Termination of YouTube Service on 2012 BRAVIA TVs

http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-hn/prd-tvhc/YouTube-service-for-2012-TVs

by andybak • 10 years ago

122 202 10 years ago

sony.co.uk

niftich5• 10 years ago

As far as failure modes go, so far so good -- the 'smart' TV will still work, it'll just have one less app. Eventually, as more and more apps raise their minimum requirements (either by necessity or just because), the older hardware will no longer cut it; but the TV will keep working as a display.

The problem will come when the smart TV's OS itself is no longer getting patches.

---

Are there any details on what Google changed?

yurymik• 10 years ago

"Escalator Temporarily Stairs. Sorry for the convenience. We apologize for the fact that you can still get up there".

taspeotis• 10 years ago

You mean "Escalator Permanently Stairs."

wmf2• 10 years ago

2012 TVs probably stopped getting patches in 2013.

qq663• 10 years ago

The "Smart TV" is like those "all-in-one desktop PCs" -- unless you really prioritize the appearance of the thing, like in an architect's office where clients are visiting, etc. -- it almost never makes sense. The display stays good for a decade and the compute is often obsolete in 12 months -- it makes no sense to bundle them. I have a overheating iMac whose compute I wish I could switch out.

rconti5• 10 years ago

The difference is, you sacrifice almost nothing (save a few dollars) to have the Smart TV gubbins inside. The TV still works great as a display -- in fact, my new Smart TV has more inputs and other such non-Smart-TV features than my old Dumb TV did.

Also, I call BS on being obsolete in 12 months. My mom wanted to buy a 20" iMac back in ~2009, and I was hesitant to go along with it, as I felt the same way as you did. Then I realized computers last longer and longer these days, and are approaching display level lifespan.

She's still using that iMac today, and it works great. And guess what, I bought a 5k 27" iMac to replace my 10 year old Mac Pro (which has a high-end-for-its-time 24" Dell 2407WFP connected to it).

The reality is, by the time the computer was too old to be particularly useful, a 1080p 24" display was old hat as well.

I don't disagree it makes the disposable culture a bit worse; I'm not particularly likely to try to repair the iMac after a couple of years (which is one reason I sprung for an extended warranty on it which I typically avoid like the plague), but it's not so bad as you suggest. And, of course, the machine can still be used as an external display (or output to another display if it's the display that fails instead of the computer).

Perhaps your strongest argument should be that Smart TVs may accelerate the decline of standalone streamers. If that comes to pass, TVs may come to look a bit more like the all-in-one computer world.

But for now I'll enjoy my 4k streaming on my Smart TV apps, and replace those functions with standalone devices that do it better, as they come on the market. They're not there yet, though, and I'm not about to throw out all of my other devices and replace them just because I bought a new TV.

dfox• 10 years ago

There is one thing that is painfully missing on any smart TV I've seen: VGA input.

qq663• 10 years ago

You don't just sacrifice a few dollars to have a Smart TV inside... It has security vulnerabilities, features stop working, etc... Especially with the "stick" format of Roku etc., I just see no point. I understand why the manufacturers want you in their heinous "LG ecosystem" with an "LG Live Account" etc. but I'd pay extra to have the smart features on a removable stick.

4ad6• 10 years ago

The TV still works great as a display

No it doesn't. Every Smart TV I've seen has horrible ergonomics. It takes a while to boot, the remote has lag, it takes a long time to change from one input to another, it takes a huge amount of time to start the app that is responsible for changing inputs.

They just suck.

Yeah, they have inputs and everything, but android-based UI is hands down the worst UI I have ever had to use, and this included typing magic commands into the mainframe of airline global distribution systems.

Oh yeah. You want perfectly synchronised audio/video streams, just like you had before? Not possible with Smart TVs.

justinlardinois2• 10 years ago

There are so many consumers out there who buy new TVs, laptops, phones, and sometimes even cars every few years; just read the comments on any tech news site to find them.

I agree that it's silly to bundle the two, but these types of consumers won't care that their 2012 TV's YouTube app stopped working in 2016 because they already bought a new TV years ago.

honkhonkpants• 10 years ago

People always say this about the iMac but the fact is that the iMac is cheaper than the competing displays. You literally get the computer inside for free. If you don't like the computer inside you can ignore it and use the iMac as a display.

Anyway these days a computer should last you five years easily.

qq663• 10 years ago

I still use my iMac, but I can't ignore the massive fan noise that the computer creates if I use it as a target display. I get that the computer inside is "free" but I'd gladly pay extra to have the components separated.

jimjimjim• 10 years ago

Yet another reason why the internet of things will be truly appalling.

