Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

As I read in the mynewpalm Thread, LG has aquired WebOS and is currently building Smart TVs with it.

They look kind of nice when I compare the usability with the courser and so on.
I am just wondering, how much Web OS is there in Web OS 2.0. Any one knows? Is it open source?

I am thinking of getting a Smart TV later this year, but I can't see myself with android...

Anyone here has any information about the OS and ecosystem?

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

2015 Will be the year when the OS war movement to tvs for real. WebOS tv are ok and With 2.0 Will be even better. Samsung will move to Tizen With their 2015 tvs. Panasonic launching With firefox OS. At the same time android Will move into tv area as well With sony and others...just look at what they all announced at CES 2015 and you Will get a taste...

http://youtu.be/shztxHbwQs8

One bad thing With LG is that IT seems they wont upgrade webOS 1.0 tvs(2014) to 2.0. Rembember that could be the same next year as well. if so IT sucks. https://mobile.twitter.com/AVForums/...97668567461888

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

As a person with a 2014 LG WebOS 55" smartTV, let me tell you this. The likelihood of it getting an update past the year it's released is next to zero.

I like the UI, enjoy the speed, don't like the Magic Remote too well (wife hates it, that means I should too... but I like the absence of buttons).

If you're looking for cards, and other WebOS standards from the Palm/TouchPad, you'll be disappointed. On the backend, it seems like they stuck pretty close to Open WebOS on the backend. But if you're out to tinker with it, I doubt they'd allow it due to the inclusion of the store, et al (willing to bet they used certs, et al that aren't readily available to the open source)

Personally, I'm leaning more and more to a "dumb" TV and perhaps one of the Intel HDMI (like this) and making my TV into a display for whatever is attached to it and will allow me to upgrade and tinker as I see fit.

Just a thought. But so far, what I've seen supports the open WebOS statements above. I've yet to really dig too deeply though. Perhaps will once I get some time...

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

yea..
what gerbick said.
updating past the 1st yr tends to be NOT the norm when it comes to smart tv.

I've got and used the sony google tv ...not bad.

Had a lg smart tv ...not bad

the chromecast tv wasn't bad.

the new idea google will be running with (can't remem it's name at the mo.) integrates vocal command ...and searches (quasi) intelligently for queries.... could be interesting...

Apple tv (personally) won't even bother with.

Best smart tv "device" - platform - diversity of service - ease of use etc....I ever used (and still do) was / is my Boxee Box .
It simply beat all the others in every category. (at the time)

Thing is with smart tv devices is...
1- the content providers can and do decide on a whim to jump ship and go with a competitor device who is doing better. And that can work against or in favour of your choice.
2- updates...will there be any at all, will it be buggier after updating, how long to work out said bugz, etc.
3- how open is the device/ platform? How configurable...If you think that matters...that is...

Far as Samsung with Tizen goes...we'll see. Proof is in the pudding ...chickens before they hatch...etc.
Only serious things smart tv wise that should be anticipated with Samsung are
a- Tizen ...
b- they snarfed up the entire Boxee Box team (good for them since the last Boxee device they created was also live tv integrated and a few other innovations unfortunately it had a prob with serious-serious device overheating ...it wasn't a good sitch for the boxee team...) and for some years now they have been working for Samsung...so I would be expecting Samsung to be utilizing the hell out of their abilities.

Consequently ....Boxee Box... itself ...doesn't receive anymore updates...
But... a kind Boxee (team member) soul managed to open- 'er up and gave it to the community before the lights were shut off ... which resulted in Boxee+ the hackers edition...which is community supported to this day.

Beauty of the Boxee is... it is a child of XBMC ...which I love.
XBMC is grand ...updates always happening ....good platform....scads of channels...been around forever...has some apple tv services (if you look for 'em)..etc...
way way way too many to list

So for myself with alot of trying and using all kinds of smart tv devices and platforms...my Boxee and my XBMC in the end are what I found to be the most flexible ...have the most versatility...updates...open on top of all that...and still offered more than it's competitors....
I haven't had cable tv since I got my 1st Boxee (almost 5 years now) and happily haven't looked back...(I can't stand cable) and so now I enjoy my Boxee + and XBMC .

Of course everyone has their fav. device and platform ...

