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

191–200 of 391 posts

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#191

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

myrandomcomment wrote: post #158

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 Ko…

>never connected it to the internet

Which is all fine and dandy but if you've bought a fancy new TV with bleeding edge features for use with your next-gen console, like low-latency gaming mode, HDMI 2.1 4K/120Hz, dolby atmos, etc, it can all comes apart when you realize you need a firmware update that fixes a bug with said bleeding edge features, since a lot of consumer HW these days is rushed out the factory door with their firmware partly unfinished and the expectation that a day-one patch will be available once the HW gets to consumers and the manufacturer has had more time for testing.

What then?

Even on TVs from over 10 years ago you could update the FW offline by plugging in a USB drive with the FW binary you would download from the manufacturer's website but now your only option is to keep the TV online and have it pull the updates itself, often unencrypted from some often unsecure CDN server while it sends telemetry data back to the mothership about your usage patterns.

I know I'll have to miss out on the next-gen features for a while but you can count me out from the shit-show that is smart TVs.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#192

Post by namdnay »

randallsquared wrote: post #81
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 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.

Much as their adware laden TVs drive me crazy, I have to admit that their remote is absolutely amazing. A nice piece of aluminum with a minimum number of buttons, and yet you can control Netflix, Prime, TV etc

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#193

Post by atoav »

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…

The best option that I know of today (in terms of resulting usabilty and long term reliability) is using a dumb computer monitor and roll the rest yourself with a Raspi.

While this option is certainly not available to all, it is the only thing that will really fit your needs. I completely gave up on finding anything decent in that market.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#194

Post by hnlmorg »

yellowapple wrote: post #171
ramraj07 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My HTC One M8 back in the day shipped with a universal remote app that used the built-in IR blaster and it was fantastic. HTC's subsequent discontinuation of that app (and its replacement with a third-party app that was basically useless) is what immediately drove me to never want to buy an HTC product again.

I had that phone too and I vaguely recall that wasn't HTC's decision to cripple the IR but rather the result of HTC infringing someone else's (because naturally someone would have a patent about something as obvious as using a smart phone as an IR remote....)

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#195

Post by onion2k »

TylerE wrote: post #185
ksec wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 proba…

The thing is, Apple could charge 2-3x, because the prices have gotten so cheap. People would absolutely pay $1000-1200 for a 55" Apple TV with nice software, and maybe a nice brushed aluminum frame that looks nice on the wall. (For comparison, the cheapest 55" I could quickly find from a major retail is around $300, with a "name brand" starting around $400).

Why would it be 2 or 3 times more? Apple phones are between 10 and 15 times the price of the cheapest Android alternatives (iPhone 12 $999 from Apple, Samsung Galaxy A01 $55 from Amazon). Apple could, and probably would, sell a $4000 television.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#196

Post by dijit »

tombert wrote: post #187
TylerE wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, one of the majors complaints is that many of these devices will actively, without prompting search for and connect to open wifi.

I’ve heard this mentioned on HN a few times; is there any documented case of this actually happening?

Some stuff a year ago. It was confirmed by others at the time (after testing) though didn’t seem to get picked up by news outlets.

https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/bpr6xs/if_you_choo...

Anecdotally I have 6 Samsung TVs hung on my office wall for monitoring, which run the Tizen OS and the nag screens about connecting to a network and accepting the ToS make the units a little annoying to work with. (But it’s not as bad as to say I wouldn’t use the thing). It wouldn’t surprise me if they were scanning for open Wi-Fi. I might test it out, but we’re surrounded by free Wi-Fi which has captive portals, so it’s effectively black holed.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#197

Post by hnlmorg »

scatters wrote: post #170
ramraj07 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. Assuming your voice assistant works first time. Otherwise the dialog would go a little more like this:

Me OK Google mute

Me> OK...Google....mute

Me> OKGOOGLE mute

G> Sorry, I don't understand

Me> mute...

Me> MUTE MUTE MUTE MUTE MUTE

Me> OKGOOGLE MUTE

G> What would you like to mute?

Me> The TV

Me> Mute the fucking TV Google

Me> OKGOOGLE MUTE THE FUCKING TV

G> Sorry, I don't understand

Me> Fuck it. I should have just looked for the controller to begin with.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#198

Post by dijit »

onion2k wrote: post #195
TylerE wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, Apple could charge 2-3x, because the prices have gotten so cheap. People would absolutely pay $1000-1200 for a 55" Apple TV with nice software, and maybe a nice brushed aluminum frame that looks nice on the wall. (For comparison, the cheapest 55" I could quickly find from a major retail is around $300, with a "name brand" starting around $400).

Why would it be 2 or 3 times more? Apple phones are between 10 and 15 times the price of the cheapest Android alternatives (iPhone 12 $999 from Apple, Samsung Galaxy A01 $55 from Amazon). Apple could, and probably would, sell a $4000 television.

Which puts it in spitting distance of some of the highest end Samsung TVs (or short throw projectors) anyway.

(Samsung LSP7 is $3,500)

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#199

Post by PurpleFoxy »

jimmaswell wrote: post #53
secfirstmd wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep plus when you start to stretch the Fire Stick and a few other products you find a number of issues. For example I've spend probably in the region of 40 hours trying to fix issues with Firestick and Echo Studio. When they work well they are excellent value for money products. But then you get a glitch (like audio dropping because of a lack of sync) and it becomes a morass. Hours upon hours and no solution (eventua…

I never had a single issue with my roommates' Samsung smart TV (casting or otherwise) besides some buggy apps. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on "just works."

My parents have a Samsung TV and it’s incredibly slow to the point it’s difficult to change the volume. I think they pushed out OS updates that made it slower.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#200

Post by PurpleFoxy »

jeremy_wiebe wrote: post #102
jimmaswell wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never had a single issue with my roommates' Samsung smart TV (casting or otherwise) besides some buggy apps. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on "just works."

Bought a Samsung TV that purports to support Airplay. It works... except for some apps can’t stream to it. Turns out that some apps can only Airplay to official Apple devices and not the Samsung TVs despite marketing. I was planning to neuter the network from my TV and go with an Apple TV anyways, but that sealed the deal.

I’m fairly sure that’s DRM getting in the way. I use an open source tool to emulate an airplay target but it won’t work on copyright content.
Post reply on HN