Pengwin2• 10 years ago

It seems like a dream come true when you're in the business of people buying new iterations of the same thing, Which seems to be all SoCs and embedded systems providers these days.

ghaff5• 10 years ago

I get why the TV manufacturers don't like the concept but TVs should really be dumb displays. Using something like a ChromeCast to get content to the TV makes so much more sense than embedding "intelligence" in a display.

It's the same mismatch of lifecycles that you get with entertainment (and navigation) electronics in cars.

simplexion• 10 years ago

I agree with this. There was a time where smart TVs were useful but it is dying out. The other big issue with Smart TVs is they try to put the lowest powered SoC in that they can and tiny amounts of RAM.

They should all just be monitors now. The cost of a Chromecast, Raspberry Pi, or Apple TV is so low that it makes Smart TVs redundant. I actually don't understand why these manufacturers haven't moved to making their own versions of casting/streaming devices. I remember when I bought my Bravia a long time ago it didn't come with WiFi but you could buy their wireless USB device for AUD$80 (they blocked all others). Why don't they do that but instead a Chromecast like device (without blocking out 3rd parties)?

dogma113810• 10 years ago

They should all just be monitors now. The cost of a Chromecast, Raspberry Pi, or Apple TV is so low that it makes Smart TVs redundant. I actually don't understand why these manufacturers haven't moved to making their own versions of casting/streaming devices.

The vast majority of TV viewers do not use and do not even understand how to use these devices.

Chromecast/Firestick is at least somewhat usable to the masses, some of the other streamers are more complicated but do you really expect some random person to buy and build a RasPi streaming set top box?

The TV makers can't take out features because people would not buy that TV, people want features, and these features are what the guy at the store can sell TV's by.

And for Samsung/Sony and the likes to get into the streamer business it's pointless, and it would not change the issue it would just move it to another component albit considerably cheaper one. Streaming devices also need to be constantly updated, many of them need to be updated more often than the TV their SoC's get obsolete just as fast if not faster and YouTube can make changes tomorrow that would make the current version of Chromecast incompatible as well.

If you are an Advanced user you don't care for all that crap, my best TV still by far is now what a 7-8 year old Toshiba 42" with a 10 bit panel which was actually made in Germany, dumb as you can get (it can show images, play MP3, maybe some MPEG) it has a PCMCIA slot which I used to hack into it and the image quality is still better than virtually every TV out there that doesn't cost 1500 GBP. But I can use it because I'm an "advanced" user I run my own streaming and transcoding server and have a media center PC. But for some one who wants a no hassle turn on TV and get netflix this isn't really an option, even Chromecast isn't very ideal quality isn't that great and it can lag pretty badly on congested networks. The more expensive streamers give you quality that matches the TV native app but they also tend to cost considerably more than the cheap sticks, unless you buy the Android unbranded chinese SoC sticks.

niftich5• 10 years ago

Because they'd rather take your $500-$1000+ for a new TV every couple years than your $100 for a new streaming stick

minipci1321• 10 years ago

I actually don't understand why these manufacturers haven't moved to making their own versions of casting/streaming devices.

Well, because streaming as a service to a customer is largely about the contents and about customer support. This is area that Internet providers are controlling exclusively (over here anyway). Every triple play offer has a TV part which comes with a set-top box, and a random streaming device simply cannot compete with "state-supported" traffic (CDNs in close proximity, multicast channels).

Why do the ISPs provide their own set-top box device? 1) They are trying to reduce the volume of calls to hotline, and this area of tech can generate many; 2) They use the customer-premises device as a shop front in selling even more VOD contents. A streaming stick would require lots of customization per every ISP in order to address these points.

rconti5• 10 years ago

I don't disagree, but I've gone the opposite way. Just last week I replaced a 46" Samsung 1080p set from 9 years ago with a brand-new top-of-the-line Sony 4k set that has all this fancy AndroidTV stuff I neither knew I wanted nor really understood.

Thing is, it's the ONLY way I can get 4k content. I have an HTPC, WDTV, AppleTV, FireStick, PS3, and TiVo all plugged into my receiver (which was a very high end unit just 1 year ago). However, while the receiver supports 4k, it does NOT support HDCP 2.2 which either is required for 4k content, or WILL be once they start using HDCP 2.2. (I'm not quite clear on this point.. I don't know if today's UHD BluRay discs use HDCP 2.2).