Best suggestion really-really-really do your homework...
just make sure you pick something that has longevity and real usability.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

the point is that all those non-smart entrly level models usually lacks some inputs, have worse panels and what not. It's not just a lack of smart tv platform.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

I don't think you need any inputs other than HDMI with CEC (all current TVs have it).

Even though I would really like to try webOS TV (after having used webOS on smartphones and tablet), I must agree that buying a smart TV is pointless. I am now a happy owner of a Raspberry Pi (with OpenELEC on it) for some months and can't express enough how well it replaced the 'smart' in smart TV for me.

1080p playback (sure, if you need 4K, you need to go for something else), quite fast navigation, endless possibilities (home automation, DVB-T, hundreds of apps, ...). I think that current smart TVs can't do one quarter of what KODI/XBMC does and aren't that user friendly either (at least from my experience). And for the price of $35, it's a no-brainer.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

want smart tv on an old 10 yr tv...easy.
Considering Maemo.org is the home to all us Macgyver's.... really .... take a look at the type of input the tv can take....hdmi....
or if the tv and pc will take this type of connections..
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/New-PC-VGA-to...item2348f4beac
or this...
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/6Ft-DVI-to-HD...item4877f8241e
or this...
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/10-FT-15-PIN-...item3a995c7a7c

It depends on what ports (specific) ports exist on your tv and what ones exist on your laptop / desktop.

For sound output...my suggestion is a headphone male connector(to pc headphone port) with female stereo Left and Right connector ends to output to your stereo. like this...
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/3-5mm-Stereo-...item51c9a3d2ea
and then use standard stereo connectors to your stereo system....
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/2-RCA-Male-to...item19e5a6a1d8

I have a lenovo t400 (and in a slight deviation ...a 3 tb external storage connected to the laptop ...filled to the brim with film and audio with my fav stuff stored on it...) with XBMC installed on the laptop sitting discreetly beside my 2 yr old 60" Sony and hooked up to my stereo.
And to enjoy sitting on the couch surfing...I use this..
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/3in1-Mini-2-4...item4d1b82ec53

Total cost was stupid minimal...less than $35 for the remote and cables...
Flat out kick-arse-nice setup.
I did my setup originally some 5 years ago...
got a bigger better tv in the meantime...
haven't used standard tv since....
Haven't looked back since
No way I could go back to cable or "normal" tv.
I get more channels...more programming on xbmc than ever I could any other method.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

@endsormeans Good point, this is also a nice solution. The only problem I see might be the power consumption. I have the Pi almost always on and I calculated that if I was playing videos non-stop whole year, it would cost about 6EUR with my power provider. Of course, you must add the consumption of the monitor/TV and speakers, but the power consumption of the Pi is unbeatable.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

Totally agree nodevel..
Messed around with a beagle and pi ...love 'em...
but yea power consumption is the thing with 'em....mitey good. run 'em off a potato. But having thx sound screamin at you with surround sound on a huge screen is ...well..wicked.
Otherwise...best low cost solution...
a laptop ...even an old beastie tucked away discreetly ....
tv (even an old one will do fine) ..
xbmc...
stereo...
connectors...
remote...
potato chips...
nachos and beer...
voila!
Instant bliss and envy of all your neighbours.
Me ...in the living room I got a boxee box and a sony google tv currently set up on my mantle beside the tv...and a lap with xbmc ontop of 1 of my speakers...so I flip 'tween them when the desire hits.
In my prime shop I have a nice large monitor (not too distracting...have been thinking about getting a projector lately though...) ...my surround sound system hooked up to my component stereo system and a lap with xbmc on it... (I'll throw up a couple of pics tomorrow when the sun is up and the lighting will be good...)
So when the lady wants (gadzooks) her shows I have no prob retiring to the shop and putting on something great music ...program....or film wise.
(Frankly I like my shop set up better.. anyway :D)

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

think ama just buy a raspberry pi, stick the latest XBMC on it and stick it to the back of a tv. winning right there.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

btw... the most unlikely thing happened. I got the update for my 2014 TV to the latest version of WebOS.

wow.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

yeah...
been following smart tv innov's since the days of my 1st Boxee Box..

