Reflecting holistically on CES 2011, there seems to be more diversity from the large manufacturers than what I saw last year… where I felt accosted by 3DTV. Don’t get me wrong, they’re still pushing hard on that front. But there’s more emphasis this year on Internet connected television platforms. Which works out quite well for us, given our areas of interest and coverage. And as Nilay Patel pointed out to me during my Engadget trailer visit, both Samsung and LG are running with the “Smart TV” moniker… as are several others. Of course, the tablet onslaught is in full force — another burgeoning category that interests me. Unfortunately, the only sign of the tablet-optimized Android Honeycomb was a video loop running on Motorola’s Xoom. Additionally, it seemed as if there were more phone and camera announcements out of Vegas this year – whereas I’d expect that from those specific industry’s events. Then again, it looks like both Palm webOS and Verizon are saving some big announcements for after the show… where they probably hope for our undivided attention and makes you wonder if CES has outlived its usefulness.
Click to enlarge:
“Don’t get me wrong, they’re still pushing hard on that front. But there’s more emphasis this year on Internet connected television platforms. Which works out quite well for us, given our areas of interest and coverage”
I confess that I don’t understand “smart TV’s” from my personal POV.
When I’m paying for a panel, I just want the damn panel. I’m going to hook my own boxes up to them. Panels are expensive. They last a while. Boxes are either cheap and rapidly obsoleted, or a bit more expensive and upgradable in certain senses.
I can understand why smart TV’s make sense for certain consumers, and why they might make sense for TV manufacturers. But “all in one” is a bad idea for the savvy consumers in situations like these…
“When I’m paying for a panel, I just want the damn panel”
Well, to slightly qualify, I also am willing to pay for good I/O and form factor conveniences like a swivel stand or svelter form factor.
But I won’t pay an extra penny for “smart”. IMHO, “smart” should be physically separated from the panel.
Chucky, as you know televisions last many years. So the manufacturers are hoping new features like 3DTV and Internet-connected widgets will encourage you to upgrade sooner. When I picked up my Vizio temporary bedroom TV the price differential was ~$30 which is why I took the plunge. And access to Netflix and Vudu without an additional box has been pretty cool. Also, having widgets built in means this content can be overlaid over live television which opens up some interesting possibilities… However, when we get out new living room TV, my primary criterium will be pq and I’ll gladly give up 3D capabilities to save a few bucks.
“However, when we get out new living room TV, my primary criterium will be pq and I’ll gladly give up 3D capabilities to save a few bucks.”
3D, at least I understand. It’s not on my wish list, but at least it’s really something regarding the actual panel’s capabilities.
Widgets and services, OTOH, will tend to be obsoleted long before the panel’s useful lifespan goes.
“When I picked up my Vizio temporary bedroom TV the price differential was ~$30 which is why I took the plunge. And access to Netflix and Vudu without an additional box has been pretty cool.”
Or, one could take apply the best practices concept of saving the $30, and applying it to buying a Roku or Apple TV. Worse on the cost front. Better on the long-term value front.
But I’m odd that way. I want my DVR separate from my service provider. I want my computer OS separate from my application providers. And I want my panels separate from their input sources. Best practices are to always keep ’em separated, where possible. It pays off down the line.
But I know that makes me an outlier…
The analogy is getting a factory installed GPS in your car. It’ll be obsolete long before you replace your ride. Then again, these platforms do see upgrades – but maybe not at the same pace and maybe you’d prefer choice. I’m with you.
Given what I do (as a blogger and video streamer), the $30 was not an issue for what will become my “lab” television.
I’ve also got the “smart” Visio (55″) that has all of the VIA apps. I agree that Netflix from the TV is nice, and can’t get any easier.
I also agree with Chucky, if the “smart” capability becomes obsolete, that’s no good. I hold out hope that “smart TV” can download updated apps and avoid this.
Dave, did you see anything that would indicate that smart TVs (like Visio) will get software updates over time to keep up with current capabilities, or will they be allowed to get obsolete?
“Dave, did you see anything that would indicate that smart TVs (like Visio) will get software updates over time to keep up with current capabilities, or will they be allowed to get obsolete?”
I can’t speak to the Visio matter at hand, but I know that if I were making TV’s, I’d either have updatability be my lowest possible priority, or I’d actively avoid updatability.
The TV manufacturer simply wants to speed up the replacement cycle. Updatability is a bug, not a feature.
Blue, The current Vizio TVs run Yahoo’s Internet TV widgets. Both the platform and apps have seen updates and will continue to do so. But as Chucky suggests the updates won’t be infinite. Partially for business reasons, partially for technical reasons. I doubt many, if any, existing Vizio sets will make the jump from Yahoo to Google TV which Vizio is calling VIA Plus. Sounds like that’s the future for them.
>The TV manufacturer simply wants to speed up the replacement cycle. Updatability is a bug, not a feature.
Understood, but think beyond just selling glass. It depends upon the business model of the Mfg. If there is revenue or market diffierentiation to be had in the application space, then updating the platform would make sense. If not, they you’re correct that pushing obsolesence might make sense.
A mfg need to be careful there, as forcing a customer to move may result in that customer moving to another brand.
It’s an interesting choice of strategy for TV makers. Do they want to simply sell new glass, or do they want to become home platform providers, selling access to an application platform in the living room?
The screen itself in a TV should last for 10 years. If the other hardware in the TV is designed with future application direction in mind, I could see a business model built around being a platform provider, rather than just a hardware seller. If a specific brand became a known leader in this capability, they would become the dominant player in the TV app space.
The smartest TV is probably the Viewsonic with built-in guts of a Boxee Box.
SmartTVs or tablets didn’t surprise me. I was surprised by the fact that manufacturers continue to bring out new 3D tech instead of just tweaking active-shutter implementation. I kind of understand why (people seem to want glasses-free 3D or, at least, cheaper glasses), but might’ve been an easier sell to consumers if all companies stuck to one tech.