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

311–320 of 391 posts

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#311

Post by pards »

nitrogen wrote: post #161
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 :-/

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, wai…

Logitech's line of Harmony remotes were (are?) great for this. Physical buttons, programmable sequences, and a touch screen.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#312

Post by rurban »

zapdrive wrote: post #301
rurban wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not the mere boot time of your SmartTV. You are waiting for the SmartTV to send your viewing profile home. That's a lot of data. Before that the UI stays frozen. In earlier SmartTV OS versions it was immediate startup, the delay only started some years ago. Never upgrade your OS. Maybe they are even sending home recorded audio of what you did in your bedroom, that long it lasts.

Citation needed. There's no evidence that any TV sends this data at boot (and frankly there's no need to, it can send this data later on).

No citation possible, because the data is encrypted. What is measurable is the delayed startup. Of course they can send the data later, but that's not what is measured.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#313

Post by oarsinsync »

Freak_NL wrote: post #262
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…

They can't. They already used up the name 'Apple TV' for another of their products (which oddly enough doesn't actually seem to be a TV at all).

“For another” sounds singular. Was that intentional? It’s already got a plurality of meanings

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21438152

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#314

Post by nicbou »

Silhouette wrote: post #83
chrisrogers wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point it's time to open the thing up and rip out the antenna.

At some point, it becomes time to pass draconian laws against consumer-hostile practices like phoning home other than to perform the intended function of a product or forcing updates that change behaviour in adverse or unwanted ways. I am reasonably sure that point is already behind us, but politicians are not exactly known for their tech savvy and timely regulation of tech industry.

There is already the GDPR, but it lacks sufficient enforcement.

This is a very relevant read (PDF): https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/EN/Ot...

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#315

Post by mensetmanusman »

olliej wrote: post #151
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

This, it’s like the designers tested it only outdoors.

Who would’ve thought it’s necessary to be able to grab the remote when it’s dark and know what orientation it is in.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#316

Post by [deleted] »

amelius wrote: post #270
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…

> I wish Apple would just make a TV. But that would be a TV which you can't use to watch adult content. And Netflix and HBO would be 30% more expensive.

[deleted]

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#317

Post by jannes »

Egrodo wrote: post #176
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…

The non-Apple equivalent is the Nvidia Shield TV. Excellent piece of hardware that gives you access to basically every streaming app, plus integrates with Android's casting setup. Also fun fact, the Shield TV is the longest supported Android device in existence ( https://www.androidauthority.com/nvidia-shield-tv-25th-updat... )

> Android

I wouldn’t trust the world’s biggest tracking company not to track me.

You’re kind of moving laterally there. (From trusting Smart TV to trusting Google.)

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#318

Post by zinekeller »

rurban wrote: post #312
zapdrive wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. There's no evidence that any TV sends this data at boot (and frankly there's no need to, it can send this data later on).

No citation possible, because the data is encrypted. What is measurable is the delayed startup. Of course they can send the data later, but that's not what is measured.

Not saying that they don't send data at startup (but it is more likely that it will be delayed by around a minute or two), but not acknowledging that dumb (OLED/LCD) televisions' faster boot times is simply due to having literally fewer functions is missing the bush. Even well-optimized embedded Linux still takes around 5 seconds to boot to init whereas dumb TVs are already (usually) finished in 3 seconds.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#319

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #315
olliej wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

This, it’s like the designers tested it only outdoors. Who would’ve thought it’s necessary to be able to grab the remote when it’s dark and know what orientation it is in.

I bought some silicon sleeves that fix this issue (the bottom half of the remote face with no buttons is covered by silicon). It also resolve the issue that the remote is very slippery in your hands as well as the issue of being unable to tell which remote goes where if you have multiple Apple TV’s (you can get different color silicon for each TV).

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#320

Post by throwawei369 »

ghaff wrote: post #297
adtac wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $300 TV that you found probably has poor audio, viewing angle, contrast ratio, support, etc. From the limited research I did before buying my TV, a 55" TV with good reviews for panel and sound quality that you can rely on for 5-10 years costs C$1,200 today.

Good sound probably requires a sound bar. I'm not sure the physics of flat panel TVs allows for great sound quality. Getting a sound bar went from me mostly using my wall mounted TV as a digital picture frame (which was my primary thinking when I bought it) to actually being the TV I use for streaming most of the time. 5-10 years? I know I'm not on the latest technology step. But 4K isn't worth me upgrading perfectly…

I disagree, 4K HDR even on LCD panels is worth the picture. And a major jump from 1080p. Though what I agree with you about is the OLED prices. Been ages and still no indication of the prices climbing down.
Post reply on HN