If I remem.
lg was aiming for updates sometime this year...
I think it's great..
longer a corp can do [such cost efficient] updates to older hardware the better...
not just for the customer either...
makes the corp look good ..real good.
like they care even :D
longer a customer can hang onto an old smart tv ...
the likelier they are to buy a new one from the same company [esp when they show a good track record in service, updates, longevity, etc..] when it is finally time to get a new tv...
I think lg is playing a good middle and maybe a good long game as well...
Speaking of boxee...I got an xbmc build on an sd card for one of my boxee's
the other has the boxee + hacker version put together just after the team left for samsung...
since the team and everything was snarfed up by samsung ...
I'm waiting for samsung to blow the lid off of smart tv any day now...
any day now....
just waitin'
bidin' my time...
any day now...

wait a sec..
I just did a little looky-looing...
criminey!
Am I out of the loop...
they got kodi -helix for my boxee box ...
gotta spend some time putting that on...

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

I've been using openelec on a RP1 for a year and it's just perfect you can switch it on and off how many time you want it will survive :)

Now I am upgrading for an Odroid C1 ... but support is not as good as RPI.

And I am considering to buy a Tizen TV too

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

... and it was a very superficial paint job only, so the point still stands.

I hate it that for the sake of god I cannot configure this stupid TV to output to headphones _and_ speakers simultaneously.

They added this to the 2015 software, but of course, not to the 2014 2.0 paint job.

And people wonder why I'm a GPLv3 fanatic...

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

That is one odd picking point to start a war behind. Headphones and speakers. Just... real odd. The use case behind that would be real limited.

Oh well, superficial or not, I'm never buying a smart TV ever again.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

If it was a common use case I'd bet they'd have done it.

The problem is that it's uncommon but trivial to implement (how many seconds would it take me to do it if I had access to a shell prompt?).

In the previous decade, I'd have fixed this with a simple mod on the jack, despite the fact that I have almost zero electronics background. These days, the switch is actually controlled by software, so it doesn't require cracking open the case, and I have a strong computing background. And yet, I'm prevented because of artificial reasons. And they even went the extra mile, so that the jack mod alone doesn't cut it. It's stupid, and it enrages me seeing my software promote this Brave New World.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

It's incredibly and artificially limited to what you can do on these devices. But let's just throw in the bit that folks hate discussing but needs to be said: these devices are limited as such not because of the willing minority such as yourself that are savvy enough to do those things but because the big corporations will never make a dime if somebody were able to purchase something and in 10 years, still be able to update, alter, manipulate that device. That big corporation would lose out 10 years of purchases - scarier if those savvy people were to share their findings and teach others.

You're right. We should be able to do whatever we want with our hardware. We've purchased it. It should update indefinitely or at least the big corporations should have some "exit strategy" that leaves us in control when they announce the next version. This ignores a ton of technology advances, but it creates a hard to support situation.

In the end, I'm convinced that's perhaps the best way to go - give control over to the people when the next version comes out. Not something minor to ask for either. But in recent history; I cannot name anything that was not originally targeted for tinkerers, embraced by tinkerers that stayed a device that was in use and under our control years later. In fact, hell... I'd ask somebody to name something outside of older computers to name something that fits your criteria even closely.

This current world of products plain sucks and will be obsolete by the time I've finished this last sentence... </hyperbole>

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

Well, hmm. I've been reading along here, and as much as I would like to agree with this, I have to say, no -- this is simply not true. At all.

I have, for most of my life, been the "technical" guy in my family. I was the kid who could reset the timer on the VCR. The guy who could install or update your computer's OS. And yes, I even get called by some relatives when their TV has a problem.

People don't want to spend an hour learning how to set up their devices. They want to flip a switch and have it work. I know I always point to him, but yes, Steve Jobs had a point -- Apple's fortunes really took off when it started producing products that had less features than before: an MP3 player that only had five buttons on the front, and only allowed you to select commands from a tiny menu of choices. A cell phone that completely ditched the keypad, and used a big, cheery screen with a simple finger-painting UI. And yeah, their tablet and TV devices continue this progression.

The industry as a whole now follows Apple's lead; maybe not quite as crazed about simplicity as Apple gets, but after seeing so many folks buying overpriced Apple products like there's no tomorrow, you eventually get the message that simpler products sell better. :) And this means that leaving out low-percentage options like "headphone and speakers together" is actually a feature. It is one less option you need to code for when you produce the product; one less item to document; and one less item for the customer to learn when they set up the device. And from experience, I can tell you that at least most of my relatives want that kind of simplicity. If Apple's fortunes are anything to go by, the vast majority of folks do.

