I'm Not Dead Yet!
There’s a post on Wired entitled “Smart-TV Space May Never Take Off as Predicted” in which the author quotes a comment from ViewSonic:
“’Smart TV’ has not achieved the consumer acceptance or market expectation… that was forecasted over the last couple years. In addition, consumer spending for Smart TV’s in general has experienced a significant slow down as the economy has slowed. Our current strategy is to stay involved with the various technology developments and consider them in the future as they become available.”
Now with all due respect to ViewSonic, the last time I checked they didn’t rank in the top 5 TV manufacturers, and based on looking at prior years reports, my hunch is they represent somewhere between 0-3% of TVs sold (they do well in monitors, not as much in TVs). So when they predict Smart TV to have a problem, perhaps they aren’t the voice we should be using, as compared to companies such as Samsung, who has over 2 million Smart TVs in homes already.
Source: DisplaySearch Quarterly Advanced Global TV Shipment and Forecast Report
As Michael Wolf, of GigaOM, tweeted: “Folks, Viewsonic is not the bellweather company by which to judge success of embryonic sector on #smarttv.” Now that said, I completely agree with James McQuivey (Forrester analyst who is hitting Smart TV issues squarely on the head):
“What’s happening in the connected TV space is it’s not really about what consumers want, it’s about what manufacturers are making,” Forrester principal analyst James McQuivey says. “Simply having a connected TV doesn’t mean you’ll actually use it.”
According to all the analysts and manufacturers I’ve spoken with personally, and that’s virtually all of them, the industry is pretty well agreed that somewhere between 1/4 to 1/3 of all Smart TVs actually get connected. Further, the vast majority of them are just using them for Netflix, and just about everything else is getting pretty well ignored (stats show the #1 Smart TV app is Netflix, #2 is YouTube, and #3 is “other”).
The Wired author goes on to cite failures of the Google TV Revue box as more evidence to why the market is stuttering. The truth is, the Revue box is failing because it’s a lousy product with a poor customer value proposition, and Kevin Bacon commercials aren’t enough to pull the wool over it. But this would be like saying there’s no SmartPhone market because the BlackBerry Storm wasn’t so hot.
Wait a sec, that's not a touch screen!
Last January I wrote a piece for Mashable called “5 Reasons Connected TV Could Flop in 2011” and in my opinion, all 5 of those problems are happening. And I don’t see anybody really emerging out of the pack to do it any better – yet. In fact, I’d wager we’re going to go a full calendar year from now before seeing signs of change. And here’s why:
The TV UI (aka “ten foot user interface” aka “lean back UI” aka “onscreen display”) is simply unable to scale to meet the demands of convergence. I’ll write more on this topic in the next couple of weeks, but mark my words: we have utterly reached the apex of functionality of all forms of TV-based user interfaces/experiences.
I believe TiVo pushed the concept to the breaking point with their original UX back in 1999, and I’ve seen nothing push it further since. Yes, there are some prettier looking things out there, with beautiful icons/etc, but from a UX standpoint, we’re well past the zenith of what you can do with a remote. And no, I don’t believe gestures are going to cut it either, and I’ll go into depth on that topic in an upcoming post as well.
I'd change the channel, but honestly my arms are just too tired.
The last point on Smart TV I have is this – the biggest “thing” that’s going to slow down all forms of growth is replacement cycle consideration. If you buy a device once every 7-8 years, yet know intrinsically that the technology inside that device will be outdated long before that, you are less likely to buy it. The only way manufacturers can solve this problem, as far as I can see it, is through a modular component that will enable future-proofing of the set. Hm, yup, time for a blog post on that.
So is the Smart TV world fragmented? Yes. Confounded? Yes. Faced with turbulence? Yes. Full of shoddy products that are causing backlash and poor word of mouth due to radically complicated living room experiences when all we want to do is kick back, turn on Bear Grylls, and have a beer? Absolutely. Dying? Nope, not even a tiny bit.
It’s refreshing to read somebody who doesn’t buy the hype, and for once, for valid reasons.
When you say: “If you buy a device once every 7-8 years, yet know intrinsically that the technology inside that device will be outdated long before that, you are less likely to buy it.” I think you summed up in that single phrase why Apple should not make a tv and only keep in set top box business.
But I think you missed a possibility in your UX point. TV as a secondary screen. I think we’re seeing the first gen of a success in Apple’s airplay even though there is still room for improvement. The biggest chalenge is probably an industry wide norm that would allow for a transparent cross-screen display. Imagine, you’re watching a video on your ipad/laptop, makes you chuckle, you want to share it with your family/household. Currently, within the Apple ecosystem it’s possible. But if you’re on a laptop, flash doesn’t integrate in that scenario. That’s the next step: one click and on the TV. TV’s UX, or lack thereof is then a non issue.
As Smart TVs get bigger and Set-top-boxes and/or Home Gateways get smaller and more powerful, it is obvious which one will get swapped out first. So size does matter here. Also, given that small tablet devices increasingly can do second-screen functions (ie be used to both view a second
program in the same room as the big/Smart TV or to change channels on the big TV screen), the tablet is more likely to be the dominant Smart TV in the next few years. The iPad has already illustrated that.
Great points as usual JT.
There is evidently a maximum threshold on what can be done at ten feet. That said, I don’t share the point of view that TiVo has marked the apex of the TV UX development curve. My personal affinity aside, although I also can’t point to another approach since that has moved us forward with the same significance, my view of the seemingly endless status quo is more positive. It has generated tremendous opportunity for disruption from below.
There are several more forces that have had significant influence in the slow innovation of the living room.
The slow pace is inherent to the development long development cycles of CE companies.
Pervasive inane input devices from all major CE remotes or GoogleTV keyboards are a major barrier on usability.
Processing power has come a long way since the Mediabolic days, but in many ways, applications are even more starved for performance today on connected TVs and set-tops. That will continue to be a dreadfully slow progression unless GoogleTVs, Xbox, PS3s or similar devices somehow find mass adoption. I’m not holding my breath for it.
The lack of adoption has not attracted significant resource investment to solve the difficulties that a ten-foot experience imposes. I welcome the efforts from Google and Xbox of late. Many more will surely follow in due time. Although these will not produce the results we are looking for yet, slow steady progress will eventually return positive advances.
Like you, I find the bearish views on connected TVs myopic. Connectivity is enabled by too cheap of a part. I will inevitably be in every set sold in the future.
The low attach rate seems mostly a reflection on the lack of killer-services that motivate a consumer to go through the excruciating pain of connecting those devices. The major CE companies are still in the UX dark ages as far as connectivity is concerned.
I’m ever more convinced that simplicity will consistently outperform complexity and even comprehensiveness. The latter will set you free to innovate.
I have yet to be converted by any second-screen use case, but I’m hopeful that someone will crack that nut. I hope it will be you.
Aggregators have a tremendous opportunity to evolve the living room UX into unseen value and ease of use. I’m disheartened by Google’s efforts to date, but they are in for the long run. The prize is too high to miss it. They will eventually get it right, or close to it. I’ve discarded Rovi’s lack of execution. TV Everywhere is a half-hearted effort for now. Maybe a disrupter will blindside the establishment from below.
Multi-screen approaches have the potential to shortcut the current processing power limitations and poor input devices of current TVs and disrupt the moribund innovation of the slow moving CE companies.
I believe the future is bright young Jedi.