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

451–460 of 1001 posts

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

#451

Post by TurkishPoptart »

schappim wrote: post #186
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

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...

That's not fair!

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

#452

Post by dcow »

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote: post #331
lagrange77 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PRIMITV

Nice. That is an absurdly good name. I think it needs just a bit of fool-proofing in a couple dimensions though: (1) Ideally, the brand would also be able to speak to the segment of people who aren't going to get the wordplay. (2) Also, there's the age-old pronunciation question. Is it just "Primitive"? Is it "Primi - Tee - Vee"? It's quite close to being a great brand, though. I wonder if it just needs a skillfully-…

I think it’s perfect.

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

#453

Post by autoexec »

This article gives horrible advice.

It says just don't set up wifi, but TVs could still connect to any available open wireless network it can find. It says to use an old TV and just use Roku or Google Chromecast but that just moves the aggressive spying and ad pushing to a box next to your new TV, so that it's really helping.

The only answer right now seems to be to use a computer monitor and those are increasingly becoming "smart" as well.

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

#454

Post by w-ll »

I have a similar yet more exotic need. I one of the dozen of people that really enjoys 3d content. I have a 40inch LG from about 2013 that suits that need, but have been looking for something bigger.

Anyone who's been to Vegas in the last few years know they have pretty decent passive 3d screens (a la Nintendo 3DS) albeit with strict viewing angles. I dont mind something with polarized glasses for viewing as it gives a bigger angle. I just cant find anything on the market. There it seams are a few high end projectors, but my viewing needs are not that big and the room gets a lot of light and would like to be able to have it on during the day (in non 3d mode)

Are there any other 3D tv lovers on HN?

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

#455

Post by makeitdouble »

xp84 wrote: post #438

I respect the many reasons why someone might want to not want a smart TV, but honestly, data collection isn't one of them for me personally. If I watch a show, I'd be thrilled if somehow that information makes it into the data at the disposal of whoever has the authority to cancel or renew it, or to greenlight something new from those creators. The worst part about TV before streaming was that the few hundred "Nielse…

That was my take for a long time, but since then

- the shows we were really engaged, and made an effort to be vocal still didn't flourish. Because guess what: the target market was middle age women at home, so strongly signaling we were in it wasn't helping.

- the more targeted the ads, the crappier the experience was.

We're leaving this with youtube now, ads often fall into domains I know lot about, and I know they're mild scams or sub par offerings that are trying to gain market through brainwashing, as their competitors are gaining shares through word of mouth.

I'm currently getting flooded with Adobe Photoshop ads, and god no I don't want to give money to Adobe.

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

#456

Post by mastazi »

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.

Many digital signage TVs have high quality panels and they are dumb TVs.

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

#457

Post by warning26 »

tsujamin wrote: post #406
madeofpalk wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

meh, i think your response is more 'typical HN'. Nether are more correct than the other, but if you're annoyed or distrustful of all the internet connected factors of a TV, just don't connect it to the internet. I think that's a fine non-perfect, pragmatic solution.

What it doesn’t solve is the friction and bloatware of the tvos. My Sony tv’s Android interface has unbearable input lag using its menus, so I inevitably leave it set to my appletv hdmi input. Could the TV do everything the appletv could? Yep just worse and I can’t get rid of it

That applies regardless of whether or not the tv is “smart” - my current “smart” Roku TV runs great, and I had an old “dumb” Samsung that took forever to do anything.

Well-written software is what helps here, not smartness or lack thereof.

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

#459

Post by mattacular »

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…

I have a TCL and the factory firmware was out of date and apparently was affecting the picture quality in negative aways. My options were: 1) connect to wifi, update, then disconnect and trust that it's been done or 2) load the update onto a usb stick. I went with #2 but they could just remove that option in the future if they feel it's interfering with their ability to mine data off customers.

PS. the update fixed the picture immediately beyond what I was able to achieve by messing with the exposed configs

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

#460

Post by jader201 »

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…

I was actually pleasantly surprised to see the "just don't connect it to the internet" comments, as most of these smart TV threads are usually full of comments complaining about them on principle, even though most of the world doesn't care (connected to the internet or not), and in this case, I think it does solve most of the issues.

It's more common for HN to argue against something on principle, even when there's a relatively simple solution/workaround.

Not saying there's something inherently wrong with arguing against something on principle, but just saying that it seems more common on HN, and saying that the inverse is "such a typical HN response" is not my experience at all.

> It should turn on in seconds, not minutes.

I'm assuming this is hyperbole, but if not, I think there are other issues if it's taking minutes for even the smartest, most connected and loaded TV to turn on. Every smart TV I've owned has barely taken seconds to turn on, and I usually don't go out of my way to keep it disconnected from WiFi (unless, for example, I'm trying to avoid an update).

Post reply on HN