Samsung TV - Removing Features, Still Under Warranty

Lumstorm

littlerock wrote: »

So we don't really need smart TVs then?

They can be a bit pointless as the services demand more computing power as they add features, and it's cheaper to update an external box rather than the TV.

RumRat

Best to buy a TV purely for the picture quality and use it basically as a monitor.
Much easier to keep external sources up to date and add features as and when required.

Gloomendoom

RumRat wrote: »

Best to buy a TV purely for the picture quality and use it basically as a monitor.
Much easier to keep external sources up to date and add features as and when required.

This is the conclusion I have come to.

dipsomaniac

a dumb tv with smart box has always been the way to go imho

JJ_Egan

littlerock wrote: »

So we don't really need smart TVs then?

Need is open to interpretation .
Basic problem with Smart TV is a refusal for many to update the smart internet apps .

97browng

Thanks for all the replies.

I agree that in the future it seems the best option would be to go for an external device (probably will get a ROKU as I want additional options), and choose a TV for picture etc... But as the situations stands I have a Smart TV that is no longer Smart. I paid additional money for the Smart features, which I can no longer use.

The device is redundant as a 'Smart TV' which is what it was advertised as. I spent a lot of money on this device and it no longer functions correctly. If you spent the same amount on a Smart Phone and then 4 years later were told you could only now use it for phone calls (not text, internet, apps, videos etc...), then would that be ok? Would you still class it as a Smart Phone and say it was fit for purpose?

Also saying 'when buying a smart TV the smart functions should be way down the list of priorities when looking for a TV' is surely missing the point. I wanted a 'Smart TV' not a TV so I went looking for such a device. Had I wanted a basic TV that I could plug an external device into, I would have spent a lot less on it. Lets go back to the phone analogy again, if I wanted a standard phone I would look for the cheapest possible (maybe £10). If I wanted a Smart Phone I would look for one that had all the features I wanted and spend appropriately (maybe £700). Different horses for different courses.

Also it is not beyond Samsung's control to resolve the issue. They could easily update their system to be compatible with new industry standards. Again this is what they do with their Smart Phones to ensure they still work.

The warranty is with Marks not the manufacturer so I am hoping they can help.

Also as a note I can see that other manufactures (LG for example) gave customers a free Chromecast to compensate for the fact they were removing Smart functions. Seems a shame Samsung are not following their lead.

RumRat

Would a £15 (when on offer) gadget really satisfy your disappointment?
Updating to be compatible with new standards would only be possible if the internal components met the new standards. Smart phones eventually don't get new updates and although work as a phone begin to get limitations.
I doubt the warranty will cover this event, but, good luck with your efforts.

97browng

I know a £15 device can be bought, it is not the cost it is the principle. I bought a Smart TV, it is no longer smart.

I must admit I did not think people were so much of the opinion just bend over and take it. I think that if perhaps we were not so willing to let companies f**k us and just take it then we would get better products and services.

You would think members of a money saving forum would have more fight in them and not just come up with the answer of spend more money.

Norman_Castle

As a member of a money saving forum I choose not to buy a smart TV due to the limited lifespan of the smart features.

97browng

Norman_Castle wrote: »

As a member of a money saving forum I choose not to buy a smart TV due to the limited lifespan of the smart features.

Let me just get my time machine ready.