|
|
|
|
|
|
by drinkjuice
3437 days ago
|
|
|
> Demand has shifted. Customer perceives a smart TV as more capable. Also see "not accounting for the meddling of the marketing department" - not all things just "happen". And while you make good points about streaming (having to schedule yourself around broadcasts is a huge drawback, after all) TV getting "smarter" and them being the way they are are still not exactly the same thing. |
|
|
The consumer/customer can use any device with internet (PC, laptop, tablet, phone) to watch a TV series a few hours (?) right after or even during broadcast. Those devices can also be used to watch YouTube and all the other streaming platforms whereas a traditional TV can't. I wouldn't assume malice. I suppose the thought was "wait, what. More functionality than TV? We can compete with that."
Except that these onboard 'computers' on TV are weak, and profit margins are apparently too low to increase that. Which means you end up with something similar as the mess of Android. Devices with firmware too expensive to maintain.
Like I said, I use an old monitor as TV. My personal belief is TV as we know it is dying. We're going to see a merge of monitor and TV soon (with monitor capable being a TV) and the elder will be able to watch TV the traditional way. But youth generally don't. This means funding of public broadcast TV like BBC in UK and NPO in NL will get cut. Its a downward spiral, already set in process long ago in 90s.
Disclosure: I'm not from USA though.