[theandrewbailey]

This is the Achilles heel of the entire Internet of Things and smart appliance trend, and I think this will bite everyone bad. After 50+% of these vendors go out of business in the next decade, their products won't get updated, and people will wonder why their "smart" TV can't watch movies from whatever replaced Netflix/new whizbang video service. They won't be as likely to buy any "smart" thing again.

[rcraft]

This is exactly why I prefer buying "dumb" tvs and simply adding chromecast/appletv/firetv, etc. Much better experience.

[rubiquity]

My wife and I still have our LCD TV from 2005. It's about 5 inches thick but it works great. The TV is even starting to look very cool/retro and we've been complimented on how it completes the look of our living space!

[xorcist]

I still have a CRT TV. Do I win, or is there someone around with a B&W set? :)

[rubiquity]

I think it's the balance between new and old. You know, if your TV is either too old or too new it looks like you're trying too hard.

[danudey]

I have a Mac 128k in my basement, does that count?

[epenn]

I only have a Mac 512KE. :( But it's featured prominently in one of my rooms if that gets me any bonus points.

[duncan_bayne]

My Amstrad CPC 464:

https://vimeo.com/63990420

[cmdrfred]

beware the complisult.

[socceroos]

Hahaha! My thoughts exactly. There's a fine line between a compliment, a jibe and an insult. All subjective, of course.

[rubiquity]

It will take more than that to get me down!

[ArtDev]

I opted for a Chromebox running Ubuntu+Kodi. Its quite easy to set up! http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=194362

[sharjeel]

I am running my home server on ChromeBox (Linux Mint running Samba attached to a Bravia TV). I don't think I can get something better.

[sliverstorm]

It doesn't really matter that much if it's dumb or smart. You can use a Chromecast with either, and refusing to buy one kind limits your choices.

[wutbrodo]

I think his point is based on the (very reasonable) assumption that an equivalent quality Smart TV is going to be more expensive, which isn't worth it in general since you're not using the features that cause the difference in cost.

There of course may be realities of the market to cause it to not work out this way, but it's a pretty sensible assumption.

[dragonwriter]

Otherwise-equivalent Smart TVs are usually less expensive than displays (whether TVs or monitors) without the "Smart" features. This is a matter probably largely of economies of scale -- because that's what manufacturers think the consumer market wants, that's what they make most of and flood consumer channels with, and dumb alternatives are a specialty product.

[wutbrodo]

Good to know, thanks. I haven't bought a TV for about five years and I've never bought (or even been interested in) a Smart TV, for roughly the same reasons described here.

EDIT: hullo's comment below would seem to contradict this; 32" TVs from Samsung seem like a fair data point to look at (albeit just one data pt), since it's a very mainstream manufacturer and a non-niche size.

"Picking a manufacturer (Samsung) and size (32") at random, I see the smart TV for $499 and non-smart options for 219, 269, 299. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products Just for example."

[rsync]

My last three "TVs" have been commercial display panels. These are the NEC panels that you see in the airport (turned on their side) for departure/arrival boards.

They are more expensive than a best buy model. Not terribly so, however, otherwise the airport couldn't buy 200 of them.

They are incredible displays.

[detaro]

How would one go about finding them? (search terms, manufacturers...)

[sliverstorm]

All else being equal, would I skip the smart features? Sure. You don't get that choice though. At least, I never have. Aspects like display technology, color reproduction, contrast, latency, etc are much more important to me than smart vs. dumb, and those things are how I make my decision.

[caskance]

That assumption is not reasonable at all. Not only are "dumb" TVs no cheaper, hardly anyone even sells them anymore.

[hullo]

Picking a manufacturer (Samsung) and size (32") at random, I see the smart TV for $499 and non-smart options for 219, 269, 299. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products

Just for example.

[mikeryan]

Its not a direct comparison.

The Smart TV even without the "Smarts" are generally higher end TVs.

Though not indicated on the main screen the $299 option is actually a SmartTV if you click through. You have to get down to the $269 option to get to non-smart TV.

The difference between the $269 and $299 seems to be about the difference for putting a processor in a TV and making it smart....

(Note I don't make the claim that the SmartTVs are cheaper but for the most part its being absorbed in the cost of higher end devices so you get the Smarts "for free" on better sets)

[narrowrail]

I can get a 50" LG tv ("dumb"; just connect a Roku over HDMI) for $700 on Amazon.

