Comment by jamesrom
13 years ago
Dear TV manufacturers,
No one want's your shitty software, it's not a competitive edge. No one has ever been impressed by the software their TV comes with, and for every person that found your software easy to use, there is a thousand who are still trying to figure out what that one button does on their remote. You wanna know what people are care about? Picture quality. That's it. That's always been the key. I don't know why you constantly fail to understand that.
Why can't you just make a dumb screen? You know desktop monitors? Like that. No sound, minimal software, but if you really want to get fancy, maybe a nice small remote to turn it on and off. Everything else, from sound to color profiles can, and have already for years now, be handled by external devices smarter than you.
If you make this, and you focus on picture quality instead of figuring out ways to confuse and exploit the customer, I promise you, I absolutely promise you, every AV nerd I know will buy one. And they will love it. And they will recommend it, and share it, and buy them for their loved ones. And blog about it. Tweet about it. Podcast, vlog and sing about it.
And you'll disrupt the old model. You will be the company that brings about the next revolution in television. You've been looking to do that for so long haven't you? And while you always secretly knew it wasn't IPTV or 3D that was going to start the next revolution, what you didn't know is how easy it would be to disrupt the current incumbents.
The customer is waiting, cash in hand.
Disagree. I agree that many current 'Smart TV' efforts are awful, but the concept is very, very sound. There are TVs with Hulu and Netflix just a few remote presses away - people want that. AV nerds are a small market by comparison.
This seems like more of an extension of hardware manufacturers still not being good at software. I'd say Samsung's version of Android proves that they still aren't great at it (but are getting better).
One major problem is that the TV makers continue to release new models without updating old ones. I got a high-end 55" LG TV with Netflix built in. One year later I moved to another country, where Netflix exists but the TV didn't support it. LG told me that the model year after mine supported changing the region, whatever that means. Since then I changed to iTunes then Amazon, neither of which the TV has. Built-in stuff in will continue to suck until it becomes modular and upgradeable. The rest is mostly worthless, and separate boxes remain necessary.
Exactly. Users are okay with old cellphones getting deprecated because they buy a new one every few years. TVs are expected to last a lot longer. Give me some good powered USB ports for an HDMI stick and get the heck out of my way.
2 replies →
Yes - that fight seems similar to cellphones a few years ago. TVs based on Android and the like might be a good start for getting more updates.
How will updating the old model's software help them sell you the new/upgraded one?
I bought the samsung with upgrade ability via evolution kit.
http://www.samsung.com/us/2013-smart-evolution/
1 reply →
Agreed. I've been trying to get my parents and in-laws to check out Netflix for a while. Recently both got new "smart" TVs. Now that Netflix is right on the remote they seem to feel confident and comfortable enough to start using it.
The problem with smart TVs is that their set of applications is quite limited, and once the manufacturer stops updating it, you're stuck with it. I very much prefer just attaching a laptop with the OS of your choice, and the applications of your choice to the TV if/when needed.
2 replies →
> I agree that many current 'Smart TV' efforts are awful, but the concept is very, very sound.
What makes the concept sound if the implementation certainly isn't?
> There are TVs with Hulu and Netflix just a few remote presses away - people want that.
Most Blu-ray players, game consoles, DVRs, etc come with Netflix and Hulu too. Why do I want my TV to do it when I have 5 other devices hooked up that can do it with a better UI? People already have these devices, so no, I don't think people want another, shittier, implementation.
> AV nerds are a small market by comparison.
Small, but like every nerd market, very vocal and very influential. Look at the best selling TVs on Amazon, they are all highly recommended in AV circles.
> This seems like more of an extension of hardware manufacturers still not being good at software. I'd say Samsung's version of Android proves that they still aren't great at it (but are getting better).
Agreed.
One look at the average TV remote tells you enough about TV manufacturers and their ability to do any kind of UI design.
Remotes like this: http://wardiesworld.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/raspi_samsun...
always remind me of this: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/11/this-is-what-happen...
have you seen the 2013 samsung remote? http://www2.crutchfield.com.edgesuite.net/pix.crutchfield.co...
It's like the remote designer's revenge. "Too many buttons? I'll show you what it's like to not have buttons!" This remote literally has a button on it that brings up an on-screen picture of a remote that you use by swiping around on the trackpad, so you can get at the buttons your remote is missing.
