I want a Smart TV running BB10
- - PlayBook UX
- filled with the craziest powerful hardware
- Android 4.4 runtime of course + a deal with Google for Google Play access + Google Now
My experience is that nearly each smart TV sucks performance wise. Imagine you can switch between apps/HDMI ports/TV channels like you could switch between apps on the PlayBook, all running simultaneously when minimized. Fast and easy to use. I'd love it.
Posted via CB10JordanLehigh likes this.01-05-14 06:03 AMLike 1 -
- The entire idea of a "SmartTV" is idiotic IMO.
How long do you plan on owning and using a TV you buy today? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? IMO, a TV should last at least 20 years, but let's just say 10 years, for the sake of argument.
Are you using the same computer as you were 10 years ago? The same phone? Why not? Because your demands from those devices have gone WAY up in that time. The same will be true of the computer and software in your TV - in 3 years, it will be out of date and nearly obsolete. So, why build it into the TV in the first place? Why not just have a small box, like a Roku/AppleTV/GoogleTV that can be replaced every 3-5 years as technology evolves? This modularity means that the display, which won't change nearly as often, will remain useful while the "smart" capabilities improve greatly over the years. It's really not a big deal to plug in power and HDMI, is it? And wouldn't it be easier for a smaller company like BB to make a $99 Roku-like device vs. trying to sell an entire TV?
IMO, all a TV needs is plenty of HDMI inputs, and 1 or 2 sets of analog inputs for legacy devices. Beyond that, give me a "dumb" TV and I'll be perfectly happy to provide my own "smarts."01-05-14 03:14 PMLike 9 - I'm not buying a new TV for a while (at least until the 80" 4k TV sets drop sub $2000), but I would consider buying an Apple TV like device running BB10. Would be tough though as I got burnt with the PlayBook and don't know if I trust them beyond phones to anything over a half assed effort.
Posted via CB10milo53 likes this.01-05-14 04:49 PMLike 1 - The entire idea of a "SmartTV" is idiotic IMO.
How long do you plan on owning and using a TV you buy today? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? IMO, a TV should last at least 20 years, but let's just say 10 years, for the sake of argument.
Are you using the same computer as you were 10 years ago? The same phone? Why not? Because your demands from those devices have gone WAY up in that time. The same will be true of the computer and software in your TV - in 3 years, it will be out of date and nearly obsolete. So, why build it into the TV in the first place? Why not just have a small box, like a Roku/AppleTV/GoogleTV that can be replaced every 3-5 years as technology evolves? This modularity means that the display, which won't change nearly as often, will remain useful while the "smart" capabilities improve greatly over the years. It's really not a big deal to plug in power and HDMI, is it? And wouldn't it be easier for a smaller company like BB to make a $99 Roku-like device vs. trying to sell an entire TV?
IMO, all a TV needs is plenty of HDMI inputs, and 1 or 2 sets of analog inputs for legacy devices. Beyond that, give me a "dumb" TV and I'll be perfectly happy to provide my own "smarts."
I hang it on the wall, wireless connect a bluetooth keyboard with track pad and I'm in heaven. No dangling cables, no power bar, no roku and adapter, no video game consoles with cinavia protection..
If it had qnx os and some sort of bridge and android runtime, that would be awesome. In 10 years, your roku and xbox will be in the trash anyway. Bad argument.
I just need a mame emulator builtin for the legacy gaming..
Posted via CB1001-05-14 06:51 PMLike 0 - I disagree 100%. I recently bought a 60'' smart TV. The UI is slow and awkward but it has so much software: ex. Dlna client, YouTube, Netflix, crackle, ect...
I hang it on the wall, wireless connect a bluetooth keyboard with track pad and I'm in heaven. No dangling cables, no power bar, no roku and adapter, no video game consoles with cinavia protection..
If it had qnx os and some sort of bridge and android runtime, that would be awesome. In 10 years, your roku and xbox will be in the trash anyway. Bad argument.
I just need a mame emulator builtin for the legacy gaming..
Posted via CB10
Posted via CB10TGR1 likes this.01-05-14 08:44 PMLike 1 -
Besides, have you SEEN how big these boxes are? They are TINY, and they can slide in right behind a wall-mounted TV and disappear, and still work perfectly.01-06-14 03:05 AMLike 3 - But if it's bb10 and the box TV becomes obsolete, you can just go and get a 'booster box'. Extra cpu and ram in a small box that qnx will utilize just as if you did a computer upgrade without opening anything up.