[wutbrodo]

I think you're confused about the meaning of the terms "reasonable" and "assumption". An assumption isn't unreasonable just because it turns out to be untrue. As I said, there may be realities of the market that invalidate the assumption (and apparently there are).

[caskance]

What makes an assumption unreasonable, in your opinion?

[molmalo]

Depends on the market. Where I live, Smart TVs are easily about 2X the price for a similar "dumb" TV.

[JustSomeNobody]

All well and good until the "smart" part fails and makes the "dumb" part unusable. It's only a matter of time until it happens. I would rather take my chances with a "dumb" TV and add the peripherals I want.

[comex]

Smart TVs tend to have more complex UIs than dumb ones, which are annoying if you don't intend to use the smart functionality, as well as confusing (in terms of duplicated functionality) to less technical users.

[TeMPOraL]

And also designed by people who have no business doing UIs in the first place, which makes them crappy. It's a similar situation as with printer "value-added" software from printer vendors.

[antsar]

You can use a Chromecast with either, but one of them can also spy on you without your consent.

[caskance]

If you don't trust the TV manufacturer to include spying devices in their product, there is no reason to believe the "dumb" TV you brought from them is any less capable.

[urda]

And how exactly is a dumb TV with no WiFi radio, ethernet port, or any other forms of outgoing communication going to phone home? Please enlighten me.

[gcr]

How can you prove that your TV doesn't have a WiFi antenna inside? There's plenty of space to hide something like that in.

[tsuraan]

I don't trust the TV manufacturer to secure their initial release of their "smart" os, and I surely don't expect them to keep it patched. Anybody who breaks into your video-enabled tv can see everything you're doing...

[kstenerud]

Not if it isn't connected to your network.

[dragonwriter]

> Not if it isn't connected to your network.

Not if it isn't connected to a network. But its hardly as if devices with manufacturer-paid cellular connectivity built in and preconfigured don't exist, so there's no reason that it has to be your network.

To the extent that manufacturers are either monetizing networked services or deriving useful data from them, making them independent of end-user networking choices has a pretty clear benefit, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it become a common thing in Smart TVs.

[antsar]

Valid point. But then you're left with a bunch of crap in the UI that is unnecessary and annoying at best.

[kstenerud]

Really? I'm not. My smart TV defaults to just displaying whatever the incoming signal tells it to.

And if some manufacturer decides to clutter things, I just won't buy it. Problem solved.

[rcthompson]

It's not too much of a stretch for smart TVs to start including cellular connectivity (and advertising it as "zero-setup").

[kstenerud]

And who will pay for that cellular connectivity?

This is getting well into ad absurdum (a common problem on HN). Smart TVs are perfectly fine for the person who doesn't want a smart TV. Just don't use any of the smart TV features and don't connect it to the network. Problem solved.

[duaneb]

In my experience, "smart" tvs almost always offer a degradation of user experience.

[ytdht]

a smart TV can be more expensive and have unwanted features and bugs... an hidden webcam is an example and another is when they stop sending you software updates for your TV because it is "too old"

[jchrisa]

Projector!

[a3n]

Roughly OT: I have yet to have seen anything that makes me look forward to the IoT, and when I talk to the voices of vendors in my head I'm basically telling them "Stay out of my refrigerator, my furnace, my toilet and my smart doorlock that I'll never have."

I just don't feel that anything relevant to the IoT is missing from my life. At all.

[wlesieutre]

I can see "Check if I left the stove on and turn it off remotely" being a neat thing to have. But not neat enough to let a 10 year old appliance with no software updates and the capability to burn my house down be accessible to the internet.

[exelius]

Yeah, but chances are you won't use the functionality often enough to configure it in the first place.

That's the real problem with the Internet of Things: most of the things we own are not all that useful when we're not in close proximity to them. Thus, not only are users and manufacturers unlikely to update them in the future; users are just as unlikely to connect the thing in the first place.

Home automation through things like light switches, etc. has a use case, but those products have been available and Internet-connected for over a decade and we still haven't seen wide adoption. I recently priced it out -- it would cost me over $5000 to swap out the outlets and switches in my house for Insteon devices. And that's just the hardware; not the electrician required to connect it all or the time I would spend configuring everything. Home builders aren't going to spend that kind of money building this into anything but the most high-end homes -- the IoT hardware alone blows through the fixtures and appliances budget that most home builders allocate.

