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

161–170 of 391 posts

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#161

Post by nitrogen »

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 :-/

A lot of the responses disagree. I generally prefer physical remotes, but a touchscreen remote could be pretty sweet for very complex systems (think whole-room/whole-house systems that integrate A/V with lighting, HVAC, etc.) if implemented well. But the whole interaction model with phones and apps is just... wrong for this usecase. The delays, the many swipes and taps just to get to the right screen, the delays, waiting for the app to load and connect to the network, and also the delays.

I've been meaning to hack an old phone to be an instant-on remote with some custom software, but there are always dozens of higher priority projects. If anyone wants to hire/partner with me to build such a thing though...

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#162

Post by reedjosh »

gpspake wrote: post #103

Huge "dumb tv" proponent here I've had an nvidia shield for years and it checks all the boxes for me. It runs android and from what I know, it's one of the most well supported android devices period in terms of consistent updates. Here's why I love it: - I have access to the play store for apps, not some proprietary tv manufacturer subset of poorly developed apps. That means I can install the retroarch/plex/etc andro…

> - I have access to the play store for apps, not some proprietary tv manufacturer subset of poorly developed apps. That means I can install the retroarch/plex/etc android apps directly from play.

> - It has built in google assistant which I use every day to play music and yt videos (as well as controlling other stuff in my all-google house.

You're not getting it. The whole point is to avoid constant tracking. If you have Google services, you're being tracked.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#164

Post by colordrops »

rubyfan wrote: post #84
massysett wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you just do a computer monitor? They have an HDMI port so they will show anything you want. Downsides: no tuner. Not a problem if you don’t need one. No remote control. Maybe not much of a downside if you’re just watching using a streaming box. No sound. Not a problem if using a sound bar. Seems a worthy idea if you’re concerned about tracking, but I don’t see this idea around so I must be missing a downside.

Yeah that would probably work for smaller needs but haven’t seen monitors at 65” and higher range

I'm sure i sound like a luddite but why does anyone need a 65" screen.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#165

Post by nitrogen »

saxelsen wrote: post #153
Buttons840 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Way, way, way back in the day there was a tool called Simba and a search engine that you could use to find tons of music, etc. that would open download links in the Simba app. Turns out, that was just an SMB client connecting to open Windows shares.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#166

Post by lambda_obrien »

asaph wrote: post #147

Let's not lose sight of the fact that in the era before smart TVs, the revenue model for most TV networks was advertising.

Now I pay money to netflix so as to not see those, my tv should have nothing to do with it; except that corrupt execs and wall street zombies want more more more, so they put ads on everything, forcing me to watch their drivel, all supported by software developers and electrical engineers who have money signs for pupils.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#167

Post by ksec »

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…

As much as I want this to happen. And I have been advocating for it [1] for many years. The more I read into the whole TV, display panel and electronic industry the grimmer it is for such Apple TV set to exist.

An Apple branded TV, even if it is without the TV part or just a monitor would have to be at least 2-3x the price of today's similar TV sets. And if anything OP were only willing to paid an extra $100 is probably why Apple didn't make one.

Some of the TV in the industry isn't just on Low Margin. They are entering negative margin territory if you are discounting Data Selling and software / partner sponsorship.

Unless the cost electronic part continue to raise to the point where Apple has an advantage with their SoC.

I think one of their original purpose or intention for ProXDR was the use the Dual Layer LCD technology to create something like a true Reference Display Monitor. But the technology and cost never got to that point. At least I hope they could continue their investment in that area even if they do not intend it to be in consumer usage.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10710734

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#168

Post by yellowapple »

I definitely second the Sceptre recommendation. Yeah, there are probably higher-quality displays out there, but my TV's been more than good enough for me, and the price point is pretty hard to beat. In terms of bang for the buck, a Sceptre TV and a box/stick of one's choosing is about as close to ideal as I've seen these days.

Hopefully they realize that the lack of smarts in their TVs is indeed a differentiator in a market flooded with "smart" TVs, and that they maintain that differentiator and resist the urge to copy everyone else.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#169

Post by mrweasel »

spoonjim wrote: post #16
xwdv wrote: post #5

Did “Dumb” TVs really need defending? Seems like if anything we should be convinced instead why Smart TVs are a good idea.

If they were not user hostile it could be nice. For example if the device itself ran the streaming software, you could turn on your TV from that streaming service’s phone app.

Many TV already allow this, either via Chromecast or AirPlay. Personally I hate using my phone as a remote, but many TV supports it. Given that this doesn’t work without networking, the inclusion of these features, might be a trick to get people to allow teir TVs to get on a network.

For me one of the major down fall of smart TVs is that even with out the privacy invasion they all just SUCK. The interfaces are terrible, the hardware isn’t nearly fast enough, they just all feel slughish, you can’t expect software updates for more than a few years and you can’t be sure that you prefered streaming service is available if you not in a major market.

It’s actually a surprise that not one TV manufacturer has admitted that they aren’t in fact able to produce a quality smart TV.

Maybe it’s just me, but I use the AppleTV as the benchmark for what you need to deliver as a minimum. Anything less is a bad experience. Remember the AppleTV is still just a minor product for Apple, and companies who try to sell a similar, more integrated product, can’t do better? Why?

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#170

Post by scatters »

ramraj07 wrote: post #137
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 :-/

You'd prefer it until you try using it. When you want to reduce the volume the last thing you need to do is go looking for the app. Now a watch app, that's something.

For that situation, wouldn't you use voice control? I can say "OK Google mute" in less time than it takes to reach for a remote.
Post reply on HN