Smart TVs Are Not Disruptive

Smart TV has not fulfilled the promise of disruption of the early hype.  Why?  Some say it is a problem with the interface - it is too complex and awkward.  The interface involves at least the following items: the layout of information on the screen, the interaction device, such as a keyboard, remote control, mouse, etc.  Using such interaction devices from 10 feet away is a problem in itself.  Newer devices are including voice recognition and control.  This in principle should solve the interface problem.  Some devices provide control from your iPad (or, generically, your tablet).  This also solves a lot of the interface problems.

But, is the interface really the problem? What can you do with a smart TV that you cannot already do with your dumb TV, or your computer sitting at your desktop?  It appears at present that the reason there is no disruption created by smart TVs is that they are just incremental extensions of the trend in TV ecosystems.  They integrate internet with cable capability.  Certainly, in the future, cable may lose to Internet access for all that it provides, but this is just a different way of delivering the same stuff.  In fact, Internet access often comes on the same cable that the cable company provide for you TV.  So, what's the difference?

For disruption to occur, we really need to identify another trend that when it interacts with the TV ecosystem trend one can do something you could not do before.  Tablets were introduced about the same time as smart TVs, and tablets have so disrupted the desktop PC market that they threaten to become the PC of choice.  The two trends of mobility and PC systems allowed this disruption to occur.  No one is going to carry around a 50 inch smart TV to accomplish what you can do with an iPad.