Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

> “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.

> You are obviously not the target audience for this article

That's a bit of a cop-out. If someone else wrote a letter into the wire-cutter asking about the best skim-milk, and the response was that skim milk is nutritionally inferior to whole-milk, so you should at least buy 2% milk if you aren't going to buy whole, and I actually want skim-milk, am I "not the target audience" for the article?

> The also are not going to put high-quality panels in any "dumb" TVs they do deign to manufacture

I don't know how it currently is, but it used to be that there were far fewer panel manufacturers than companies selling TVs, so anyone with enough volume could make a TV, so this is only true if "they" encompasses all possible TV manufacturers.

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

#992
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…

Why would you want to hang onto a TV for 15 years? Half of the tech you mention will be obsolete.

My TV is 12 years old, so I don't think it's unreasonable? Only down-side to the old TV is I have to strip HDCP to hook it up to my laptop through my receiver (a direct connection works because it negotiates the older version).

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

#993
post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Have you seen an optometrist?

Can't find one, it's too bright outside...

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

#994

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to "keep it off the Internet" without keeping it off the Internet is: Perflyst and Dandelion Sprout's Smart-TV Blocklist https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Perflyst/PiHoleBlocklist/m...

Or just block it in your firewall.

Sure, though that makes its other capabilities hard to use.

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

#995
post #488

The 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,…

When people say they want a dumb TV, they usually don’t mean „without advanced silicon“. They mean built-in media streamers, operating system, data collection, ads and bloatware. Those image improvement algorithms don’t run on a general-purpose CPU, there are specialized chips for that.

As I understand how those TV's are built, this is not true.

They are definitely running on the same _chip_, but you're right that (some of) those operations are not running on the generic ARM CPU cores. There is dedicated silicon for some of those fore sure, but it's all part of the same SoC.

Take a look at something like MediaTek Pentonic 1000: the product page talks about the included CPU and GPU ARM cores, but that SoC is responsible for _so much_. It dictates how many inputs your TV can have, it contains all the media-decoding blocks (AIUI, including things like ATSC!), and _it_ handles Dolby Vision, ALLM, and half of the niceties of modern high-end TVs.

So for everyone that doesn't have enough engineering bandwidth/competency/money to build their own silicon for things like this (which includes, oh, say, Sony.), and if you're buying off the shelf, you're getting those cores!

Might as well run Android on them.

[1]: https://www.mediatek.com/products/digital-tv/mediatek-penton...

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

#996
post #995

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say they want a dumb TV, they usually don’t mean „without advanced silicon“. They mean built-in media streamers, operating system, data collection, ads and bloatware. Those image improvement algorithms don’t run on a general-purpose CPU, there are specialized chips for that.

As I understand how those TV's are built, this is not true. They are definitely running on the same _chip_, but you're right that (some of) those operations are not running on the generic ARM CPU cores. There is dedicated silicon for some of those fore sure, but it's all part of the same SoC. Take a look at something like MediaTek Pentonic 1000: the product page talks about the included CPU and GPU ARM cores, but tha…

Thats actually an interesting angle. Sure, the low-margin price pressure has lead to increased consolidation and saving a few cents by having one chip instead of two - unremarkable. But that this exerts a kind of pressure to use the hardware that you got anyway is not immediately obvious, but probably true. Why let it go to waste? Why not collecting a bit of data here and there? Show a few ads, where they are not that annoying, really, who would mind.

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

#997

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

Are you considering an OS or even a somewhat powerful CPU? I'd prefer a TV with an ethernet + smb client, but not sure if it fits your dumb tv concept :)

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

#999

Just buy any TV with a good display and switch to the HDMI input? That's what I've been doing for nearly two decades now, with a HTPC to control what I'm watching. No need to enable wifi for what's essentially a dumb display then.

Smart TVs still take for ever to turn on or switch inputs, whether they also spy on you and advertise at you or not.

Late reply, but yeah the delays in switching inputs is pretty mind boggling. Especially when you need to do it straight on startup - it's SO sluggish on my 6 year old Samsung.

If the remote had hard coded input buttons instead of all the ones I never use, I'd be very happy indeed.

(Swapping between an Xbox and the HTPC).

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

#1000

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because your neighbor "agreed" to to the possibility in the process of setting up their device as part of that device's TOS.

Should still be illegal. Nobody expects such a thing in a TOS.

Long TOS that nobody expects to ever be read should be illegal in general.
Post reply on HN