Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Defense of Dumb TVs

frame.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 391 posts

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#151

Post by olliej »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #122
randallsquared wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A remote designed by someone who thought about it for ten seconds I love that a sibling comment to yours calls out the remote as dealbreaker terrible, but I agree with the sentiment that I would love a remote that was really well-designed.

You can go too far in the other direction too, however. Apple TV remote infamously has no mute functionality. And if you do an internet search on how to mute the Apple TV using the remote (because of course there’s a way, right? No one would design a TV remote that has volume control without mute) you get either one of two answers: - it’s impossible/difficult to do with current tech (not true) - the classic Apple for…

Personally I find the problem with the apple remote to be the symmetric design (I would have though the puck mouse would have taught that lesson)

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#152

Post by squarefoot »

systemvoltage wrote: post #142
WalterBright wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A remote designed by someone who thought about it for ten seconds (why do modern TVs have dozens of buttons no one ever uses?). I'd prefer the remote as an app on my phone. My desk is covered with remotes. Remotes are so 1980s :-/

Physical remote > any app. By far. Die apps, die. I want dedicated remotes for lights, stereo, curtains, garage door, and TV. Apps won’t be around – forget 20 years, 5 years if you’re lucky. A company can disappear along with its stupid fucking app. About the only advantage an app has is a keyboard.

> A company can disappear along with its stupid fucking app.

Absolutely true, which makes a good argument also for going back to websites and pages (HTML5 helps a lot) instead of the apps business model that basically brought us back to the pre-www era. Also regarding the phone (mis)use as remote, why nobody mentions latency? Every smartphone I tried had an absolutely atrocious UI latency even compared to my 30 years old Amiga 500, why should I want to use it instead of a dedicated device that does the job immediately and I can substitute with 5€, and sometimes even repair?

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#153

Post by saxelsen »

Buttons840 wrote: post #10
scrooched_moose wrote: post #7

At least for the time being it's still possible to keep TVs off the internet and bypass this garbage. I've got a 2020 Sony and have never seen an ad on it. I'm expecting these days are numbered though; some combination of ethernet-over-HDMI, Amazon Sidewalk, built-in 5G antennas, or just straight up refusing to work without a network connection feels like it's just a couple years away.

Imagine a TV that must be connected to the internet at all times being hacked so that it only plays educational videos about the evils of Smart TV's 24/7.

There's a good Darknet Diaries podcast episode about Hacker Giraffe, a guy who hacked 50,000 open printers to tell the owners their devices were exposed.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#154

Post by vincentmarle »

rubyfan wrote: post #14

I recently bought a new TV and did a little searching for dumb TVs before buying. It’s really hard to find a dumb TV. I learned that you can in fact buy a commercial TV that is dumb which seems like a good option. I ended up going with a smart enabled Samsung TV and have not enabled the TV to access wifi. It wants me to agree to terms and conditions whenever I pull up the main menu. I’ve learned to ignore it but it h…

I picked up a 40” Sceptre “dumb tv” for $150 on Black Friday and added a Google TV Chromecast. The TV itself just does the bare minimum: turn on/off, sound higher/lower. Everything else is controlled by Google TV. By far my best purchase of the year.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#155

Post by wlesieutre »

gonehome wrote: post #79
pridkett wrote: post #15

I’m really pleased the author called out the Apple TV as a device that lets you avoid ads. We tried to go cheap on another of our TVs and get an Amazon Fire Stick and in addition to it being not as smooth (combo of UX and speed) at the Apple TV, it had a good amount of ads all over the place. There’s lots of griping about the cost of an Apple TV 4k, but I’ll pay that extra $100 to avoid ads and not be tracked so exte…

Yes - I wish Apple would just make a TV. Call it a living room screen or a living room monitor or something. Make it OLED, dumb TV, instant on, Apple TV box plugs in. Separate box with front facing ports that connects to screen with one cable. A remote designed by someone who thought about it for ten seconds (why do modern TVs have dozens of buttons no one ever uses?). This entire market is in desperate need of someo…

Google is adding a “dumb TV mode,” but I’m skeptical.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/the-best-feature-of-...

Presumably will still boot slowly and only the topmost UI layer loads differently, and until they confirm otherwise I’m guessing that even with a simplified UI it still includes all the creepy tracking of everything you watch.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#156

Post by Lvl999Noob »

WalterBright wrote: post #130
gonehome wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - I wish Apple would just make a TV. Call it a living room screen or a living room monitor or something. Make it OLED, dumb TV, instant on, Apple TV box plugs in. Separate box with front facing ports that connects to screen with one cable. A remote designed by someone who thought about it for ten seconds (why do modern TVs have dozens of buttons no one ever uses?). This entire market is in desperate need of someo…

> A remote designed by someone who thought about it for ten seconds (why do modern TVs have dozens of buttons no one ever uses?). I'd prefer the remote as an app on my phone. My desk is covered with remotes. Remotes are so 1980s :-/

Physical remotes are better, particularly if your hands are dirty (like during eating). A physical remote can be used easily without looking at it and it can be cleaned later easily too. Though it's also true that a lot of remotes are difficult to handle.

What we need might actually be a single remote for everything.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#157

Post by afterburner »

dwighttk wrote: post #88
gonehome wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - I wish Apple would just make a TV. Call it a living room screen or a living room monitor or something. Make it OLED, dumb TV, instant on, Apple TV box plugs in. Separate box with front facing ports that connects to screen with one cable. A remote designed by someone who thought about it for ten seconds (why do modern TVs have dozens of buttons no one ever uses?). This entire market is in desperate need of someo…

What do you think this device would cost? I’m guessing starting around $7999 for 45”

OLEDs are much cheaper than that. Or do you mean an Apple markup?

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#158

Post by myrandomcomment »

I just bought the TV I wanted and never connected it to the internet, never ran the "setup". I use an AppleTV 4K which has all the streaming apps you want (Netflix, Amazon, BBC, Pluto, etc.). For local media I use an application called MrMC ($6.99) which is a Kodi port to the AppleTV that allows you to mount Samba/NFS (https://mrmc.tv). MrMC even supports using a SQL backend for keeping track of your media (like Kodi). I just run it in on a jail in my TrueNAS setup. Every TV is the same, every time someone starts MrMC everything is in sync. Nice and simple.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#159

Post by nitrogen »

kccqzy wrote: post #144
culturestate wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best available option today is LG and it’s still laden with ads and takes a few seconds to boot up. Sharp offers (most of) their range as dumb TVs[1]. They still take a few seconds to turn on, but not notably longer than a typical computer monitor. 1. https://sg.sharp/products/tv?filters%5B33%3A36%5D=33%3A36

In the U.S., Sharp TVs aren't actually made by Sharp. They are made by Hisense and then rebranded Sharp. The link you posted is the Singapore site. https://www.wsj.com/articles/sharp-to-americans-you-dont-wan...

> In 2015, Sharp signed a deal with Hisense giving the Chinese company the right to use the Sharp name on TVs sold in the U.S. through 2020.

Hopefully that means there are better options this year?

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#160

Post by jjice »

My roommate recently bought a TV that described itself as quad core. I love computers and I love software, but as a developer, I don't want computers in places they aren't necessary. Your TV is one of those to me.
Post reply on HN