So yeah, the big corporations don't dumb-down their electronics products because they worry about what smart folks might do with them. They artificially limit what people can do with their products because simpler-to-use products sell.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

the question is, will you have a choice.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

If Copernicus is right, yes! We have a semi-smart TV (can't be used as a web browser, can watch web wideos) and all we use it for is watching terrestrial freeview TV. No one can be bothered to hook it up to the network. Most of Copernicus' users would not even know how.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

the thing is that most buyers of those dumb down simplified devices still don't have a slightest idea what they are buying, how does that work and what it can really do.
Bottom line is that for those that can't be bothered to invest some time to learn some basic and quite simple and logical things, devices will never be simple enough.
On the other hand, all those "smart" thing will sell better.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

May I propose that we're talking two different talking points? (see below)

I know your pain.

Less features is actually usually a good way to focus a product. But these so-called "smart devices" never last as long as previous dumb devices and actually incorporate more features.

I know we live in different times, but my parents had a TV that lasted from my childhood to my sophomore year in college. Why? Because it was a TV that played television programs. It also had parts that could be taken out, replaced and it was repairable - I know, because I was the one that replaced all of the parts and even once had to fly back from college just to come home to solder a replacement part before the Super Bowl before my father lost his religion for not being able to watch it from his favorite recliner.

But that's not my point actually. javispedro brought forth a quite unique use case where he wanted headphones and speakers and posited that we've been locked out of granular control out of these smart devices. To that point, I actually agree. But it's not the same as your point. Which I also agree.

So let's break it down a bit further. javispedro's point stands - these devices have locked us out. Your point stands as well. But you're coming in at a slightly different angle. The corporations aren't about to dumb down anything for a minority group. But it's not about dumbing things down. It's more about opening things up and allowing combinations that they've yet to consider.

The lack of control is the problem in these streamlined devices. Most users just will never care. Heck, we're quickly getting to that oft-promised one button future that the Jetson's showcased.

And to my own added point; the lack of continued support of these devices after a relatively short time adds to my future purchase avoidance. Sony Google TV - not even 4 years old and fully abandoned by Sony and Google. That's the software bits - but it plays HDTV feeds, connects to modern video game systems... I can even still surf the web still! The hardware still works.

And that's where this built-in obsolescence bothers me. It's around the features and more importantly, the OS of these smart devices. But as a dumb device it still works. I lose those compelling features once the big corporations decide they will stop supporting it. My LG WebOS TV was not even a year old before they stopped providing OS updates. And if I wanted to alter its function (say combine speaker audio and headphones audio) I couldn't do it if I wanted to (still not sure why I would want to, to be honest).

I don't want things dumbed down. Not in the least. How to fix this though? Users want convenience, we want access. I'd rather see the following: once a device will be dropped from support by the big corporations, open it up. Let us have access to the bits that we'd like to control and/or give us a path so these previously smart devices can become our own devices and lesser at the mercy of these big corporations. Access and convenience wrapped up in one.

People can follow Apple all they wish. It doesn't bother me because it places the user usually at the center of their endeavors. But it leaves the advanced users, the tinkerers and folks that do not want to replace their TV every other year. And that is my problem with these smart devices.

They have a tighter built-in obsolescence (my point) and lock us out (javispedro's point) from doing what we'd like to do. And your point... it also stands if you were to ask me (and you didn't).

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

I am reading these posts and to he honest, they've left me baffled. Why is a lack of updates for a TV a problem? Why would anyone even want updates? A TV set is a device to watch a TV transmission. As long as it fulfils that purpose out of the shop, it will fulfill that 2, 5 or 30 years later, just like your grandma's set with vacuum valves (tubes). Unless the TV transmission format changes, e.g. from analogue to digital, but then your grandma's set would also have the same problem.

Regarding playing the sound through the speakers and headphones simultaneously, I can think of a use case right away. And old, half-deaf family member puts on the headphones and listens on full blast while the rest of the family listen through the speakers. To be honest, I have not listened to the TV through the headphones for years and I do not even know if my current set even has the capability, but one of my previous sets had the simultaneous playback and another, 15 years older one, had two jacks: one would disconnect the speaker and the other one would not.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

If you purchase a Smart TV, the average consumer does so with the intent of using those internally built features. If they lack updates, you lose out on those features. Look for folks upset about YouTube on the original Sony Google TV for evidence of that. YouTube no longer works and the browser suggests that you use the app.

