androidtv Why don't AndroidTVs come with touchscreen input?

[InfernalKing]

Seeing that most TVs today use AndroidTV and have the support and are powerful enough, why don't they come with Touchscreen input? 

Besides the potential cost of manufacturing a 45" or greater touch panel, I can't see why not. I mean, I get it that it's not needed when I ask myself if 'it's necessary'? It definitely isn't but it will be a nice to have. 

Imagine using it as a whiteboard or big wall painting thing. Or something for artists for something like wall murals. I can see myself using it to navigate the UI if it ever comes to be.

Besides the potential increase in the cost to mass produce the panels, what is preventing them from going mainstream?

[lgcas]

7 minutes ago, InfernalKing said:

Seeing that most TVs today use AndroidTV and have the support and are powerful enough, why don't they come with Touchscreen input? 

Besides the potential cost of manufacturing a 45" or greater touch panel, I can't see why not. I mean, I get it that it's not needed when I ask myself if 'it's necessary'? It definitely isn't but it will be a nice to have. 

Imagine using it as a whiteboard or big wall painting thing. Or something for artists. I can see myself using it to navigate the UI if it ever comes to be.

Besides the potential increase in the post to mass produce the panels, what is preventing them from going mainstream?

Having to clean it so often would be a nightmare. I guess for artists maybe with a pen? Using your hands on it would just be annoying after a while, especially when light shines on it.

[jaslion]

Because who would want to go up to their tv and touch it? There are tv sized touch screens but those are for very specific purposes as in presentations and whatnot. A very very small market.

[Sauron]

That would encourage touching your TV which is a bad idea. For it to be less of a bad idea the TV would have to come with a hard glass surface which would be expensive and very reflective, which you don't really want on a large static screen.

[RejZoR]

I'd say it's just not practical and not something anyone would use. TV's are usually something you watch from distance. So, touch screen is pretty useless and if you need it as whiteboard, you'll just use something specialized (similar to what news anchors use these days as they finger the displays in studios).

 

What would be much more practical would be that every smart TV had remote control mouse pointer. So you press a button and aim with the remote. Some use this and it's really smooth operation, much more than moving cursor slowly with arrow keys or something similarly clumsy.

 

Touch screen will remain in domain of tablets and laptops, where you sit next to display anyway.

[PlayStation 2]

12 minutes ago, InfernalKing said:

Besides the potential cost of manufacturing a 45" or greater touch panel

You answered your question, at least in one half. The other half would just be that no one gives a damn about large touchscreens outside of schools.

[papajo]

13 hours ago, InfernalKing said:

Seeing that most TVs today use AndroidTV and have the support and are powerful enough, why don't they come with Touchscreen input? 

Besides the potential cost of manufacturing a 45" or greater touch panel, I can't see why not. I mean, I get it that it's not needed when I ask myself if 'it's necessary'? It definitely isn't but it will be a nice to have. 

Imagine using it as a whiteboard or big wall painting thing. Or something for artists for something like wall murals. I can see myself using it to navigate the UI if it ever comes to be.

Besides the potential increase in the cost to mass produce the panels, what is preventing them from going mainstream?

Because it adds an additional layer on the TV which may interfere with the TVs optical quality performance(besides other factors it would reduce brightness) and it will add cost (especially when thinking that it will need to be a huge touch digitizer ) 

 

Last but not least a TV is not normally used in a close proximity where extending your arm to touch it would be convenient 

[LAwLz]

I mean, isn't it really obvious?

TVs are something you use from a distance. Adding a touch screen to a TV would increase cost a lot, for a feature barely anyone would actually use. It's like asking why your frying pan doesn't have a bluetooth speaker built in. Because it adds unnecessary cost and complexity to be worth it.

 

If you want a big touch screen that you can draw on, for some reason, then companies like Samsung do sell those. I don't know how well it actually works for movie watching though so I am not recommending it.

Samsung Flip 2 Display | Digital Flipchart | Samsung Business

[Mling]

lol when I was a child we had old TVs that had no remote only large clicky buttons that you could shoot with a toy BB gun. If you want to bring that back you will need to make the touch screen be able to handle shots from a plastic BB gun like the old days.

[LogicalDrm]

So you want the 50 year development to go backwards? The reason for remotes was to make it easier to control TV from where you were watching it. So in that sense, there's no point to force someone moving to TV in order to some extra controls for it. Rather have special remote with touchscreen... Oh wait, thats already been done.

 

And as another thought. There are already commercial solutions for info screens with touch (and have been for years) as well as for using as whiteboard (also for over 10 years). The development is already focusing more to motion controlling than actual touch input, if you would be thinking whiteboard function or maybe children's software. The accuracy of normal touch interface is not enough for professional artists, they are still using stylus anyway for fine-control. And really, is there a point for bigger screen for drawing when you can already zoom in and out in any device?

