Televisions in living rooms now the fastest-growing internet platform The humble television holds the future of the interwebs, we're told: New numbers from Netbiscuits shows the lean-back experience more than doubled over the last six months and put other platforms into the shade. Tablet use is also up, by more than 50 per cent, while smartphones have - it seems - plateaued with a meagre four …
> I expect 99.5% of that .02% is catchup TV and movies (that is more TV) not web.
Maybe, but then they will no longer be using their PC to do that, so less need for the PC.
> Who is going to type stuff using a remote?
Those that have a 104 key remote, otherwise known as a bluetooth (or similar) keyboard.
> with more useless services added.
Fine, you don't want to use 'SmartTV' services. You probably had no use for Teletext either. But don't feel threatened, nobody is going to take your PC away.
Que?
Televisions or set top boxes?
Most of the set top boxes in this household have a network connect option but the tv's dont (with apologies for abusing apostrophe's :-) )
Social impact: moving modem from study or bedroom in to living room/lounge?
I can imagine this having potential to grow financially and technologically provided the price(s) is(are) right
Here in Holland we're on cable, and my provider is UPC (which I actually consider to be doing a good job). They provide tv/radio, phone & Internet access. All in one.
With digital television we also have a Dutch service called "Uitzending gemist", you can find their website right here: http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/
Its very handy because programs from public TV will end up on that website for all to view them again at a later date. UPC has brought this service straight into the home through their digital television services.
Result is that I hardly watch live TV these days; I simply end up skimming some of the programs available in the "back log", perfect when you're done working and are about ready to head for bed (yes, I make long working hours atm) :-)
But in the end its simply part of the development; Internet on your TV.
... Formerly a laptop with HDMI, but now a quite powerful (and quite big, but silent) core i7 PC (dual booting windows 8 (with Start8) and Kubuntu) sitting under my 50" living room TV, with a wireless Logitech deNovo keyboard and wireless mouse.
I work on it from home (MS Office), watch iPlayer/4OD/bluerays/ (probably the latter is not allowed, but there's no other way to watch Dutch international football from the UK!), ditto blue-rays/DVDs, download and watch movies on it and play games on it and do other general geeking - all from the comfort of my sofa with foot-stool. Also no need for a TV license (because I don't watch anything live).
Agree with the general sentiment that a screen should be 'dumb' - let the box underneath (or behind, or in the next room/attic I suppose) do all the hard work flexibly. The UI experience with 'smart TVs' is crap.
Sorry, above where I said blue-ray twice, the first time I meant "Sopcast" or other 'illegal' stream. This is awful quality, and I often have to listen to commentary in German, French, Croatian/other Easter European, then Korean/Chinese - only the European languages I understand, but it's football so it's ok.
I have a similar Home Theater PC setup and echo the sentiment that the TV should be dumb (and alot less expensive). My HTPC streams video from anywhere on the web just fine. Samsungs "Web Apps" limit my choices when only using the TV. I can browse any way or anywhere, not so through my TV. Yes, the PC cost as much as my 46" Samsung but I can do way more with it and there are no manufacturer based limitations.
My Time Warner Cable does do some traffic shaping of Youtube but little else.
Happy to be upvoted (i'm the original AC).
Completely agree. I too have a Samsung, and the built-in stuff is crap, and totally useless (because I, like you, have a sensible/flexible device outputting with HDMI).
I've read somewhere (probably Engadget) that Samsung are developing small (cigarette packet-sized) 'smart units' (read: small/replaceable computers) that can be plugged in and out of their TVs and be updated more frequently than the glass itself. I think that's a welcome development, but for god's sake please let me also just plug my big (fiancee says "ugly") PC into it!
Also, why is it possible to buy an ipad for >£500 (which I also have, although I prefer Android/my Galaxy S3) with 2500x1500 pixels on a 10" screen, but if I want a higher than 1080p 'normal' (tv) screen, I have to pay $25k+. Surely it's easier to make a 50" 'ultra' HD screen than a 10" one? I'd like to hear if there was a good reason why I'm wrong, but is this purely marketing/price gouging for "4k UHD"? or is there a logical reason?
I don't have a smart TV, but have a PC with a tuner card and media center and XBMC. I use it to time shift the occasional over the air show, but mostly watch Netflix and downloaded stuff. The media center remote works great for a lot of stuff, but I use a wireless mouse with onscreen keyboard to use the web. That's a bit slow, but gets the job done anyway.
First - "putting other platforms into the shade"... The only thing I see 'in the shade' on that chart is 'Other Devices', including TVs
Also, wonder what it would look like if you included, I don't know, computers? in the numbers? I think a lot of those items would be relegated to the Other Devices category.
Indeed.
The criminally dismal "smart TV" experience really does show up the hardware makers like Samsung (and the rest) for their miserable lack of innovation. How difficult would it be to integrate a Pi-style processor into the TV, supply a remote keyboard and trackball (or going with the times a really competent tablet remote app)?
Not difficult at all IMHO. But we only ever see new products when they think Apple are going to release something, be that a new iPhone or an iWatch.
Roll on APple TV, not because I'd buy anything made by Apple, but because it might inspire the set makers to shift their lardy arses into gear, and produce something worthy of 2013.
> How difficult would it be to integrate a Pi-style processor into the TV, supply a remote keyboard and trackball (or going with the times a really competent tablet remote app)?
Not difficult at all, and widely available. Google 'Android TV' for a 'Pi-style processor' that plugs into TVs. Integrating it is not a good idea, I have TVs that are several years old and do not want to throw them out just to update to a better CPU or OS.
IMO.
Idol pop artists.
Cumwhilst celebrities are dancing
Whose got the dirtiest kitchen compared to my oxy perfection.
Its not technology that's disabled it is the CONTENT.! <sorry for the exclamation, it just gets my goat>
The BBC bang on about license value. OK I agree, nice documentories and period dramsa. my top vote for quality. if you are selective.
Times are a changing and I feel the future is/most welcome is PPV regardless of distribution.
If you like Corrie you pay, if you like archive Casulty you pay, same as movies.
TV's WILL get content from tin-ternet exclusively.
my point is; unless the content is as the quality as the delivery the proles will reject it.
the alternative PirateBay et el.
PS. I didn't buy a justin beiber CD today.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
