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

Ask HN: Is there a TV on the market without “Smart TV” features?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 413 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is there a TV on the market without “Smart TV” features?

#371

Post by elabajaba »

Geonode wrote: post #261
elabajaba wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you don't care about picture quality.

Insignia panels are usually previous year Samsung or other high end panels. They're excellent.

That's just a straight up lie. The current best Insignia TV (the F50 line) has a crappy 60hz panel with no local dimming, no real hdr, bad gradient handling, a bad scalar, mediocre colours, and low hz PWM dimming. It's honestly a shit TV that will give people headaches due to the low 240hz PWM frequency (ideally you wouldn't use PWM dimming at all). It also lacks variable refresh rate support (which modern consoles have), and can't do 4:4:4 chroma in case you ever wanted to use it with a computer. It is most definitely not a high end panel.

They're cheap, and that's about the only thing they have going for them.

Re: Samsung, they only makes a few TVs that are decent these days. They've ruined their brand by removing features from mid tier models and soured enthusiasts due to their terrible laggy ad-ridden interface, the cheating in benchmarks, the downgrading of panels in high end models to low contrast IPS panels, and the lack of Dolby Vision because they want people to use their own HDR10+ standard (not to be confused with HDR10).

Re: Ask HN: Is there a TV on the market without “Smart TV” features?

#372

Post by distances »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #339
pzmarzly wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of TV antenna input can be a good thing if you live in a country that collects extra taxes for having a TV, like Austria, Ireland or Poland, as your screen is not a TV by law. IMHO there isn't much value in TV channels nowadays anyway.

Lucky, them. In Germany every household has to pay it, because of "new media", meaning regardless of the (non)existence of classical TV, radio, there is probably internet, smartphone, some means to consume public tv and radio, so f---ing PAY ! Even if one can't stand that sh-t at all, and ignores it since 1996 :-) Meanwhile the president of France promised to get rid of it this year, probably this fall.

I don't mind these fees. It's better than collecting the same in taxes as it keeps the public broadcaster independent from political oversight, at least to a certain degree.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a TV on the market without “Smart TV” features?

#373

Post by Rastonbury »

deanc wrote: post #118
GekkePrutser wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (I recommend LG over Samsung - Samsung TV has native undismissable ads from 2019 still) Wow you get ads even when you never connected it to the internet? That's really user hostile design. If I get a tv it'll be LG anyway because they do real OLED, not that Qled stuff that Samsung does.

Try using NextDNS on your tv. They have a preset list for Samsung that used to block the ads.

Yup this is good suggestion, mine blocks the deluge of of telemetry pings and all other nonsense from my cheap chinese TV, also blocks in-app ads

Re: Ask HN: Is there a TV on the market without “Smart TV” features?

#374

Post by kasabali »

jeffbee wrote: post #101
IgorPartola wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait so you want consumer features? Well there is the Samsung Smart TV we can offer you…

I don't know what "consumer features" means but many commercial signage displays lack any kind of video processing, like de-interlace, pull-down, noise reduction, sharpen, etc.

Sounds like a feature

Re: Ask HN: Is there a TV on the market without “Smart TV” features?

#375

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

distances wrote: post #372
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lucky, them. In Germany every household has to pay it, because of "new media", meaning regardless of the (non)existence of classical TV, radio, there is probably internet, smartphone, some means to consume public tv and radio, so f---ing PAY ! Even if one can't stand that sh-t at all, and ignores it since 1996 :-) Meanwhile the president of France promised to get rid of it this year, probably this fall.

I don't mind these fees. It's better than collecting the same in taxes as it keeps the public broadcaster independent from political oversight, at least to a certain degree.

I do, because it is all BS.

It should all be pay per view, via smartcards, or similar.

And then more and more people would think twice if it's really worth it, to them.

While the producers can GTFO, and do something meaningful with their UBI, or whatever :-)

Case in point, I recently watched a playlist on YT about some topic, while doing stuff concurrently.

About two dozen documentaries, all in all.

It almost doesn't matter who is producing them,

they all resample and mix the same stuff,

over and over again, in variations of the same theme.

Even carrying over the same mistranslations and mispronounciations,

thereby communicating wrongness.

But should be correct, because it was on TV, they should know what they do,

how dare you to question them!?

Monkey see, Monkey do! Boo!

There rarely is anything original.

This went on for maybe 3 to 4 hours, then I canceled it and put some music on.

Much better.

And don't even get me started about the so called 'independence' of those arrogant mouthpieces and sockpuppets.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a TV on the market without “Smart TV” features?

#376

Post by grey_earthling »

amelius wrote: post #67
metadat wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1, this is great advice. I've been doing the same; get an AppleTV or GoogleTV dongle and never, ever attach the LG or Samshung TV to the network. Benefits of this strategy: * So simple, even non-savvy folks can follow the rule * Protects your privacy * Eliminates an unnecessary, highly invasive, and parasitic advertising vector (ads directly from LG or Samsung) * Protects your TV performance and functionality from s…

> It's unfortunate the manufacturers are in a position where such perverse anti-customer incentives exist. Why can't we have a consumer organization that protects us from having to buy stuff that we don't want. Wouldn't it be great if any product sold in mass quantities would have to pass a consumer/environment protection committee first?

> Why can't we have a consumer organization that protects us from having to buy stuff that we don't want.

You don't have to buy stuff you don't want.

You just can't buy the stuff you do want without it being bundled with stuff you don't want - the manufacturers have decided there's no market for it.

Evidently it's more profitable to persuade a large fraction of people that they are “consumers”, whose lives are a series of branded commercial experiences, than it is to cater to the unlucrative number of people who object.

As ever, the problem is consumerism.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a TV on the market without “Smart TV” features?

#377

Post by distances »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #375
distances wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind these fees. It's better than collecting the same in taxes as it keeps the public broadcaster independent from political oversight, at least to a certain degree.

I do, because it is all BS. It should all be pay per view, via smartcards, or similar. And then more and more people would think twice if it's really worth it, to them. While the producers can GTFO, and do something meaningful with their UBI, or whatever :-) Case in point, I recently watched a playlist on YT about some topic, while doing stuff concurrently. About two dozen documentaries, all in all. It almost doesn't…

Pay per view would add exactly the kind of incentives that would be disastrous. It's important that public broadcasters are (comparatively) free from commercial and political pressures, that's the only way to execute the mission they have been created for.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a TV on the market without “Smart TV” features?

#378

Post by jitl »

Koshkin wrote: post #159
teirce wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a nit. > AppleTV or similar Pick your poison. Doesn't have to be Apple TV, you could use anything from a Roku to a kodi stick to plugging a computer into the TV and playing things locally. What you're criticizing isn't the point.

I guess, the point here is, why disable the smart features in your TV only to plug another, just as “smart”, device (i.e. one that watches you ) in it?

Feel free to substitute a computer running GNU/Linux as the “smarts” here. This can be quite ergonomic with a wireless trackpad-keyboard combo. I’m quite happy with an Apple TV running Emby though.

Re: Ask HN: Is there a TV on the market without “Smart TV” features?

#379

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

distances wrote: post #377
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do, because it is all BS. It should all be pay per view, via smartcards, or similar. And then more and more people would think twice if it's really worth it, to them. While the producers can GTFO, and do something meaningful with their UBI, or whatever :-) Case in point, I recently watched a playlist on YT about some topic, while doing stuff concurrently. About two dozen documentaries, all in all. It almost doesn't…

Pay per view would add exactly the kind of incentives that would be disastrous. It's important that public broadcasters are (comparatively) free from commercial and political pressures, that's the only way to execute the mission they have been created for.

Which is mostly (dis|mis)information and propaganda. Go home.

Edited for insertion of mostly.

Post reply on HN