Only one third of U.S. homes have smart TVs | Connectedly

Only one third of U.S. homes have smart TVs

Apple TV and Fire TV
By Rich Edmonds on 15 May 2014 12:32 pm

In a recent report from market research firm NPD, only one third of Americans (42 million out of a pool of 115 million) have televisions that can display content downloaded from the internet. The quarterly Connected Home Report covers devices that are able to deliver said content through fixed or wireless networks. The figures shown illustrate a wide open market for companies to penetrate and offer solutions, including the Apple TV and Xbox One.

Interestingly, the devices covered in the report not only include Smart TVs, but video game consoles, Blu-ray Disc players, media players, computers, tablets and smartphones. As well as concluding that there's significant room for competition and growth in the space, NPD also conducted a survey of 5,000 individuals as part of the report, which provided an insight into what consumers want from such hardware.

NPD Connected TV Report

Wireless connectivity and the overall user experience both topped the results chart. 67 percent of those surveyed said the ability to connect to the internet over WiFi was their main concern, followed by a user-friendly remote control, minimal buffering for loading content and an easily navigated home screen.

Streaming devices are on the rise, which is what many companies are releasing these days. With more and more home owners looking to streaming devices for content, we could see competition heat up with companies attempting to capitalize on this seemingly booming market.

Do you have everything connected up on your TV? If so, what device(s) do you use?

Source: NPD, via: Apple Insider

Related: Smart TVs News

Reader comments

Only one third of U.S. homes have smart TVs


I'm not surprised. TVs are generally something bought in 5 - 10 year cycles. Most people will have upgraded to an HD TV prior to the roll out of smart TVs.

Very much so! Give it another 5 years and numbers will probably increase. Then again with the quality of streaming devices, maybe smart TVs will not really reach the saturation point

Posted via Connectedly App

I'm surprised it's that high a figure. Up until very recently, a smart TV was a lot more expensive than a regular one, and people keep TVs around for a lot longer before replacing them than with phones or computers.

Posted via Connectedly App

I'm surprised its that high too. There are a lot of older people who will never do it no matter how easy just because it "seems" too complicated. Just won't bother. My mother may try to do it with urging from me, but then I'll have to deal with her "tech support" calls, so I leave it alone.

I don't see the value in a smart TV. My bro in law bought a TV recently and my TV is about four years old and I didn't really see a crazy enough difference. I also don't see the point of having cable with so many different options on watching shows. Really I wish channels like ESPN, and local channels would do more mobile and death from cable companies. They'd make more money and I could watch ESPN without having Comcast rip a new one in me.

Posted via Connectedly App

The title is quite misleading which is leading to the confused comments. 1/3 of TVs are not "Smart TVs" but are TVs that have been *made smart* using any number of methods including using a video game console, computer, etc... So I've got a regular TV but since I've hooked a computer to it using HDMI/VGA, it counts. I just bought my parents Chromecast for $40 and that counts too. Frankly, I'd be interested to see how it breaks down by device type. I would imagine that actual Smart TVs would represent a very small fraction of the actual method of making the TV smart. If that is the case, it's bad news for the TV manufacturers.

I bought my Samsung 32" for around $250. Not bad really. I do agree with the remotes though. I have a Panasonic HD TV and medial player downstairs and the remote for the media player is atrocious. I actually hate it. Sadly my Panasonic TV remote won't work on the media player too :/

Honestly don't see the need for one as I have multiple consoles with the same apps I'd be accessing.

My tv is also hooked up to a computer. I use a lot of XBMC with the remote app on my nexus, wireless mouse and keyboard. I will never buy a smart TV because i can watch netflix or hulu or w/e app it has installed. My computer will do it better and faster.

I wouldn't even bother looking at a TV's smart functions, for my next TV I'd look in to 3D purely as a novelty but not as a must. The only thing that I'm interested in when looking at a TV is the picture quality. But with the amount of connected tech I'd be plugging into it, there would be no reason for me to even bother accessing smart functions. At this moment in time my dumb TV has a desktop PC a PS3 and a Minix Neo x7 Android TV box. I most definitely wouldn't say my dumb TV is daft!

I'm definitely in the 2/3. Main TV is analog JVC that's been going 13 years strong. Although we inherited a 720p LCD from my sister-in-law when she relocated, we don't watch TV on it. I use it as a monitor much to my wife's disdain.

N3 via Connectedly App

As the prices get lower (under $1,000 for a 50 in), people will get a smart TV as a normal buy instead of an upgrade to it as it seems to be now. In a couple of years, it won't be an option anymore whether people use it or not. Kinda like some people still buy smartphones but don't take advantage of the features they offer.

The UI on most smart TVs is so clunky, I'm not surprised. If the choice was available, I'd buy a "dumb" TV as long as specs were same and hook it up to Roku for internet access. I almost never use the embedded smart TV functions on my Samsung - I always use either Chromecast or Roku.

not too surprising, like others have said most people had already bought a new TV by the time Smart TVs were becoming a thing but furthermore I also think that they just aren't as good as a standalone device. My Google TV blows my Blu-ray player out of the water when it comes to streaming content and most Smart TVs are just the same thing that companies do for their Blu-ray players. A Roku, Apple TV, Google TV or Fire TV are going to give a much better user experience I'd think. Lastly a stand alone player can be moved around from TV to TV making any TV "Smart".

I don't know - I literally JUST bought a TV yesterday and I was specifically looking at 'dumb' TVs. I was really excited to see LG's webOS set, but I'm not going to pay an extra 100-200 just so my TV can connect to the internet. That's why I have an Xbox, a Chromecast, and a Wi-Fi Blu Ray player. All of which are easier to control and have more apps available than most TV interfaces (Okay, I hate to admit it, but Samsung has a brilliant interface and control if you're willing to pay for it).

All-in-all, I don't know that smart TVs will ever be a necessity. It'd be nice for my parents who don't care about anything but Netflix, but we'll see if that will carry the industry.

I have a Sony/Google tv box plugged in to my tv and it is great, though it needs a software update. I'm not sure I see the point of having the smarts built into the TV when many other things can handle the smart functions. Having a separate game console, streaming box, or blu-ray player handle the smarts makes it easier to update the smarts without buying a whole new TV.

I don't want a Smart TV. All I want is a giant, beautiful, dumb monitor that can display the content from the actual "smart" devices in the living room.