Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 181 posts

Re: Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

#151

Post by ssl-3 »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #39
diego_sandoval wrote: post #33

What would be the downsides of simply buying a big computer monitor instead of a TV? It seems to me like an easy way to avoid all the crapware that comes with Smart TVs.

It's hard to use a computer comfortably from the couch

I use a computer pretty comfortably from the couch.

The computer is a Raspberry Pi 4 running Kodi/LibreELEC. It works just dandy. I usually use CEC to control it, though sometimes I instead use a cheap Logitech K400 compact keyboard/trackpad combo. Both input methods are convenient (CEC even uses the regular TV remote), and both were plug-and-play.

It doesn't seem hard to use this computer from the couch at all, and it lets my dumb TV remain dumb while still accomplishing much of the functionality that I want from a video system that lives across the room from the sofa.

(And for everything else, there's Chromecast and friends.)

Re: Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

#152

Post by ssl-3 »

monort wrote: post #150
isleyaardvark wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This video isn’t really worth watching in entirety, but it’s one clip with motion smoothing on and off, so you can skip around to get the idea: https://youtu.be/INQrxHREmJ0?si=E5v3L-gZ__BrUHyC This video has a longer explanation: https://youtu.be/62noXbp-l9o?si=aZqIre3sJy2SpOo7

So I see a lot of stuttering during panning in that video. With motion smoothing on, almost no stuttering. How can anyone prefer the stuttering version? https://youtu.be/INQrxHREmJ0?t=211

Some of us strongly prefer things to be presented as they are, without artificial enhancements.

This means that if a movie is shot at 24FPS (as nearly all of them are), and is shown to theater audiences at 24FPS, then it should also be displayed at 24FPS in the living room.

(But if you prefer to view the world through rose-tinted glasses, then you do you.)

Re: Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

#153

Post by ssl-3 »

hagbard_c wrote: post #86
treprinum wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5G service channel says otherwise.

If there are devices around with cellular data access which do not require subscriptions that sounds like something which would be ripe for, shall we say, alternative use cases. Are there? I have not seen these yet but that does not mean much. I do know that if I ever get my hands on one the supplier will rue the day they decided to add a surreptitious data exfiltration channel to their products.

I mean: It's not cellular, but crowd-sourced services like Amazon Sidewalk are things that exist in the wild, and are available for third-party use.

It's only a matter of time before the Alexa device like the one on my nightstand starts providing a sliver of Internet access to a smart TV that you have never been intentionally brought online.

https://coverage.sidewalk.amazon/

Re: Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

#154

Post by monort »

ssl-3 wrote: post #152
monort wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I see a lot of stuttering during panning in that video. With motion smoothing on, almost no stuttering. How can anyone prefer the stuttering version? https://youtu.be/INQrxHREmJ0?t=211

Some of us strongly prefer things to be presented as they are, without artificial enhancements. This means that if a movie is shot at 24FPS (as nearly all of them are), and is shown to theater audiences at 24FPS, then it should also be displayed at 24FPS in the living room. (But if you prefer to view the world through rose-tinted glasses, then you do you.)

I understand that, but everyone here is saying that the stuttering version is better in itself and the smooth version is horrible? To my eyes it's the opposite.

Re: Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

#155

Post by plasticeagle »

hagbard_c wrote: post #86
treprinum wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5G service channel says otherwise.

If there are devices around with cellular data access which do not require subscriptions that sounds like something which would be ripe for, shall we say, alternative use cases. Are there? I have not seen these yet but that does not mean much. I do know that if I ever get my hands on one the supplier will rue the day they decided to add a surreptitious data exfiltration channel to their products.

Yes there are. Construction equipment manufacturers sometimes buy a worldwide low data rate cellular plan, and give every machine they ship the ability to phone home.

I recall that there was also an e-reader with similar functionality.

Re: Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

#156

Post by thfuran »

paulcole wrote: post #144
thfuran wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you okay with a bait and switch executed on a shorter time frame? How about a third party breaking into your house and breaking your things, or is that only alright when the original manufacturer does it?

> Are you okay with a bait and switch executed on a shorter time frame If I pay for it, I’m OK with it. If I decide I’m not OK with it, I’ll either not buy it or learn my lesson and make a different decision in the future. > How about a third party breaking into your house and breaking your things, or is that only alright when the original manufacturer does it? Why don’t you take a wild guess here?

>Why don’t you take a wild guess here?

I think that the only position consistent with your prior statements is that burglary is just one of those things that happens sometimes, and if the homeowner really didn't like it, they'd move. Caveat emptor.

Re: Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

#157

Post by ssl-3 »

monort wrote: post #154
ssl-3 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us strongly prefer things to be presented as they are, without artificial enhancements. This means that if a movie is shot at 24FPS (as nearly all of them are), and is shown to theater audiences at 24FPS, then it should also be displayed at 24FPS in the living room. (But if you prefer to view the world through rose-tinted glasses, then you do you.)

I understand that, but everyone here is saying that the stuttering version is better in itself and the smooth version is horrible? To my eyes it's the opposite.

To me, the "smooth" version is artificial and alien in ways I can't quite articulate, just as it is hard to articulate why a long-winded LLM response, while having good grammar, might be both stupid and wrong.

Sure, it's smoother; anyone can see that. It's also weirdly smeary or something.

The (presumably) 24FPS version has a regular amount of judder, and it's the same amount of judder that I've experienced when watching films for my entire life, and each of those frames is a distinct photograph. There is zero smearing betwixt them, and there is no smearing possible.

Re: Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

#158

Post by skiexperte »

bearjaws wrote: post #70
skiexperte wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My lg works great. No additional remote, no extra cable.

LG has opt out monitoring, check your menus for it, it defaults to "on" for several models including $1200 OLEDs Just wait until earnings line goes down, then they will make pay to play probably.

I have my lg on a vlan, if it wants to send out data thats fine for me tbh.

As soon as it becomes shitty, i add a chromecast

Re: Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

#159

Post by pseudosavant »

devilbunny wrote: post #139
pseudosavant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A ton of people ask me for TV recommendations. Rokus were my goto, but not anymore. I won’t buy one. Their response so far suggests this isn’t on accident (it’s a feature!) and they won’t change it back. I’ll probably have to not hook up the internet on my next TV. Use a steaming box instead.

I have a TCL Roku TV. It is not, has never been, and will never be connected to the Internet. I have to restart it periodically because there’s a strange sound system bug that makes the audio insanely quiet, but it sure was cheap. It gets its video from a TiVO or an AppleTV box. I’m not using the internal software for anything - I don’t trust it at all. You might think the same of Apple, and that’s fine, but I’m post…

Agree on Apple, they could screw up over but they really do look at users as the customers because we give them most of their revenues.

Consumers are at best the #3 most important customer, after advertisers and TV manufacturers, for Roku. They have incentive to not care about consumers.

Re: Dear Roku, you ruined my TV

#160

Post by thfuran »

monort wrote: post #154
ssl-3 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us strongly prefer things to be presented as they are, without artificial enhancements. This means that if a movie is shot at 24FPS (as nearly all of them are), and is shown to theater audiences at 24FPS, then it should also be displayed at 24FPS in the living room. (But if you prefer to view the world through rose-tinted glasses, then you do you.)

I understand that, but everyone here is saying that the stuttering version is better in itself and the smooth version is horrible? To my eyes it's the opposite.

Yeah, I don't know why people want horrible low frame rates. It's distracting every time a shot pans. But it seems a lot of people do.
Post reply on HN