I want my dumb TV

When it comes to smart TVs, manufacturers are basically charging money for nuthin'.

The Panasonic TH-PHD8UK, circa 2005, was as dumb as a bag of hammers.
(Credit: Panasonic)

Or, to put it in less dire terms, the smart TV suites included in today's TVs offer little value. That's not to say that I don't enjoy Netflix, Amazon Instant and HBO Go as much as the next broadband internet subscriber; it's just that I can get the same great apps and content on devices as cheap as the Roku LT. So why would I want to spend extra on a TV that has these features?

It's the picture, stupid

I'll tell you why: because step-up TVs, the ones with smart TV, 3D, tricked-out remotes and even more esoteric doodads, are often the ones that also have the best picture quality. In my review of the Samsung PNE8000 with Smart Interaction, for example, I said, "The Kitchen Sink award for 2012 goes to Samsung PNE8000 plasma and UNES8000 LED TVs. I doubt any more feature-festooned TVs will appear this year." It also scored 9/10 in picture quality.

Samsung also makes a step-down PNE6500 that, from what I was told by a Samsung engineer, should offer picture quality that's basically identical to this one. If it does, I'll consider it much better value than the E8000, and more recommendable.

But even the TVs that occupy the sweet spot — best picture quality for the buck — have too many features. The PNE6500 and the Panasonic TC-P50ST50 I recently reviewed are good examples. The ST50 has an outstanding picture, and I expect good things from the 6500, but both still have two features that I'm betting most smart consumers don't care about: smart TV and 3D.

External boxes rule

Steve Jobs himself famously remarked in 2010 that innovation in the TV industry is quashed by the fact that everybody gets "a set-top box for free, or US$10 a month".

All but the most ascetic of cable cutters need to connect a box of some kind to get their programming. Rokus, Apple TVs, game consoles, Blu-ray/DVD players and, yes, external audio systems fill up entertainment centres nationwide.

A single TV, no matter how smart, can't adequately replace all of those boxes in today's market. Google TV, for example in the form of the LG G2, tries its darndest, incorporating cable box control, scads of apps and plenty of streaming video. But it's still kludgy and difficult to use.

All of those boxes simply make smart TV redundant. I have three ways to stream Netflix (US only) in my living room: PS3, Roku and, yes, via my TV's internal app. With a good universal remote, they're all equally easy to control, so I usually choose the PS3 because it's simply faster. I almost never use the apps on my TV, and, from reader feedback I've seen, I'm not the only one.

TVs last for years, but smart TV suites can seem obsolete long before that. You can always replace an inexpensive box, a cheap connected Blu-ray player or even invest in something like TiVo, and all will cost significantly less than a new TV.

The case for a dumb monitor

In my perfect world, TV makers would create versions of their sweet spot, great-picture-quality TVs that don't have smart TV, and that cost less. I'd also like to see these "dumb monitors" available in 2D-only and 3D versions, again with a cost differential.

They'd be a pure picture quality/value play, and appeal to people who feel the same way I do. I want a TV to do one thing and one thing well: produce beautiful pictures. I can connect whatever I want to them, and swap out those connected devices whenever I please, but built-in extras that I never use simply wouldn't be there.

No TV maker offers its best picture quality in a stripped-down TV, but I think the time is ripe to do so. The TV business faces declining sales and shipments for the first time in years, and some makers have resorted to newfangled pricing ploys to try to preserve profits. What about a new kind of product, one with a thin spec sheet and features list, that appeals to a new generation of buyers fed up with tacked-on extras?

I'm not (that) naive. I know it's all about protecting margins, and maybe asking for a small discount in this tight market is untenable. But it must cost something for manufacturers to put these features into their TVs, let alone support and market them. Take them out and pass along the savings to us. Build in some good will instead of useless extras.

Via CNET



Add Your Comment 5


Post comment as
 

grumpi posted a comment   
Australia

1 for the best quality picture in a dumb TV.
I bought a 2D TV a while back just for its picture quality, which in most scenarios is quite good.
It also happens to be a smart TV with basic functions and PVR. These smart functions are pretty useless though because the processor they used is just too slow. Its DLNA is also flaky.
I'm now going to build a HTPC as it is the only way to get all the features I want.

 

MikeSparkes posted a comment   
Australia

I brought my TV back from a few years in the U.S. It's a Vizeo and even the tuner would be useless here but I never noticed. I have a PVR for local digital tuning and recording and a Blu-Ray player for movies. I can input stuff from the web or my camera's USB via my laptop and an HDMI cable. It's basically just a monitor and a fine one at that.

 

ei_samus posted a comment   
Australia

Defiantly agree, this is why I tend to prefer the lesser known brands because they aren't big enough to attempt their own smart tv platform so you are only paying for the picture quality.

 

Gazmoses posted a comment   
Australia

SPOT ON!!! Give me the best 2D picture possible and that's it!

 

AlexV1 posted a comment   
Australia

Agreed, Your average consumer isn't really interested in any of these features. I have a Samsung PS50c7000 , i've used the 3d once and then sold the glasses. Have never used any of the "smart apps" . Why would i when i have a ps3 that does it all.




Sponsored Links

Recently Viewed Products