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

181–190 of 434 posts

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

#181

Post by IYasha »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #18
jahnu wrote: post #7

Is there a reason I’m not aware of that not connecting a smart to to a network isn’t enough? Do they auto-connect to open Wi-Fi for example?

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…

> But that route locks you out of firmware updates Actually some people disconnect their TVs BECAUSE of malicious firmware updates. Last update for my TV was not fixing any bugs, no patching any vulnerabilities, not adding any functionality, not improving content, not providing connectivity... it was JUST adding encryption to the firmware image and closing every way to root it!

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

#182

Post by andybak »

jolmg wrote: post #76
andybak wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't much different to open YouTube, pick whatever's recommended, and just let autoplay pick the next video to play. You get better tailored content.

It is different.

YouTube is deep in my filter bubble whereas channel hopping TV channels is a moderately curated selection.

(and YouTube in private browsing is just a firehose of automated recommendations).

There's probably about 10 channels worth watching on UK Freeview and the hit rate is fairly high when my standards are low but I want something easy and engaging.

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

#183

Post by mvanbaak »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #166
sgjohnson wrote: post #154

I for one enjoy that my Smart TV is subsidized by all the morons who think that my data is worth anything. It's not connected to internet. It's connected to Apple TV box. Thanks for the discount.

> It's not connected to internet From the article: “As a dumb TV fan who has bought several sets in the last decade, 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 swi…

> some TV makers remove functionality if you refuse to participate in their online ecosystem

The whole idea is to have no functionality on the tv. Just display the images ;-)

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

#184

Post by mrjin »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #102
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, they love also facebook, which monetize all their private life or sugary food, which alter your diet balance or cigarettes who can literally kill you. Not to mention all of them are addictive. The fact consumers love something doesn't make it a good thing.

It does explain why smart TVs would be easy to buy and dumb TVs difficult to buy. For example, I do not care if a TV is smart or dumb. All I care is how quickly it turns on because I am connecting it to an Apple TV anyway. Even as a person who would rather have a dumb TV than a smart TV, my actions continue to support smart TV manufacturers because I am not willing to spend the time and effort required to seek out du…

If you let them get away with it, then you will never get a TV work as it should. My next TV would be a dumb one, if I cannot get it, then I'll go for a big monitor instead.

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

#185

Post by mrjin »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #141
andrepd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if there are no dumb TVs for sale, how do you know if that's the consumer's desire or not? The much simpler explanation is that TVs plastered with ads and surveillance are more profitable to companies.

I assume there are capable people working at these large TV companies who can ascertain reasonably well what kind of demand there is for a dumb TV. Also, TVs went from dumb to smart, so empirically, sufficient buyers voted for smart even when they had an option for dumb. The alternative is all the manufacturers simultaneously pulled all dumb TVs out of the market even though selling them would provide a competitive a…

They do. But the thing is that they work for the TV vendors instead of consumers and also if all vendors are moving to the same direction, there is virtually no choice for consumers.

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

#187

Post by scarface74 »

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…

This is the oldest trope on the Internet. I saw this years ago Slashdot.

There has been this thing called “the internet” since the last time you owned a TV and these things called “streaming services”.

Why is this the one area where being ignorant of something that has 90% penetration seen as a virtue?

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

#188

Post by IgorPartola »

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…

I honestly don’t know what you are talking about. My TCL Roku TV is great and I will be buying another soon. It does everything I want and none of the things I don’t. It’s easy to use for me and for my kids. Roku also has all the major streaming services that I want. And I haven’t seen a commercial in 10 years. What am I missing?

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

#189

Post by scarface74 »

everdrive wrote: post #175
andrepd wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, you have a CRT? And you play VHS movies? Mind if I ask why x)

It's a fun novelty. You can find VHS for free at yard sales and other places. It often costs less to get a VHS than rent a movie on Amazon or something else. CRTs in general are honestly superior in a number of a ways. They effectively have built-in anti-aliasing, they tend to have better color depth, and usually have better speakers than a flatscreen TV. They're also better for most retro video game systems. Where I…

Film has always had more detail than 480i.

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

#190

Post by lotsofpulp »

mrjin wrote: post #185
lotsofpulp wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume there are capable people working at these large TV companies who can ascertain reasonably well what kind of demand there is for a dumb TV. Also, TVs went from dumb to smart, so empirically, sufficient buyers voted for smart even when they had an option for dumb. The alternative is all the manufacturers simultaneously pulled all dumb TVs out of the market even though selling them would provide a competitive a…

They do. But the thing is that they work for the TV vendors instead of consumers and also if all vendors are moving to the same direction, there is virtually no choice for consumers.

There is no choice because there is insufficient profit. In an industry with tiny profit margins, if there was margin to be had, surely someone would jump on it.
Post reply on HN