Ahh, Samsung. Always masters at figuring out how to do the right thing completely wrong. Holy crap that's ugly.
I'm a little surprised that these are all held up as "bad examples". For example, I looked at the picture of the Windows `wget` gui and thought "that doesn't look that bad." Sure there's a lot of dense information, but things are pretty well explained and it's pretty clear how it works. It is ugly, but it's also totally functional.
I guess ultimately, I really don't care how ugly something is if it's at least consistent and informative. However, I know I'm an outlier in this.
Imagine it wasn't wget, but a tool you'd never used before and you didn't know what the arguments meant. All those options are poorly defined. Also, it's confusing how filetypes switch from checkboxes to a listbox.
Trying to cram everything into one panel has left us with nothing but the controls and very little space for information.
Also, even if you wanted that layout, the alignments are terrible and the use of frames is arbitrary and inconsistent.
2 replies →
Remotes are incredibly hard to design. My company builds Smart TV Apps we have just about every remote imaginable and that Samsung one you chose "just works" its like the Nokia 3310 of remotes. You can pick it up and use it without thinking about it.
Show me a remote that works better then that one and I can probably tell you why it sucks.
That was my first-cut search and so it's certainly not the worst example, but in software if I put buttons like "T.Link" and "DMA" and 4 unlabeled colored buttons right on the main home-screen of a consumer-oriented UI I'd be laughed out of the room.
Buttons like that are an artifact of the days when TVs didn't have on-screen UIs. The remote should not be designed for the 1% of users that fiddle with such things.
Do heatmaps and find out which buttons are actually used frequently give those big clear buttons with unabbreviated labels, and move everything else into the menus.
And the menus themselves - you have a whole screenful of space, you can actually describe to the user what each option does in helpful detail.
Apple remote comes to mind: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3176
I would like to hear you opinion.
19 replies →
The LG Magic Remote is by far the best remote I have ever used, particularly for "smart" content, browsing, using apps such as NetFlix, etc. It's almost as natural and simple as using a mouse and hands down beats other TV type input methods I've seen (game controllers, Apple remote, etc.).
Shame LG seem intent on ruining it with the spying, I hope they have a change of approach and resolve this.
One interesting thing about UI design - it all seems so obvious. But a guy who designed airplane cockpits told me that those "obvious" aspects were all paid for in blood.
They're obvious only in hindsight.
I had that Samsung remote and then upgraded to a newer model as the previous Samsung glass TV base literally exploded. And amusingly, the newer remote is far worse than the one you've used as an example. I wish I could revert!
Seriously.
I plan to keep using my TV for at least 10 years and probably rather longer. There is no chance any of the "smart" BS will still be useful then. (Imagine you had a "smart" TV in 2004 that, say, updated your Myspace page.)
Obviously as far as the manufacturer is concerned, they'd rather I buy a new TV after 4 years so I can get new "smart apps" and yada yada yada, but anyone who does research isn't going to fall for that.
My mother bought a nice Sony smart TV in 2012, but it was a 2011 model still in stores. The TV has a bunch of apps, can display video from a bunch of sites, but Sony REFUSES to release a Netflix app for it, stating Netflix is only for 2012 models.
The hardware is there, it can run stuff and show videos just fine, but the manufacturer refuses to update it. It really pisses me off since it's a nice panel with great picture quality.
Breaking news: Customer buys something from Sony, gets boned without lube. Ric Romero has film at 11.
That doesn't make sense to me. I have a Sony I bought in 2010 that has Netflix on it. Never-going-to-get updated, slow interface Netflix, but it's there.
1 reply →
My Samsung TV wonderfully plays videos from the USB port. All I had to do was change the internal settings of the TV to a different model which causes it to randomly turn off/on once every few hours.
Agreed.
The rate of change of the "smart" technology is far greater than that of the actual video display. That is, I expect that the TV will continue to work for displaying video for many years, but the cycle time for "smart" services is currently months or very few years.
Thus, to keep current with the ability to display content, I'd need to dump a display system that's perfectly good.
Better to separate the modules. Have a really good display system, and separate, a smart device that handles content. That smart device can be dead-simple to install and to operate, and still do a great job (like Roku).
So, basically a monitor attached to an HTPC?
Tangent: I think there's room for an 'Android of TVs.'