Good use case. I just said it was odd and I am not sure that I would ever see a reason to do so. But that's a valid use case indeed.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

Nah, they're not related at all. Heck, a good example is myself: I want simple products (that my {grand,}parents could use to, say, view Netflix), yet I don't want artificially castrated ones. (It's common in Spain to refer to these types of artificial limitations as "castrating" a product -- I find that word quite appropriate)

I don't understand why LG puts all the home menu crap with their "marketing" names instead of generic names. The net result is that even I have problems navigating through the "features". Or the "simple sharing" stuff that I never got to work consistently, despite having a master's degree on this, and even having used a network sniffer, something out of reach for 99.9999% of users of this TV set.

Google came in and did something much better (YouTube 'remoting') that a) is actually more universal, compatible with more handsets than just LG's, b) more reliable, despite using just a web browser, and c) has a simpler interface!


But what really annoys me is why I can't plug a RS232 to the service port behind the TV and get a shell prompt. This cannot be explained by user friendliness "requirements" at all. The only reasons I could think of are:
- DRM
- Planned obsolescence (e.g. _literally_ the software feature I want is the only difference between the 2014 and the 2015 models. The HW is _the same_.).
- They're just evil?
- Did I say DRM?

Considering that they also "castrate" Bluetooth support so that it only works with headsets that have the words "LG" on its model name (true story), I bet they're just evil.

I have to say though that the webOS interface, specially with the air mouse, is actually one of the easiest ones I've seen around. The cons are that it has poor standard TV remote usability and .. slowness.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

Yes, that's it. It's more common that one'd think, as, for example, LG has had the "goodness" to enable it in the 2015 models, and actually sent an email to all of us who complained, suggesting we throw away the less than one year old model.

It used to be possible to do plug something like http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.u...duct-x721.aspx and get audio of the decades-old SCART port, but, LG, in their infinite wisdom, disables all output on the SCART port when you tune anything else other than broadcast SDTV, such as HDMI. You can even hear a split second of audio from the SCART port right before the TV mutes it.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

Well, yes and no. :) We're actually talking about the same point, but I think you're coming at it from the feasibility side, and I'm coming at it from the commercial value side. We're both talking about adding "smart" features to devices (and, I think, we are both dismayed at how this is currently being done :) ); but, you (and Javispedro) are pointing out how this is degrading the simpler, more flexible and versatile devices of the past, whereas I'm pointing out that this degradation doesn't matter. Average folks actually prefer the "smarter" devices.

In fact, you summarize my point nicely:

Really, what else is there to say? The lack of control is not the problem; it is the solution. We few may mourn the loss of flexibility and adaptability in modern consumer electronics, but it is apparent that most folks today crave that one-button experience. They're willing to pay premium prices to achieve it.

tl;dr: There is no reason for manufacturers to produce powerful, flexible, and maintainable devices to we few control freaks ;), when they can produce over-priced, excessively-simplified "smart" devices for a large market obviously willing to open their pocketbooks.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

I have to admit, I don't really understand this point of view; the selling point of a "smart" TV is that it does the work of integrating computing ability into the television viewing experience for you. Personally, I stopped trying to use the internal processors of my television sets a long time ago. Right now, my TV is simply a gigantic monitor hooked up to my (HT)PC. :) :)

I never listen to my TV's built-in speakers, as I run all my audio through speakers connected to my PC. I practically never use the TV's built-in tuner, as the tuner I purchased for my PC often does a better job pulling in stations. And strangely enough, my PC's DVD player does a better job playing movies than the dedicated DVD player I bought years ago...

It appears to me that the fundamental issue here is that smart devices are integrating lots of components into a single indivisible mass. If you find this design displeasing, the solution is to disintegrate these components. In particular, if you want to combine a TV with a computer, then you should literally combine a standalone TV with a standalone computer. Don't buy an all-in-one TV/computer and expect to be able to use the two halves separately... ;)

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

I made that mistake once. I wanted a good video camera (at the time when "good" meant a DV tape) and I bought one that also doubled as a normal stills camera. It made video on the tape and stills on an SD card. Gawd was that a silly decision. I should have listened to the sales guy in the camera shop who advised me to get one device for one job. Combining two jobs in one device may work one day but we are still decades if not centuries from that.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

I thought Alan Turing had solved that problem during the Second World War. :p

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

That's we've been led to believe. The reality is however a bit different.

