Is "Smart" TV a Ripoff ?

littlevillage · 06-01-2015 1:20pm #1

I was looking at getting a new TV in the Jan sales and noticed that there seems to be a glut of 40-50" TV's for sale at about the €400 mark. I am told these are being flogged off because they are old technology .. eg. Not Smart enabled TV's. For an extra €100-€150 in most cases I can upgrade to a Smart version of each TV set.

In fact some of the higher end TV's come as "Smart" only.

Am I right in thinking Smart TV's are a bit of a con .. as all they allow you is limited access to the internet. There is usually only about 6-7 Applications, Youtube, the various TV channel Players, Facebook, Netflix etc. that can run on the TV and can pick up content from the Internet.. that is.. if you have internet access? You have to navigate with the Remote control and most of the TV channel Players are filled with adverts, and in the case of Netflix you will still need a subscription account also.

Can anybody tell me why I should simply not buy a regular TV and stick some thing like a Google Chromecast into the side of it (there are others, Amazon Firestick etc.) that will simply allow me to broadcast wirelessly from my Laptop straight to the TV. ?

(In fact you can just run a HDMI or serial cable from the laptop to the TV if you don't need wireless broadcasting).

I am assuming the advantage is on the Smart TV the resolution is better .. as the content is coming straight from the Internet through the Application on my TV and being displayed at optimum resolution on my TV? ... because I noticed the Laptop to TV connection can mess up the resolution a bit (you are really getting the content displayed at Laptop resolution and this is then just transposed to the much larger TV screen .. and the resolution suffers)

Any other advantages ? or general thoughts ?

dubrov · 06-01-2015 3:10pm

The resolution should be no better than using a HDMI cable with a laptop. It may be that your laptop cannot outputting the higher resolution.
The main advantage is one remote and not having to mess with cables/plugs.
It can be a pain booting up a laptop and then connecting it to the TV.

The internet browsers tend to be muck on Smart TVs and I doubt anyone uses them.

You are right in saying that you would only end up using a few apps. Theses would be the TV players and Youtube/Netflix.
Some of the UK TV players (especially BBC iPlayer) are very good but they are normally geoblocked in Ireland

pwurple · 06-01-2015 3:15pm

With chromecast you actually run the application on your phone/tablet, so it's another device required to view. Eats battery on the phone, etc.

AppleTV would be more along the lines of what you are thinking. They have their own remote, so don't need another device to drive it. Also, chromecast and appleTV require another power outlet.

SmartTV is just removing the numbers of devices/remotes/power supplies etc. If you have room for a media center with power and cabling for your sat decoder, media drive, games/console appletv/chromecast... then go ahead. But a lot of people are getting peeved at the spaghetti of cabling required, so building some of it in to the tv itself is appealing.

littlevillage · 06-01-2015 3:45pm

Thank guys,

I suppose that was the question I was really asking... is the resolution any better when you use a Smart TV app to connect to say YouTube or one of the TV channel players. The reason I ask is that when using them from the Laptop, the resolution is grand, but its not exactly HD :-(

It might be down to the laptop resolution quality... but I think its just a matter of 15" laptop screen being transferred and ballooned up into a 40" TV screen.

Regarding the extra wiring and extra appliances .. yeah, I can appreciate that. But using a Remote control for browsing the web .. is pitiful .. you will prob have to invest in a keyboard & mouse for the TV or a fancy remote with scroll pad etc.

What I am trying to do is save myself a bit of money and make the best use of the stuff I have already got lying around the house.

Other thing I am thinking about is .. subscriptions .. I assume Apple TV costs a subscription like Netflix etc. hence why I currently use Chromecast and watch free stuff from the internet. (on TV)

Harry66 · 06-01-2015 3:48pm

Most Smart TVs have apps on android and iPhone, makes in putting text and scrolling much easier than with remote!

pwurple · 06-01-2015 4:04pm

No, appletv is not a subscription. It's a box, a device. You install apps on it, like youtube, vimeo, netflix etc and you can send your screen from apple devices to it... just like 'casting' but slightly less restricted. Some apps are free, some are subscription.