And I'd argue that the SmartTV stuff is not really a reason many people buy a TV; regardless, having it does not remove your ability to use external devices in the future. If Sony drops my AndroidTV apps in 4 years, it probably won't much matter because the devices of the future will do far more for $35 than the software on the TV.

It's a frustrating situation, but, IMO, the Smart TV stuff only adds value (unless you're talking about the microphone in my remote and the possibility of said devices being used to backdoor my network, of course).

I forgot to add, new things pop up all the time that you don't know you want until they arrive. I noticed Google Photos being advertised on TV. I gave it a go on my iPhone and notice a Google Cast button. I don't have any of Google's streaming devices yet, nor do I have an HDMI port free on my receiver to support another device. Well, I hit the button, and what do you know, it automagically knew all about my TV and displayed my pictures at the touch of a button. Sometimes having fancy new stuff is cool, and you get added features you never expected. I sure wouldn't buy a Google streaming device just for this one novelty, but I'm not going to complain about having it.

dogma113810• 10 years ago

It's not the TV manufacturers that don't like that concept it's that consumers don't like the concept. Every TV is a "dumb display", consumers wanted more features.

Sony, LG, Samsung and w/e would love nothing more than to sell you only a panel with video input ports but that is not what people want to buy. People are constantly buying the most feature loaded TV's even at the expense of getting lesser panel quality, inch size and various other things.

mnutt• 10 years ago

If that was the case, they could sell a TV with 5 HDMI ports with a Chromecast pre-plugged into one of them.

But I suspect after a year or two people would buy a new $35 Chromecast, rather than replacing their entire TV.

ghaff5• 10 years ago

Maybe. I'll accept that TV manufacturers have convinced many consumers to pay attention to the arms race over features. But were consumers really clamoring for 3D, for example?

I haven't been on the market for a TV for a few years but I'm not convinced that a lot of people see more apps on a TV as a critical selling point.

LeifCarrotson• 10 years ago

But if the average consumer compares the Sony and LG 'smart' TVs with YouTube and Netflix and 47 other apps to a by extension 'dumb' Samsung display, they won't pick the Samsung, even if it has better panel quality that can't be readily quantified or seen on the hypersaturated demo.

Well, you and I might buy the Samsung, but most consumers aren't as informed or as savvy with a Chromecast.

IANAD3• 10 years ago

consumers wanted more features

Maybe so, but I never personally asked the TV manufacturers for a smart TV.

Who I think came up with the idea: TV manufacturers.

Selling hardware that has software/firmware, that will become obsolete in 4-8 years, will result in more TVs sold in 4-8 years than would have been.

We just got rid of a TV that we've had since the late 1990s- about 18 years. It was not smart. We just bought a smart TV and I'm betting we won't get more than 8 years out of it.

TrevorJ• 10 years ago

I think it is more a matter of manufacturers wanting to sell TV's sooner than a 5-10 year life cycle. To do that, you have to come up with new features to try to entice.

killbrad• 10 years ago

Do you have any evidence of this? I've never ever talked to anyone that wanted a feature like this in their TV. The manufacturers have incentive, but the consumers aren't asking for it.

And -all- of the interfaces built in to TVs for such things I've used are terrible. Hell, most TVs still can't make a remote/on-screen UI work reasonably. People can talk to their voice agents ("hello assistant, who is the president of the USA") on the toilet and generally expect a reasonable answer. And yet we still have to point some wand at an exact spot on our TVs, press buttons, and hope they register and change channels.

tudorw• 10 years ago

again, if manufacturers engage in the most basic 'mine is bigger than yours' playground games then it's not surprising that the users, who love shiny things, are not making a decision based on fact, if instead of releasing a new shape box every year, they really focused on a consistent product line then they could delivery incremental improvements and show users over time why their product is the better 'viewing experience' which is what it's all about really!

1_2__3• 10 years ago

What possible evidence do you have of this? It sounds wholly speculative.

s_kilk• 10 years ago

> consumers wanted more features.

Do they though?

I mean, everyone I've asked just wants their Microwave to have two dials, Power and Time, yet no such thing exists on the market. Instead it's a sea of bullshit Microwaves with bullshit "value add" features.

I'd wager the same is true of TVs, and myriad other consumer products. The end-users just want simple tech that works for years on end, while Product Managers and Designers want to boost their own status by sheparding these mindless "improvements" into production.

hsivonen• 10 years ago

Does customer demand drive "overscan on HDMI" by default, too? Who are those people?

voycey• 10 years ago

Totally agree, Dumb TV's and something like an NUC are the way forward!