People want systems that "just work". IoT does not "just work", and none of the current or announced implementations address the big problems around configuration (namely, every house is different so every implementation is custom). And in some cases like a stove or a refrigerator, any amount of configuration is going to be too much.

[mturmon]

About home automation of light switches: I put in ~10 X-10 devices, plus the ~20 controllers to activate them, circa 2002. I did it myself (I'm an EE), so the installation cost was 0.

It worked OK for a while, but the setup was not robust and eventually some controllers would not work some devices at some times. The annoyance factor in going from 0 errors to a 1% error rate is HUGE.

Five years passed, and I have been slowly replacing all these X-10 devices with hard-wired switches or with Insteon. Of course, the original 1959 wiring paths (12 gauge Cu FTW) still work fine.

Now, when I see connected/automated homes in design mags, all that tech seems more like a long-term maintenance headache than a desirable feature. If I had an unlimited budget, I would not build those features in, I would just install conduit and run old-school copper wires through it.

My lessons: (1) The design life for a home is decades, the refresh rate for home automation devices is years; (2) Upgrading/tinkering is fun the first time -- but only the first time; (3) Your spouse hates it more than you do; (4) The existing device does one thing without fail, replacing it with a device that does more things but sometimes fails is not a net gain.

[wlesieutre]

Agreed on all counts. The only ones I can see taking off in any sense are easy to retrofit things like light bulbs and the occasional wireless plug controller like a WeMo if you have a particular load that needs one, not as a standard on every outlet.

But prices need to come down, light output needs to go up (wireless bulbs seem to top out around 60W equivalent), and switches need to not be a $60 optional accessory (looking at you, Hue Tap). Controlling lighting with your phone is neat, only being able to control lighting with your phone sucks.

Long term, I'm sure I'll end up with more IoT devices. But it'll be because they got shoved down our throats and I didn't want to pay more to avoid new "features," not because I wanted a wireless microwave.

[exelius]

Insteon seems to have the best ecosystem of IoT stuff. But you're right; the lack of compatibility across all these different "open" standards is frustrating as a user. You basically have to pick one platform and stick with it.

But I'm personally not convinced by IoT. Every implementation I've seen adds complexity without really improving functionality. I have a few Insteon switches in my house, but only in a few places where I need them (e.g. on the lights in front of my house so they can be turned on with a timer when I'm out of town).

I actually have a "connected refrigerator" made by Samsung. I tried for 5 minutes to get it set up before I gave up. I really couldn't think of what I would need to use a connected refrigerator for. IMO this is the usage model for the vast majority of IoT devices: if I, a major geek about this stuff, am not willing to spend more than 5 minutes setting it up, who actually cares enough to bother with any of it?

[wpietri]

My guess is that for each person some small thing will make sense, which is sufficient to drive the costs down and the technology forward.

For example, good sleep is really important to me. So I used the Philips Hue bulbs and a NUC to build a smart home lighting system that behaves much more like daylight. When I describe it to people, quite a number really want it. Not bad enough to get my code off GitHub and install it, but they'd pay something extra for it. And I now see pre-packaged commercial products getting proposed, so I'm sure they'll have options.

The interesting thing happens when that cycle drives the costs a fair bit lower. Look at phones, for example. Smartphones were a weird, exotic thing. Then they were a high-end consumer thing. Now they're the default. A couple years back I went into a store looking for a cheap phone and asked for one without a web browser. The clerk looked puzzled and said, "Well, they all come with web access." I'm sure I could have ordered a dumbphone somehow, but it would have been harder and cost more.

So my question is: how much extra will you pay for your house not to be connected? Because that's the real test for me about where the IoT thing will end up.

[exelius]

I don't think so. Cost is one side of the equation, but usability is another. And at the end of the day, I don't think there's enough consumer demand to push IoT where it could be. I think eventually we'll get there -- at some point in the future, it will just be cheaper to buy an Android SoC than a handful of cheap analog micro controllers -- but for the next 10+ years we're going to keep hearing about IoT as "the next big thing" because there's no consumer demand for it.

The situation with your daylight system is a perfect example. People think "Oh, that's cool" but won't actually get off their ass and spend a few hours setting it up and configuring it to their liking. Unless it comes out of the box, it's a non-starter.

