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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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