Pengwin2• 10 years ago

I Have a NUC at home, but its power as a computer seems to be wasted on being the smart part of a TV to me. So I use a nexus player for its interface and the NUC runs its DLNA and lives its life as a full-fledged desktop PC.

riffic• 10 years ago

The "concept" is planned obsolescence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

dlhavema• 10 years ago

I totally agree, they have no plans to maintain 5 year old TV apps...

I love my 4 year old Sony tv. Sure, none of the pre-built apps work anymore... but our Blu-ray player does all of it and better.. the screen works great so I'll keep it till that part dies.

pcurve• 10 years ago

I agree.

To me, best smart tv is tv with best, long lasting picture quality.

SloopJon• 10 years ago

My recollection is that TV manufacturers didn't even want to include digital tuners until the FCC required them to. Of course, that tuner isn't doing me any good now that the FCC allows Comcast to encrypt broadcast channels.

xigency• 10 years ago

Unless of course you want to watch local television, in which case you would need a digital tuner. That is why the FCC requires the tuner. There were subsidized coupons for tuner boxes when the switch was made, so that everyone and their grandparents could continue watching television.

Unfortunately, YouTube doesn't have the same kind of support.

yuhong• 10 years ago

And are TVs and monitors really different these days other than inclusion of the tuner?

niftich5• 10 years ago

Next up on terrible ideas: CableCARD slots on TVs!

violentvinyl• 10 years ago

It's interesting that Smart TVs seem to have two lives, the first as a Smart TV, and the later as a dumb display.

At least in some cars, you can still replace the ICE if it accomodates single or double DIN units. The newer cars with hidden "brains" and a proprietary display though, will that be the equivalent of having an 8-track player mounted under the dash in a few years?

It reminds me of a very good Mitch Hedberg quote: "An escalator can never break: it can only become stairs. You should never see an Escalator Temporarily Out Of Order sign, just Escalator Temporarily Stairs. Sorry for the convenience."

titzer• 10 years ago

I've certainly seen escalators undergoing maintenance where the floor at the base was opened up and workers were standing inside. Wouldn't want to take those stairs in that case :)

DrJokepu2• 10 years ago

Not true at all! Escalators don't necessarily fail safe. If the brake is faulty, it is very dangerous to use an out of service escalator as stairs.

a_imho• 10 years ago

It is really hard to get a top end dumb TV the same way it is hard to get a top end dumb phone.

kelvin0• 10 years ago

Actually that seems like a great business plan/startup idea! I would be first in line ...

torrent-of-ions2• 10 years ago

Oh how I'd love a TV with a physical switch which connects the HDMI input to the display and bypasses the onboard crap.

tsmarsh• 10 years ago

Why doesn't a monitor fill your needs?

samsolomon• 10 years ago

This is how all of Vizio's new TVs work.

There's no interface for the television. It just has Chromecast built in.

Downside (of the M-Series at least) is they don't come with a tuner installed. If you want a cable or an antenna you'll have to dish out $100 more for a tuner.

criddell4• 10 years ago

For me, a big part of the problem has been that smart tv's were anything but smart. They were slow, threatened to overlay ads, assaulted your privacy, had terrible UIs, and were difficult to use.

The usability issue is starting to be fixed. My daughter bought a cheap TV from Amazon that has the Roku software and it works incredibly well. The TV was something like $165 for a 32" display.

I don't know what the long term prospects are for this. What happens if our LAN goes IPV6? Or Roku's agreement with Netflix changes? etc... I'm not terribly concerned because in a few years a replacement will be $100.

joombaga• 10 years ago

The premium for the "smart" version of TV "x" is getting lower. I just bought a Roku TV last month. For the 55" Roku TV I bought last month, it was basically $0. If it becomes a dumb TV in 4 years I won't be too bothered. The 2020 FooNexusCastWebFireBar will probably be better anyway.

orionblastar• 10 years ago

The companies only add the software as a way to make more money. If a smart tv costs more and offers free Youtube videos, then people see it as a added value. But technology changes so fast that sometimes the smart tv sets can't keep up.

My wife got a smart tv from her employer out of a catalog for being a loyal employee for a long time. It has Roku built in. One day that will be obsolete.

