I tried Element Smart TV Remote as a practical replacement for a missing or inconvenient physical remote, and its appeal is easy to understand: it turns a phone into a controller for an Element Smart TV when both devices are connected to the same Wi-Fi network. That simple requirement defines the whole experience. When the connection is ready, the app can be useful in seconds; when the television or phone is on another network, it cannot replace the original remote by magic.
This is a free House & Home app from Naba, aimed at everyday television control rather than media discovery, streaming, or smart-home automation. It is rated for Everyone, works with Android devices starting from 4.4, and the current release is version 5.0. I would describe it as a focused utility: valuable in the right situation, but not something I would install expecting a complete universal-remote system.
How the current version fits into daily TV use
The first thing I would check before relying on it is the network arrangement. The phone and Element television need to be connected to the same Wi-Fi network. That makes the app a sensible solution in a living room where the TV is already online, but it also means setup can fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the app itself. A guest network, a phone using mobile data, or a router separating wireless clients can interrupt the connection.
In a normal evening scenario, the usefulness is straightforward. Imagine the physical remote has slipped between sofa cushions while a program is already playing. I can open the app, select the television if it appears, and use the phone instead of stopping to search the room. The same workflow is handy when the remote has worn-out buttons, when children have misplaced it, or when I want a second controller available on another phone.
The biggest strength is convenience, not depth. A phone is usually nearby, and a software remote avoids buying replacement batteries or searching for a model-specific handset. I also like the fact that the app’s purpose is immediately clear. It is not trying to turn the television into a social platform or fill the screen with unrelated recommendations. Its job is to provide remote control through the local network.
That focus also sets the right expectations. I would not treat it as a guaranteed emergency tool for a television that has never been connected to Wi-Fi. If the TV is offline, initial network setup may still require the physical remote or another method. This is an important practical distinction: the app is most useful after the television is already part of the home network, not necessarily as the first tool for bringing an offline TV online.
Connection habits that prevent most frustration
My advice is to install and test the app while the original remote is still available. That gives you a chance to confirm that the phone can see the TV before an urgent situation occurs. It also lets you identify the correct home network and avoid confusing a nearby network with the one used by the television.
If the TV does not appear, I would check the basics in a deliberate order: confirm Wi-Fi on the phone, confirm that the television is powered and connected, and make sure both devices are using the same home network rather than separate guest access. Restarting the app after correcting the network can also be more useful than repeatedly tapping a discovery button.
A less obvious tip is to keep the app available on the phone that is normally used in the room. A remote app is only convenient if the phone is charged, unlocked, and close at hand. For a shared household, installing it on a second trusted phone can be more practical than expecting one person to lend their device whenever the TV needs adjusting.
What the controls are good for
For ordinary viewing, a phone-based remote is most valuable for the actions people repeat constantly: changing channels or content, adjusting volume, navigating menus, and turning the television experience into something manageable without the original handset. The exact usefulness depends on how well the connected Element model exposes its controls, so I would judge it by the commands I personally use rather than assuming every physical-remote function will feel identical.
Touch controls can be convenient, but they do not provide the physical feedback of raised buttons. I can operate a traditional remote without looking down; with a phone, I may need to glance at the screen. That trade-off matters when the room is dark or when I am trying to make a quick adjustment while watching something. On the other hand, a phone interface avoids sticky buttons and can be easier for someone who finds a small physical remote difficult to read.
Another practical consideration is multitasking. A physical remote remains available while the phone is being used for messaging or browsing. With this app, the controller is tied to the phone, so switching away may be less convenient than reaching for a dedicated handset. I see it as a strong backup and a useful secondary remote, rather than an automatic replacement for every household.
What version 5.0 means for the experience
The current version is 5.0, and the app first appeared on April 19, 2022. That history suggests a product that has moved beyond an initial release, but I would still separate that fact from assumptions about major new capabilities. A version number alone does not prove that the app now supports every Element television, offers advanced shortcuts, or matches the full layout of a manufacturer remote.
From a reviewer’s perspective, the important current evidence is that the app remains centered on local Wi-Fi control. Its evolution appears to have preserved the original practical idea rather than changing it into a broader entertainment platform. That is good news for someone who wants a simple controller, although users hoping for casting, voice operation, or a universal remote covering unrelated brands should look elsewhere unless those functions are clearly available in their own installation.
The app’s audience also gives some context. It has passed the fifty-thousand-install mark and holds a 4.5 average from around four hundred ratings, with roughly forty reviews. Those figures indicate meaningful use and generally positive reception, but they are not a promise that every network, television model, or Android phone will behave the same way. Remote apps are particularly sensitive to home-network design, device compatibility, and the state of the TV itself.
