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

441–450 of 1001 posts

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

#441

Post by nabilhat »

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…

That's where it became clear that the article was taking advantage of the question to frame the source as an out-of-touch weirdo. "If you can find one manufactured recently that isn’t smart" implies they didn't try to find one and made up this content to avoid doing so. The assumed "missing salient features" are smart features; this statement framing the article's thesis is tautological.

It's a disingenuous response to an honest question introduced as "by far the most-asked among Ask Wirecutter readers", and a disrespectful, misleading way to treat their audience.

---edit--- I trusted consistent Google and DDG searches for the rest of this comment, and I shouldn't have. The following is not correct. ---/edit---

Not just readers. Is this how Wirecutter treats brands who don't treat with them? "We suspect it stems from an FTC complaint and a class-action lawsuit that Vizio..."? Why throw Vizio under the bus so explicitly? Is it because Vizio has never played ball with Wirecutter?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com%2Fwirecutter%2F...

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

#442

Post by _emacsomancer_ »

pupdogg wrote: post #220
schappim wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to want to change that name... Disney... They have the class 9 Trade Mark for Dumbo, and call out: "television sets;"[1][2]. [1] https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/115... [2] https://files.littlebird.com.au/Shared-Image-2023-04-08-06-5...

Yes, going to take care of that. Thanks for the heads up. I really looked that one over...didn't think too much of it as the domain was available. It's hard to do anything the easy way nowadays!

how about WiseTV?

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

#443

Post by imglorp »

delecti wrote: post #405
rolenthedeep wrote: post #376

"just don't connect it to the internet" is such a typical HN response that completely misses the point. A smart TV with no internet connection is still a smart TV. It still has an entire operating system that needs to load wifi, ethernet, Bluetooth, usb driver stacks. It still has an awful, flashy interface that adds unnecessary steps between changing inputs. It still tries to load god knows what apps every time you…

A smart-but-disconnected TV can meet all of those functional requirements, and your nonfunctional requirements (low processing power) frankly don't matter to most people. My smart-but-disconnected TV turns on just as quickly as my PC monitors can return from sleep (a second or two); changing inputs is just as quick (input button on remote, left/right to select, okay to confirm), and the automatic input selection when…

Ads are really the least of our worries.

Data about attention (viewing habits) is so immensely valuable, who knows what the next generation will do to obtain it? Years ago, the TV execs told us not to have a private conversation in the TV room. We all know how very easy it would -- if they wanted -- to exfiltrate your data in a variety of ways: Kismet, group Xfinity/Fios wifi passwords, or even ultrasonic beacons between cell phones. Why would they leave cash on the table if they had the option?

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

#444

Post by nitwit005 »

karaterobot wrote: post #59

> “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…

There's some inherent reviewer bias to these things. They have a financial motive to pretend all these features matter, because what else are they going to write about most of the time?

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

#445

Post by maccard »

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 do.

I remember when HD TV's came out and it was mind blowing the difference between an old and a new TV. We had 3D TV, 4k TV's come out during that time period and they were fine, but viewing content in HDR was the first time in a decade I realised "wow there has been another shift". My partner would struggle to call the difference between our 4k TV and our older 1080 TV, but she absolutely adores the HDR on the newer LG.

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

#447

Post by Scoundreller »

nr2x wrote: post #432
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

The problem is any TV is smart-free if you don’t give it the WiFi password (as article points out), so I’m not sure why’d I pay more for something that would be harder to sell second hand later on? Personally my TV is offline with an AppleTV for streaming.

For now. Until they start including embedding SIM cards or receiving updates OTA.

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

#448

Post by kbarmettler »

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #442
pupdogg wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, going to take care of that. Thanks for the heads up. I really looked that one over...didn't think too much of it as the domain was available. It's hard to do anything the easy way nowadays!

how about WiseTV?

Ooooh, that's good.

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

#450

Post by nr2x »

Scoundreller wrote: post #447
nr2x wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is any TV is smart-free if you don’t give it the WiFi password (as article points out), so I’m not sure why’d I pay more for something that would be harder to sell second hand later on? Personally my TV is offline with an AppleTV for streaming.

For now. Until they start including embedding SIM cards or receiving updates OTA.

That’s a theoretical problem, not a reason to buy something at a higher premium.

The sales pitch can’t be “sure that TV is the same as ours for double the price, but wait until nexts years model!”

Well, better reason to buy the cheap one today.

Post reply on HN