Live data from Hacker News

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

techdirt.com

201–210 of 434 posts

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

#201
post #33
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wouldn't be easier just not set internet connection in first place? I don't think TV can hack into secure WiFi network

They have been caught trying to connect to unsecured WiFi before.

I bet you aren’t going to be able to provide a source for this.

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

#202
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wouldn't be easier just not set internet connection in first place? I don't think TV can hack into secure WiFi network

they can still hack into open networks around you and monitor the SSIDs to get a sense of your position.

Amazon Sidewalk is what worries me for the long term.

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

#203

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…

1 connect to internet

2 update firmware

3 disconnect from internet

Besides, most TVs have an option to update firmware from USB stick.

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

#204

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…

Are you single and living alone? Not trying to be insulting but in that case yea a tv doesn't have much value. But if you have roommates or a family yes TVs definitely have value beyond just a habit.

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

#205
post #37

TVs without a tuner are quite popular in Austria. You save around 30€ per month on payments to public TV stations, if your TV is just a monitor and has no tuner. You can get for example one of those (german, but you probably can read the specs anyway): https://nogis.at or https://www.gisbefreit.at/ Most devices are not high end though.

Vizio makes (or used to make) those as well. I have one of their 4k 70” without tuner (in the US). It does not suck any less. Disclaimer: I received it as a “equal replacement” by squaretrade for broken Sharp 70”

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

#207

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…

The TV doesn't need firmware updates as long as it's able to show me my sources, and "laggy" doesn't matter when the only input it ever has to deal with is whichever smart stick I choose to stick in HDMI 1.

I got a smart LG and let it go on the Internet to get a feel for the apps and webOS (as a Palm fanboy who was curious of how that story ended), and after trying it for a few weeks, it went back offline. Now the TV is turned on and off by the AppleTV connected to it.

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

#208

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…

No offense intended, but if you truly believe these things you might want to have your vision checked.

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

#209

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.

Just wait until one of your neighbors gets a DSL or cable contract with a deal like "share your electricity with us to run a public hotspot and get free access to our nationwide hotspot network in turn". There have been complaints about smart TVs automatically connecting to open WiFi networks [1], it's not that far fetched to assume some manufacturer will sooner or later cut a deal with Comcast or other providers.

Or that your smart TV gets its own embedded DOCSIS modem - one would not even be able to spot that except by dissecting the firmware! - or LTE modems. All it takes is the smell of enough profits.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25276291

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

#210

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…

    Also, TVs went from dumb to smart, so empirically, 
    sufficient buyers voted for smart even when they 
    had an option for dumb
This is one of those areas where consumerism/capitalism trips over itself and leads to sub-optimal outcomes.

The implicit assumption here is that this must be what consumers want, because it's what they "voted" for.

But voting (whether democratic elections, or just free-market consumer spending choices) only leads to optimal outcomes when the "voters" are sufficently knowledgeable in terms of both general domain knowledge and the choices themselves.

For all but the simplest choices (say, a choice between a bucket with a hole in the bottom and a bucket without a hole in the bottom) this is difficult.

There's no reasonable way for consumers to know how shitty the inbuilt OS/apps of a "smart TV" will become over time, or what onerous software updates the manufacturer will pump out, etc. A lot of this stuff is difficult or impossible to know even for savvy, educated people looking for a TV.

I wonder what sort of reaction you have when a successful, legally approved medicine turns out to cause death or injury in the long run, or merely proves to be ineffective. Or when a specific model of car develops problems after a couple of years.

Do you say, "well... this is clearly what consumers voted for?"

Post reply on HN