain traces of peanuts.” It’s being used so profusely that the purpose is lost—milk containing traces of peanuts? Really!
The bottom line here is that technology is progressing at such a rate that legislation to protect consumers is either non-existent or lagging. Wouldn’t be great if governments could be proactive; take a front foot approach? There was a time when all this was dumped in the consumers’ patch with caveat emptor – let the buyer beware. We have long passed the point where it is reasonable to expect the buyer to beware. And if the sale of the goods depended on third party apps then maybe the initial manufacturer cannot contract their way out of obligations that are a third-party responsibility. It’s akin to internet sale houses not accepting responsibility for their carrier. Perhaps CHOICE can weigh in with a legal opinion or even take a test case to court. The longer it’s left, the worse it will get.
Thinking about the way apps work on a phone (or indeed software on a PC), the manufacturer of the TV can just change their messaging to say that they provide a platform on which apps run (or not, as the case may be). You would download the apps after you buy the TV. They could pre-install some apps but hide them until you download them (so the experience is fast but you take responsibility for downloading and using the app).
Anyway, most likely that platform will be controlled by Google (and TV app developers will only have to support one platform) and your TV will go the way of your phone and your search engine and … i.e. it becomes just another vehicle for selling your privacy.
If PC, notebooks, tablets that have software that last more than 2 years - TVs should be in the same basket. TV manufacturers should be using operating systems that integrate with computer systems.
Some of the newer models appear to be heading this way. Helped an older friend commission a Samsung TV today and one as to install apps from a selection available to be installed. Even standard Aussie ones like iView required them to be downloaded. Something I also noted is the latest version of iView require an account to be setup to use (something our old iView app on our onoy a few years old Sony TV does not require).
Just lie back and think of the profits your Super Fund is benefitting from by their investment in the developer and service provider.
As consumers we all have a choice to not participate. Not all consumers see products through the same eyes. Reliably informed consumers outside of Choice membership are not common. Therein lies both the solution and the reason consumers accept what is on offer. Sample point of one used in forming this view.
MY current Samsung TV is about 12 years old and its dumb. It had something called @internet but that offered no useful apps so I never used it beyond checking to see what was there. My AppleTV and Fetch Mighty do the heavy lifting with regard to TV tuning and apps. The thing is, though, the TV isnt going to last forever and I have been casting about for a decent “dumb” 4K TV and have not yet been able to find one.
Have you considered a quality gaming monitor from one of the computer parts specialists? Samsung and LG are also significant in that field. There are also many more choices in the middle to smaller screen sizes if you are looking for a screen to suit a smaller space.
Is there an opportunity for Choice (@BrendanMays) to review a selection of monitors and free standing boxes with that goal in mind. When change happens replacing a sub $200 box or updating a home grown version is going to be a lot less painful. Quality monitors are also designed for long hours of daily use and typically low power use.
The issue with that is for the same dollars one can buy anywhere from 32 to 65 inches from known brands as well as respectable 2nd tier brands. Do they have the same quality as a monitor? Probably not, but.
Comparing the product genres would be interesting to know if they are economical as well as interchangeable and what accessories are required to make the monitor a TV replacement.
That’s exactly what I intend to do. I don’t need it til my TV dies, and thats a way off yet. The other advantage is that a monitor won’t be nearly as heavy as my current TV (bought it at a time when huge glass bezels were all the rage, along with the glass stand. It weighs a LOT). I’ll also consider the cheapies on ebay that come from Korea. I currently have a Dell FHD screen attached to my Mac Mini, but its only 24” and is also getting a bit long in the tooth. 30-40” would do me nicely in my tiny lounge area
Don’t forget that these monitors don’t have speakers and these need to be purchased/added as well…and be able to be connected to a set top box/tv box with digital tv capabilities.
Some do have built in options as per the example. Most come with added USB and audio ports. Like most flat screen TV’s these days the built in speakers are very limited.
A 2.1 Sound system or sound bar seems to be the everyday recommendation with every TV purchase. The more expensive the purchase the greater the retail sales sell on 5.1, 7.1, surround sound theatre setup, and 99 way leather electric recliners with built in bar fridges.
P.S.
I made do working away in the big smoke with a cheap Logitech 2.1 for general use and a quality HiFi headset plugged straight into the Audio port of the monitor, or set top box stereo out. Extension cable optional. One screen does two jobs. I also made do with a PC TV tuner card long before digital TV saw a swarm of cheap set top boxes hit the market. These days one box does it all. For some no need for a broadcast TV aerial or connection. The bliss of high speed fibre internet for those lucky enough.
Agree it would be a useful comparison. It’s one solution for those with limited space, or only likely to use one at a time, or just a bit Zen?
Personal experience of using a PC monitor as a TV and several different TV’s as a monitor suggest it is not just black and white. It’s worth the experts commenting. I’m only a sample of 1.5!
Not disagreeing with your suggestion - it’s what I have - I have both … a smart TV that through app cancer is rapidly becoming a dumb TV … and a box connected to it that supplements the functions available in the smart TV
but some people will have gone down that path with the Tivo ‘box’ only to find that the Tivo was eventually abandoned.