I don't think anyone browses the web on a tv, it's way too cumbersome. The smart tv's are there for online content.

dashcamdanny · 06-01-2015 4:07pm

I have a Now TV entertainment package & box and for the last year.
What are the pros and cons to comparing it to chromecast?

killanena · 06-01-2015 4:30pm

I think smart TVs are the latest gimmick. Seriously. Its just a TV with an on board computer. You can buy / build media centers from the size of USB sticks and credit cards to the size of full tower PC's and install an operating system (most of which are free lynix based) that gives you the GUI of a smart TV for pennys in comparison.

The whole using your phone as a remote as well has been around longer then smart tv's. I have a free app on my phone that I can control my PC with through wifi or bluetooth. I can type, using the touch screen as if it was a track pad on a laptop, I can adjust the zoom of the screen so I can read from back on my couch, etc.

For price, I don't think its worth it.

din0saur · 07-01-2015 11:04am

We have a Samsung Smart TV and we use the RTE Player a lot to catch up on missed shows. The TV can also play movies stored on a network drive which is very handy. As others have said browsing is clunky and entering URLs without a keyboard is a pain but it has been useful on occasion. There is also YouTube app which can be controlled via smartphone/tablet. Sometimes it is worth paying a little extra for convenience, I certainly dont regret my purchase.

Quin_Dub · 07-01-2015 11:14am

If you are buying a new TV anyway , I'd say go ahead and get the smart version...It's handy for streaming movies from your PC or NAS.

But a Smart TV is definitely not worth the upgrade just to have the Smart features, if your actual TV is decent to begin with.

martyc5674 · 07-01-2015 11:20am

I have a regular tv and an xbmc box.
I can stream pretty much anything using this and I dint have to mess with a laptop etc.

it's infinitely better than a chrome cast an Apple TV or any of the smart tvs.
It can stream from nas if you want too quite simply.
No subscription neede either just an internet connection.
Marty.

kyeev · 07-01-2015 11:56am

I ended up with a smart tv by default cos I wanted FreesatHD built in.
Freesat tends to be only on the higher spec tellys, which come smart enabled.

Having had no desire to get a smart TV, I have to say some of the features are really handy.
I now only have one remote control, after living with set top boxes, mucking about with USB sticks, hardrives etc for movies.
Can watch RTE player, 4OD, youtube etc.
Probably the best thing about it is, I have connected my PC to my router by ethernet cable and can now stream all my movies straight onto the telly.
Also can stream movies from the router's USB storage slot (so I dont have to always have the PC switched on).
You can obviously do all these things with various plug in modules, chromecast, riku sticks etc.
But if you want a simple solution to have saorview, freesat, internet streaming and DNLA media access all through the same device, using one remote control, then smart TV is pretty handy.
(ONE remote control people!! Do you know how good that is when you have a pile of kids losing remotes down the back of sofas...)

lertsnim · 07-01-2015 6:32pm

I only ever use Netflix and BBC iPlayer on a smart tv. There's nothing smart about them at all really

steveon · 07-01-2015 10:00pm

latest smart tv's are a ripoff...get a decent tv and an apple tv or android equivalent for much better streaming on online functions..

however in the future this will change as the tv manufacturers now see it as a great selling point and way of getting more money from us.. some near to home developments to keep an eye out for...

Samsung tvs will ship with tinzen...and android equivalent front end operating system. They say they will put this on all new products including light blubs etc so different products can talk and share content with each other.

Panasonic tv's will soon ship with the mozilla operating system which is available on some mobile phones as present.

hju6 · 07-01-2015 10:58pm

Googles android for smart TVs coming this spring

http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/06/android-tv-ces/

Beagslife · 07-01-2015 11:15pm

Another option might be to invest in a Smart Blu Ray player. This can give you the same features as a Smart TV for much less. If it's same brand, you may get away with using the one remote as well. Also, when the TV's Smart component becomes obsolete, it's easier to upgrade a Blu Ray player!