My son is thinking of an Amazon Fire TV stick to use and cancel our Cable TV subscriptions. It is only supposed to be $40 and plugs into an HDMI port. So if you need to buy a new one, it should be only $40 later on.

cptskippy• 10 years ago

TV Manufacturers actually subsidize the cost of the TV by adding user tracking features into their smart TVs. The on by default "features" gather valuable marketing data that companies can then sell to the highest bidder. That's why all TVs these days are smart, even the super cheap ones.

The best thing you can do with a Smart TV is never connect it to the internet.

pbhowmic• 10 years ago

Exactly right. The TV itself is a durable product my TV is 8 years old. This is what I like about the modular approach of "pluggable" smarts. Upgrade the smarts by upgrading the cheaper smart module in this case Chromecast or Fire or Apple TV.

ksk2• 10 years ago

Using something like a ChromeCast to get content to the TV makes so much more sense than embedding "intelligence" in a display.

Can you explain why it makes more sense?

signal11• 10 years ago

I had the same problem with my 2011 Samsung Smart TV. It had an app for Amazon's Prime Video. Amazon eventually abandoned it and sent me part-credit for a Fire TV stick.

I also have a Chromecast and am generally positive about it, however it's very laggy to controller (i.e. app) input. For example, here's a feature I see as pretty basic for a "smart" display: select a bunch of photos from my phone, beam them to my TV, and flick through them using the phone. All the Chromecast-enabled slideshow apps I've tried for this have been laggy and disappointing, unfortunately.

marcosdumay2• 10 years ago

There shouldn't be any lifetime mismatch by now. A first release Raspberry PI is powerful enough to fill a full HD TV nowadays, and while it takes a more powerful computer for a 4K TV, this is not something that changes with time while you are not looking.

The only "lifetime mismatch" that still exist on smart TVs is manufacturer DRM that is fulfilling its design goal of not letting you use your device.

danudey2• 10 years ago

My wishlist for a 'TV':

1. High quality LCD panel 2. 'good enough' speakers (optional) 3. 4+ HDMI ports 4. no TV tuner, composite, component, etc. 5. Proper working HDMI CEC support 6. Make it as 'always on' as my Macbook or Apple Cinema Display – hit a button or activate a display and the screen comes on instantly.

For the premium model, add:

1. Ambient light detection to adjust brightness 2. Embedded RPi-like (or actually RPi) on a fifth 'overlay' input (i.e. the HUD/guide/etc). Make it open source, let people hack it and do fun stuff with it, build widgets, whatever.

Don't sell me on 'Your TV can do Netflix now!' Every device in my house with an LCD can play Netflix. My iPad from 2010 can play Netflix, and it can do it better than most smart TVs can. The only thing I own that uses 2.4 GHz that doesn't play Netflix is my microwave, and if it did I might actually use it.

If I buy a $70 AppleTV and it becomes obsolete, outdated, or can't support what I want, I can buy another $70 AppleTV. If I buy an $1800 SmartTV and the 'Smart' features become obsolete, outdated, or can't do what I want, then 50% of my value is gone.

SeeDave• 10 years ago

Totally agree. I currently have a SmartTv, a Blu-Ray player with very similar apps, and an X-Box with similar apps. They all have so much in common: streaming media from a network attached PC, youtube videos, amazon prime video, Netflix, etc. It seems like a complete and total waste of developer time to reinvent the wheel for what is essentially the same thing on different devices.

dcw303• 10 years ago

there are trade offs all the way along the convenience spectrum. If you're reading HN, you're probably not in the target market for youtube apps embedded in smart tvs. But these customers do exist.

I imagine the main selling point is they don't have to connect or configure any external set top box or media pc, and they don't have to install or maintain the app. If you don't have the skills (or the time) to do so, this may be appealing.

The polar opposite would be a Linux expert running their own media center - absolute control but at the cost of said time and skills.

niftich5• 10 years ago

I am skeptical of smart TVs and smart fridges and the like, but I like having an embedded Netflix/Youtube app because it's not harming me any -- provided the UI is snappy, the UX is good, the TV isn't spying on my pixels -cough- Vizio -cough-, and it doesn't go away like it did here.

I know these are generous assumptions, but if it saves me from having to Bring My Own Streaming Stick and I have no particular brand loyalty and/or ecosystem investment like AppleTV, Amazon, Google Play Store, PlayStation Store, then fine. It's only harmful when it doesn't work as intended, of when my 'smart' TV is so obsolete that it's no longer functional as a 'dumb' TV.

