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

Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?

#421

Post by emodendroket »

nrvn wrote: post #373
lbotos wrote: post #31

Search: digital information display Samsung 4k https://www.samsung.com/us/business/displays/4k-uhd/qb-serie... It's more expensive then the subsidized ones, but right in the description: QB65B--N * Direct-Lit 4K Crystal UHD LED Display for Business Without Embedded Wi-Fi or Bluetooth As others have suggested as well, possibly a monitor, but I'm not aware of many 65" 4k monitors (But they may exist)

DIDs are great but there are two main problems with them: 1. They appear to be more expensive than consumer TV’s 2. They might be more difficult to find through usual channels because they are targeted at businesses (but it probably depends on where you are located)

Well if you're unwilling to pay more for it then you've kind of conceded the manufacturers' argument, haven't you?

Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?

#423

Post by gclawes »

pupdogg wrote: post #133

I've designed and built many such TVs for the commercial/industrial vertical. I am currently working on developing such a TV for the consumer market and launching it under the name DUMBO.TV Let me know your thoughts. Reference pix of 70" industrial display using Samsung LCD panel and in-house LCD controller with physical OSD menu buttons along with IR/RS232 control capability: https://imgur.com/a/k6zrH3s

It would be so cool if it supported something like an insertable Raspberry Pi like these NEC displays did, but with standard consumer TV display characteristics (4k, > 60hz, etc)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-epPf7D8oMk

Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?

#424

Post by xp84 »

emodendroket wrote: post #416
aidenn0 wrote: post #321

> “Any TV worth buying is very likely going to ask to connect to your Wi-Fi, and that’s been the case for many years now,” he says. “If you can find one manufactured recently that isn’t smart, I don’t know that I would trust it to be worth what you’re paying for it, because it’ll likely be missing several other salient features that you may actually want, like Bluetooth compatibility, HDR functionality, built-in chan…

You are obviously not the target audience for this article. They also are not going to put high-quality panels in any "dumb" TVs they do deign to manufacture.

Agree on the last part. Some of these bells and whistles are silly, but the common thread in "dumb" TVs is basically that they will be using the cheesiest possible hardware across the board. Which is really saying something since they need to be worse than the entry-level Smart TVs -- which are already cost-reduced to a comical degree.

Some of my other "favorite" things about the dumb TV i bought for the kids room:

* Only a single button - you have to hold it down to turn it off, I think? Single press cycles inputs.

* Stand made of two flimsy pieces of plastic at the sides so you need a super wide table for it.

On the other hand, at least it doesn't need to "boot up." :D

Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?

#425

Post by cesarb »

mgaunard wrote: post #191
elAhmo wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monitor is a different device compared to a TV. TV without smart features is simply called a TV.

That is incorrect. A TV is simply a low-quality monitor, possibly with some kind of tuner or extra superfluous low-quality peripherals.

> A TV is simply a low-quality monitor, possibly with some kind of tuner

The defining feature of a TV is the presence of a tuner. If it doesn't have a tuner for OTA (or cable) channels, it's not a TV.

Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?

#426

Post by dataflow »

pupdogg wrote: post #133

I've designed and built many such TVs for the commercial/industrial vertical. I am currently working on developing such a TV for the consumer market and launching it under the name DUMBO.TV Let me know your thoughts. Reference pix of 70" industrial display using Samsung LCD panel and in-house LCD controller with physical OSD menu buttons along with IR/RS232 control capability: https://imgur.com/a/k6zrH3s

Do yours have speakers? Because the problem with "industrial" displays I looked at was they were just that: displays. Not everything you might expect from a TV, like speakers.

Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?

#427

Post by nitwit005 »

robg wrote: post #117

The chart here shows the problem: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-8... TVs have been so commoditized, if you were a TV manufacturer, how would you stay in business in the next thirty years?

TVs have been essentially a commodity for half a century now. I expect to see a lot of the same manufacturers in 30 years, because some of the current ones were around 30 years ago.

Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?

#428

Post by deadbunny »

YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #132
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s only a fractional amount of people using smart TVs without WiFi. I’m very dubious it’s worth the cost to imbed GSM cards in each TV to reach the fraction that doesn’t allow the TV on WiFi.

It would simplify setup for non-technical consumers. I'm sure people complain about having to input a WiFi password with a TV remote. WiFi/Cellular convergence as a concept also doesn't seem like the most unlikely future.

So TV manufacturers are going to pay for the bandwidth of all TV buyers in the age of streaming?

Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?

#430

Post by bombcar »

xp84 wrote: post #420
aidenn0 wrote: post #321

> “Any TV worth buying is very likely going to ask to connect to your Wi-Fi, and that’s been the case for many years now,” he says. “If you can find one manufactured recently that isn’t smart, I don’t know that I would trust it to be worth what you’re paying for it, because it’ll likely be missing several other salient features that you may actually want, like Bluetooth compatibility, HDR functionality, built-in chan…

I actually turned off HDR as soon as I got an HDR-capable TV, because it's apparently code for "eye-searingly-bright whites, including in the Apple TV interface itself." I don't understand who wants this. Maybe I'm a vampire?

I have a similar response and I think it’s because it needs a lot to get setup correctly across everything.

It’s like having the bass turned up but for video.

Post reply on HN