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

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461

Post by bombcar »

norgie wrote: post #244
nvr219 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check this out: https://imgur.com/VJVmDd3 This is from 2 days when there was literally nobody using anything in the house because I was out of town.

To be fair, blocking can cause more requests than "normal" as they don't always use good back offs. My Nvidia Shield used to spam my DNS with 10s of thousands of requests a day like this after I blocked the domain, but they seem to have fixed it at some point.

I have a server that responds with a blank every access which satisfies some of them, but with HTTPS it’s harder to do.

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

#462

Post by ChancyChance »

TCP/IP over HDMI exists and is in use.

You cannot just "not connect your TV" because if you connect to ROKU which is connected to the Internet, your TV can access the internet.

Source: I bought a TV a few years ago, and it somehow popped up an ad even though I didn't connect it to my WiFi. Did some research, and that's how I found out.

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

#463

Post by antegamisou »

madeofpalk wrote: post #380
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…

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.

But your response confirmed the parent's part about missing the point which is that Smart TVs' OS is an absolute bloatware dumpster fire.

This isn't some silly /r/privacy - tier paranoia about not wanting being tracked by your home devices, though it's a reasonable concern to an extent.

It's just about the people who don't care about those shitty overpriced streaming services and just want to watch the news without having to wait 15 damn seconds for the thing to turn on or worse, having to be more than patient to switch channels after turning it on because God knows what is running on the background and the channel hasn't changed in over two minutes in spite of having spammed the remote already.

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

#464

Post by exclusiv »

suprjami wrote: post #301
exclusiv wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suggestion: STANDARD

Terrible. Imagine searching for "standard TV".

Kind of like framework laptop though. So while I agree search wouldn't be great to start, This isn't a TV for the masses if we're being honest. It will be high word of mouth and on niche tech sites.

Top 2 results: standardtvandapplicance.com and https://talent.nebula.tv/

not impossible

Also, marketing isn't only about search results. Another example: Standard Hotels

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

#465

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

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…

How does what you described differ from a monitor? Is it just size?

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

#466

Post by cultureswitch »

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?

Same boat as you. To me HDR is ok if I use the TV in a dark room but otherwise I lose most of the detail as the extremes.

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

#467

Post by marshray »

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.

I use a game console for streaming. Works great.

One problem is the TV nags you to enter set it up every time you turn it on. We have to keep the TV remote around just to use the power on/off button.

Not the end of the world, but I'd rather have the product that fits my application.

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

#468

Post by anonymousiam »

Since none of the 451 comments (so far) have mentioned this, another alternative is to buy a LG smart TV and then root it with https://rootmy.tv

In addition to giving you a homebrew channel with lots of useful tools, it also removes much of the tracking and advertising "features", making the TV behave more as should be expected.

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

#469

Post by stinkytaco »

nabilhat wrote: post #441
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…

Do that search with Google and you will see that Wirecutter recommends a number of Vizio TVs. I've personally bought and been happy with a Vizio TV they recommended.

I do not connect it to the Internet and it works fine.

EDIT: here is one article in which they recommend a vizio model: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-lcd-led-tv/

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

#470

Post by autoexec »

madeofpalk wrote: post #380
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…

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.

"Don't connect it to the internet" might work, assuming it doesn't aggressively scan for open connections every chance it gets, but if this becomes common it'll only be a matter of time until you're forced to sign up for an account at initial setup, and the TV starts refusing to function at all without an internet connection (or it's been more than x days without one), and searches for nearby bluetooth devices of the same brand which are connected to send your data through that internet connected device instead.

The only way to solve this problem for good is to regulate the industry, but failing that, the least we should do is make it clear we're not interesting in buying their shitty spying products by refusing to hand over our money in the first place.

Buying the TVs, connected or not, signals that you support them and what they are doing, and more importantly it makes doing the things they are doing profitable for them. It reinforces the behavior you're trying to stop. That's not just "imperfect" it's counter-productive.

Post reply on HN