Apparently ignoring the fact that HDMI and internet TV cards have been around as long as Methuselah, nobody bothered to find out what the ramifications of creating smart TVs were likely to be.
The Daily Mail explains
how the micro-cranium industry has discovered the awful truth- and then managed to get it wrong:
According to Luke Peters, Editor of T3 magazine, smart TVs are simply too complicated.
'Smart TVs will only become mainstream when they are as easy as changing a channel,' he told MailOnline.
'The range of content needs to get a lot better.
'Social networks like twitter just doesn't make much sense - people will use them on a tablet on their lap rather their TV.
'For smart TVs to succeed, they have to offer smart content, linking with tablets and other devices.'
Ha, hee, hooo, hawwww….. I mean, So it’s really the consumers who are at fault:
Even if they do buy the TVs, they may or may not use them to watch anything but TV. People use their TVs as TVs. There must be something wrong with them.
Nobody knows how to use a remote. Everything is too complicated for this mythical public which doesn’t even know how to reproduce, according to market psychologists.
Everybody has a tablet or smart phone to link their TV to, so that’s a good reason for buying a smart TV. Nobody is so unimpressed with gimmicky, overpriced smart phones and tablets that they can’t be bothered buying them. There are 7 billion people on this planet. 90% of people on Earth don’t own the latest bit of techno-fluff and won’t until it hits the $14.99 price range.
According to NPD Group
The decision is not for want of application choice, but rather seems to be focused on how consumers are used to interacting with their TV. HDTVs, gaming consoles, Blu-ray Disc players, and other connected devices offer an array of applications, ranging from Twitter and Facebook to web browsing. But, in general, these have failed to resonate with the audience, not least because there are better platforms, such as the PC, tablet, or smartphone, for such services.
Gasp. People are actually using their different devices for the reasons they bought them? Having a forest of gadgets means that people think of them as not-TV-related? They might not want to lug their 37” TV around with them to make a phone call or use their phones to watch “TV” on a miniature screen?
You don’t say. Do Mickey and Pluto know about this, Goofy? Don’t tell them, you’ll break their syndicated little hearts.
Now another horror- People may not want to watch TV. Watching modern TV is a truly tedious experience. I remember watching an early Modern Family
episode (I didn’t know what it was) and was amazed to see the good-looking cast member come to the screen and tell me what was going on in the show, presumably in case I’d zoned out from the script and staggeringly predictable camera work and needed some sort of hormonal stimulus.
TV is no longer TV. It’s an excursion into the obvious and the pointless, occasionally relieved by 50 minutes of commercials per hour to pay for network financial management. Why the hell would anyone want to watch that, let alone buy multiple technologies to do it?
Suggestion, O Overstuffed Losers of the Biggest Media Cash Cattle Herd in History- YouTube has so much good stuff on it. With the slightest bit of entrepreneurial talent (aka moxie, chutzpah, the ability to use more than one brain cell per decade) you could have thousands of channels online producing an actual viewership and the freeloading “production community” might have to start producing decent content that keeps people awake for the first time since Married with Children
. Ed O’Neill can’t be everywhere.
Maybe even writers, and real sitcoms which are actually funny to someone over the age of 12, and real actors who can deliver a line without getting hernias? Go nuts, you should have, years ago. The techno-bores and hardware vultures can go back to hell for a while, they need a break, and so does the audience.