Yeah, I'm surprised that we have aftermarket firmware for phones and some embedded devices, but not for TVs or printers. Maybe the space is just more fragmented?
I expect that aftermarket firmware would be an issue for content providers. For example, is Netflix going to allow third party firmware developers to create an app to access their content? They will already have contracts with content distributors like Lionsgate that mandate DRM in their own apps to prevent piracy.
If your aftermarket firmware doesn't support Netflix, Prime, HBO, etc then it might have limited appeal. Browser based apps might get around that in a limited way.
As for printers, I think of them as loss leaders to generate ink sales.
Don't know either space particularly well so might be wrong.
Yeah, I wondered about the Android situation; Android itself is semi-standard, in that once you get the hardware support and a way to run your image it's not too hard to build AOSP for nearly any phone. On the other hand, that bit about getting a way to run your own ROM is, on average, awful and device-specific. Still, I suspect that it's better than TVs that run completely different OSs to start with. Edit: Oh, and AFAIK a lot of those OSs aren't FOSS in the first place, which makes things harder; at least with Android the vendor is legally obligated to give you the kernel source and then you can stick that in AOSP and probably get a working image. Other than WebOS, I don't think TVs have an equivalent.
Agreed that content support and DRM are a difficulty.
I know that the ink price gouging is part of why printers are weird, but that results in the default firmware being user-hostile in a way that I would have expected to make people want aftermarket firmware all the more. I suspect that the difficulty there is also something about fragmentation and perhaps a lack of devices that even try to be open (Google publishes all the documentation and source to build AOSP for a Pixel phone; I'm aware of zero printer vendors doing so).
If the aftermarket firmware doesn't support Netflix, then users will have to choose between not having Netflix and having the features the aftermarket firmware enables.
If that aftermarket firmware enables better playback of pirated content, and the Netflix catalog deteriorates more and more with time, it's more and more likely that of the people who'd consider alternative firmware in the first place, more and more will decide against Netflix in that scenario.
Not that that may be enough people for Netflix to care, but it could easily be enough that "no netflix" is no longer a blocker for acceptance of the alternative firmware.
I'm out of my league here but could it be that the tech behind TVs is changing too rapidly? LCD, LED, OLDED, QLED, MINILED, and all sub-differences in each generation. Plus all the brands: SAMSUNG, LG, BOE, ect. Plus all the different screen dimentions and levels of HD, dolby vision ect. Whereas with smartphones, everyone is basically using a samsung display, snapdragon or samsung processor and android. Could this be a factor in why there is so little third party implementations? This could be something Khronos could work to standardize; that is, if display makers want it, which I doubt)
I always figured that the TV design is still "panel with one of a narrow range of common interfaces, and the smarts being on the controller."
Otherwise it would be difficult for small manufacturers-- who are typically not custom-ordering panels, and likely switching between vendors based on best-offer-of-the-day-- to integrate in a reasonable manner.
Most likely, especially for non android devices. Most TVs have barely few years of manufacturer support.
Printers at the very least have excuse of a lot of hardware specific code to drive the head but TVs are pretty much tuner + screen + internet connection.
Also people wanting OSS on their TV tend to just use TV as dumb screen and connect the whatever small device with HDMI they have on their hands and not add "runs this board" to the analysis paralysis
