Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 434 posts

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#61

Post by Gigachad »

mrjin wrote: post #41

Smart TVs were created for all kinds of agendas but none were actually for us the consumers. All those agendas require an OS which takes time to boot. Making it worse, some of those TVs' CPU are crap and thus every operation takes much longer than those dumb ones. Lots of vendors also start to ship new remotes that removed all the essential buttons, especially the video source button, and I have to press 5 or more ti…

It sounds like you are out of touch with the average consumer. They absolutely love smart TVs and would consider a TV without apps and streaming to be broken.

In fact, even the ideal HN approved setup is just a smart TV where the online bit is a removable stick on the back. The average consumer just doesn’t care about being able to swap it out.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#62

Post by littlecranky67 »

chii wrote: post #10
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #6

Every TV is "stupid" when it's not connected to the internet, and none of them can transmit your data when disconnected.

If it turns out that too many people are disconnecting their tv, the manufacturer would merely add in a sim card. They don't yet ATM because they don't need to - too many people are stupidly connecting their wifi.

GDPR requires consent, and no feature is allowed to be removed to coerce you into consent. So at least in the EU, there must be an option to switch off data transmissions.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#64

Post by xz18r »

I recently bought a TV and faced exactly this. Basically, I use my TV for two things: a RPi with Kodi (LibreELEC) from which I do all my 'watching' and a Nintendo Switch. Both of those devices are connected via wifi. There is no reason whatsoever to have my TV do anything else than 'be a screen' and connect to my soundbar - yet it was nearly impossible to get a dumb tv anywhere where I live (Belgium) without paying ridiculous extra costs.

Ended up buying a Samsung QLed (marketing bling) TV that I never connected to my network. Switching between input devices requires 6 buttons presses (!) because it keeps nagging to connect the TV to the internet.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#65

Post by zasdffaa »

A serious, non-trolling question to all. I've not had a TV for decades and for me that's a good thing. I've watched TVs in pubs (I'm in the uk) and round my mates' houses so it's not become some strange alien thing, and I'm still happy to be without it (that is, on balance; there are good things about broadcast TV and some bad, and the latter outweighs the former for me).

In your opinion, is there actual overall value to still having a TV any more or is it just a habit? The number of ultra cheap space-filler productions (reality TV about police chases being one, but how many cookery programmes are there now?)seem to have diluted everything worth watching to almost zero.

(I do watch DVDs on computer BTW)

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#66

Post by knolan »

bojangleslover wrote: post #32
cookie_monsta wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTA: > I’m usually told something akin to: “well, just don’t connect the TV to the Internet!” But that route locks you out of firmware updates, and some TV makers remove functionality if you refuse to participate in their online ecosystem. Many smart TV GUIs also need to load before you’re even allowed to switch laggy HDMI inputs. (although this is exactly what I did with the Samsung smart TV I picked up on a bargain…

Who needs firmware updates on a TV?

Lots of reasons. If you’re a gamer with a shiny new PS5 or Xbox then you’ll want the various updates for things like VRR and tweaks to the HDR performance. There are often other fixes and new features too that relate to image or audio quality.

I didn’t accept the various EULAs on my LG C1 TV. I’m able to update firmware but I don’t use any of its Apps. Instead I use an Apple TV for streaming and we don’t have a cable subscription. I haven’t checked how much data the LG is leaking (I really should turn off its Wi-Fi) and I trust Apple just enough to be less shady than LG.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#67

Post by GoToRO »

xz18r wrote: post #64

I recently bought a TV and faced exactly this. Basically, I use my TV for two things: a RPi with Kodi (LibreELEC) from which I do all my 'watching' and a Nintendo Switch. Both of those devices are connected via wifi. There is no reason whatsoever to have my TV do anything else than 'be a screen' and connect to my soundbar - yet it was nearly impossible to get a dumb tv anywhere where I live (Belgium) without paying r…

Also on some Samsung tv: it needs to connect to download the Terms and Conditions, then it will prompt you to accept them and then it will work/remember last used input. The download happent overnight on very good net access, I guess because their servers are very busy.

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#68

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

Gigachad wrote: post #61
mrjin wrote: post #41

Smart TVs were created for all kinds of agendas but none were actually for us the consumers. All those agendas require an OS which takes time to boot. Making it worse, some of those TVs' CPU are crap and thus every operation takes much longer than those dumb ones. Lots of vendors also start to ship new remotes that removed all the essential buttons, especially the video source button, and I have to press 5 or more ti…

It sounds like you are out of touch with the average consumer. They absolutely love smart TVs and would consider a TV without apps and streaming to be broken. In fact, even the ideal HN approved setup is just a smart TV where the online bit is a removable stick on the back. The average consumer just doesn’t care about being able to swap it out.

But consumers would buy dumb TVs with dongles if that’s what they made. We used to buy digital set top boxes. Antennas. VCRs. DVD players.

Manufacturers definitely jumped on the chance to add software and an internet connection to TVs. Why sell a product once, when you can do that and then sell your customers to ad agencies?

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#69

Post by raverbashing »

mrjin wrote: post #41

Smart TVs were created for all kinds of agendas but none were actually for us the consumers. All those agendas require an OS which takes time to boot. Making it worse, some of those TVs' CPU are crap and thus every operation takes much longer than those dumb ones. Lots of vendors also start to ship new remotes that removed all the essential buttons, especially the video source button, and I have to press 5 or more ti…

You're not getting any TV "signal" without a modern OS. Not even ATSC

Re: It’s Still Stupidly, Difficult to Buy a ‘Dumb’ TV

#70

Post by andybak »

zasdffaa wrote: post #65

A serious, non-trolling question to all. I've not had a TV for decades and for me that's a good thing. I've watched TVs in pubs (I'm in the uk) and round my mates' houses so it's not become some strange alien thing, and I'm still happy to be without it (that is, on balance; there are good things about broadcast TV and some bad, and the latter outweighs the former for me). In your opinion, is there actual overall valu…

Without a TV I'd miss the ability to "turn something on without being paralysed by choice". Usually mealtimes or when very tired, I just want to turn on the TV and flick through a handful of channels and just watch whatever there is on.

It's mainly a UX thing. There's just more friction with TV apps even if they do have a "watch live" option. Channel hopping is just much harder.

Post reply on HN