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

191–200 of 434 posts

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

#191

Post by phdelightful »

helloworld11 wrote: post #91

I'm a bit hazy on this and how a smart TV interacts with the rest of the devices in a home, but for example, I have a 55 inch 4K Samsung TV in my living room, which I barely use. Occasionally I stream a movie on it, use it for music when friends visit and sometimes hook it to my laptop as a large monitor through HDMI but that's it. About 80% of the time it sits unused. With all that in mind, I don't see how all of it…

I'm currently in the "smart TV but don't connect it to the internet" crowd. I think there are three broad criticisms.

Violating your privacy in unsurprising ways that provide no value to you: obviously when and how you use it, possibly including screenshots and audio fragments to help HQ determine what you're watching

Degrading your experience: basically just ads in places you don't want them that didn't exist when you bought it.

Violating your privacy in "surprising" ways that provide no value to you, and circumventing your efforts to stop it: what other devices are present on your home network, where your home is, connecting to unsecured wifi (or soon mesh networks with your neighbor's TV) to do so.

IMO these are the things to defend against. If they're not happening to you then that's great. It's also fine if they don't bother you. For example, if 3 is happening to me I'm not going to go to the trouble of figuring it out how to stop it, though it will change my future purchasing decisions.

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

#192

Post by oynqr »

everyone wrote: post #129
TACD wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what we did. Our ‘television’ was never hooked up to actually receive broadcast signal, we’ve always just used it as a big screen for the media/gaming PC set up in the lounge, and at some point I realised if I’m going to spend my evenings staring at Good Screen I might as well upgrade from this 40” 1080p TV with a dead pixel row. So I looked around and eventually bought a Philips 559M1 55” monitor ins…

Afaik the difference between whats called a "monitor" and whats called a "TV" nowadays is that.. TV's show a compressed or upscaled image. TV's have much higher latency. And thats why something called a monitor is so much more expensive for the same size display.

Having a TV work well as a monitor is usually just a few settings away. It was this way ten years ago.

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

#193

Post by mrjin »

version_five wrote: post #156
Gigachad wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think many people just buy the biggest, cheapest thing they can. "Smart" is one of those scams that works because it doesn't enter into the calculus for most when making a product choice, so they get to slip it in. There was an article about the same thing recently with smart builder appliances in new homes. My point is, I don't think many love them, I think they don't notice until it's too late and then they don't…

Yep, most people have no idea the implications of Smart TV. I knew it but I had no many choices and actually I got totally disgusted by the practices of those vendors. It really has not much to do with demand but rather than getting more money from the consumers other than selling the TV hardware alone.

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

#194

Post by mvanbaak »

civilized wrote: post #75
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #42

That's why I'm not replacing my 10 years old panel, which is HD only (1080p) but has no connection abilities other than the ethernet port. When it'll be too old to work, I'll replace it with a projector.

I use a projector. They're cheap and dumb.

cheap ... depends. If you want good quality, brightnes and lifetime ... they are at the same price or more expensive then tv's (4k hdr projector is quickly over 4000 euro)

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

#195

Post by mchristen »

IgorPartola wrote: post #188
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?

I also own a TCL Roku TV and the interface is easily twice as slow as my Roku Ultra. Right on the home screen is a giant ad(unless you have network adblocking). Over the years Roku and Google have been fighting about Youtube/Youtube TV on Roku, just like Disney/ESPN fought the cable companies.

I also own a Toshiba built FireTV that suffers from those same problems but far worse. Way more ads, much slower interface, and the hilarious part is a hidden power off button in the menus(it's fun trying to turn the TV off without the proper remote).

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

#196

Post by philistine »

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…

I don’t get that point. A dumb TV would not need firmware updates. And if you’re already shopping like a madman, you should be able to figure out which TV locks out functionality. And the loading UI for the TV; I guess that’s the only fair point.

But it’s clear there’s a hidden point in the argument; I don’t want functionality I won’t use. I don’t want the risk of connecting my TV. The temptation to see what it looks like.

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

#197

Post by philistine »

Sakos wrote: post #169
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A device automatically connecting to unprotected wifi is a major security issue waiting to happen.

When has that issue stopped any of these companies?

It has; we have no proof of any TV doing that. Unless we see proof, it doesn’t happen.

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

#198

Post by panax »

vmurthy wrote: post #59

I learnt a lot from the previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24666968 Sigh. I am stuck on a 40" 1080p Dumb tv :(

After not having a TV for more than a decade I recently got a Sceptre 55'' 4k based on that thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24668015 and it is all I would ask for in a TV. It is only a TV with no bullshit and was very reasonably priced. The one I have also has absolutely no wireless and I can guarantee that it is air gapped.

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

#199

Post by mrjin »

IgorPartola wrote: post #188
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?

Obviously you were lucky. My experiences were based on Sony and Samsung, so TCL might be a different story and also different people have different needs. For me, all I need is really just a instant on big screen with decent speakers, nothing more.

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

#200

Post by panax »

izacus wrote: post #13
supersync wrote: post #2

I’m dead serious I’d pay an $80 to $100 premium for a dumb TV I’d even consider replacing a couple Smart TVs are just terrible

The premium for a dumb TV screen is about 500-1000$ though. Are you ready to pay that? Because manufacturers will earn more than your 100$ with ads and all other smart features on you if they don't let you buy a dumb screen.

This one only costs $370, cheaper than comparable 'smart' TVs https://www.walmart.com/ip/Sceptre-55-Class-4K-UHD-LED-TV-HD...
Post reply on HN