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

321–330 of 391 posts

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#321

Post by throwawei369 »

jannes wrote: post #317
Egrodo wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

All brands of smart TVs track you. Regardless of operating system. With this reasoning, one should not even look at any modern equipped TV.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#322

Post by z3ncyberpunk »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #252
gorgoiler wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main reason is to neuter ad delivery.

The problem with this approach is that once you hook it up online for the first time, ads can be cookied and still displayed once it goes offline.

temporarily, you're making mountains out of mole hills

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#323

Post by eternalban »

sa1 wrote: post #74
Arn_Thor wrote: post #58

While I let my smart TV connect to the internet for firmware update reasons (bug fixes), I’m running my entire home network through NextDNS, and before that a PiHole. Not seeing any ads in the UI, and I note some attempted logging traffic is blocked. Before I upgraded to LG last year I had a Samsung and it was trying to ping home constantly. It constituted 80% of outbound requests denied by the PiHole

In this arms race, these companies might start shipping with their own resolver.

It's already mentioned in this thread: built in IoT. There are IoT vendors that have roaming agreements worldwide; typically you stick these things on containers or other mobile assets. They call home whenever they can.

For an actual arms race, we need vendors on the consumer side front to create beautiful Faraday Cages for "your" home appliances.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#324

Post by wlesieutre »

cactus2093 wrote: post #305
wlesieutre wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How will they track you though, some sort of real time content id of everything you watch? Is there any evidence that they do this? If it’s in dumb tv mode and the display stream is coming from a separate device like an Apple TV then it seems much less trivial to track you than if you’re using the builtin smart features.

Yes, they’re basically all doing this. “Automatic Content Recognition,” called various things by the different brands, lets them know what you’re watching even if it’s coming from another device over HDMI instead of using the TV’s apps.

https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smar...

Android TV might not build it in, but much like android phones, you get extra “features” from pretty much every OEM.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#325

Post by jannes »

Freak_NL wrote: post #265
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…

I'm a bit worried about the TV having some kind of internal clock set in the factory configured to throw an undismissible prompt after a year or two because your firmware 'expired' and you need security updates to keep your internet connected device that is not connected to the internet safe. You won't know if the TV has such a feature until someone encounters it years after the device is first sold.

Couldn’t you just change the date back a few years in that case? Why do you need an accurate date on the TV?

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#326

Post by Quequau »

I have been using a living room PC on my TV for many years. I found it worth the extra expense and added workflow... but I don't watch cable or sat TV, so I don't know how to integrate them into my setup.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#327

Post by benrbray »

systemvoltage wrote: post #308
benrbray wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi systemvoltage! We heard you like remotes, so how about a remote with dedicated, non-reprogrammable buttons to open apps you never use that don't even exist anymore? Sincerely, Roku

How about arrow keys and an ok button?

     ^
  
     v

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#328

Post by gonehome »

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).

Agreed - Apple could easily charge 3-5k. The LG TVs I mentioned cost that much.

They could offer three sizes. Mini, Normal, Max.

They could use it as a jumping off point to own the “living room” if they wanted.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#329

Post by gonehome »

benrbray wrote: post #239
systemvoltage wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hi systemvoltage! We heard you like remotes, so how about a remote with dedicated, non-reprogrammable buttons to open apps you never use that don't even exist anymore? Sincerely, Roku

Maybe one that isn’t tied to a box that stuffs ads in the UI?

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#330

Post by iso1210 »

leadingthenet wrote: post #244
cm2187 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and that would only play Apple content.

The Apple TV plays content from other providers just fine.

I've got a 3rd generation apple TV, which is EOL and apps are being slowly discontinued (no disney, youtube is going soon)

However I can still watch Disney on it using airplay from my OG iphone SE (2016). As far as consumer electronics go, apple is well ahead of the pack.

Post reply on HN