The problem is every TV manufacturer suddenly pulled a Windows 10 and thought to themselves: "Everyone already has our products in their homes, why don't we try to monetize this further? Otherwise we'll never beat Google and Apple!" So they're all trying to build 'platforms' and 'ecosystems' and the like, which is terrible value for the person who doesn't want to re-buy the same DRM'ed movie on four different platforms.

Luckily, more and more of these homegrown smart TV platforms are dying out in favor of Android/Google TV (whatever they keep renaming it to), Roku's licensed software, and Sony's PlayStation ecosystem.

justinlardinois2• 10 years ago

I like having an embedded Netflix/Youtube app because it's not harming me any -- provided the UI is snappy, the UX is good

People have been putting up with digital cable's crappy on demand menus for a decade, so I imagine they'll tolerate the chunkiness that smart TV apps usually have.

emmelaich• 10 years ago

I bought a HiSense Smart TV because it was a good price for the picture quality. And I thought the Smart bit would be a nice plus.

But it's quite annoying. Takes a loong time to turn on and the UI is glacial and inconsistent. I use Netflix through the Xbox, and use Chromecast for other things.

dahdum• 10 years ago

Very much this. My grandparents can grab the regular old tv remote like they've been doing for 25 years and browse netflix on the tv like regular channels.

Convincing them to use a smartphone, search on the tiny screen, play, and then cast to their tv is impossible. I don't blame 'em.

I use Xbox One as a media center, works very well.

rconti5• 10 years ago

Oh god. Don't get me started on how horrendously complicated my Harmony remote was to setup.

Plus, once in awhile it goes haywire, which makes my wife's ability to use the system 10x as difficult as it would be without the universal remote in play. Because I set the system up, I understand its quirks. But when it works 99.9% of the time, the other 0.01% of the time is too difficult to train a novice on.

Whereas, in the old days, we'd both be using 7 remotes to accomplish any task, and be more or less equally proficient at it. Practice makes perfect.

beachstartup• 10 years ago

i dunno, i use the netflix and amazon video clients on my ethernet-connected panasonic viera plasma all the time, multiple times per week.

adding titles using my laptop, they just appear in the client and i select and play. the netflix playlist interface is pretty good, i can browse series and titles quite easily.

i've had it for 5 years now, and it still works fine. i'm going to use it until it dies, probably in the next 2-3 years.

pmontra4• 10 years ago

Those people have tablets and smartphones that can use very well. Why should watching youtube on a tv be better than on a tablet? I believe it's not. It takes more time to operate and you can't walk around the house. Furthermore everybody must watch the same video, which is seldom welcome even with standard tv programs.

eeeeeeeeeeeee• 10 years ago

I have a newer (2015-ish) Sony Bravia TV with YouTube integration, along with Amazon, Netflix, and other apps like Plex. When it works, it actually works surprisingly well. But it's a very buggy system (Android OS) -- I get constant hard crashes of the entire TV, or apps crashes, etc. And in general, the interface is not as snappy as it should be. I sometimes have to completely pull the plug to restart it.

That being said, it is definitely convenient to have all these apps accessible from a main screen. The alternative would likely be switching to a different input and having to grab another remote (oh, the horror! ;) ). But I am worried about how long it will be until my "smart" tv is obsolete because all the apps are no longer compatible with their services, but I'm hoping that because it's Android-based, it will be more likely to receive regular updates.

joshvm• 10 years ago

My mum bought a (Sony) bluray player that, at the time, was great. It had support for Lovefilm (now Amazon), Spotify, Netflix and all sorts. It was quite expensive, but we thought it was worth it for the extras and it was highly rated as a standalone bluray player. She even paid for the overpriced USB wifi dongle.

Now it's just a bluray player. There's no support for any of the apps because they all changed their protocols (or whatever happens). Thankfully it's still useful and it's not the TV that's defunct.

It damages consumer relations a lot because now she's very cynical about buying any kind of 'smart' device. Good for her to be savvy, but bad for Sony. The people in the target market are getting screwed. Unless you buy an Android TV that has a decent chip in it, you're setting yourself up for EOL in a couple of years.

I bought her a Roku stick for Christmas and she couldn't be happier.

Animats• 10 years ago

What, it can't decode HTML5 video? What does YouTube need that the device doesn't have?

phantomathkg• 10 years ago

Most likely because the browsers on older generation of smart TVs does not have the capability to work with MSE/EME.