Isn't that the whole point of qnx?
Posted via CB10.2.1. Devices: iPhone 5, galaxy S3, I pad 2, PlayBook, ms Surface01-06-14 04:07 PMLike 0 - So why not have it that way in the first place? Why put the "smarts" in the TV at all? I'd rather have an extra HDMI or 2, and be able to CHOOSE the interface and features I want independently of the display. Given that many people here would want a BB10 interface, and given that it's far more practical and likely for BB to make a cheap "smart box" rather than manufacture complete TVs, I would think this approach would make even more sense here.01-06-14 05:32 PMLike 0
- Exactly. You can get tiny external boxes for as low as $80 that have all this functionality, but have faster processors and better UIs, and the best part is that you can toss that box and upgrade in 3 years to a box that has all the latest services (some of which your SmartTV won't have, and I'll bet several of the ones it does have will be dead and gone), and it will still be fast and easy to use, while your SmartTV will be slow and annoying the whole time. And remember: you PAID for the "smarts" in your SmartTV, just like I'd pay for an external box, but you are stuck with yours for the life of the TV.
Besides, have you SEEN how big these boxes are? They are TINY, and they can slide in right behind a wall-mounted TV and disappear, and still work perfectly.01-06-14 10:20 PMLike 0 - Also, many of the big brand manufacturers sell big screen HDTV's in two models that are exactly the same specs except that one will have the 'smart tv' capability. For some of these tv's, if you know how to access the service menus, you can get the cheaper non-smart tv and activate smart features.
Posted via CB1001-07-14 01:46 PMLike 0 - I understand both sides of the argument (which is probably not what the OP expected). The smarter these TV's get the more resources they need. They run the risk of getting outdated quickly.
Heck there's even talk of Snapdragon 805's in cars to ensure they're future proofed.
BB10 on a TV would be cool thoughLast edited by birdman_38; 01-08-14 at 01:42 AM.
01-07-14 10:05 PMLike 0 - I understand both sides of the argument (which is probably not what the OP expected). The smarter these TV's get the more resources they need. They run the risk of getting outdated quickly.
Heck there's even talk of Snapdragon 805's in cars to ensure they're future proofed.
BB10 on a TV would be cool though
Saying you'd rather plug in 15 devices to your TV is like saying you'd rather rather walk around with a dumb phone, a camera, an mp3 player etc...
Last I checked the price of a smart TV was not much more than a dumb TV. Do yourself a favor and remove that xbmc, the dvd, the legacy game system...
I used to have the wdtv, then I bought a dlink dns nas drive with Dlna. Then I bought a philips blu-ray player with Netflix. Now I have none of that and a TV hanging beautifully by itself. You'll appreciate it more when you have kids.01-08-14 04:44 PMLike 0 -
Posted via CB1001-09-14 11:54 AMLike 0 - Because in my case there is no smart device out there that works with my cable provider (digital TV). So the way I watch TV is determined by the capabilities of the TV itself or my cable company's digital TV receiver. And both experiences are BS so far - slow and laggy.01-09-14 05:43 PMLike 0
- Cable TV doesn't require "smart" anything. Non-"smart" TVs can handle it just fine. The "smart" part is the ability to use network/Internet-based services and apps, and that has virtually nothing to do with your TV provider. In many cases, you can go so far as to say it is a REPLACEMENT to a TV provider.01-09-14 06:45 PMLike 0
- Cable TV doesn't require "smart" anything. Non-"smart" TVs can handle it just fine. The "smart" part is the ability to use network/Internet-based services and apps, and that has virtually nothing to do with your TV provider. In many cases, you can go so far as to say it is a REPLACEMENT to a TV provider.
Posted via CB1001-10-14 02:19 AMLike 0 -
Posted via CB1001-10-14 02:40 AMLike 0 - If you are talking about CableCard, that's a long-dead initiative that the cable companies are anxious to see buried. There hasn't been a new TV with CableCard support since 2007, and you won't see one again, because CableCard is only a one-way interface, which means interactivity isn't possible. Besides, the cable companies HATE the entire concept: they WANT you to use their box, because they want the control.
