Samsung SmartTV

(John) #1

Continuing the discussion from RIP Revolv:

Very interesting how it is described. Is the hub built-in or not?

SMART HOME CONTROL Control your TV experience via the SmartThings mobile device App. Once connected, your Smart TV can be turned on and off remotely. Requires an Internet connection, a SmartThings platform Hub, and the SmartThings App.

SMART HOME HUB SUPPORT Take your TV to the next level and turn it into the brain of your smart home. The optional Samsung SmartThings USB EXTEND dongle connects the TV. Simply activate the SmartThings app and your TV is set up as the SmartThings Hub. The SmartThings app on your TV or mobile device facilitates control over other devices such as connected lights, locks, sensors, thermostats and more. Creating the perfect entertainment experience is now in your hands. WiFi Internet connection, SmartThings App, and the optional SmartThings USB EXTEND are required. See product carton packaging for more details.

(Bobby) #2

They couldn’t delay the launch of 2016 SUHD TVs because their “New 2016 Smart TV” is not ready…Can you imagine the loss in revenue if they would wait for a feature that people don’t really care?

(Geko) #3

Yes, the hub is built-in but the Zigbee and Z-Wave radios are not. You’ll need a “SmartThings Extend” USB dongle to control Zigbee and Z-Wave devices.

(Josh) #4

Ok, now I am confused. Does this mean that I can control my smart things via my TV without the dongle if i tie it to my current hub? But if i want the TV to be the hub, i need the dongle?

(Dan P Parker) #5

Everything I read seems to indicate that you can:

  1. Control your TV from an existing ST hub (the TV becomes a “thing” that is supported by the regular hub), or

  2. Use the ST “hub” built in to the TV (I put that in quotes because I’m sure most people assume that a “ST hub” includes Z-Wave and Zigbee functionality) to control other devices, with the set of controllable things being limited to Wi-Fi devices sans the dongle. Adding the dongle transforms the built-in functionality into a full-blown ST hub.

I’m at a loss to understand the optionality of the dongle rather than simply building it in to begin with, given that it’s being offered as a free add-on.

(Geko) #6

I maybe just a certification issue. Both Z-Wave and Zigbee must go through certification testing and it’s much faster and easier to certify a USB dongle than a 65" TV set. :sunglasses:

(Dan P Parker) #7

From the perspective of the Zigbee and Z-Wave Alliances, sure. But were I Samsung I’d be inclined to say that’s those organizations’ problem, not mine.


No, it’s the manufacturer’s problem because it vastly delays the product coming to market.

We should also note that in more than one place both Samsung and smart things staff have referred to “hubless options” and list the TV in that category. And reportedly there are going to be more as well. So smartthings is not referring to the Samsung TV as a “hub” at all. And as others have mentioned, the zigbee and Z wave antennas will be in a dongle. We should also add that if it’s in the dongle, they can just buy an already certified one from some other manufacturer. That has some advantages as well.

(Dan P Parker) #9

That depends. I presumed (perhaps incorrectly) that “faster and easier” referred to the ease of unpacking and setting up a small USB device like a dongle vs doing the same with a television set. That’s not something that would result in a “vast” delay of time to market. If that’s not what was being referred to then I’m at loss to understand why certifying the Z-Wave and Zigbee functionality would be significantly more time-consuming simply because they’re embedded inside of an appliance rather than a USB stick.

No, they’re not referring to it as a “hub”. But based on their own spec sheet it DOES play the role of a hub. It just doesn’t include the Z-Wave & Zigbee radios.

Yeah, that would be an advantage. But do we know of any other manufacturers out there who selling dongles that contain BOTH Z-Wave and Zigbee radios, let alone one that is certified by both organizations?


Nortek (whose brands include 2Gig, Linear, and GoControl) already has one certified for both Zwave and Zigbee. :sunglasses:

USB stick that houses both a Z-Wave and Zigbee radio. Designed for OEMs that want to provide dual functionality when being used with a host device.

(Dan P Parker) #11

ThaThat would indeed be a handy product for a company seeking to add certified Zxxxxx functionality to something when that company lacks its own certified solution. But what’s the difference between that and putting the already certified guts of the ST hub inside of a TV? I’m not an authority on those organizations’ certification processes/requirements, but I would find it odd if the certifications cease to be valid due to a change in packaging. If course, I’ve seen weirder things.


Changing anything in an RF device, including the case or the spring on the battery holder, will affect the FCC certification. They want the complete device for testing.

So if you’re building from scratch, and you put A Zwave radio inside a smart television, you have to get that through FCC testing. If you use somebody else’s dongle and it just plugs into an existing USB port, then the dongle has its FCC certification and your television has its own.

Also, purely from an engineering standpoint, there’s a reason why the cases for home automation hubs are plastic. If you put a Z wave light switch into a metal switch box and then use a metal switch plate on the front, you probably won’t get any signal out of it. You have to switch to a plastic switch plate, and even then you lose some signal.