0x0• 10 years ago

Is there a chance to get a full refund and return a device in general when something like this happens? Some countries have pretty hefty consumer protection laws

giarc• 10 years ago

As an owner of a Sony Bravia "smart TV" I'm not surprised to see this. I tried using the features but they were very slow and never seemed to work properly. It was hard enough to keep it connected to my wifi with the $80 wifi dongle I bought. My new Apple TV is so worth the money.

niftich5• 10 years ago

Potentially related: Youtube updated their TOS [1][2] and posted additional documents that developers need to adhere to [3][4]. These take effect February 10, 2017, but were posted in advance on August 11, 2016.

HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12409825

[1] https://youtube-eng.blogspot.com/2016/08/an-updated-terms-of...

[2] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/api-services-ter...

[3] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-polici...

[4] https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/required-minimum...

wmf2• 10 years ago

For everyone saying "just use Chromecast", note that Vizio now sells that: https://www.vizio.com/m-series It's flaky, but I don't know if it's more or less flaky than smart TVs.

azurelogic• 10 years ago

I have one of the affected TVs and I don't think that I have ever used the YouTube app on it. This is primarily because it has always been hooked up to something smarter: a computer, game console, or Apple TV. The interfaces on smart TVs of that era were abysmal. Now that all of the modern boxes and TVs have voice search and everything, I can't imagine there are too many people who are extremely heartbroken over this. Especially when you look at the price of a Roku or FireStick.

jwatte• 10 years ago

Internet of bricks!

mikeryan• 10 years ago

I have a company that has built a lot of smart tv apps. I can say that the Sony TVs have consistently been the least performing of the bunch. We don't support most 2012 TVs anymore and that's on more solid TVs like Samsung and LG.

This is a pretty natural evolution it's hugely painful to support legacy TVs right now and 2012 is about where they're becoming too old and underpowered.

scurvy6• 10 years ago

I realize it's quite fashionable to bash "smart TV's" in this thread, but I've got a Sony 2016 Bravia and love it. It runs Android TV and has the usual stuff via Android app store (Netflix, Plex, etc). It has built-in chromecast support, too. Everything is nice and responsive; no complaints. The HDMI CEC supports works well, so I can do everything from 1 remote.

rspeer2• 10 years ago

But will you still love it in 2020?

Home electronics used to last longer than this.

voltagex_• 10 years ago

The first TV I remember at my parents' place was thrown out after twenty years.

The first TV I bought for my place (admittedly for $999AUD) was thrown out after 5 years - ironically because I wanted a "smart" feature, HDMI CEC. I'm now using a second hand Sony TV that just barely supports the HDMI CEC features I need - enough for it to be driven by a Raspberry Pi, at least.

Our electronics don't last as long but we ask a lot more of them.

scurvy6• 10 years ago

Considering that it replaced a TV from 2005, I'd wager yes.

4K will probably be the last big consumer TV tech push until we get cybernetic implants for eyes. You can't see a difference from 4K to 8K at under 100" screen sizes.

4ad6• 10 years ago

Everything is nice and responsive; no complaints.

My parents-in-law have the same TV. The UI is the most frustrating UI I ever had to use. Please give me back the dumb 1-level-deep dumb UI.

Apart from how hard is to actually do anything (because the Android crap just gets in the way), everything is so slow and takes forever. There's so much lag in everything. So much time until the damn app that I need starts. So much time until the damn thing boots.

With the previous TV, it took less than half a second to change inputs. Everything was smooth and responsive. Now it takes about 10 seconds, and it's 10 very, very frustrating seconds.

Plus, the worst of all, audio and video are not synchronised on this TV. How can it have such a basic problem, I can't explain. By turning image processing and all that crap off (as much as possible), A/V sync has gotten better, but it's still noticeable to me, and, very, very, very annoying.

So I split A/V signal, and route the digital audio through a box that delays it as much as the TV delays the image, so I can get them in sync. But depending on the load on the TV, the delay is not constant. It changes during the movie. It's the most frustrating piece of equipment I ever laid hands on.

scurvy6• 10 years ago

Boots? It only boots after power outages or updates. Otherwise it's in standby mode and the display turns on in a matter of seconds.

The UI is 1 layer deep unless you're in the settings menu. Apps are their own thing.

No sync issues for me as it's all pass through to sound bar.

forgottenacc56• 10 years ago

TV software is so deeply ordinary.

It's a massive missed opportunity, but TV manufacturers just don't "get" software.

faragon2• 10 years ago

"The symptoms being experienced are not a failure of the TV, but are as a result of specification changes made by YouTube that exceed the capability of the TV’s hardware."

Which changes? YouTube still streams H.264, and I can not believe that those TVs can not run properly the glue-code scripting, e.g. doing a check of "if old TV, then, use less fancy things". So as others comment here, it looks like an excuse.

timcederman• 10 years ago

Likely software to support ads that they didn't want to write code for.

acd2• 10 years ago

Richard stallman started the GNU project because he was not allowed to modify closed source printer drivers. https://www.talisman.org/~erlkonig/misc/free-as-in-freedom-r...

It would be better for the environment if consumer devices had open source so end users can fix software issues. Reason being end users care about their devices longer than device manufacturers do.

In the meantime a Chromecast dongle will fix the TVs.

Imagine your future TV booting Debian/Ubuntu from an open boot loader via standard micro SD-card.

sleepychu• 10 years ago

Yeah I can imagine it being exactly like every linux machine I've ever used (stable but vulnerable or needing some techno-fu to persuade it to boot back up again after I ran apt-get upgrade and it didn't quite do what it meant to for my hardware).

Freak_NL• 10 years ago

It would be nice, but in the end you gain more flexibility by building a HTPC with the hardware you want and treat the TV as a dumb screen that can receive input from HDMI, DVB-T and DVB-C.

acd2• 10 years ago

True thanks, a htpc would be more long lived.

cletus• 10 years ago

To me "smart TV" means "we're going to interrupt you randomly to tell you the privacy policy or the T&Cs on something you never use have changed".

The best thing you can do for your TV is not connect it to the Internet. Get a Roku box or similar for all your streaming needs.

douche3• 10 years ago

Sigh. I kind of miss the old, heavy, dumb-as-rocks TV I grew up with. It turned on instantly. Switching channels was instantaneous - none of this five second Comcast delay - although you did have to get up and punch the physical buttons on the cable tuner[1]. I don't think it even had coaxial input; I remember there were two leads[2] that were held on with a couple screws, so if the picture got snowy, you'd jiggle the wires around to get a better connection.

edit: footnotes

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Push_but...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lead

torrent-of-ions2• 10 years ago

I really don't understand how TVs are so bad. You can spend thousands of pounds on one and the interface will be incredibly slow, buggy and take ages to change channels. A £5 raspberry pi is capable of running a faster interface and my old DVB-t cards for PCs were able to switch muxes almost instantly. What is so difficult about putting this capability inside a television?

9point6• 10 years ago

Because it's rare for hardware manufacturers to be good at software and also that those hardware manufacturers don't want to spend to license something better that 95% of their customers wouldn't really care about.

To be fair in the current situation, it's not worth buying a TV for it's smart capabilities because they'll rapidly fall out of date. It makes more sense to buy something like the Nvidia Shield which can be swapped out without replacing the panel should it be needed

c3833174• 10 years ago

Even a cheap external digital tuner has a more features and a more usable interface than (dumb) TVs with builtin tuner.

Samsung TV (2010): takes longer than a CRT to "warm up", remote died within 4years

Sony TV (2008): half the screen gets covered by program info popup for some seconds every time some decoding error happens, remote died within 4years

Telefunken TV (early 90's) + external tuner: original remote still works, screen turns on automatically when decoder is turned on and it also has built-in DVR and tetris

coldpie2• 10 years ago

This is a market I've daydreamed about trying to enter. Build a high quality, dumb-as-shit TV and couple it with a small line of high quality receivers with beefy ARM processors and well written software. How hard can this possibly be?

madengr• 10 years ago

It did take a few seconds to warm up, but you'd get the nice crackly static charge on the screen, warm glow of the tube heater, and barely audible coil whine.

My mother in law has a classic floor console tube (wood cabinet) hooked to google fiber.

bpicolo• 10 years ago

I got a new LG SmartTV about a week ago. Before it, I actually was on the same side of being annoyed by SmartTVs, but this one is actually a pretty smooth experience. I tossed out my Fire stick. I think TV manufacturers are, necessarily, going to keep working on the kinks. I don't think SmartTVs are an inherently bad idea, they just needed polish.

lighthazard• 10 years ago

An issue like OP posted shows the problem with SmartTVs - they need to be updated. If your SmartTV manufacturer wants to stop supporting an 'app', or can't handle the new specs for said app, you need to buy a new TV to keep your expected functionality. Whereas, if your FireTV stopped supporting an app, you could upgrade your FireTV for a fraction of the cost of upgrading your entire TV.

Termination of YouTube Service on 2012 BRAVIA TVs

Related Stories