[deleted]
Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
141–150 of 1001 posts
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#142The 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 I repurpose the old laptops that I seem to accumulate for this. Just about anything made in the last 10 years can handle at least 1080p video, and will have an HDMI output. I add a small wireless keyboard and use my regular desktop environment. But you can add a remote and use one of the open source media centre suites. I do wish more TVs had a monitor-like sleep mode and accepted the…
[dead]
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s only a fractional amount of people using smart TVs without WiFi. I’m very dubious it’s worth the cost to imbed GSM cards in each TV to reach the fraction that doesn’t allow the TV on WiFi.
It would simplify setup for non-technical consumers. I'm sure people complain about having to input a WiFi password with a TV remote. WiFi/Cellular convergence as a concept also doesn't seem like the most unlikely future.
> It would simplify setup for non-technical consumers. I'm sure people complain about having to input a WiFi password with a TV remote.
So they'll add a $50 LTE/5G modem to the BOM just to save the trouble of entering a password using arrow keys, a process that takes maybe 2-3 minutes?
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#144A reminder ha LG webOS can be exploited by visiting a website https://github.com/RootMyTV/RootMyTV.github.io
Patched in mid 2022, unfortunately.
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that would require an accessible WiFi network. I'm sure someday it'll be impossible because they'll embed 5G chips and do it over cell without involving your consent, but that day isn't here yet.
Simple, just put it in a Faraday cage.
Surely, grounding the aerial would be the simpler option, right?
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#146idk why people are against Smart TVs. It's not like the vendors put a 5G modem on it and pay for the ads to be served to you themselves with their own internet. buy your tv, don't connect to wifi. connect to your device of choice, done. trying to avoid smart tvs is so silly, as you basically exclude nearly all of the good ones.
Here are some reasons. 1. Cost. I'd rather not pay for hardware and software I won't use. 2. Environmental impact. Unused and unwanted hardware is waste. 3. Unauthorized users connecting to WiFi. TVs are often in common areas. The settings menus have no authentication. So an unauthorized user might connect the TV to a WiFi network. 4. Automatic WiFi connections. TVs might connect to open or partnered WiFi networks wi…
> Cost. I'd rather not pay for hardware and software I won't use.
There is no more a “smart TV tax” than a “Windows tax”. Smart TV manufactures make money via selling user data that more than offsets the $20 BOM for the smart TV components just like computer OEMs make money installing Windows crapware.
> Environmental impact. Unused and unwanted hardware is waste.
What unused hardware? When the built in smarts go obsolete, you buy an external device and connect.
> Unauthorized users connecting to WiFi. TVs are often in common areas. The settings menus have no authentication. So an unauthorized user might connect the TV to a WiFi network
That’s true and it was happening a lot when we first moved into our condotel (condo that’s rented out like a hotel when we aren’t there and we get half the proceeds) and when we stay in hotels. I bought a wifi to wifi bridge to have a private network.
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s only a fractional amount of people using smart TVs without WiFi. I’m very dubious it’s worth the cost to imbed GSM cards in each TV to reach the fraction that doesn’t allow the TV on WiFi.
It would simplify setup for non-technical consumers. I'm sure people complain about having to input a WiFi password with a TV remote. WiFi/Cellular convergence as a concept also doesn't seem like the most unlikely future.
I've long wondered about what wifi/cellular looks like on an infinite timescale... it does strike me as unlikely too we will maintain two separate wireless standards forever for IP data. I think embedded cellular or equivelent global wireless access will one day just be as taken for granted as embedded wifi in a lot of devices. Technologies like eSims are all steps in this direction.
I've seen others in this thread argue embedded cellular isnt worth the cost, but this misses the critical point - if it costs almost nothing (we are close to this point already) and is already built into every off the shelf SoC, of course manufacturers will use it. We are talking pennies per unit at scale here in future.
The auto industry has already done this - Ford for example have embedded cellular analytics you can't turn off (or at least its non-obvious to me as an owner) on every single new Ford and has done so for several years now, and you don't pay a penny as the end user, even on their most basic entry level cars.
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn't some models (thinking Samsung) been shown to connect to any WiFi network they can? edit: Appears to be an urban legend, with not much substance to back it up!
No, this appears to be a HN urban legend. It's always asked in these threads and the closest thing that anyone has been able to provide is one person asking one time on the samsung forums why there tv was connected to the neighbour's wifi (openly in the TV's own menu). So either there's a giant conspiracy which literally nobody else in the world has noticed or attempted to reproduce, or her kids/neighbour/whoever jus…
It's possible, and that's all that matters IMO
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple, just put it in a Faraday cage.
The mesh would have to be so fine that you wouldn't be able to see the screen (unless you were inside the "cage").
Google is telling me that the mesh for a Faraday cage that would block WiFi could have hole sizes up to about 5 mm. Suppose you made your faraday cage (or at least the part that goes in front of the screen) out of 40 gauge wire (0.07874 mm diameter) with the wires spaced 2.25 mm apart.
On a 70" 4K TV a pixel is about 0.4 mm x 0.4 mm. If the mesh were close to the screen I think about 30% of the pixels would have wire in front of them. Of those 30%, 1/6 would both a horizontal and a vertical wire in front (let's not go crazy and talk about orienting the mesh diagonally or anything like that), and 5/6 would only have one wire in front of them. So that's 70% of pixels not interfered with, 25% having one wire in front of them, and 5% having two wires.
The 25% with one wire crossing would have about 20% of the pixel occluded by the wire. The 5% with two wires crossing them would have about 36% occluded.
My guess is that the screen could be seen pretty well through that.
Re: Ask Wirecutter: Can you recommend a not-smart TV for me?
#150For the HN audience especially, a simple computer monitor seems like the obvious answer. Set it up however you like. Maybe it's a little more complicated if you still have cable or something, but unless you're watching live sports, there's not much value there.
Except most monitors are smaller than 40" and don't have speakers.
If you are using the built in speakers on any tv, you are losing the game. Additionally a few of my monitors have crappy speakers that turn up as a hdmi output device, often to my dismay.