MC

BionicRasher · 07-01-2015 11:40pm

Smart TV is not required really to be honest. We have a Panasonic Smart TV with built in Free to Air satellite and a terrestrial tuner for Saorview. Its got smart features but we never use them as its clunky, slow and navigation with the remote control is a royal pain.
We have a Chromecast plugged in and its amazing. Have a look over in the Android forum all about the stuff you can do with Chromecast. For 40 quid its a no brainer.
Streams from the internet and does not use the phones battery at all as some above suggested. It mearly uses the phone as the control. I can fire up a stream and turn off my phone and it plays away. You can stream from a NAS or other sources on your network, you can stream BBC player ,Netflix etc etc and also some online content that is not supposed to be accessible if you know what I mean!!
RTE player can be cast to your TV but as of yet they don't have any official Chromecast enabled app and knowing RTE they will take ages to develop it

The Apple TV is much more restricted and requires other Apple devices in the house to get the best use whereas Chromecast is operating system agnostic almost.

I would plump for non smart TV and Chromecast

Quin_Dub · 08-01-2015 11:44am

Beagslife wrote: »

Another option might be to invest in a Smart Blu Ray player. This can give you the same features as a Smart TV for much less. If it's same brand, you may get away with using the one remote as well. Also, when the TV's Smart component becomes obsolete, it's easier to upgrade a Blu Ray player!

MC

BionicRasher wrote: »

Smart TV is not required really to be honest. .....
We have a Chromecast plugged in and its amazing. Have a look over in the Android forum all about the stuff you can do with Chromecast. For 40 quid its a no brainer.....

I would plump for non smart TV and Chromecast

I went the Smart Blu-Ray player route (LG player with an LG TV) about 2 years ago and it works great , but if I was in the same boat today I'd be buying a Chromecast.

BionicRasher · 08-01-2015 7:35pm

Smart Bluray player is just the smart os from a TV without the display. It too will outdate a quickly as a smart TV.

Quin_Dub · 08-01-2015 9:05pm

BionicRasher wrote: »

Smart Bluray player is just the smart os from a TV without the display. It too will outdate a quickly as a smart TV.

Agreed , but pre Chromecast is was the cheapest way to add Smart functions to your existing TV.

Today , Unless you are buying a new TV and the Smart TV offers something extra over the std version of the screen a Chromecast is the only way to go..

martyc5674 · 09-01-2015 12:10am

I can't believe I'm the only one who is recommending an android box with xbmc installed on it.
It is FAR superior to any of the options listed here which are pretty much all clunky. The chrome cast is a nice big if kit but very limited.

Android box with XBMC is relatively cheap has huge support and is extendable/upgradeable.

Marty.

greasepalm · 09-01-2015 12:26am

my cousin has an android box with xbmc and i got a chance to view the film avatar in 3d via projector gobsmacked and would say well worth the buy as everything he has is on a nas drive plays straight away when needed,need to get mine working still in setup mode .

also got the chromecast,dam upgrade was over 40 mins and anything i try and play buffers madly,think i need a wifi router nearer to tv as upc cisco might be too far for wireless.

martyc5674 · 09-01-2015 12:35am

greasepalm wrote: »

my cousin has an android box with xbmc and i got a chance to view the film avatar in 3d via projector gobsmacked and would say well worth the buy as everything he has is on a nas drive plays straight away when needed,need to get mine working still in setup mode .

also got the chromecast,dam upgrade was over 40 mins and anything i try and play buffers madly,think i need a wifi router nearer to tv as upc cisco might be too far for wireless.

Did you buy it with nothing on it?
I bought mine fully loaded over 2 years ago.. Haven't had to touch it bar adding a few apps here and there as I see fit.
Mine is a mx 2 cost less than 100... Seems to be more powerful quad core boxes now but mine seems to handle everything I throw at it.
Used to have it reading my nas aswell but I just stream everything now.. It's just so handy!!
Marty.

