Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me? • Hacker News Board

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

#611

Post by pupdogg » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 2:05 AM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #548

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

what would you be doing that i couldn't get by just buying a display from one of the big name's "digital signage" lineups? like, for instance, any of these: https://www.cdw.com/search/computer-monitors-displays/large-...

Large format or digital signage displays are not necessarily industrial displays. In fact, they would not last long in a real rugged manufacturing environment where they could be exposed to extreme heat, toxic chemicals, dust, weld arcs, and physical trauma caused by heavy machinery.

Our company caters to this market by designing and fabricating our own thick metal casings for our displays. We also bond our sourced LCD panels with an additional layer of 1/8” to 1/4” thick anti-glare polycarbonate sheets to help them resist physical trauma. We have also designed our own controller that operates these displays with a super minimal/barebones RTOS. Our controllers can be controlled via RS232, but unlike other displays, we do not have an onboard PHY (Ethernet connectivity capability). This is an industrial requirement that originated due to Stuxnet.

Majority of the large format displays in the market today are more like smart TVs than actual dumb TVs, and though they are great products, they would not last in a real rugged industrial environment. I can create large format displays without the smartness for consumer use at an approximate 50-70% of their price.

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

#612

Post by macintux » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 2:06 AM UTC

JasserInicide wrote: post #514

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #2

The approach I’ve taken is to just keep my TV off the internet (never join a WiFi network) and make it smart via an Apple TV, which I personally believe to have the strongest privacy protection of any smart TV device. Another bonus is my TV UI hasn’t changed despite changing and upgrading TV brands.

make it smart via an Apple TV, which I personally believe to have the strongest privacy protection of any smart TV device. Except that as we saw with the CSAM debacle from a couple years ago, Apple will absolutely be scanning any device they have for anything they deem unsavory. I still can't believe people think Apple is a benign player in all of this

Or perhaps you see what you want to see in that story.

Apple and Google both scan images uploaded to their cloud for CSAM. Apple decided that they had the horsepower to do it on the device instead for only those images that would be uploaded to the cloud with the apparent intention of enabling end-to-end encryption for photos.

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

#613

Post by tmm » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 2:08 AM UTC

pupdogg wrote: post #568

tmm wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be great. My main issue with smart TVs isn't the network connectivity, its their horrible UI. The menus are universally confusing, slow and poorly thought-out. And because these TVs have to have some complicated OS to run all this stuff, they're slow to start up. My AppleTV goes from standby to on faster than my circa 2008[1] (only kinda smart) TV and receiver are ready to display an image. The AppleTV sho…

This is a very good and comprehensive list. Thank you! Our industrial displays already have most of your "must-haves," except for three: 1. Professional color calibration - this is doable, but it adds significant cost. When referring to color calibration, it is not the typical marketing gimmick used for consumer displays, but instead something equivalent to what you would get with Sony's BVM-HX310 reference monitor.…

Color calibration - I'm not entirely sure what would be involved here, TBH. "Professional" in this context would be what a pro home AV installer[1] would look for, not what a Hollywood color grader would need.

TV Tuner - Yes. An ATSC tuner with a COAX antenna input that can auto-scan for receivable channels. If this isn't feasible anymore, then I guess the HDMI input doesn't need ARC.

Connectors - looking at your photos, your input connections are on the side. If you put them on the bottom (down-facing), I think they'd be easier to reach if the TV is wall mounted (maybe not as easy if its on a table-top stand though). As long as they don't stick straight out the back, any orientation would be acceptable.

What's your experience with outdoor displays? 1000+ nits, IP-67 rated?

[1] In my area, that would be someone like https://www.gramophone.com

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

#614

Post by userbinator » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 2:10 AM UTC

Also related: you can get parts called "scaler boards" which will let you dumb down any smart TV, and you can choose the degree of "smartness" from very basic "inputs only" like a computer monitor, ones with built-in media players, and if you really want, streaming via WiFi and the like. Here's an article I submitted on one a while ago (use archive.org to view, due to linkrot): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24877363

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

#615

Post by SamWhited » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 2:10 AM UTC

Wow, others have said it but they really missed the point. Most of it is just kind of annoying because they're missing the point, but this sentence really stuck out to me (snipped to only show the important parts, there's a bunch of stuff in the middle that's also annoying): "By connecting to the internet [you get] security and features updates". Did they seriously argue that you need to connect to internet, otherwise how will you keep the internet connection secure? Everything else was annoying, that made me want to throw things.

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

#616

Post by mileycyrusXOXO » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 2:10 AM UTC

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

I'd buy it

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

#617

Post by hot_gril » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 2:10 AM UTC

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…

> changing inputs is just as quick

Problem is, it's not. And turning it on is slow. Changing channels is also slow. I'm not picky or principled at all when it comes to TVs, I just want it to work without pissing me off by taking forever to do stuff, and they're failing the test. My old TVs were always fine.

Also, my last smart TV bricked itself, which I'll write off as me being unlucky but it probably wouldn't have happened with a dumb one. When I was shopping for a replacement and asked the BestBuy employee if they have any dumb TVs, he said he gets that question a lot, and no. So I don't think I'm a weirdo for wanting one.

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

#618

Post by hot_gril » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 2:15 AM UTC

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.

The comment isn't about trust, it's just that the smart TVs are slower even when non-networked.

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

#619

Post by gruez » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 2:15 AM UTC

1101010010 wrote: post #532

delecti wrote: post #405

Earlier 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…

It's only disconnected until your neighbor's AP decides to advertise an open guest network for it to automatically connect to.

There's no evidence that smart TVs actually do that, aside from a few scant anecdotes from reddit.

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

#620

Post by chillfox » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 2:16 AM UTC

“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 channel scanning, or the ability to auto-label and optimize devices by HDMI input.”

NO, those are also smart features and I don't want them either.