I would never put a zigbee or Z wave or Bluetooth or any other low-power RF radio inside a modern television. Just sayin’… :sunglasses:

(Dan P Parker) #13

“FCC certification” =/= “Z-Wave/Zigbee Alliance certification”.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen a modern TV set, but they all seem to be encased in plastic shells, not metal ones.


You need both an FCC certification and a zwave certification for a zwave device in the US. A smart tv containing a zwave radio would have to go through FCC certification.

As for televisions, the housing is plastic, yes. But there’s a lot of metal inside in various forms. Feel free to find someplace inside the case to get a low power RF signal out the front. :wink:

It’s not impossible, but it’s not simple either. :wink:

(Dan P Parker) #15

I understand that. You need several other things as well, but none of those were the subject. The Z-Wave and Zigbee certification processes, specifically, were.

Not a problem. There are plenty of spots insode a typical TV case something as small as the innards of a dongle could go and not be impeded by having to transmit through metal…like anywhere around the perimeter, just for starters.

BTW…this statement…

[QUOTE]Changing anything in an RF device, including the case or the spring on the battery holder, will affect the FCC certification[/QUOTE]

Is, at best, an exaggeration. You can change out entire components without effecting FCC certification, so long as the components are electrically equivalent.


The context was the time for bringing the device to market if the radios were inside the television or an external dongle. Both the FCC and Zwave certifications are relevant to that.

Here I think we’re just getting into some terminology. I don’t know if you’ve ever actually had to take anything through certification to bring it to market. I have been on a team that did so.

“affect the certification” in that context generally does include the need to file the necessary paperwork for why retesting is not required. Or at the very least internal documentation for why it qualifies as a permissive change. That takes time. It often takes money. And it is part of the certification process.

The FCC call these “permissive changes.” You’re allowed to do them without retesting, for example as you mentioned when they’re electronically equivalent, but you’re generally not allowed to do them without telling the FCC about them and without filling out more forms. All of which can delay the product.

So they do affect the certification even though they don’t require retesting.

But we’re getting really deep into details that probably don’t matter here. I agree that it’s possible to build a set that has the radios inside of it, even if it’s challenging. But I do think it’s a lot simpler to get an already certified stick from another company and just put that in the USB port.

But who knows why Samsung made the decisions that they did? :sunglasses:

I’ll admit I’m most curious to see what happens with Bluetooth from an IOT perspective. Are we going to be able to add a Samsung Bluetooth lock to the system? Because those are really nice devices.

(Dan P Parker) #17

From the link you provide (emphasis mine):

[Quote]Class I Permissive Change

This class includes modifications which do not degrade the characteristics reported by the manufacturer and accepted by the Commission when certification is granted. No filing with the Commission is required for a Class I Permissive Change.[/quote]

The other two classes involve changes that DO “degrade the performance characteristics as reported to the Commission at initial certification” and/or “software modifications of a software-defined radio transmitter that change the frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted) outside the parameters previously approved, or that change the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules”.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that moving your certified device from one plastic case to another, or changing the spring on the battery holder isn’t going to involve any time-to-market-delaying FCC red tape.


I actually had to do the documentation on a battery spring change. Since it’s a metal part, you have to do internal testing to prove that you didn’t change the RF output. Even if it doesn’t require an actual FCC filing, you have to do documentation internally for most big companies (I would assume this is true for Samsung as well) on why you’re not doing an FCC filing. And you have to get sign offs approving all of that. It’s not a huge amount of work, but it is some work, and that work takes time.

As far as changing from one case to another, you probably don’t have to test anything for that if the enclosure material is exactly the same unless you changed antenna orientation which is a big deal, or have air holes in different places, in which case it’s like the battery spring. You have to first do the internal test to prove you didn’t change the RF output. But in any case, you still have to do the internal documentation on why you think it’s a class one change.

The point is just that it’s more work and takes more time than buying a certified dongle. Which one is better for your overall budget just depends on the details.

(Geko) #19

Actually, it’s not. The onus is on the device manufacturer to ensure that whatever changes they make will not compromise FCC certification. They don’t have to file, but if someone complains to the FCC that a device does not comply with FCC requirements there may be serious repercussions and the manufactured may have to pull the device form the market and pay heavy fines. So, the bottom line is, it’s less risky from the manufacturer point of view to use a cheap plug-in RF dongle than built the radios into a $4000 TV. Besides, since they have several models, each model would have to be certified individually, thus increasing both time to market and cost dramatically. If this does not convince you that certifying a dongle is cheaper and easier, then I don’t know what else would. :sunglasses:

(Mike Maxwell) #20

Once st publishes the dth for the tv it will be easy to see what the implemented functions are using rm custom commands to extract available commands.
Some examples:
Robot vacuum: