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

361–370 of 391 posts

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#361

Post by WalterBright »

systemvoltage wrote: post #142
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 :-/

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.

> A company can disappear along with its stupid fucking app.

They can also disappear and when you lose your remote, too bad. (That's why remotes go for $$ on ebay.)

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#362

Post by hnick »

vincentmarle wrote: post #154
rubyfan wrote: post #14

I recently bought a new TV and did a little searching for dumb TVs before buying. It’s really hard to find a dumb TV. I learned that you can in fact buy a commercial TV that is dumb which seems like a good option. I ended up going with a smart enabled Samsung TV and have not enabled the TV to access wifi. It wants me to agree to terms and conditions whenever I pull up the main menu. I’ve learned to ignore it but it h…

I picked up a 40” Sceptre “dumb tv” for $150 on Black Friday and added a Google TV Chromecast. The TV itself just does the bare minimum: turn on/off, sound higher/lower. Everything else is controlled by Google TV. By far my best purchase of the year.

I quite like our Google TV Chromecast too (I think that's the name, the new one with the remote). Our old Samsung from 2013 had a lot of issues, Netflix would stall a lot, and Disney Plus never even released an app for it.

Turns out it wasn't the WiFi like we suspected, the TV was apparently just poorly coded junk. It's smooth playing on the new device (apart from the time it crashed and needed a reboot). My only complaint is that it associated with my YouTube account but it's a shared TV, so the main screen has watching suggestions based on what I have personally watched and I cannot 'log out' of YouTube alone. This is annoying, but it's Google, so what is privacy? I guess I can make a new account.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#363

Post by ne9xt »

TylerE wrote: post #183
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…

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

Crack open the set and ground the antenna? Idk, I’m tempted to find a nice model and figure out an adapter to go from eDP to the panel’s actual interface.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#364

Post by Silhouette »

nicbou wrote: post #314
Silhouette wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Interesting report, thanks for sharing it. I think there are other significant dangers in this area beyond those it covers, but promoting a better approach to privacy and to security updates after purchase would at least be two significant steps in the right direction.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#365

Post by tombert »

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…

Hmm, weird, I use a 50" Samsung 4k TV as my "monitor" (I'm not much of a gamer so a lower refresh rate is fine for coding and watching YouTube), and I never set up my WiFi and I don't think I accepted any Terms of Service, and it doesn't nag me, but granted literally the only video data that's been displayed on the TV has been an HDMI input and the color-correction menu. Maybe different models of Samsung TVs do things differently?

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#367

Post by Fezzik »

adtac wrote: post #247
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).

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.

You can get a 55” TCL QLED 4K TV for around $500 - Amazon currently has them for $534, I paid $460 a few months back. All the specs are amazing, as is the software - minimal, intuitive, and effective. And the sound is actually rather impressive out of the box, but if you want any low frequencies you need bigger external speakers that cannot physically fit in a flatscreen TV.

I actually took home quite a few (3-4) more expensive TVs from Costco before buying the TCL, and it was far and away the best set while also being 1/2 to 1/3 the price.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#368

Post by drewzero1 »

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)

I had to look up a picture because I didn't realize they'd updated the remote at some point. I apparently have a previous generation remote which has all the controls at one end and is pretty usable in the dark. It's sad (but not shocking) to see design usability regress like that.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#369

Post by Klonoar »

jedberg wrote: post #140
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 :-/

The AppleTV lets you use your iPhone as a remote. I always reach for the physical remote first. The phone remote is just a huge pain — the physical remote just works.

^this. Though I do enjoy having the app as a backup for when I can't find the damn remote and am too lazy to look for it.

Re: In Defense of Dumb TVs

#370

Post by drewzero1 »

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 :-/

I had an app on my Palm Pilot for that, it was really reliable but it was annoying to light up if I was watching something in the dark. One nice thing was that the (rechargeable) battery was always charged up, unlike the physical remote which seemed to be dead more often than it should have been.
Post reply on HN