BionicRasher · 09-01-2015 12:47am

Chromecast with Plex is just as good as a XBMC setup in my view. Of course there are other apps that you will need for streaming live movies etc but they are all freely available.
I had XBMC on a dedicated media PC on our telly and it was not wife of kid friendly. It took a bit of work to keep it running smoothly where as the Chromecast just seems to work out of the box and my mother in law can even use it!!

Capt'n Midnight · 09-01-2015 1:11am

One big problem with "Smart" TV is the firmware and how long will it be supported ?

Few if any have any real security features worth talking about.
Vulnerabilities have been found in them. - With an external dongle you can just replace it. - with a smart TV don't use a password or username you don't want stolen

Smart TV's have been caught phoning home with a list of the contents of USB keys.

You are usually restricted in what apps you can install.

And don't get me started on the user interface

thegreek · 15-01-2015 11:01am

The Capt'n has got it right.

You can look at it a couple of ways. First think of an all in one HiFi (yes going back a while) and one of the components fails such as the Tuner. The whole unit is busted.

Or to put it another way look at an all in one PC. If one part fails you have to replace the whole thing.
My next TV will probably not be a TV at all but a high end display unit. The intelligence will be in the android box and sat box I have attached.

Currently use a Roku and a Amiko Alien Satbox. As it stands I only use two channels on the TV - HDMI1 and HDMI2. The rest is redundant.

And yes, one remote to control it all.

The beauty of this is that as technology moves on I can replace a "component" without having to shell out for a new TV.

kaizersoze · 15-01-2015 2:11pm

'Smart' is a bit of a gimmick alright but are there many decent options for a 'Dumb' tv that's not a few years old?

Ranjo · 15-01-2015 2:18pm

Is there a BBC iPlayer app for Samsung smart TVs? I couldn't see it bit notice it mentioned earlier. Is there any other way to get apps other than the standard Samsung app catalogue?

In response to the OP I bought the smart tv a year ago and its simplifying things you can do with a laptop/multimedia player into a single device and remote. No additional features but I'd honestly find it hard to go back now.

Fingleberries · 15-01-2015 4:52pm

Using a Smart Blu Ray player would probably be best for longer support - really PS4 or Xbox One if you can spring for it, as you can be sure of firmware updates adding new features for the next few years (certainly longer than the one or two years support you'll get for a Smart TV on it's own).

Sam Russell · 15-01-2015 5:00pm

I have found my smart tvs a bit disappointing in truth.

They were bought for other features but they are so clunky in operation that it is not funny. One is 3D but I cannot see 3D (like 20% of the population), so that is no use to me but Mrs Russell can but there is no content, and anyway, who would want to wear those glasses?

Also, software/firmware upgrades stop after a few years.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-01-2015 11:50pm

kaizersoze wrote: »

'Smart' is a bit of a gimmick alright but are there many decent options for a 'Dumb' tv that's not a few years old?

Chromecast / NowTV / Amazon FireStick / Android / others. If you have HDMI you are laughing

you could even use an old laptop if your TV has VGA in - it all depends on what inputs your TV has. and then some remote desktop software to control the PC from tablet / laptop / phone
I can play a file on a USB key plugged into my satellite box, DVD player , "saorview" box and I can also stream it to a Chromecast. So how useful is the ability to play it on the TV itself ?

OK the different devices don't all support the same file type and the TV can record but you get the idea.

All that's happened is that networked HDMI dongles have augmented SCART set top boxes in the same way people already use external boxes for Satellite / DVD / VHS / Saorview.

Smart TV vs. dumb monitor
pretty much this - Car stereo I wanted 10 years ago v.s. the one I want today
http://imgur.com/gallery/NGcUN

Is "Smart" TV a Ripoff ?

Comments