[InfernalKing]

I do know that the TVs are used from a distance but when I'm talking about the scenario when you're spending 3-4k on a TV and why not have a touchscreen on it as well. Like the Surface Lineup of similar technology is 40k. I mean, I can see the touchscreen interface better than the remotes they provide. AndroidTV is bad not up there yet where you can just use the remote or a mouse to do anything. For instance, even if you have a mouse plugged in, you can't use it to enter text yet. You'll have to use the remote to enter the text then go back to navigating the UI with your mouse. So a touchscreen is definitely gonna be better for input.

[Amias]

On 2/11/2021 at 6:08 PM, InfernalKing said:

Seeing that most TVs today use AndroidTV and have the support and are powerful enough, why don't they come with Touchscreen input? 

Besides the potential cost of manufacturing a 45" or greater touch panel, I can't see why not. I mean, I get it that it's not needed when I ask myself if 'it's necessary'? It definitely isn't but it will be a nice to have. 

Imagine using it as a whiteboard or big wall painting thing. Or something for artists for something like wall murals. I can see myself using it to navigate the UI if it ever comes to be.

Besides the potential increase in the cost to mass produce the panels, what is preventing them from going mainstream?

Nothing.

 

It's cost and complexity. The wider the screen the more complex and difficult it is to make the surface touch screen. 

 

Otherwise it would just be another throw away gimmick TV's would have for a few years before disappearing to absolutely no upset  <cough> 3D <cough>. 

 

But seriously, what a bizarre question? It's like asking, why do we not all live in 10 bed mansions? (Besides the cost and scarcity of land).

[Kisai]

On 2/11/2021 at 10:08 AM, InfernalKing said:

Seeing that most TVs today use AndroidTV and have the support and are powerful enough, why don't they come with Touchscreen input? 

Besides the potential cost of manufacturing a 45" or greater touch panel, I can't see why not. I mean, I get it that it's not needed when I ask myself if 'it's necessary'? It definitely isn't but it will be a nice to have. 

Imagine using it as a whiteboard or big wall painting thing. Or something for artists for something like wall murals. I can see myself using it to navigate the UI if it ever comes to be.

Besides the potential increase in the cost to mass produce the panels, what is preventing them from going mainstream?

The digitizers have to be made the same size of the screen. They're generally not available for anything larger than 24", and usually add 30% to the cost of the screen.

 

Take a look at the costs for the various signage screens to see that. Those are the large touch screens and non-touch screen seen in shopping malls and as restaurant screens.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

um.... I dont think Android TVs are most TVs. If anything i think Roku has a greater market share. And Roku doesn't come with a chance of Google getting bored and shutting down the support for your TV.

[LogicalDrm]

18 hours ago, InfernalKing said:

I do know that the TVs are used from a distance but when I'm talking about the scenario when you're spending 3-4k on a TV and why not have a touchscreen on it as well. Like the Surface Lineup of similar technology is 40k. I mean, I can see the touchscreen interface better than the remotes they provide. AndroidTV is bad not up there yet where you can just use the remote or a mouse to do anything. For instance, even if you have a mouse plugged in, you can't use it to enter text yet. You'll have to use the remote to enter the text then go back to navigating the UI with your mouse. So a touchscreen is definitely gonna be better for input.

I still don't understand the scenario where allocating money to make touchscreen would benefit or make the overall experience better. In this quote, your reasons are A) Because its already expensive, it should have touch screen because, B) I could then get up from couch, walk to my 55" TV and enter text by drawing?

 

T9 style of entering text is fast, and could easily be made faster with auto-correct. So thats that problem solved. Or the remote could be used as additional touch screen. So for me, you seem to be after overall UI/UX improvements by the ways you see tablets and 2in1's do it. But failing to understand how implementing them to super-sized screen would actually benefit anything.

[Commodus]

19 hours ago, InfernalKing said:

I do know that the TVs are used from a distance but when I'm talking about the scenario when you're spending 3-4k on a TV and why not have a touchscreen on it as well. Like the Surface Lineup of similar technology is 40k. I mean, I can see the touchscreen interface better than the remotes they provide. AndroidTV is bad not up there yet where you can just use the remote or a mouse to do anything. For instance, even if you have a mouse plugged in, you can't use it to enter text yet. You'll have to use the remote to enter the text then go back to navigating the UI with your mouse. So a touchscreen is definitely gonna be better for input.

This would be a terrible user experience on top of the cost and technical limitations people have mentioned before.

 

Think about it: people invented the remote control precisely so they didn't have to walk to the TV. You're basically winding the clock back, with the extra problem of smudging the screen.

 

For that matter, there are TV remotes that make it much easier to enter text or otherwise control the set. LG's Magic Remote is a good example; it's arguably as fast or faster than walking up to the screen and drawing text. It feels like you're trying to solve a problem that has already been solved in a more effective way.