linuxplatform

A lot of misinformation here.

Samsung smart TV = Tizen.
LG smart TV = lgOS.
Sony smart TV = Android.

As for the rest, it varies. Some older smart TVs basically run a browser on top of Linux, which is what the "smart" DVD/Blu-Ray players did and what the Nintendo Wii/Wii U consoles did too. Newer smart TVs are Roku (#1 by far) with the rest split between Android TV and Fire TV. Android TV may have a slight advantage because they have more manufacturers thanks to Google's rules that if you manufacture an AOSP device you can't manufacture a Google Android device. Lots of the companies that make smart TVs also make Android phones or tablets - TCL, Xiaomi, Motorola, OnePlus, Nokia, Foxconn and Sharp being huge examples but also Haier, Philips and Hisense in some overseas markets - or want to reserve the option to be able to in the future. That limits the Fire TV manufacturers to Insignia and Toshiba (who both gave up on Android tablets years ago).

As for the cheap low end hardware ... that is also a bit outdated. Thanks to Amazon Fire products, the standard smart TV uses the same turnkey stack: an ARM SOC by either Amlogic, Allwinner or MediaTEK that includes the CPU, 2GB of RAM, 8 GB of storage and a gigabit NIC on the same board. The attempts by Amazon and Google to turn their smart TV boxes into mini-gaming consoles flopped - Google is giving it another go with Stadia - but they don't need much horsepower to begin with. Smart TV apps are increasingly migrating to PWAs - which is all they were on the original smart TVs anyway - so the only "performance" required will be the networking stuff. What is very cheap for a tablet or phone is different for a smart TV. In addition to not having to rely on a battery which makes the power design way different, in a smartphone or tablet the mobile SOC actually drives the display. Meanwhile with a smart TV, the SOC is just another input to the TV display. It takes the same, say, Amazon Fire Stick or Roku hardware, puts it inside the TV and assigns it to, say "HDMI 0". So the smart TV CPU isn't actually driving a 70 inch 8K TV the way that a Qualcomm CPU inside a Samsung Galaxy is actually driving the 4K display. Instead, the TV's hardware is. Take the ARM SOC out of the smart TV and you will still have a 1080P/4K/8K TV, which isn't the case with a smartphone or tablet.

The curious thing with smart TVs is when down the line they become hosts for web services like Stadia and PWAs. Especially since the difference in cost between smart TVs and regular TVs keeps diminishing. Right now 40' 1080p smart TVs start at $200 at most retailers, while their traditional counterparts start at $180. And that is the normal price, which means that they will frequently be on sale for LESS than their non-smart counterparts. And app developers have every incentive to do PWAs. Right now mobile is easy: you only have to support iOS, Android and maybe KaiOS (what became of Firefox OS and has gotten quite a bit of traction in developing countries on phones that cost $35-$60 ... and incidentally its apps are all PWAs). But streaming? There are at least 8 major platforms all with tens of millions of devices: Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, Tizen, lgOS, Android TV, XBox, PlayStation. (Nintento has no plans to continue offering streaming channels on their consoles.) Doing a "write once run anywhere" PWA is going to become much preferable, especially when it comes to updates.

KITA said:

DAalseth said:

KITA said:

AppleInsider said:

Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold2

It's not for me, but this year's model actually looks like a real product compared to last year's "protoype" model.

Agreed, but I don't think there's any way in **** the screen looks that perfect and flat at the fold.

Definitely not. Those images were based on mock-ups someone used to place them side by side.

The new one uses glass, not the plastic used in the display on last year's model. So while it might be better, it still has a visual fold between the two sides that will be apparent depending on how the light hits it and the content on the display.

I will get next year's version. This year's version will not support the S-Pen because the under-screen stylus sensors were only able to meet the 100,000 bend threshold (Samsung requires 200,000) before cracking. The next version will have that fixed, support the S-Pen and be a legit productivity device. I was going to get the Note Ultra when I heard that the Fold 2 doesn't support the S-Pen but I will wait until next year to get the device that I really want. My current S8+ is finally starting to slow down, and if it gets any worse I will just get a cheap Samsung or Motorola 5G device for about $200 to tide me over till then.

"Samsung's latest attempt to take on Apple's AirPods Pro, the Galaxy Buds Live are bean-shaped wireless earphones, that this time includes active noise cancellation."

I have written this in the past. 

1) Samsung was the first to come out with an AirPods type product, preceding the AirPods to market by 6 months.
2) Samsung's AirPods type product have features that AirPods lack.
3) Samsung's AirPods type products do not emulate the AirPods in any way but instead have their own design language.

Seriously, Samsung has been making audio products - from analog headphones to home theater systems that cost nearly $2000 - for decades. They shouldn't be considered a copycat in this area at all.

Beats said:

bulk001 said:

pscooter63 said:

Wonko, the first thing I thought of, and you beat me to the punch.

”It looks like you’re trying to use me like Siri, can I help?”

If you are going to imitate a voice assistant, at least imitate one that actually works! Siri is getting better but still has a long way to go to compete with Google Assistant. 

The myth has been disproven for years. They all excel at different tasks.

Yeah, no. If it was the "myth" that you claimed then Apple wouldn't have made a number of moves like this: https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/3/17195076/google-ai-chief-john-giannandrea-joining-apple-machine-learning-siri

Apple also wouldn't have flat out acknowledged that their HomePod wasn't even going to try to have the Siri functionality to match that of Alexa or Assistant on their smart speakers and that it was going to focus on "a premium audio experience instead." Pretty much the only people who claim that this is a "myth" are certain Apple fans. 

But it doesn't matter really. Excellence at something like Alexa and Google Assistant requires a combination of top software (not OS but application software) and top cloud functionality. Apple is a hardware company. So neither is ever going to be Apple's wheelhouse. When they want/need to get better at a specific software product they address it by acqui-hiring (and the programmers generally move on when the job is done) and Apple's iCloud product is actually hosted by AWS with and Google Cloud Platform. 

So Apple not being as good at a cloud software/service products as cloud/software service companies like Amazon and Google is the equivalent of, well, everyone knowing that Google's Pixel phones don't have the hardware to compete with Apple or Samsung. They don't even try ... Google openly advertises that they make up with for their hardware deficiencies with AI and software optimization. (Which ... doesn't work anywhere near as good as Google or the maybe 2 million loyal Pixel fans want to believe it does.) 

And besides, what is at stake here anyway? What iPhone, iPad or MacBook fan is going to buy an Android phone, tablet or Chromebook because Google Assistant is better? Makes no sense when the hardware and OS offers so many other benefits to Apple device buyers. Apple merely wants to keep Siri from falling too far behind and that is good enough.

Beats said:

KITA said:

AppleInsider said:

That includes changes made to Microsoft's digital assistant that repurpose it to become part of the company's broader suite of Microsoft 365 products. In other words, it will no longer be a Siri or Alexa competitor.

This makes sense given the way their software/services are typically used.

No mention of Google Assistant as a competitor?

Not sure if Google Assistant is even relevant anymore?

It is very relevant ... but as this blog hates Google far more than it hates Amazon - a leading seller/promoter of Apple products that don't directly compete with Apple (no one who would consider buying an $750 iPad, $300 HomePod or $150 Apple TV would buy a $60 Kindle tablet, $50 Echo Dot or $35 Fire Stick instead) - it will never acknowledge it.

Remember: this is the same bunch that refused to so much as concede that Google was making a profit off Android until the Oracle trial made it impossible to deny any longer ... and this was with Android having 85% global market share by then.