IoT devices as they are today require a systems integrator to come in and tie everything together and configure them. So your lighting system is integrated with a presence system that is also integrated with your thermostat. Each of these has to be configured on a case-by-case basis, because no two homes are alike. But if your products require an integrator, suddenly the integrator is your customer, and you begin sacrificing end-user focus for things that make the integrator's job easier.

And then you realize that the largest consumer of IoT platforms isn't consumers themselves, it's installers like ADT. Their focus is on selling simple products that require minimal support, not feature-rich ones. Why? Because users simply aren't interested in paying any amount of money for advanced features. Until that changes, IoT is going to be a niche hobbyist market. Even if it's built in to every device you buy, if it's not worth anything to you, you're not going to configure it in the first place.

[wpietri]

I think we might agree entirely. I think mobile phones were a relatively fast cycle because people were pretty happy to replace their phones every few years. That's not true with, say, washing machines or furnaces. So it will definitely take a while.

But if you look at devices with cycles in between, I already see it happening. 10 years ago when I bought a stereo receiver, I bought something entirely dumb. Last year I replaced it and ended up with something that was internet connected. Not because I really cared, but because the equivalent model came with that. And in retrospect I'm glad; their phone/tablet app is a way better remote control than punching a bunch of mysterious, no-feedback buttons. The same thing happened with my DVD player; when the old one died I just bought whatever Consumer Reports recommended and it too is internet connected.

I think that you're right that the development of pluggable Android is what will push this forward. And Google clearly agrees; their project Brillo is surely one effort among many.

[exelius]

Right; but in the case of a stereo receiver (or any TV-connected devices), the IoT model makes sense: this is a device you interact with on a regular basis. There is already an ecosystem of devices that support things like Bluetooth, AirPlay, etc. so when your receiver has them, it's actually kind of useful.

I've always thought that the reason for keeping Android as open source was to enable this use case. Eventually, Android-capable SOCs will come down to a very low price point, and for these use cases they don't need to push much more than a few kb per second. But it retains the advantage of having a development ecosystem that is well understood and widely available (you can't throw a rock in China or India without hitting an Android developer).

[walterbell]

> I used the Philips Hue bulbs and a NUC to build a smart home lighting system that behaves much more like daylight

Neat. Did you try to coordinate room lighting color changes with computer screen colors controlled by fl.ux?

[wlesieutre]

Flux can actually do that directly! https://justgetflux.com/news/pages/bigupdate/

[wpietri]

I didn't coordinate it, but they are roughly in sync because they're doing similar things. Code here:

https://github.com/wpietri/sunrise

It's minimally sufficient for my needs, but I'd be glad to work with others to expand it.

[semi-extrinsic]

I would say only the DIY part of the IoT is something to look forward to. When all it takes is $20 and a few lines of Lua to set up a display, some sensors etc. that's connected either to the actual internet or just your private wifi, that's actually a cool thing. Basically any time you've thought "Hey, I could use an RPi and automate this.. Nah, they're too big and expensive."

[jkestner]

That will only matter if companies don't train customers to expect frequent upgrade cycles. It's worked for consumer electronics, but there will be strain in previously "came with the house" objects. You'll need to sidestep people's habits, in the way that the microwave did, perhaps.

And we're only worried about vendors going out of business because it's the early days and it's largely startups pushing the trend. With a Samsung or Apple, it's more that they'll quickly (by home equipment standards) stop supporting whatever doesn't stick to the wall.

There is a case to be made for self-contained objects that don't derive most of their value from an ecosystem, but work normally with no network. Work up from a toaster, not down from a computer.

[rcthompson]

Are you arguing that frequent upgrade cycles are a good thing?

[jkestner]

Definitely not, for the consumer. For the manufacturers, sure. Supporting a cheap piece of hardware for several years when consumers are going to demand it works with HomeKit, Google @Home, or whatever it's called now, and their descendants, and Microsoft's play, and the many competitors yet to come — that'll suck.

Traditional hardware makers are going to have to factor the support of this software component into their prices now.

[snowwrestler]

I bought an LG smart TV a while ago. It stopped receiving firmware updates after a couple years and is now way behind current models in terms of features--and, I can only imagine, security patches.

I will go out of my way to buy a dumb TV next time.

[cma]

Mine updated itself to add a big banner advertisement to the main screen. It originally had no ads.

[nodata]

> I will go out of my way to buy a dumb TV next time.

How? I don't see any dumb TVs for sale.

[morsch]

Isn't dumb TV just another word for monitor these days?