This may or may not be Android, which is kind of the problem. The most likely contenders here (Apple, Google, MS, Sony) have a dog in the race & incumbent problems. They committed to an approach or a technology too early. They have a market (eg itunes), complementary products or ecosystems to protect.
What does TV software really need in order to be significantly better than the average smart TV? A handful of core apps (Youtube, Netflix), some local ???Players (these could be introduced market by market) and some experimental/novelty apps (eg Skype, spotify). That's it. That's a good start. Crappy games and access to 99 upstart content marketplaces is not necessary. An app marketplace could come second.
*Vanilla android is not the answer. If it's going to be android it needs to be android for TV.
Isn't the Android of TVs the Google TV?
What you're describing though is currently what the Apple TV is like. It comes with Netflix, Youtube and a bunch of other apps (sports stuff, a few music services, etc). It's missing an app store - but there's a pretty decent chance that will arrive at some point over the next few years (there are so many apps on there at this point that it's becoming a little cluttered, so I think it's coming sooner rather than later).
Even though Apple has iTunes, their primary business is hardware and they don't seem to have an issue with putting iTunes competitors on there.
Of course, the Apple TV has a long way to go. It's still pretty much a hobby project (although recently it's getting more and more updates).
My Apple TV is one of my absolute favorite gadgets. I seriously love this little box. My TV is merely turned on, the HDMI input is selected, and between the neat remote and my iPhone I'm set for all my content.
I wish the YouTube interface was better though, but with the new AirPlay stuff, it's becoming less and less of an issue. Very neat, if you have all the bits for the full "ecosystem" (up until I did, it was a lot more painful and got less use).
Maybe eventually but not yet.
Android on the TV is like Windows XP on your phone right now. It's cool that it's possible, but very obviously not what it was intended for. Android for TV (whether or not it is based on Android) needs to be designed for the job.
The Apple TV is problematic in that it can't come bundled with your TV. Part of what I mean by 'Android for X' is that Samsung can put it in their products and build their strategy around it.
1 reply →
I think the best solution would be a well-built remote that plays nice with vanilla android. Android needs touch - that means a quick way to click on various screen elements, a good way to drag-scroll, and a way to use the onscreen keyboard.
A good hardware peripheral should be able to provide those services. Just give me an airmouse with a drag-scroll joystick and a keyboard when I need it. The problem is that most hardware vendors trying to hit this market are serious lowest-common-denominator companies - fly-by-night Chinese manufacturers and whatnot. Sony did it too, but they stuck it to the stillborn Google TV OS.
Take it away from the TV division and get somebody who designs controllers to make the remote. Get the Playstation guys on this. A hybrid between the PS3 Move Controller and this thing:
http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPo...
Why isn't the Android based Google TV the "Android of TVs?" If I remember correctly, most of Google TV was merged into Android itself.
http://www.google.com/tv/
http://developer.android.com/training/tv/index.html
why is vanilla android not the answer? i don't even need apps. just a browser, really.
Because Android is a touch-centric OS. I've picked up some HDMI sticks that put a decent skin on Android and use an AirMouse for the UI, and it's not fun. Most of the apps use drag-based scrolling which is painful with an airmouse, and on-screen keyboards.
That said, a simple clean airmouse is so much nicer than the zillion-button monstrosities of traditional TV remotes.
The problem is that what you're suggesting is a race to the bottom in terms of price. The TV industry is hurting from that approach, which is why they're now trying to become more than just dumb panels.
"No one want's your shitty software, it's not a competitive edge [...] You wanna know what people are care about? Picture quality."
To be fair, a lot of that is software, too, nowadays. Upscaling without visible artifacts? Figuring out what the optimal backlighting should be? Adaptive blurring? Motion blur compensation? All done in software.
A large part of the problem, I think, is that tv companies, traditionally, let the hardware engineers who write that software add a menu structure, because they are programmers, and all programming is programming, isn't it? I do think things are a lot better than they were 5 years ago, but could be a lot better still.
No, that's not what happens at all. Are you living under a rock? Every CEO and his brother wants to talk about "value-adds" via custom software and branded interfaces.
