I recently found that new Sony TVs (which run Google TV as the OS) start up with the option to set it up as a 'Basic TV' or 'Smart TV' right from the get-go.
Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
481–490 of 1001 posts
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 bet…
[deleted]
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#483I'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
I'd say NotASmartTV(TM)
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does SFTP mean in This context? Only thing I can think of is SSH FTP, but not sure how that ties in?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15605423 It’s a classic HN reply
Here’s the proto-reply:
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#485Commercial Grade TVs might fit the bill.
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have an LGCX and if I hadn't connected it to the internet I would have missed out on some important software updates that significantly improved the display performance. Fwiw toggling the internet is an easy fix compared to the "dumb tv" way of updating firmware - putting a bin on a flash drive.
I’d tend to assume that any data collected would be uploaded opportunistically whenever an internet connection was available.
What data could a smart tv collect on you if you're treating it like a dumb tv? Assuming it lives its life disconnected from the internet with an Apple TV/Roku/Chromecast connected to it. Would it have any data on you other than, maybe, when the tv has been turned on?
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#487Earlier 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.
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.
> I use a game console for streaming. Works great.
I strongly suspect most game consoles are spying on you just as much as a smart TV would and all of them currently seem to be pushing ads in your face pretty aggressively too. Still probably better than roku which records and sends home multiple screenshots of whatever you're watching every second, but if my PS5 isn't doing some form of ACR already I suspect it's only a matter of time.
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#488The thing missing from this discussion is always that modern TV's _need_ powerful SoCs to look good. They have not been a "just take a signal from this input and display it" kinda devices for a long time, and _definitely_ after HDR became a thing.
Your TV does _tons_ of processing to display SDR content (24fps pulldown if the panel isn't 120hz, motion/judder compensation, "sport mode" and a bajillion of other things, and these get orders of magnitude more complicated when HDR gets into the picture (tone mapping is a Whole Thing!), and that's before we've even started talking about compensating for physical quirks of different panel types.
And this isn't the "motion smoothing" (though it also does that!) kinda processing, which purists will want to disable. Some of those are configurable and can (should) be turned off, but many of those are just what's required to make the image look good, without messing with the "creative intent" or whatever.
OLED displays need to have another layer of processing applied to make sure they don't burn-in; there's another layer of logic when displaying near-black content (turning a pixel takes more time than switching a color; sometimes you don't want to turn off a pixel for a single frame if it's gonna be lit up in the next again, etc, etc.). There are other consideration for other panel types, you also have to worry about heat and bajillion other things.
This is why you won't get a high-quality, dumb TVs.
You just physically can't make a high-end TV without putting a powerful SoC in it. And if you're doing that, you might as well install an Android on it for a nice OOTB experience.
Intersection between people who want the best picture quality you can get, and who are very... particular about what software runs on their TVs (and aren't satisfied with "just don't connect it to Wi-Fi") is not big enough to make a product for, to put it very delicately.
People who don't care about picture quality _might_ buy "dumb" TVs, but margins on those are so much smaller, nobody cares.
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a 75" Sony bravia smart tv and it draws 10-20 watts in standby. I have a 70" dell monitor used as a a tv in another room it draws 0 watts in standby.
Maybe my ignorance here but a 70 inch monitor? At what point is it just a dumb tv? Like is monitor a term used to describe its actual engineering and functionality or just how it's used. Also if engineering, is there a substantial price difference?
I've never seen a 70 inch monitor either, but usually text looks a lot better on a monitor and of course many monitors offer much higher refresh rates.
Ads aren't the only reason why a 42" 4K TV is generally much cheaper than a 32" 4K monitor
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#490"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 TV with no internet connection
And it's soon going to be impossible to dodge it going on the Internet anyway. Manufacturers are hard at work making sure that if any of any neighbor's Internet of Shitty Insecure Things [TM] device participate in the scam, the smart TV shall use your neighbor's device to escape and access the net. I forgot the name of the protocol / "feature", but it's a very real thing.
So unless you live in the middle of nowhere, like in a cabin in the woods, it's not going to work for much longer to "no enter the WiFi password" to "just don't connect it to the internet".
Just buy a projector made to project reports at corporate meetings or the like. These are still totally dumb and has added bonuses you can get a diagonal bigger than what any TV can offer and it's much closer to the movie theater feeling.