[dragonwriter]

> Isn't dumb TV just another word for monitor these days?

A dumb TV still has a TV tuner, so they aren't equivalent.

But unless you plan on plugging it directly into an antenna for OTA broadcasts, they are basically equivalent.

[sliverstorm]

They certainly seem to be similar! But, a number of differences do arise from intended use.

- TVs don't need anywhere near the same level of display quality. They are viewed from ten feet away and do not render small text, so they don't need as clear a picture. They also don't really have to go over 30fps, and latency is less of a concern. Basically, they have looser constraints in many ways, making them cheaper

- TVs have a plethora of inputs of many formats

- TVs have remote controls

[nodata]

Because you no longer need a tuner? Could be.

But I doubt you could buy a 60" glass front monitor for the price they sell TVs :)

[bloaf]

Heh, I own a Google TV (from Sony.) It's pretty amusing to me that a Google branded TV is currently running Android version 3.2

[grkvlt]

But, why do you care about the lack of updates if you would be happy with a 'dumb' TV? Just plug your desired source into the input HDMI socket of your 'smart' TV, obsolescent or not, it won't matter, and move on with your life.

[logfromblammo]

They don't even need to go bankrupt. I have an LG television that has been promising new widgets ever since I first got it, and no new widget has ever appeared.

The impetus there was that LG changed its net-connected TV platform in 2011, and instantly dropped all support for older devices. One would think that a final update could remove that "coming soon" box from their proprietary added-feature screen, but they haven't even bothered to do that.

So I can watch NetFlix and YouTube on that device, but not Amazon instant video, or Crackle, or Crunchyroll, or Vimeo, or any of the dozens of selections available to better supported platforms. Having learned my lesson, and aware of the increasingly stalkerish behavior of "smart" televisions, my next TV purchase was very specifically a dumb screen. If I want an internet-connected service now, I use the Wii, or XBox, or the extended desktop from the nearest computer.

I will likely refuse to buy any network-enhanced appliance in the future, unless I am able to root/jailbreak it and install software without the manufacturer's stamp of approval. I probably wouldn't do much beyond installing ChillBox, or FridgeBSD, or CryogenMod, or whatever, but it feels like the possibility might keep them a little more honest. Because you know that refrigerator hackers would be capturing and picking apart every packet that thing sends out, quickly discovering that every time someone closes the door, it sends a tattle out to fridge-use.org about how long you stood there with the fridge door open, along with before-and-after photos of your food.

Though it would also be embarrassing if they marketed value models of a product line by disabling features in software/firmware, and some NetBSD-loving punks could come along and write a simple script that turns the doohickey that retails at $200 into the one that sells for $800.

So it's already too late for me. "Smart" appliances are just another low-capability computer that I will have to support as the in-home IT guy. And I will have to presume that they come pre-loaded with all manner of crapware and spyware. I would forever need to be checking on chipsets and revision numbers and compatibility lists. No thanks. It's hard enough managing the congestion on the home WiFi already.

[stcredzero]

Probably the only reason why your ca. 2005 linux media pc won't work in your current living room is that its hardware can't support your new 4K flatscreen. Open software could go some way towards addressing the update problem, but it would need to have a much more robust code signing infrastructure behind it, to avoid becoming an even worse morass of security problems than the morass we have today. (Generally, not in open software.)

[danudey]

Heck, just look at the huge number of Android phones that you can buy at retail with an out-of-date version of Android with known security holes which will never be patched or updated. And those are relatively complex devices which are trivial for users to update if given the option, based on the adoption rates for e.g. iOS updates.

A company doesn't have to be out of business to not do security updates; they can not do security updates starting day one. There was an article a while ago about tons of home router vendors with insecure software from a third party, where the third party had resolved security issues years ago but the vendors had never bothered to update, leaving hundreds of thousands of devices vulnerable over the last few years.

[wazoox]

Actually one month ago in Amsterdam I've used a Philips smart TV that complained about "youtube is not supported anymore yadda yadda". Programmed obsolescence at its best (this TV probably wasn't more than 3 or 4 years old).

[saosebastiao]

I know it is just an OS kernel and security is far more comprehensive than having a secure kernel, but this is an amazing start:

https://sel4.systems/

I'm surprised IoT conversations are still happening with Linux as a contender for the OS, let alone Windows.

[pubnub]

Use https://resin.io/ yo