I appreciate that the minimum Android requirement is relatively accessible. Devices running Android 4.4 or newer can meet the stated operating-system requirement, which may help people using an older spare phone as a dedicated controller. Still, compatibility on paper is only the starting point. A phone can meet the operating-system requirement and yet deliver a less comfortable experience if its screen is small, its Wi-Fi connection is unreliable, or it is heavily restricted by battery-saving settings.
How the update history affects existing users
For someone who already uses the app, version 5.0 is best approached as the current baseline rather than a reason to expect a completely different product. Existing users should update through their normal app source and then test the connection at home. If the remote worked before, the most useful check is not simply whether the app opens, but whether it still discovers the television and responds consistently from the usual viewing position.
I would also avoid uninstalling the app during troubleshooting unless necessary. A working connection can depend on the household setup, and removing an app before noting the network arrangement may make it harder to reproduce a known-good configuration. If an update changes the interface, taking a moment to identify the main controls can prevent confusion during a live viewing session.
There is a trade-off for older-phone owners. Broad operating-system support can make the app available on more devices, but older hardware may not feel as quick or pleasant as a newer phone. A spare device permanently kept near the TV can solve the convenience problem, though it introduces another item that needs charging and occasional maintenance.
Where it falls short compared with other choices
The usual alternatives are the original Element remote, a replacement remote designed for the television, or a broader universal-remote solution. The original handset wins for instant access, tactile buttons, and independence from Wi-Fi. A model-specific replacement can offer the same physical familiarity while avoiding phone battery concerns. This app wins when the phone is already nearby and the TV is correctly connected to the home network.
Universal remotes may be better for a room containing several devices, especially if one controller needs to operate a television, sound system, and other equipment together. A phone app dedicated to Element Smart TV control is less attractive when the main goal is to consolidate an entire entertainment setup. It is also not the right choice for someone who dislikes looking at a touchscreen for basic actions.
Compared with manufacturer-focused tools, the advantage here is directness. I do not need a large catalog of unrelated brands to understand what the app is meant to do. The disadvantage is the same narrow focus: the value depends heavily on owning a compatible Element Smart TV and maintaining the same-network condition. If either part of that equation is missing, a physical replacement or a different remote technology may be more dependable.
Small workflow improvements that make it more useful
One useful approach is to create a simple “remote station” around the app. I would keep a charging cable near the sofa, install the app on a phone that household members can access, and test the TV connection before putting the physical remote away. This turns the app from an occasional experiment into a genuine backup system.
Another insight is to treat network names as part of the setup, not as background details. If a router offers separate main and guest networks, the television and phone should be placed on the same one. In households with mesh Wi-Fi, I would test from the rooms where the app will actually be used rather than assuming that a strong internet connection automatically means local device discovery will work.
For visitors or family members, I would explain the one essential condition before handing over the phone: the controller works through the same Wi-Fi environment as the TV. That short explanation prevents the common assumption that any phone can control the television from anywhere. It also makes clear why the app may stop working when someone leaves the house or switches to a different network.
A final practical trade-off concerns privacy and convenience. A phone used as a remote may be more personal than a shared handset, and notifications or calls can interrupt the control session. A dedicated older phone avoids that distraction, but it must remain connected and charged. The best arrangement depends on whether the household values instant access or prefers a traditional controller that is always ready.
Who should install it and what to watch next
I recommend this app to Element Smart TV owners who already use Wi-Fi at home and want a free backup remote on an Android phone. It is especially suitable for households that frequently misplace the physical remote, need a second controller, or prefer the convenience of using a familiar touchscreen. Its Everyone rating also makes it approachable for a broad household audience.
I would skip it if you need control without Wi-Fi, operate several brands from one controller, or require the tactile certainty of physical buttons. I would also choose a replacement remote first if the television is currently offline and the original handset is unavailable, because the app’s same-network design may not help with the initial connection problem.
When deciding whether it deserves a permanent place on your phone, I would focus on three questions: Is the television already connected to the home network? Is the phone normally available in the viewing area? And are your main needs basic TV control rather than whole-room device management? If the answer to all three is yes, the app has a clear role.
What I would watch in future releases is not merely a higher version number, but evidence of smoother discovery across different home-network arrangements, clearer handling when several televisions are present, and continued compatibility with older Android phones. Those improvements would address the real friction points without changing the app’s useful simplicity. I would also welcome clearer control parity with the physical remote, provided that extra complexity does not make the basic connection process harder.
My final view is positive but measured. Naba’s app does not replace every kind of remote, and its dependence on the same Wi-Fi network is a real limitation rather than a footnote. Yet within that boundary, it solves a familiar household problem cleanly. If you own an Element Smart TV and want a convenient phone-based backup, this is a sensible free utility to try before buying another remote. Just test it while your existing setup still works, because preparation is what turns a remote app from a novelty into something genuinely useful.
