Macworld Forums: Panasonic: TVs must become interactive portals to survive - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Panasonic: TVs must become interactive portals to survive here

Translation: Nobody today knows that Panasonic sells TV sets. We are trying to get back in the game by adding a lot of poorly thought-out features.

This is the exact opposite of what I want from a TV. Just give me a dumb screen, and I'll hook whatever I want to it.

"Internet-backed apps and features, and the ability to interact with other wired devices like phones and tablets are now as important as picture quality and design, said Hirotoshi Uehara, a managing director in Panasonic’s TV division."

Does anyone here share, or know someone who shares, this belief?

Navigating interactive sites is the last thing you want to do on a TV. Poor controls combined with small text & an inability to type easily makes it a horrible experience.

Combine that with the fact that several other people may be watching you do this mind numbingly dull navigation.

Don't we just want a box that let us see the programmes & films we want?

Haha they just realized that now? THey should partner up with Apple for the epic applesonic!

bastion, on 05 June 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

I can't say that I entirely share that belief today -- but I will say that it's not exactly a new concept. Hop into the wayback machine, and take a trip back to the mid '90s... there was at least one episode of Babylon 5 which was filmed as though you were watching an interactive TV show, and I can remember thinking to myself how cool that would be... but the technology just wasn't anywhere close to enabling that, at the time. Given the current advances in technology and the prevalence of the internet in every corner of our lives, it doesn't surprise me at all that various companies are now trying to implement that sci-fi inspired interactive TV. The question is, is the idea still as "cool" as it was in the '90s, or has it been effectively bypassed by the practical implementation of our current internet, where the television content has actually become secondary to the interactivity, rather then vice-versa?

Personally, I could care less about surfing the web on my TV. Watching TV shows and movies, and playing games are all I really do there. I can surf the web on my TV thru my Wii if I want to, but I just don't see the need. Concentrate on building a good TV at a decent price, without throwing in stupid and useless "features" like 3D and people will buy them. How simple can it be............

zarmanto, on 05 June 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

Oh certainly. The idea of interactive TV goes back long before B5 and, in fact, by the time B5 aired the roots of the enabling technology did exist with some primitive real-world deployments. But that's not what I was asking. I was asking about this:

"Internet-backed apps and features, and the ability to interact with other wired devices like phones and tablets are now as important as picture quality and design."

Are there consumers in any meaningful quantity "now" for whom interactive features are "as important as" picture quality on a television?

MrMe, on 05 June 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

I know; I have a Panasonic Viera plasma that is top notch.

bastion, on 05 June 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

I suppose I misunderstood the question. I guess I'll go with a, "Prolly not, yo!", then. Having re-read your query and the comment upon which it is based, I presume this is what you're getting at: Isn't picture quality pretty much always going to be king, when it comes to the features of any given television? After all, that's why we still go out to movie theaters... while I will say that I really love my own home theater setup, you still can't faithfully recreate the cinema experience at home, no matter how much money you throw at it -- but if we're going to be honest, that's the target that most of us are shooting for with our bigger, brighter, good/better/best television sets. Come to think of it, that venue has no interactivity at all.

And aside from that... I think that the Panasonic representative may have turned a rather awkward phrase, herein: how many people have tablets which they would consider to be "wired" devices? I get that the term was meant to evoke the sense of "internet connected"... but personally, I still would have called them wireless.

Could it be that certain features would sell by the millions and make Panasonic $millions in the home Japanese market, the growing China market, etc. but be totally rejected in the West? If you ever stayed in a Japanese hotel, you would know that even their toilet seats are heated water jet marvels, some with multi-button control panels and LCDs built into the wall.

Martian, on 05 June 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Interesting point. So what you're saying, is that that scene from Cars 2 wasn't an exaggeration? ( reference )

bastion, on 05 June 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Sony did. I remember all the talk about the Playstation 2's I think it was called Cell technology. Their future going forward was that this tech would be in all appliances, from TVs to refrigerators. Though, obviously this tech and it's purpose for Sony has vanished. I think Apple has a belief in this aw well.

Think about it. Even when the iPhone came out few if any knew how it and its apps and it's connectivity would change, well, everything. Most tech going forward will have to have this connectivity integration in it. Our smartphones are becoming less phones and more something else, a veritable Doctor Who Sonic Screwdriver. Televisions undoubtedly have to evolve to more than just a screen as phones have become more than phones. I think Panasonic and the others are watching Apple closely because they are the company that changed the cell phone, nailed the tablet computer and have the best insight to what the TV has to do at this point to evolve.

Whether you'll use the tech or not is not the point; the decision has to be made where future tech is headed. The direction so far is inter connectivity. The "how" is still being worked out.