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

341–350 of 391 posts

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#341

Post by unwiredben »

wmf wrote: post #22

Coincidentally, Google just announced a "basic TV" mode, although we don't know what TVs will ship with this feature. https://9to5google.com/2021/02/24/google-tv-basic-tv-mode/ Maybe Framework's next product should be a dumb TV, perhaps based on the latest LG OLED panels.

Roku TVs have had this from the start. When you first setup (or factory reset) the TV, you can choose to not connect it to a network. In that state, neither WiFi or Ethernet are routable, so no data leaves the TV. The TV does broadcast a private WifI network used for pairing RF remotes. Roku releases USB updates for the TVs periodically, usually a little while after a major release has been released over the network to all units, but those updates usually aren't needed for unconnected use unless there's some issue with OTA reception or HDMI that were found in the field.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#342

Post by ksec »

gonehome wrote: post #328
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).

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.

All OLED TV, including non LG OLED currently ships about 5M unit per year. The volume of those high price range OLED are tiny in total shipping volume.

And if that specific LG model charges 3 to 5K, Apple will have to sell it at 6 to 10K.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#343

Post by 1-6 »

friseurtermin wrote: post #253

I fully agree about dumb TVs for personal use. Even having to wait for your TV's OS to boot up when you turn it on is a terrible UX. However, when it comes to buying a TV for your conference room where you have a TV running 12hrs/day (when you're not a small startup with 10ppl), invest in a proper commercial TV like NEC or (my personal favorite brand) iiyama: 1) the're dumb TVs from the start, 2) you get proper warra…

NEC’s are expensive so it’ll be tougher passing approval at the expense department.

This smart TV business has to end, I have a Samsung “The Frame” and it looks a lot like those NEC’s you’re mentioning. In fact, it’s the perfect conference TV. The problem is that when I keep it disconnected from the Internet, I get a message on screen every time I power it off. I’m going to try changing the region to a more internet-sparse region to see if that helps.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#344

Post by cy_hauser »

Macha wrote: post #287
PeterisP wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people need a 15" computer monitor? If instead of a chair-desk-monitor you're sitting at a couch 5 times further from the screen, the equivalent screen size is 5 times larger, so 75" for the equivalent of what a 15" monitor gives you at your desk.

Meanwhile to sit somewhere where a 75" TV in my living room takes up a corresponding field of view to my 27" PC monitor I think I'd need to knock a few walls and sit in my neighbours

Backwards. Not sure if it's the square of the distance but you do need more than double the size at twice the distance.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#345

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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.

Amazon FireTV remote is pretty good, latest gen added a volume control inc. mute button (so you don't need your TV remote). Source switching uses CEC over HDMI. You don't need to point the controller for most tasks as it's Bluetooth. If I had a TV that used CEC I wouldn't need the original remote at all.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#346

Post by QuarterReptile »

1-6 wrote: post #343
friseurtermin wrote: post #253

I fully agree about dumb TVs for personal use. Even having to wait for your TV's OS to boot up when you turn it on is a terrible UX. However, when it comes to buying a TV for your conference room where you have a TV running 12hrs/day (when you're not a small startup with 10ppl), invest in a proper commercial TV like NEC or (my personal favorite brand) iiyama: 1) the're dumb TVs from the start, 2) you get proper warra…

NEC’s are expensive so it’ll be tougher passing approval at the expense department. This smart TV business has to end, I have a Samsung “The Frame” and it looks a lot like those NEC’s you’re mentioning. In fact, it’s the perfect conference TV. The problem is that when I keep it disconnected from the Internet, I get a message on screen every time I power it off. I’m going to try changing the region to a more internet-…

Maybe you could give it your wifi password and block all traffic at the router?

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#347

Post by gonehome »

ksec wrote: post #342
gonehome wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All OLED TV, including non LG OLED currently ships about 5M unit per year. The volume of those high price range OLED are tiny in total shipping volume. And if that specific LG model charges 3 to 5K, Apple will have to sell it at 6 to 10K.

I don’t think so - Apple has a better supply chain, more committed users, more scale, etc.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#348

Post by ksec »

gonehome wrote: post #347
ksec wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All OLED TV, including non LG OLED currently ships about 5M unit per year. The volume of those high price range OLED are tiny in total shipping volume. And if that specific LG model charges 3 to 5K, Apple will have to sell it at 6 to 10K.

I don’t think so - Apple has a better supply chain, more committed users, more scale, etc.

There is only one OLED TV display panel maker. That is LG.

Edit: I think I need to spell things out a little more clearly. If Apple were to use OLED and aim at a top tier market, then it would be competing directly with LG TV, which also happens to be gaining momentum in terms of both OLED display panel ( LG Display ) and TV set ( LG Electronics ). LG Display will also need to built new Fab for Apple. The recent expansion at Guangzhou doubling their capacity, AFAIK has already been booked and has no relation to Apple. i.e LG has little interest to do it with Apple given they are already fully booked on capacity. And Apple doesn't seems to be interested in pushing LG to partner.

The answer to if Apple could do something will always going to be yes given they have hundreds of billions of cash and has little idea what to do with it other than buying back stocks.

The answer to if Apple will do it is always going to complex. And nothing in the supply chain and BOM cost analysis suggest it is a good strategy worth going for.

I do wish Apple prove wrong though.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#349

Post by myrandomcomment »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #191
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 wi…

There are 2 paths:

1. Connect it, allow it to update, disconnect it. If any local “ads” pop up, do a factory reset which will wipe all the cached data.

2. Most devices allow you to update firmware from a file via USB. Just get the file which is only the firmware and update that way.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#350

Post by myrandomcomment »

dijit wrote: post #196
tombert wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

This Reddit post is not proof as no one has been able to replicate this. This internet lore until there is repeatable proof.
Post reply on HN