No one would argue that signal processing and the stuff traditionally known as "firmware" has a valid purpose. It's the stuff that arises when an executive get a boner for a "product vision" that people don't want or need. It's the kind of trash that looks alluring on a list of bullet points, but gets turned over every 24 months because it's utterly void of any substance, and only got produced at the whims of some empty suit trying to prove his worth.
I agree; what I described is an early stage that we have left far behind. Your description is way more accurate for where we are now. And that isn't limited to firmware; I think 3D TV sets with shutter glasses fall in the same category (everybody wants 3D, but that technology simply isn't convenient enough for home use)
I also think that t.v. manufacturers _must_ try to improve their offering with features not directly related to image or audio quality; there is no margin in plain television sets and too few get sold (one every 4-5 years per family vs one smartphone every two years or so per person). Problem is not that they try, but that they don't succeed. In that sense, there is an opportunity for someone with an Apple-like approach to enter the market.
I doubt people care about picture quality as they watch SD channels when the HD version is available. Norms care about having 1 box that they plug in with the fewest number of cables and works well enough they don't need to buy something else. Geeks want a display, norms want a TV.
Of course I want a new firmware board for my 5 year old HD TV which sends the wrong resolution data to my pc, has a terrible SD UI, and doesn't decode HD OTA signals, but it's not going to be cheaper than buying a new TV
Norms? Really.
Edit: You can get big, dumb TVs that look stellar. Look at TVs targeting the commercial space. Of course, you're going to pay for it though.
My mother bought an LG flatscreen, but I had to show her how to use it. A gyroscopic remote? Ads in her TV menu? Using the system was painful even for me and I fully expect that the software will not be updated two years from now. I guess the manufacturers feel they have to be able to point to something unique or different, even if it doesn't actually provide any value (like "Collectors Edition cereal boxes") and that idea gets in the way of focusing on core strengths/"less-is-more".
(I bought her a Roku 3 but it was returned due to hardware errors so she's been using the TV system since)
Actually quite like the DLNA browser and renderer capabilities on mine, and the youtube feature, means I don't need another box attached. I already have enough with the audio receiver and various consoles.
Agreed, I have a Sony Bravia and I love the Netflix button, plus the ability to easily watch youtube and movies that I have on my computer through the menu. Sure, I could get the same thing other ways (Roku, Wii, etc), but having it built into the TV is pretty handy.
I just bought a TV. I bought a 720 'cos it was cheaper (because, really, who cares about "picture quality" except nerds?), and I was really impressed with the software - it can do DLNA streaming, Youtube pairing, and Netflix and none of that was even mentioned on the box! Means I don't even need to bother gluing a Raspberry Pi to the back like I planned. Awesome! And so cheap!
(In case it wasn't clear... you are not the only market segment. Neither am I.)
I don't believe this is true. Anecdotally:
1. I cannot easily distinguish between SD and HD screens. I would much rather have a faster frame rate or better sound quality or an easier way to legally access international TV channels. Better picture quality? I don't care for that any more.
2. My (non-technical) housemate plans to upgrade his TV to one with built-in software, because he thinks it will be an improvement on the buggy set-top box software and he won't need to worry about cabling and upgrading external devices. He has no interest in HD either, but he is happy to pay for a TV with better picture quality simply because he imagines that paying more for a TV means he'll get better software.
Dear LG,
I just returned a Nexus 5 because it had poor reception compared to other phones using the same SIM card.
I was going to buy a LG G2 but having just seen how you treat your TV customers as cattle, I won't touch anything from LG for the forseeable future.
In a nutshell, LG, you lose my money.
Regards,
Ex-Customer
Most people dont actually care about picture quality, if they did they wouldnt buy a tv based on how it looks in the store. From my personal experience there are a lot of people who either cant tell or dont care if the current cable channel is in HD or not.
Most people care about how big it is and much it cost, hench why LCDs beat out Plasmas.
In case you're wondering, here's the company behind this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/02/cognitive_lands_lg_a...
Alternatively, just throw Android in there and let me hack away. That would at least be fun.
It's too bad your views don't represent the views of the vast majority of TV buyers.
Simplicity is another thing I value immensely, which this branded-software nightmare is completely at odds with. A TV should be a dumb display, with connectivity for anything people may want to add. Nothing more. I don't want to pay for trash I'll never use and I certainly don't want to be stuck with it or spied on by it. Nor do I want a frankenstein-remote with 300 buttons when 12 will do.