(But, seriously, Turing did not invent a universal machine. He invented a universal computing machine. Not the same thing. Yes, computers are very good at different computing tasks. But they are not as good at things that are not computing tasks. Like taking good pictures. Only part of it is about number crunching, the other parts such as good optics are still in another domain.)

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

Actually, I think portable multifunction devices have been very popular for quite some time now... :)

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

I would argue that those were not multifunction devices. They had only one function, computing the position of celestial objects. You may argue that modern smart phones are multifunction devices and I would agree with you. And use them as an argument supporting my statement. They do multiple functions, none of them well. Not even making phone calls.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

Well, they also had astrological and religious uses. In fact, the top of the Wiki article states:

Its many uses include locating and predicting the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars, determining local time given local latitude and vice versa, surveying, and triangulation. ... In the Islamic world, it was also used to calculate the Qibla and to find the times for Salat, prayers.

But sure, a device specialized for a single purpose should normally out-perform a multi-function device used for that same purpose. :)

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

Hey, we should not be too hard on ourselves for sucking at making good multifunction devices. Mother nature had four and a half milliard (sorry, I just cannot bring myself to use that word that combines bi with million but does not mean million million) years and still got it wrong ;)

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

The last time I bought a TV, I had to look far and wide for one with a decent screen. Most of those within my budget were smart TVs but lacked in so many areas. And the points raised here against the lack of updates for the apps was a factor that I did mot want to pay for.

I eventually found a Toshiba TV, not a smart TV but could read from a USB stick. The speakers are absolutely shite too. But I have a surrounded sound system.

I also saw that whilst even the best smart TV can be useful, each one of their functions will become redundant, the moment you plug in your xbox, PlayStation or PC in to the thing.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

You know; just like the discussions around the Jolla Tablet have shown, it seems as if there's no real way to universally appease the folks here at TMO versus what's being released.

Too smart usually means too limiting. Too dumb also means too limited. If you had to define (and sell) a perfect TV, what would it be? My take would perhaps be too simplistic - I'd want a high resolution TV (HDTV to 4K) with 5 HDMI 2.0a sockets, 2 USB 3.0 (full powered) sockets and absolutely nothing smart about it - let me bring my own (Amazon TV, HTPC, computer on HDMI) and upgrade at my own leisure. Add modular extension (think Project Ara, but functional) for integration into future purchases (stereo component out for instance) and call it a day.

In fact, I'd take all of that minus the very last addition today.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

Something like a Pioneer Kuro would do me nicely. No gimmicks, just top-notch image quality.

To be honest, I doubt most people really care about smart TV. I imagine most of the smart TVs currently in use are used only for basic TV features. Smart TV is mostly of benefit to marketing people looking for something to differentiate their product from someone else's. Features that can be included in a bullet list are easier to market than qualitative differences.

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

My "point of view" is totally unrelated to anything 'smart'. Even 'dumb' TVs are subject to these types of problem these days.

My point of view is artificial restrictions. It's one thing if you didn't provide a feature the customer wants; it's an entirely different thing if you actively fight customers trying to make use of the hardware.

And remarks like this are the best examples of what's bad when vendors apply these limitations. My TV has a fine set of speakers that will basically have to go unused because of this anti-tinkering policy, and I will be forced to either throw away a perfectly working TV set or buy an additional set of speakers, with its additional AC adapter increasing total vampire power consumption.

Many people buy Raspberry Pi to use as mediacenters when it's quite probable their 'dumb' TVs have processors that rival in performance with the Pi. Not only this is terribly wasteful; I'm also quite sure vendors are already counting down to the day when they remove all video inputs (same as LG's doing with the headphone output, so that you're forced to buy _their_ bluetooth headsets and speakers).

Re: Smart TV [Web OS 2.0]
 

The optimal Smart-TV for me will be an TV with to slots to put in a standard Hardisk o SSD and a Standard-Bluray, OS where OSMC or Openelec and that the client have full access (maybe without support). Also like in the last years, the standards a changing continuosly please slots (for less 2) for the access moduls (Satelite, Kabel or terrestre).

Actual for example Sony TV has no Internet TV. Really is more Sony-TV why you connect with a Sony Server and this decide what you have access for. And obviusly they are monitoring you.
For this my TV only have access to looking for updates. All the rest make my Openelec-Mediacenter (R PI2 or Zotac Zbox ID-36 with Bluray 3D)