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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by feday »

ElFitz wrote: post #760
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…

> "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 yo…

You forget that there's ethernet inside the HDMI (1.4 and up) cable, it's called HEC (HDMI Ethernet Channel)?

It can just take network from whatever is attached and connected.

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

#772

Post by sgtnoodle »

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…

It's not the response you're looking for, but I recently got an LG C2 and plugged in a Roku from day 1. It turns on relatively quickly, and Web OS stays out of the way. I do have it connected to wifi, though, so I do get the occasional prompt to update the TV's OS.

I was previously using a Sony LCD TV from 2015 or so. I originally bought it as a monitor, but it became the living room TV when we bought a house. While I originally liked the built-in Android TV, it aged poorly. The TV's hardware decoders have silicon bugs that never got patched around. Netflix stopped working after they deployed their new compression a couple years ago. The only way I was able to get it working again was by having a friend at Netflix file an internal ticket. All they did was add the model number to a block list so that it would fall back to the older compression.

The LG is a joy. It's been a very satisfying purchase. Honestly, the Roku might as well be the TV's built in OS. My 4 year old can reliably turn it on and launch Disney+ in 3 button presses. Also, I bought it refurbished with warranty on eBay for $1k; the only flaw was a couple stripped out threads for the table stand. I hung it on the wall, so well worth the $400-600 discount.

I've plugged in my Steam Deck as well. It's a little bit clunkier due to lack of CEC, but I am using a random Thinkpad USB3 dock I salvaged from a junk bin at work several years ago. I suspect a more modern dock would be flawless.

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

#773

Post by sgtnoodle »

feday wrote: post #771
ElFitz wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 yo…

You forget that there's ethernet inside the HDMI (1.4 and up) cable, it's called HEC (HDMI Ethernet Channel)? It can just take network from whatever is attached and connected.

While Ethernet over HDMI is certainly a thing, is there any chance of a TV actually doing that without a consumer jumping through several hoops? As someone who would actually like that as a feature, I am 100% sure my 4 month old TV isn't sneaking internet access through its HDMI connection.

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

#775

Post by pabs3 »

A better option might be an open source smart TV.

If Software Freedom Conservancy win their lawsuit against Vizio for GPL violations in their TVs, you will probably be able to install open source Linux distros with Kodi on any Vizio TV and soon afterwards lots of other smart TV vendors will be similar. Eventually the geeks will create something like OpenWRT for TVs, a distro focused on improving the experience of open source TVs.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

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

#776

Post by sgtnoodle »

mmcgaha wrote: post #763
logi2mus wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use monitor and smart TV dongle?

My TV is a 43" HP Monitor. Some things just don't work right. The Roku cannot turn off the display like it could my old television. Since the monitor has no speakers, I have to use a soundbar but the Roku remote cannot adjust the volume so I have to use two remotes. None of this is a big deal to me but it is not seamless.

I have a Roku Ultra LT, and the remote has an IR blaster. I have it control TV power and sound bar volume via IR just because it's more reliable than CEC. It is seamless for me. Perhaps you could upgrade to the higher end remote?

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

#779

Post by bspammer »

ornornor wrote: post #767
ElFitz wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 yo…

> Because end user questions disrupt developer discussion this thread will be removed soon. Lol. I’ve worked for Samsung’s TV (and ad business, I’m ashamed to say) and this doesn’t surprise me one bit. The culture was actively user hostile and gave zero fucks about security or quality. All that mattered was how much data we could suck out of the users home. That included automated content recognition so we’d know wha…

The automated content recognition thing is surprising, at least to me. That’s so invasive I’d assume it was illegal, but I guess I’m too optimistic about privacy laws.

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

#780

Post by bartc »

htag wrote: post #722
SamWhited wrote: post #615

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, otherwis…

There are other attack vectors of a TV. For example, most TVs have a usb. Imagine an attack in which an attacker gains physical access to your TV and loads malware onto your TV via USB. Now the infected TV is communicating with a nearby WIFI hotspot to upload the audio recordings from the TV's microphone (that exists for voice commands). I think the TV is malware out-of-the-book if connected to a network connection.…

The idea is that if the TV does not have WiFI or microphone capabilities, none of these are security issues.
Post reply on HN