Smart TVs tuning into wrong frequency
The smart TV is currently being left behind in the smart home, says Context's Jonathan Wagstaff
What exactly is a smart TV?
It would be fair to say that for most professionals in the channel a 'smart TV' is typically defined as a TV with built-in Wi-Fi and internet connectivity, granting access to streaming services, social networking sites, apps, and online browsing.
According to a recent CONTEXT survey of European consumers, smart TVs are also the best known smart home technology, with 63 per cent of respondents having some awareness of the category. It therefore comes as a surprise that only 11 per cent of those surveyed thought the living room would go smart first, a long way behind the kitchen at 61 per cent.
Smart TVs have proliferated the market far more widely and for a longer period than other smart home products, so why is there a disconnect with consumers' expectations? Based on the aforementioned definition, smart TVs sound very impressive, but they sit uneasily within the smart home proposition. My own high-end smart TV has a built-in operating system with internet and streaming connectivity, and access to most of the services I want, however the reality of getting to them is not easy.
The keyboard on the infra-red remote has scores of tiny buttons and is not quick or simple to use and the built-in software is slow and difficult to navigate with a constant delay when switching from one menu to another. I doubt that many consumers use their smart TV's web browser with much regularity. The contrast cannot be starker than when watching online TV on a tablet or PC. If I want a TV to surf the net I need a mainstream browser with a wireless, full-sized keyboard, and fast, reliable and easily upgradeable hardware powering it. In essence I want my laptop/tablet screen simply and wirelessly replicated on my TV.
If the user experience can't come close to this simplicity on the best of smart TVs, why not make TVs 'smart' through simple wireless integration to other devices? 4K and 3D displays are impressive, but to many a more immediate demand would be a display hub that connects using both wired and wireless systems and allows fast, direct switching between inputs, regardless of the O/S of the connecting device. Indeed, given the current winds of change in consumer viewing habits one might have expected greater urgency.
A recent report from Childwise showed that British youths spend 50 per cent more time watching content online than traditional live TV broadcasts, increasingly from a tablet device, and with the meteoric rise of streaming services such as Netflix, the TV is seeing stiff competition as the main access point for content. The increased competition from mobile devices would suggest that many consumers are not concerned about the resolution of their display device, rather its mobility and connectivity.
I feel like vendors have missed a trick here for both consumers and SMBs who can't budget for expensive, integrated facilities: imagine a meeting room in every company, big or small, where everyone brings their own laptop or device and can share their screen on the main display - projector or screen - by pressing one button on a universal app, rather than the old 'pass the VGA cable' routine. The humble TV has always worked well as a passive device waiting for inputs, so why not develop a smart TV which actively hunts for content to display?
Moreover, if vendors wish to install computing technologies to their TVs, why not make these modular and interchangeable? At least this way a display can stay relevant even after the symbiotic technologies have been superseded.
Miracast, launched in late 2012 promised a new kind of HDMI-over-Wi-Fi connection, but uptake from TV, tablet, and phone vendors has not been hugely widespread.
Other vendors such as Google and Apple, spotting an opportunity, have stepped in with their own third-party solutions. Google's Chromecast for example connects through HDMI and allows video to be streamed directly to a TV from a variety of tablets, PCs, and other devices. Google's ambitions have not been limited to the consumer space: the Chromebox for Meetings offers a relatively inexpensive business videoconferencing set-up, and there are rumours of Google moving more heavily into digital signage and integrated AV solutions.
Arguably, a true smart TV would be able to effortlessly integrate with other smart home devices. Samsung recently announced plans to include IoT technology in all of their 2016 SUHD TVs, meaning a TV that can operate as a smart home controller for any smart things device. LG have also just launched their new webOS 3.0 smart TV platform, which will be installed on all of the company's 2016 smart TVs; this includes an IoTV app that will allow users to control LG and compatible smart home devices from the TV. Perhaps manufacturers have inadvertently defined the smart TV category too fast without allowing for more expanded functionality beyond Wi-Fi connectivity and apps.
If a smart thermostat can be set-up to shut down at bedtime or come on automatically when we walk through the door it is strange that the most commonly-used consumer electronic device in the house is unable to do the same. It cannot be good for the smart home offering if the most well-known category is perceived as the least smart.
This makes positioning the smart TV within a product catalogue for both distributors and retailers problematic, although the new initiatives from LG and Samsung are welcome news. Either way the smart TV is currently being left behind in the smart home.