So, we're back to external boxes again, which is my point: they're a better solution because tech changes far faster than your need to change your display device.01-10-14 03:04 PMLike 0 - Troy has nailed the main points of why something like this is not feasible. A couple of additions:
1. This is the Armchair CEO forum, so most topics focus on BB's future in the here and now, not flights of fancy like a BB10 smart TV. This should be posted in "General Blackberry", not here.
2. The selling point for Smart TVs is content. Intel dropped smart TVs because they couldn't secure deals with networks, who are terrified of angering the cable companies that pay them big bucks to carry their content. Apple hasn't been able to launch a smart TV for the same reason. How exactly is Blackberry going to succeed when they can't even get a Netflix app for BB10?
3. Consumers aren't dumb. Roku is a popular media streamer precisely because it's small and cheap, and people use it to stream Netflix, Amazon Video and the like. There are millions upon millions of households with Xboxes and PS3/4s, and they can all handle streaming content from the big boys as well.
4. Blackberry is not Apple. The last market they invented was that of the smartphone, and that was more than a decade ago. They are focusing on enterprise. At a certain point, you guys have to accept that.lnichols likes this.01-10-14 06:59 PMLike 1 - If you are talking about CableCard, that's a long-dead initiative that the cable companies are anxious to see buried. There hasn't been a new TV with CableCard support since 2007, and you won't see one again, because CableCard is only a one-way interface, which means interactivity isn't possible. Besides, the cable companies HATE the entire concept: they WANT you to use their box, because they want the control.
So, we're back to external boxes again, which is my point: they're a better solution because tech changes far faster than your need to change your display device.
Posted via CB1001-11-14 06:33 AMLike 0 - I don't understand what you mean. I do have a receiver from my cable company and there is a SIM-like card inserted (credit card format). And I can, as said, record/play/pause and purchase video on demand over this thing, so it is smart somehow. And I see no reason why there can't be a TV that has this tech build in it right on its own (or even any other tech that makes things happen, I don't care about having a card at all). I just want a TV that has third party apps and two-way 'smart' digital TV built right in, with a unified interface. What's the deal?
Posted via CB10
Posted via CB1001-11-14 02:00 PMLike 0 -
And I see no reason why there can't be a TV that has this tech build in it right on its own (or even any other tech that makes things happen, I don't care about having a card at all). I just want a TV that has third party apps and two-way 'smart' digital TV built right in, with a unified interface. What's the deal?
Imagine having to buy a TV that was specifically Comcast Cable compatible, vs. a DirecTV model. And then DirecTV comes out with an awesome new service that you want, while Comcast has no new services but raises their rate 30%. You want to switch to DirecTV, but to do so, you have to replace your entire TV (and maybe multiple TVs in the house) to do so, along with whatever else it would cost. Makes no sense, right?
That's why all of these systems use external set-top boxes. Maybe one day in the future, all TV will be IP streams delivered over the Internet. But until that, or something like that, happens, get used to external boxes, because they won't be going anywhere.fanatical likes this.01-11-14 02:48 PMLike 1 - I agree, QNX licensed to a TV manufacturer. WHile I think the smart tv gimmick is just that, they sell, lets get qnx out there. I'd like to see it in set top streaming boxes, I'd like to see a contract with Honeywell to work with thermostats (Following googles nest purchase) in more cars...basically I want to see it everywhere...Routers....01-13-14 07:50 PMLike 0
- Forum
- Popular at CrackBerry
- General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
- Armchair CEO
I want a Smart TV running BB10
« Mr.John Chen puts his money where his mouth is!!!
|
Anyone seen this? I had shivers when watching this could-have-been Super Bowl commercial »
Similar Threads
-
BBM needs to integrate text messaging on BB10
By Blackberry_Boss in forum General BBM ChatReplies: 31Last Post: 01-14-14, 06:30 AM -
Want a app to send large files
By Earl waldron in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & RumorsReplies: 5Last Post: 01-05-14, 10:16 AM -
working with large files on BB10
By xexe in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & RumorsReplies: 1Last Post: 01-04-14, 10:44 AM -
Get your running shoes on with The Activision Decathlon for BlackBerry 10
By CrackBerry News in forum CrackBerry.com News Discussion & ContestsReplies: 0Last Post: 01-04-14, 09:30 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD