Why dumb TV's won't make a comeback --- price.
Manufacturers make recurring revenue by invading the privacy of "dumb" users with their "smart" TVs.
It's probably only a matter of time before TV manufacturers establish their own ad networks.
Why? Because they can. They have the ability to fully control *their* "smart TV" (that you paid for) and show you ads that they control --- independent of any programming.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/12/tcl-tvs-will-use-fil...
It's why Walmart purchased Vizio for $2.3 billion.
Amusingly enough, if you buy a Visio, reject the agreement during setup - it turns into a dumb TV.
TCL’s agreements say you’re not allowed to do that.
https://www.tcl.com/us/en/roku-tv/eula
“If you do not agree to this EULA, you do not have the right to use the Television or the Software. If you are within the allowable time period for returns under the applicable return policy, you may return the Television to your seller for a refund, subject to the terms of such return policy. You should perform a factory reset before you return it to erase data that may be stored on the Television.”
That rubbish is probably unenforceable anyway.
That being said, this is the first time I've ever seen an EULA be this brazen and predatory. Claiming that I'm not allowed to use the entire device because I don't agree to some post-sale contract? In writing? Are you sure you want to do that TCL?!?!?
That rubbish is probably unenforceable anyway.
It may depend on your jurisdiction but here in the USA, I'm pretty sure it's legal because they offer a full refund if you chose not to accept.
There are alternative ways to coerce users into playing along. For example, simply store/retrieve TV configuration in the cloud. Without connectivity configured, the TV starts over from scratch in device setup on every power up.
And connectivity obviously opens the possibility for other uses.
The reason why it's unenforceable is probably unconscionability. There is no value that the contract provides that wouldn't exist if there was no contract. You have a right to use hardware you own and the software that comes with it, just because you bought the device. It's not the EULA that allows you to use the TV and software, simply having it in your legal posession means you have the right to use it.
The more nefarious play would be to have the TV stop functioning if the EULA is rejected but only after the return period has passed.
Can anyone confirm this? If this is true, this is huge news and highly consequential
Can confirm. If you don't give vizio Wi-Fi access it functions as a dumb tv.
This is why I purchase Vizio instead of other brands. I don't need my television loaded with a ton of apps I'll never use.
That's different than what GP said though - that you need to reject the agreement to get it to be a dumb TV. Which is it?
Is the same thing. The agreement is giving it Wi-Fi access. If you say no, you deny Wi-Fi.
Later firmwares will still try to push you to the smart tv display if there is no signal for 5 seconds to get you to setup the wifi.
They'll probably install cellular connectivity or brick the devices if they can't connect.
TCL is the same, as are likely every brand of TV. The smart tv hate is overhyped. All my TVs are dumb because they were smart but never got WiFi access.
TCL is the same, as are likely every brand of TV.
They are not all the same --- even within the same manufacturer.
A lot of newer firmwares will launch into setup every time you power up if access is not configured. The TV configuration data is most likely being saved/retrieved from their cloud. This serves as their connectivity test.
Without wifi setup, my new Hisense 4k "budget" model does this *unless* you run it in "store" mode.
Dealing with setup on every power up is possible --- but obviously highly annoying over time --- and this is by design.
The manufacturers desperately want the data collection $. It's the only way some of them make money.
I think this is the way, just don’t give it wifi access! Fun story, my sony has android tv and can play MKV files off a flash drive (eg. a non-streaming tv show), but the built in player is horrible (drops frames?). Turns out I was able to find the right version of VLC player and adb the apk over the Ethernet port! Really worked a treat.
This avoided connecting it to wifi, but I still got what I wanted out of it.
It’s the same with Hisense tvs
I won’t buy Sony TVs because their EULA says you have to indemnify Sony.
you can also just not connect it to a network
I heard that some 2024 models refuse to go through the setup wizard without internet access. Not sure what happens if you disconnect it after setup though. But my Amazon Fire Stick already refuses to do anything without internet even though I could stream locally with vlc.
That’s a solid reason to return the tv, though it’s probably worth it to check online before purchasing one.
I can confirm that at least the V4K43M-08 and the V4K50M-08 don't do that.
(It kind of implies you need to continue and update, but you can just go to HDMI and it doesn't bother you anymore.)
I wonder if this is a market specific thing, that is to say if it is turned on or off depending on which market you're in. For example I wonder if there are pertinent regulations applying in EU, if so I would expect it were turned off in EU.
[dead]
Just a matter of time before they start taking data updates and ads over an ATSC or FM subchannel.
My money’s on a joint venture with Comcast, Cox, Verizon, et al. to use the Wi-Fi access points their routers operate – even if you use your own router and block them, your neighbors almost certainly don’t. Most them already have business ties and would love to have better ad targeting data.
Man, at that point I would open up the back and snip/desolder the antenna itself. I hate ads on my TV, ESPECIALLY when I've already paid for the damn thing!
That's highly speculative, but even if that did end up happening, the smart TVs sold today wouldn't magically gain that capability, especially if you keep it off the network and never update it.
Or 5g with a SIM card.
Fine with that, free data on my modem
You won't be able to remove it. It will be an eSIM.
Already happened with cars. That's what OnStar was/is.
> Why dumb TV's won't make a comeback --- price.
I'm cool with it provided I can use it as a very high quality HDMI display. Then I just got a nicely discounted product.
My worry is if they demand connectivity in order to work as a display. Or worse come with some kind of LTE transceiver to phone home then we're in trouble.
I'm wondering if HDCP is paradoxically to the rescue here?
So the main concern with keeping it in dumb mode I would think is that they could still snoop in on your streams through the plain old HDMI port.
But if the HDMI is encrypted.....
With their antipiracy standard ....
God that would be amazing.
Also, I'm kind of surprised there isn't a raspberry pi open source project that does what those 20$ Roku fobs do.
Finally ... It kind of shows that hardware hacking is going downhill that there isn't a replacement os for the major brands of smart TVs. It's possible they've locked that down, but also the price points are so low you'd think they don't have the money to keep them out.
I'm cool with it provided I can use it as a very high quality HDMI display.
Most will work --- but not always *conveniently*.
On power up, a lot them will launch into setup if connectivity is not configured. Some may actually store/retrieve the TV configuration in their cloud.
Unfortunately, only a matter of time.
this is how i learned that taylor swift had a birthday recently. my samsung television advertised it to me on the ad banner that goes across the top third of the home screen of the television.
There will always beeoptions without. Some tvs are used in industrial settings to show safety information. If someone dies and the tv was, showing ads instead of safety information there will be big lawsuits.
In some cases, those places buy non-retail "kiosk" televisions. They're hard to search for on the manufacturer sites.
> non-retail "kiosk" televisions
The more correct term would be Digital Signage displays, eg. [1] - they often run on high voltages though so it's better to be sure when screwing around with them
Those usually have shit color accuracy and high black levels, but they are bright.
Yeah, they just cost a ten times more
Regulation could always fix this.
Like regulation has fixed privacy invasion on the internet?
in Europe it's gone a long way towards that
Really? They've been working hard on a mass surveillance legislation (which would outlaw encryption) for a couple years now, it was thankfully voted down in 2023 because of a successful public outcry, but that didn't stop these gestapo assholes, they're gonna "reword it" and keep pushing it and eventually the public will have fatigued and stopped caring and it will go through.
The EU couldn't fix the EU-US privacy framework even for the third try, and when the previous one have been invalidated by the CJEU, nobody bat an eye and continued to do the same thing.
GDPR is simply ignored by any bigger US company, it took 5 years for NOYB to facebook get fined which was less than 0.3% of their income, basically a small tax, not a huge fine.
Also GDPR is full of inconsistency (face biometric data is special data, but a photo of your face from what anybody can get the biometric data is not) and loopholes (required by law, legitimate interest).
They did something, but I wouldn't call that "a long way".
> GDPR is simply ignored by any bigger US company
I work for a very large US company and can assure you that GDPR is something we pay a lot of attention to. This isn't the opinion of my employer, but my personal experience is that the big players take it seriously and meet and exceed all their obligations because it's too risky not to, and they have the necessary local legal teams to understand the law as best as is possible.
I think it's the small/medium companies who are where most of the issues are. Small companies write a non-legalese privacy policy because they think that's better for their users, but in fact have written something legally meaningless that gives their users no protections. Some small companies just don't know their obligations because they think they won't apply as they're not in the EU.
Then there are the companies who are big enough to know better, but small enough to know they can get away with it because all the scrutiny goes to big tech. I was asked by a medium sized advertising network to implement a keylogger on our website at my previous company so that the network could enforce their revenue sharing by detecting all user data input into our site and match it against their records. I laughed them out of the room, but they made it very clear this was how everyone did it.
> Some small companies just don't know their obligations because they think they won't apply as they're not in the EU.
To be fair, unless a company has a business presence in the EU there is nobody to sue for GDPR violations. The EU cannot enforce its laws on an entity which isn't under its jurisdiction at all.
> ... GDPR is simply ignored by any bigger US company, it took 5 years for NOYB to facebook get fined which was less than 0.3% of their income, basically a small tax, not a huge fine. ...
From my experience working at multiple companies, and having interacted with others, the GDPR is not ignored by American companies. websites based out of the US block EU users to avoid fines, or these US based companies which don't block EU users have gone out of their way to comply with the GDPR as interpreted by their respective legal department.
> less than 0.3% of their income, basically a small tax
That's not how tax works. You get taxed on your net, not your gross. 0.3% of gross is massive.
> GDPR is simply ignored by any bigger US company
GDPR is closely adhered to by big American companies. They may be the only ones to whom the EU is applying regulatory pressure on this. Chinese and Indian companies, on the other hand, as well as any non-enterprise American company, including start-ups, on the other hand, can and do safely ignore it. (Or follow it in broad strokes.)
This is false. GDPR is not ignored, I can tell you that much.
Another checking in from the my company was and continues to be effected by GDPR.
Are you from the future? What regulation? No one has even tried.
Have we tried? I just see politicians sitting on their hands while holding stock in tech companies and feigning helplessness and ignorance.
I think your second statement answers your own question.
It could. It has all the power.
I mean if that how you view the world: seat belts didn't fix road deaths and laws didn't fix murders
- [deleted]
So can a wish on a monkey's paw.
Regulation can prevent the fix as well.
[flagged]
What do you think about laws? Or lead in gas? Asbestos in your house? Are you one of these free thinkers who don't use seats belts because regulations are always bad?
Your last sentence makes no sense. Something can both be good, and be undesirable for government regulation. For example, it's good for me to eat vegetables. But it would be odious to have a law requiring me to eat X number of vegetables per day. Similarly, a person can be in favor of wearing seatbelts but opposed to a law requiring seatbelt use.
Your reasoning is flawed, eating vegetables or not basically only affects you and your health, not wearing a seatbelt turns you into a projectile against the general public.
You sullied a great set of questions with the last sentence, which makes the whole set fail the ideological Turing test.
- [deleted]
Air pollution is nothing like it used to be.
Why spread such untruths?
Whether regulation is a good or a bad tool for solving problems is an opinion. It cannot, by definition, be "untrue". At most one can say that they disagree and cite evidence as to why.
It looks like a lot of people have taken this statement to be proof that the poster doesn't believe in 'regulation'. When I read this I believe the poster is pointing out how the US has a tendency to politicized anything with the word 'regulation' associated with it to the detriment of the issue involved. For what it is worth, I too see the attack on 'regulation' without context or thought and it makes it hard to accomplish things as a society, but it also forces you to think of other ways things could get done. Convincing people to vote with their wallets or just bringing bad press are also ways to influence this issue. I personally do think regulation has a very big place in this discussion but maybe if we explored other avenues more we could make progress as well.
exactly :)
I wish people would stop regurgitating this obvious lie. You can’t walk 3 feet without bumping in to something that is better for you because of regulation.
My motorcycle has a rev limiter for a reason. If you let the motor run wide open it will fail catastrophically. Economies are no different.
If you think regulation doesn’t work then you’re simply ignorant of how even basic parts of your daily life work.
you are programmed to think this way because you will focus on some “good regulations” and say “look, regulation in ____ caused all these positive things.” but regulation means that government decided what can or cannot be done. and government is run by people that spend 70+% of their time fundraising. and people that shell out money at said fundraisers will want things and return. and that leads to regulations which are not in the interest of people in general but you know… also regulation is a double-egded sword as you always imagine that regulation will “go your way cause you are smart and have common sense” but we both know (especially in the USA) that is not the case. every regulation made by one political party the other will do everything possible to remove once they get the power back and vice versa
My motorcycle has a rev limiter for a reason. If you let the motor run wide open it will fail catastrophically. Economies are no different.
It is an interesting metaphor to draw because you didn't need regulation to get a rev limiter.
Yes it is a metaphor not an example.
In the case of my motorcycle the authority is Honda and myself. I can control the constraints but I would never remove them.
It seems like the benefits of constraints on systems would be obvious to engineers but apparently not.
[flagged]
[flagged]
You said that regulation is never a solution to any problem. That is objectively false. Go swim in the Hudson river in 1960.
sounds like fun
It sure doesn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_of_the_Hudson_River
[flagged]
[flagged]
Please don’t feed the trolls.
[flagged]
[flagged]
For what it's worth, my LG TV (which is a few years old, to be fair) has never once showed up in my pi-hole's logs. We use an external box for the "smart" stuff, and the TV itself isn't up to any shenanigans as far as I can tell.
I have an entirely separate VLAN network in my house for "appliances". Any access to the internet from that network has to be explicitly whitelisted in my router.
pi-hole uses DNS, and will give out fake ip addresses based on the name lookup.
Unfortunately it is NOT a firewall.
Any device can easily do its own DNS like DoH (dns over https), nnot involve pihole in name lookups, and send package directly to the destination ip address.
I used to have a rule on my firewall to redirect all internal 53/udp dns traffic to my local DNS server for just this reason. But with DoH, there’s really not much one can do to ensure a device is behaving without completely null routing that device.
- [deleted]
I have a Samsung TV similarly hobbled. I simply never gave it a network connection and it works fine.
For now at least this really isn't an issue. If and when these companies ever start requiring a network connection it's a different story.
I saw an ad on the home menu on my samsung tv. Shit is ridiculous
Dumb TVs are called monitors, you can buy them. For large sizes, I guess you can look at the kind of displays they have in shops and meeting rooms.
Today, TVs are by nature not dumb, what make them a TV and not a monitor would be the presence of a tuner, and modern tuners are built-in computers that can at least decode compressed video, which is not a trivial task, especially at 4K.
The reason people don't like smart TVs is not because they have a computer inside of them with internet connectivity. It is because of ads and partnership deals. And of course people don't like it, because as much as manufacturers advertise them as features, they are not made to add value for the customer, they actually lower the value. But here is the thing: they lower the price even more.
Let's say a manufacturer makes a TV intended to be sold for $300, they reach for their sponsors and can get $50 of deals. Now they can chose to sell a "sponsored" TV for $250 or one without the annoyances for $300, and as it turns out, the majority of customers will go for the $250 option. So much that there is no good economic reason to even sell that $300 ad-free TV, the niche is too small. Competitors without sponsorship deals and $300 TVs will be out-competed by that $250 TV and will have to adjust. As a result, we all have the "smart TVs" we hate (but with a price tag we love).
Pros are ready to pay to avoid all that bullshit, but they don't need TVs either, they need monitors, that's why you can find monitors without that bullshit, for a price.
Your model is oversimplified in a way that downplays the value of ads to the manufacturer. They don't reach out to sponsors and get a $50 static offer per TV in deals. They do some math and figure out that they can make at least $X per customer on average over the lifetime of the TV by selling ad slots dynamically.
The subtle difference here is that because the sponsorships can be updated live across TVs that have already been sold, the actual value of each TV sale can be made to go up after the date of purchase by updating software and/or changing the ad deals.
So the manufacturer isn't pricing the TVs at a discount precisely equal to the ad revenue they receive per TV, they have to price the TVs based on a complicated formula that includes both a rough estimate of the minimum value of ad deals and customer willingness to pay (keeping in mind that customers are choosing their willingness to pay based on a landscape that has no ad-free models!). And what's more, the manufacturer is free to alter the deal after the sale is made to try to make a larger profit per-TV than was originally priced in.
You make it sound like it's a reasonable outcome of an efficient market, but the current situation—where one party can and does alter the deal retroactively and unilaterally—does not create an efficient market!
If it was purely competitive pressure, they'd be happy to let you pay extra to not have the ads.
Instead, they seem to make an effort to make sure no such model is available in stores. People have go hunt down display models intended for businesses, or never connect them to the internet, and display media from another device.
I suspect ultimately, they don't want to be manufacturers. They want control of a "platform" they can milk for infinite money, similar to what Facebook, Google, and friends have.
I suspect it's not quite that simple. First, is there actually enough demand for ad-free TVs to make the option worth including? I personally probably wouldn't pay $20 to avoid ads in the home screen since those kind of ads are just a minor nuisance, which makes me question the size of the market for the ad-free option.
Second, what would the pricing be for the option?
If it's $10-20, that'd probably be fine, similar to what Amazon did for Kindle. But if it's more than that, then I bet the negative PR they would get for including the option outweighs the potential benefit to customers. "I would never buy an X, they're extremely greedy and want $50 just not to show ads. Crazy. I'll buy Y brand instead (which has ads but no 'corporate greed' option to not show them)".
They do actually sell screens with no ads for businesses, as mentioned. They just seemingly won't put them in stores where consumers can purchase them easily.
I would look at Google Contributor and similar efforts as a supporting argument. They tried a few times to allow you to pay directly and not see ads, and each time failed reportedly because it was a not loss for publishers. Google is not unbiased here but I suspect that this was a real problem and that it’d be even worse on TVs since most people are used to disruptive ads there.
ahh - this is what I do and why I've never noticed "smart" TVs.
My TV is connected to my desktop and will never ever have an Internet connection or it's own - nor will it ever turn on to show anything other than my desktop.
It's the solution for almost media issues tbh.
That doesn't explain why it's impossible to buy, for instance, a 65" OLED without ads. We're talking about a TV with a four-figure price tag, and there's no ad-free option.
They've probably calculated that that the value they get from showing ads on more expensive TVs (read: to a more affluent audience) rises at least as fast as the sale price of the TV, maybe even faster.
Exactly, which totally undoes OP's argument. At the high end the manufacturer can have its cake and eat it too. By pricing the TVs in the high income price bracket and ensuring there are no ad-free versions on the market (easy to do because most consumers don't choose devices based on ads or not, even if they find the ads irritating after the purchase), they get both the profit of selling a luxury item and the recurring ad revenue for selling ads that they can confidently tell advertisers will be seen by affluent people.
OP's argument assumes an efficient market, which over-the-air updates ensure this market cannot be.
65" OLED TVs signal that the user has money, exactly the kind of user you want to advertise to most!
On top of that, the dumb TVs could come from the same hardware line and just run different software. It's not like they need to spend millions to retool like they would for an unusual panel size.
Monitors have different (worse for distance viewing) panels, so they aren’t a replacement.
Also, the price of an excellent non-ad-supported computer (eg Apple TV) to replace the one that comes in the TV is $140.
That’s rounding error vs the price of a midrange TV, and it shouldn’t be a selling point in the > ~ $1000 range.
When post above you referred to monitors, they weren’t referring to computer monitors but any screen sold without a tv tuner including all kinds of units large distance viewing screens.
But he has a point. Monitors might not do interesting things like HDR or dolby vision or other advanced a/v stuff.
Many do, but if you intentionally compare ones that aren't equivalent then of course that what you'll find.
TVs and monitors are technologically different. They are constructed to be focused on from different range depths and widths. You can't just buy a TV-sized monitor and use it like a TV.
> They are constructed to be focused on from different range depths and widths.
Can you explanin? AFAIK, TVs have dot pitch much larger than monitors. To me it seems better to have monitor as TV than a normal TV.
You can and I did.
> So much that there is no good economic reason to even sell that $300 ad-free TV, the niche is too small.
Is it? This is one of those things where I don't feel I've ever had a choice.
So... we get the cheapest TV and just hook a laptop up to it, and just watch stuff from a computer via HDMI.
> So... we get the cheapest TV and just hook a laptop up to it
Exactly, and that's another reason why "ad-free" TVs won't sell. Those who just want to connect their laptop via HDMI will buy the cheapest TV with that feature. They won't pay more to avoid seeing ads in the menu screens they don't use anyways.
Now, it may change if they force ads in the HDMI stream or something equally annoying, but they didn't go that far (yet?).
Agree. I nomad, and about 6 years ago I saw my last TV without an HDMI input. And only once in that time, I came across a DP monitor. I now carry a USB-C to HDMI cable that lets me use my phone as a desktop whenever it's plugged into a TV.
- [deleted]
Even computer monitors are slowly going the "smart" route…
this is an annoying trend. Like monitors with a remote (that you can lose)
Where do I find 65" monitors?
there are "smart monitors" now, which are just smaller-sized tv with better panel performance (https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/smart-monitors...)
Show me a 48-52 inch "monitor" that's 4k 120hz full HDR. Have been looking for one for years.
I just typed "48 inch monitor" into amazon search bar and got one that seems to fit your spec. What's the problem?
- [deleted]
Asus PG48UQ? LG also makes one with the same specs.
I WISH they would make a comeback. Smart TVs are the single worse piece of (shit) consumer electronics on the market. Any time you take anything electronic and connect it to the internet you're asking for trouble. Throw an operating system in it controlled by parasitic advertisers and that's where we are today.
A quick search for "Dumb TV" on amazon shows two Sceptre models, a 43-inch and a 50-inch. The 43-inch model says it's been ordered 500+ times in the last month and the 50-inch claims 50+. There is also a Pro Scan 40 inch that doesn't have ethernet connectivity. So they do exist, and it looks like there is at least some sales activity with them. I don't know if that's the last dying breath of the dumb tv as a product or if they are trying to make a comeback, though.
I only ever use mine as monitor ("PC mode") and have a different device drive it. It would take some major market dysfunction to lose large monitors with this feature.
I think the smart car trend is worse, and much harder to work around. I can only buy old cars from the south for so long before that dries up as well.
Thinking about it too much makes me furious. We have supercomputers in our pockets and TVs but it all spies on us and nobody gives a shit because everything is cheap. It's a Faustian deal that sucks! Nobody would actually choose this yet here we are.
I feel this same fury. It's nice to know I'm not alone.
It's not that nobody gives a shit, it's that the alternatives have been taken away
They haven't you're just not buying them. Almost all manufacturers are also selling "digital signage displays".
I have the alternative of just plugging in an Apple TV, Nvidia Shield, whatever Google or Amazon makes, any computer with a digital video out port, tons of IPTV boxes that stream tons of pirated channels.
All I have to do is not put my wifi password into the TV.
For now. We are probably going to start seeing manufacturers, shipping, TVs and other devices with LTE chips built into them, so they can go around our Wi-Fi to get the sweet sweet data. At that point, my biggest fear is that all the people (myself included) who thought we were being clever by depriving the TV of the Wi-Fi password are going to be sad that we didn't instead throw our money behind a manufacturer building ethical products.
We already see signs that it might head this way. Numerous IoT junk (Facebook portal and Google Home Minis come to mind), will ignore DHCP-provided DNS servers and use their own (usually 1.1.1.1/8.8.8.8 respectively) if they don't get successful connections to their mothership. My devices are old enough that they don't try DoH, but I'd be shocked if most of these haven't moved to that by now.
This is what Amazon sidewalk is really for too.
So, does the FCC allow LTE jammers in any form or power level, nowadays? Because that's a compelling reason to burn the entire connectivity industry down.
Edit: probably easier to open it up and simply disconnect the LTE antenna.
If that isn’t the reality today, how could an alternative “ethical” manufacturer even compete?
There are existing brands that sell dumb TVs. Sceptre is one that I'm fond of. They compete on they aren't the cheapest usually but quite reasonable. Most people want to buy cheaper "smart" TVs though and deprive them off the Wi-Fi password, which makes it harder for dumb TV manufacturers to stay in business and get cheaper through economies of scale, which further compound the problem.
I’d really like to go with a dumb set, but their panels seem way behind.
Comparing their flagship 86” set: U860CV-UMRD (claimed) to Hisense U8 (measured, native/worst case):
3000:1 vs. 9449:1 contrast
300cd/m2 vs. 910+ brightness
60hz vs 144hz.
The hisense is significantly cheaper, so I think the comparison is fair.
Oddly, sceptre reports percent of NTSC gamut and not a modern color space. The percentage doesn’t imply poor color representation, but its a strange choice.
Some TVs put up a periodic nag screen if you do this. Others have a blinking led behind the IR sensor.
Samsungs silently mesh network with other Samsung devices.
My LG does none of this.
It's also never been connected to the internet, and my router also has a static IP reservation to give the TV an IP that is not on my subnet in case someone in my house ever tries to connect it to the internet.
> Samsungs silently mesh network with other Samsung devices.
What? Supporting link?
Millions of people actually chose this over their other options.
Consumers regularly vote with their wallets against their best interests.
> Millions of people actually chose this over their other options.
What other options would those be? What non-"smart" OLED TVs exist on the market right now?
The decisions were made months or years ago, when there were non-smart options. Cheaper surveillance TVs won out.
I agree but the reason they were cheaper was hidden. If spying were an opt-in popup that says "spy on me" nobody would choose the spying. It won through sleight of hand.
The fact that you don’t agree with the choice doesn’t mean that consumers didn’t make one.
If they were unfit for purpose, they would have been returned.
Most people don’t care about being spied on.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o...
When iOS let users opt out of tracking 96% opted out. If people don't care about being spied on then why do so many opt out?
You missed the point. You don’t need OLED. You’re just following the crowd for the next shiny dumb new thing yet drives enshittification.
You don't actually need most things. Any yet here we all are, all on the same website. Not because anybody needed to be, just because we wanted.
Smartphones are just as bad.
and the bloat. Long boot times and cluttered menus / functions.
I don't need a tv home page.
what about laptops? can we connect them to the internet? tablets? phones? :)
Yes, the ads infiltrating Windows, for example. Linux and Mac seem to be holding the line for now.
Windows offered me 3 separate subscriptions during setup. After managing to decline all 3 and complete setup, it then re-ran the Windows setup process a week later to help me "finish setting up", where it re-offered all 3 subscriptions.
I don't see the problem here. Badgering you to subscribe to some crap helps make more profit for MS, and this is good for MS shareholders. It might make the user experience worse, but who cares about that? It's not like Windows users are ever going to abandon the platform, so what's wrong with making them miserable in order to increase profits?
In the past 15 years I have gone from 100% Microsoft to 0% Microsoft. This is a direct consequence of Microsoft’s spitefully anti-user behavior.
They lost me for productivity 10 years ago and gaming 3 years ago.
I was a customer but I never will be again.
That's great, really, but people like you are a tiny minority. MS can afford to lose a very small number of customers, since they'll much more than make up for the loss by doing anti-user stuff like baking ads into the OS. In the last 40 years, I just haven't seen very many people get fed up enough with MS to leave, and instead I've watched MS's stock price and valuation continue to rise.
Well Microsoft already lost the consumer market. Apple and Android dwarf Windows market share. Microsoft is an also-ran for consumers. Where they still have some presence is corporate productivity and gaming, both of which are eroding. The future is not bright for Microsoft.
>Well Microsoft already lost the consumer market. Apple and Android dwarf Windows market share.
For phones, sure, but we're talking about PCs here. MS hasn't tried anything in the smartphone market for ages now. Android isn't a PC OS at all, and Apple's laptop and desktop computers are a tiny fraction of MS's.
>Where they still have some presence is corporate productivity and gaming, both of which are eroding.
"Some presence" is a huge understatement. The corporate world is still mostly running on Windows, unfortunately. Macs are not a serious contender here at all except maybe for some design stuff. Their domination for gaming might be eroding, but they're still highly dominant here too.
>The future is not bright for Microsoft.
Their financials look excellent right now. Of course, they're actually pretty smart, pushing into cloud services and such instead of just clinging to OS sales, so that'll probably continue.
I'd love to see everyone suddenly switch to various Linux distros and for MS to dry up overnight, but I just don't see it happening in the real world.
People have changed habits: most people do not use a PC for their everyday computing. They use a smartphone, and at a stretch, a tablet. There are a sizable number of people, not weirdos who don’t use tech but the average person who does banking and gaming and books flights and checks instagram, who has never used a desktop or laptop outside of an office. It’s all mobile devices. It’s Apple and Android.
This is apparent if you frequent social media that isn't tech focused like HN.
Spend a bunch of time on reddit and it becomes incredibly clear: The extreme majority of people on the Internet (In the USA, at least) are doing it from a phone or tablet.
- [deleted]
- [deleted]
Except for Ubuntu, which puts ads in the terminal:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/hfs4v9/ubuntu_is_put...
MacOS will gladly serve Taboola ads in first-party apps and beg you to use Safari in push notifications. If that's not infiltration by advertisement, I'm not sure what is.
> MacOS will gladly serve Taboola ads in first-party apps and beg you to use Safari in push notifications
You may think you are ‘sticking it to Apple’ by making-up this sort of thing, but what you’re actually doing is ruining the debate, and disempowering the customers who are trying to improve the situation.
I’ve been using MacOS for over 25 years, and never seen a “Taboola ad” in an Apple application, or received any push notification about using Safari as my browser (which I willingly do anyway).
- [deleted]
> I’ve been using MacOS for over 25 years, and never seen a “Taboola ad” in an Apple application
Try booting up Apple News. It's a recent change, but a real one and not "made up" in the slightest: https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/taboola-apple-news-deal
> or received any push notification about using Safari as my browser (which I willingly do anyway).
Well that's probably why. Imagine how enthused I am to use MacOS knowing that my browser of choice isn't good enough to satiate Apple?
It is a real problem, too. Been one for ten long years, as a matter of fact: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/253602135
I think they're talking about Apple News
Really? What apps have ads? Never seen that. My personal MacBook is too old for the last few MacOS updates but I haven’t seen what you describe on my up-to-date work laptop.
Final Cut Pro CONTINUES to beg the user to buy the iPad version on any possible opportunity. That's a $300 app, btw.
TV.app is just non-stop ads for various movies and TV shows, some of which are paid extras.
That’s effectively what you wanted, though? That’s what TV is?
If you open up Books.app, you’d be surprised that it’s going to sell you books.
Ah yeah I have never used that app. Are they Taboola ads though? That seems egregious.
I don't get your point. Laptops, tablets, and phones are made for that.
> Any time you take anything electronic and connect it to the internet you're asking for trouble.
you said if I have an electronic device and connect it to the internet I am asking for trouble :) phone was AMAZING before some moron connected them the internet and now they are “smart…”
Sorry for my dumb question, but the timing of this topic is perfect because I'm just now considering getting my first TV.
Can't I just get a nice OLED smart TV and NEVER connect it to the internet?
Put MP4/MKV movies onto a USB stick and watch them in "AUX/USB" mode? Or use HDMI from my computer, and just treat it as a big monitor?
It might ask me to connect, but I can just decline and keep watching the USB/HDMI inputs, right?
You’ll still have slow startup and splash screens and the like, but yes.
It would be nice if top-of-the-line models were available with instant-on and unobtrusive UIs, like CRTs used to be.
Yeah, the start-up can be atrocious on low-end smart TVs. I had a Samsung that I more often than not would turn off before it turned on, because I thought it hadn't registered the input from the on/off button.
And as salt in the wound, turning off takes like 10 seconds.
Hahaha. I dug into the setting on my newish tv and found an option for the tv to make a little chime when turned on and off. It is so nice because the sound will play right away even if the tv hasnt visibly started to turn on/off yet. It's the only thing that saves me from hitting power multiple times and being unsure what state the tv is in.
You absolutely can. But you'll want to pay attention to how insistent the TV is when it comes to being disconnected from the internet. I have an offline Samsung that will occasionally prompt me to accept the terms of service, which obviously fails because it's offline. I can imagine there are some brands/models that are more pushy.
I have a Samsung oled from 2022, I think S95B. It’s technically connected to the local network (I still want it to be usable with home assistant), but denied all connections at the firewall level. I don’t recall it bothering me about anything, and I pretty much always turn it on directly into Apple TV.
Same here. I have an older LG model with a Nvidia Shield hooked up. I never even get terms of service prompts.
Also depends on the model, my Samsung TV from 2022 hasn't bugged me about anything yet when offline.
I’ve been very happy with my Sony in this regard. Its OS is extremely basic Android TV and it doesn’t bug you at all if you don’t connect it to the internet. Newer models than the one I have also come with a “basic TV” mode that disables most of the Android TV bells and whistles.
Yeah Sony means a higher price, so it’s not going to be as cheap as some other options, but peace is worth a lot of money in my opinion…
Which Sony models? I have a Bravia and it's android TV all the way, no basic / dumb mode.
XBR75X900F, which is a 2018 model and made before they added basic TV mode in 2021.
My Vizio just turns into a dumb tv if I say “no” during setup.
Since all I need it to do is come on automatically when the Apple TV turns on, it works great.
How often does it nag you to say yes, while using it as a dumb TV? are all features usable in that mode? I may need to rethink a Vizio if that's the case and not annoying.
Mine only does that if I accidentally hit the TV+ button on the remote. So I took the remote apart and disconnected that button from the board. Problem solved.
Otherwise it turns on quickly and it's just a dumb tv. Perfect.
It's never nagged me as far as I can remember, and changing input and volume work fine (though it always stays silent on HDMI 1 with EARC).
Of course, none of the "smart TV" things work, and it's not connected to a network, but I don't need those.
how old is it? vizio used to collect everything without your knowledge and got sued.
> Can't I just get a nice OLED smart TV and NEVER connect it to the internet?
Until they start shipping wideband chips in them. Make sure your helpful in-laws don’t connect it either.
Connect it but block traffic at the firewall. Or intercept it all. Traffic shape it, MITM it, etc.
The biggest concern to me is built in 5g etc.
I could imagine a future TV requires phoning home every 30 days or else it stops functioning. Single network source for both the "license" check + the ad network so as to simple deny rules.
Yes, of course it will have a grace period (of similar length to the store return period) before it starts up. This will all be buried in the EULA you didn't read.
I would bet “similar length + 7 days” so you won’t know about the requirement until after you can’t return it.
We have an Apple TV connected to an LG OLED. We very rarely use Blu-Rays but we have a Blu-Ray player also connected.
The family has been instructed to never connect the LG TV to WiFi.
Anyway, I'm sure you could use HDMI from your computer and that seems easier than dealing with a USB stick.
That's how I setup and use my C2, which is fairly performant and non-egregious as far as smart panels go. It's not strictly necessary, but I even install firmware from USB.
Can it play +50GB remux mkvs from a USB pendrive?
I haven't tried direct playback, but the ports are USB 2.0 which should work for anything with a bitrate below 480Mbps.
LG TV - Supported Video Codecs For Connected USB Devices: https://www.lg.com/us/support/help-library/lg-tv-supported-v...
For now (see e.g. [1]), though companies with surveillance capitalist business models are not only abusive but often sneaky and may do things like include a surreptitious prepaid mobile connection to better thwart your wishes. You really can't trust the bastards.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/hdmi-customized-ad-i...
This is actually the smart question in a dumb discussion.
None of these TV show ads unless you connect them to the Internet. If it’s a big deal to avoid ads, plug them into a media center PC or an Apple TV.
Note that HDMI has an option for running ethernet over it. Probably invented by the advertising industry.
You might be better off buying a big monitor instead of a TV.
Why is HDMI Ethernet brought up so often in Smart TV posts here and on Reddit?
HDMI Ethernet Channel (HEC) was added to the HDMI spec in 2009 to allow Blu-ray players to access the internet without a direction connection.
There are zero devices ever released that support HEC.
There are zero OEM HDMI chipsets that support HEC.
The streaming device manufacturers have no incentive to enable this feature.
It's a nice reminder that a good amount of people on HN/Reddit have no idea what they're talking about, even if they use acronyms.
People don't want solutions. They want to be mad.
When TVs started to be computers, they started to have computer problems: bugs, outdated software, freezing, and so on. Recently I needed to buy a smart TV to replace a 2015 one that was OK as a TV, but its operating system (...) was so outdated that it couldn't open the apps anymore.
This is easy: when we buy a smart TV we buy a TV plus a computer. I really would like pay less only for the TV, using the "smartness" of other "computer" (Chromecast, Apple TV, Fire Stick, videogame console, an old computer, etc). If the TV or the computer stopped working, it's just a matter of buying _only_ it.
Hell, I'd be willing to pay more for a dumb TV!
If you don't mind paying more, they do exist in the form of digital signage / commercial displays. They're usually either completely dumb or support "smart" features via standardized pluggable modules, which can host a normal x86 computer, amongst other options.
They probably meant "a reasonable amount more". My understanding is that the digital signage/commercial displays are substantially more while often being lacking in features that are important to most consumers. I'd probably also be willing to pay a little bit more, but not very much since, at the moment, unless you are really paranoid about your privacy/spying to the point that you don't want the TV to even have the connectivity hardware at all, most of these issues can be solved by just never connecting it to the internet, having it default to immediately selecting on of your inputs (I don't know how common this feature is by my TCL can do it), and using whatever device you choose on that input.
Yes, I used to feel the same.
Until I did some research and found out there is no need to go to this extreme --- at least not yet.
It is possible to buy a "smart" TV at a price subsidized by the privacy of "dumb" users and still run it in a "dumb" display mode.
With the TV I just bought, this is called "store" mode. I use it as a big, dumb 4K display connected to "smarts" that I can control.
Store mode often means maximum brightness and super saturated colors to "pop" under florescent lights and sitting right next to other displays.
Yes.
A big difference between a "budget" TV and more expensive is brightness and saturation controls are often purposely limited in "budget" models.
So with a "budget" TV, full brightness actually looks more like "normal" on your neighbor's $$ model.
The reason they dont exist (or rather that they exist but are rare) is because you, and me, are in the minority. Most people do not care if their tv is dumb and likely would be upset if their tv didnt have built in app support.
If there was a larger more vocal market for dumb tvs, they would exist more readily.
You would. I would. A lot of us would.
But the public has spoken, again and again, with multiple goods. All that matters is price.
You may be able to sustain business selling very high end stuff for people with means.
But most people, out of greed or need, will go with a low cost option. And that will push nearly everything out in a race to the bottom.
> But the public has spoken, again and again, with multiple goods. All that matters is price.
People say that, every time this discussion comes up, but never with any proof.
People buy OLED TVs with four-figure price tags. If those had a "pay $100 more and never see an ad" option, many people would pay for that.
The Kindle e-book reader still has both ad-supported and non-ad-supported models. The non-ad-supported options cost ~$20 (a bit less than 20%) more. Those still sell well enough to be worth selling both models.
You would have to. The smart features are there to generate ad revenue. It's part of the reason that TVs have gotten absurdly cheap over the past decade.
Why not just... do the thing you want? IE, the solution you alluded to in your comment: have a dumb [which here exclusively means not internet-connected] TV with an externally "smart" device like a Chromecast?
This is essentially your own preferred solution to a problem that just cost you several hundred dollars when you "had" to replace your 2015 TV
It's not so simple. It's almost impossible to separate the "smart" side from the "dumb" side. Just like trying to use a smartphone and use only the phone, it won't make Android or iOS (and their pros and cons) disappear.
- [deleted]
I wouldn't mind smart TVs if they were as serviceable as most computers. There was that Sharp M551 panel that had a Pi CM4 as the onboard CPU and that seems ideal: a modular, replaceable, upgradable board.
The fact that this both exists and is utterly unrealistic in the consumer space just makes it more infuriating.
I would love to see this happen. In some ways, it's a story of the wrong system boundaries and modules. A mismatch between component age, manufacturer expertise, and how long software needs to keep being updated or patched.
You can see a similar phenomenon in car media systems, where the solution is an interface (e.g. Android Auto or Apple CarPlay) allowing the vehicle to be "dumber" but more reliable and robust over time. [0]
Televisions can be rescued even more easily, since we already have standards and conventions from the past to use.
[0] For folks unfamiliar with those systems, basically the car's touch-screen becomes an extension of your phone.
So did I buy a smart TV at some blink of time when the software had gotten pretty good but not yet infested with ads? I have an LG with WebOS.
I guess it might have ads for apps or content if I ever opened the app store thing or whatever it's called. But I never have any reason to do that beyond the initial setup when I installed youtube/netflix/some other apps or when they (very rarely) want an update.
So I'm perfectly happy with having apps for various services and a pretty decent UI with pointer remote, and easy casting and screen mirroring from my phone or laptop.
These homogenous threads make me wonder if I'm alone or got super lucky on the timing of my purchase. But since the OS does update sometimes I don't think that's it?
Might also be dependent on your location.
I have a EU model (LG) and I was able to decline some privacy popups which gives me a functional but dumbed-down version of the OS.
Who is this article for? I don't disagree with it, but manufacturers aren't somehow unaware of any of it. They don't want to manufacture dumb TVs. They're the ones _currently_ manufacturing smart TVs.
Plus, there is the problem that the vast majority of consumers want smart TVs due to a combination of subsidized lower price and "simplicity" (e.g., they may be worse but they are simpler)
I bought a 4K 240Hz OLED gaming monitor a week ago and it connects to the internet & has streaming services on it. By default, it has annoying popups on startup that can't be turned off in the default menus[^1]. It's extremely frustrating, but it is on me for not doing my research and just getting the highest-rated monitor across review sites...
[^1]: https://pfy.ch/programming/disable-samsung-game-bar.html
Return it and buy something else. Don’t put up with the abuse.
I don't see the issue if it only pops up when the screen is turned on. In my case that's only when the PC is starting. How often do you turn your screen off...?
Yea return it 100%. No way in hell should a computer monitor be connecting to the internet or have streaming apps. In fact this is the first I've heard of this. "Gaming monitor" in name only.
Just don’t use any of the smart TV’s “smart” functionality. Don’t even connect it to the Internet or give it your Wi-Fi password.
It is still creepy to have tech in my home that is trying to betray me, even if it isn’t successful. Also you never know if some well-intentioned person might connect it to wifi.
That’s why you connect it to an IoT network that has no internet access.
I don’t think that would obviously solve the problem; depending on the UI it might still show up as not having an internet connection after all.
I have a smart TV but drive it externally, if you even visit the wifi menu, it will nag you about not being connected until it is rebooted. It has never touched the network.
Just do your homework before purchasing to make sure this is possible.
In this vein, I just bought a Hisense QD6 series TV from Costco. I run it in "store" mode connected to a PC and it serves well as just a big, dumb 4K display.
Or they start to require internet access before you can use the device. Even if it's periodic. Once a month you have to connect to the internet to validate your license and agreement, wherein it uploads your watch history and downloads new ads.
The box will still be warm from the warm of the store I bought it from when I take it back for a return. How’s that thing going to work at my remote cabin?
- [deleted]
Remote cabins almost all get internet these days thanks to Starlink.
I did this with a Samsung TV I got recently. I works great. I am really not sure why everyone is upset. If you don't want to use the smart features, you don't have to. All you have to do is not connect the smart TV to the Internet.
This won't make the "smart" disappear, nor its problems (buggy software, bloatware slowing down everything), and you'll still need to pay more for it.
Until they come with their own connection embedded, which you know is what's going to happen. Just like cars.
Get a projector. I have a Phillips short-throw projector. It has no OS beyond settings. It can have up to a 10' screen. Works great with Apple TV.
Maybe I'm not being creative enough, but for the average living room setup that would currently have a TV (e.g. (couch with a coffee table facing a TV stand), where exactly do you put the projector? You could put in on the coffee table, but that takes up space and doesn't look great. You could mount it to the ceiling, but that's more of a pain than just putting a TV on the stand you already have. And either method makes it significantly more difficult to connect anything, including power, to the projector.
Don't get me wrong, I think projectors are cool, but I'm not sure about their applicability to a large percentage of TV use-cases. Aside from expensive home theater type setups or janky dorm room style installs, both of which I'm a huge fan of, I'm not sure how the average person is supposed to use a projector. I would love to be wrong though, especially if it means I can use a projector in my fairly average living room layout.
The short-throw projectors only need to be a maximum of 12" from the wall. That's for the largest size, so if it's 12" away you get a 120" screen. You can move it closer for a smaller screen. This should work with most TV stands.
I have an earlier model of this one: https://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/SCN355_INT/screeneo-ul5-smar...
Hmm, looks like they are starting to make them "smart" now. Boo.
The more they are oriented towards normies, the more "smart" they will be. As someone else said in this thread, this is what normies want, sadly. So the only stronghold is "real" projectors that are far more expensive and aimed at home cinema enthusiasts because they are far more difficult to set up (but you get way better results if you're prepared to put in the time/effort/money).
Projectors are designed to hang from the ceiling. That is how I installed mine, above the couch. The install is easier then mounting a TV to the wall.
The problem is light control. You want to have blackout curtains and you have to close them every time you want to watch something.
And I might be out of touch with current offerings, but I think the sweetspot for price performance still has not LED options. Only entry and high end. The non-led projectors have a bit more fan noise and expensive to change the bulb, which has limited on-time.
I had my entry level projector for 10 years now and the bulb is still fine. But I also don't watch that much. Paid ~700 EUR. I shitty smart tv with no internet probably also turns on faster. I have to wait ~20 seconds.
The question is what's the budget? Ultra short throw projectors are more convenient because they can be put on the counter in front of where you'd hang the TV, but they're pricey. No need to hang it from the ceiling, or across the room.
Takes an hour and it will hang there for a few years.
I see the use case if you want to move it often though. Though as soon as you bump it you have to move it slightly again. Or let it run through autocalibration etc. For me it's more convenient to hang it to a fixed position where it can't accidently be moved.
I think this is going to be the "hacker" answer for a long time to come. Hardware that by most metrics is technically better, it's a little more expensive (but not commercial signage expensive) and a lot more inconvenient to set up which puts most people off. Functionally immune to ads being a serviceable business because selling cheap and making it up with ad revenue requires volume they'll never have.
> Hardware that by most metrics is technically better
I think that's a hard one to sell with projectors. Picture quality is substantially worse, and images are substantially less bright, than with TVs. People buy TVs on 3 axes: price, image, and smart features. Here we explicitly don't want the smart features, but TVs are much cheaper and much better image quality (even at that much cheaper price) than with projectors. Brightness matters a lot for where/when you can use them.
Projector image quality is great, what kinds of projectors are you referencing? Image quality per dollar is a win for TVs but it's not that bad. $3k for a nice movie projector isn't crazy especially given the screen size.
https://www.benq.com/en-us/projector/cinema/ht4550i.html
And I agree that brightness is an issue but if you "only" want a 65-80" screen then even modest ceiling mount projectors can pump out enough light to compete with daylight.
Projector image quality depends on the surface you're projecting onto, the angle you're projecting at, and the light in the room. Maybe the difference is less around $3k, but that's not most people's budget for a TV. Personally I have disposable income and care about image, and spent A$1k on a TV that I'm very happy with. I don't believe there's any comparable projector for less than twice that price.
I bought a ~700 EUR Projector 10 years ago and I still think the quality is fine @ 100". (870 EUR in todays money)
I do have full light control though. But yes, no 4k, no HDR, fan noise, ~20 seconds startup, cooldown on poweroff. I do wonder how well a 10 year old TV would hold up.
PQ is the problem with all of the supposed solutions in this thread. Computer displays, video conferencing displays, commercial advertising displays, and other "dumb" displays all look like junk for watching video content, and using external devices to drive them from the streaming apps on the other platform introduces another level of uncertainty about whether the picture is being processed optimally.
A nerd friend of mine proudly showed me his dumb TV streaming rig and the picture quality was smoking hot garbage, worse than anything I've seen in the hi-def era. But he sure knew a lot about the software licenses.
Picture Quality and Price, definitely. Most people are buying $500, 50" TVs with really quite good picture quality.
> Get a projector.
I confirm.
Came here to write the same. I got an Epson LCD projector used, 2m wall. Works great with an ipad mini and bluetooth box (although Apple ios is kind of dumb, I need to tell it every time I turn it on to not use the speakers in the projector). Watching happens mostly in the evening/night.
LCD (vs DLP) are kind of hard to find these days, which is unfortunate. Proper lens shift isn't so easy to find either. And you need to make sure you get a reasonably quiet one (so a movie projector, not a presentation one).
If you don't want DLP (presumably due to colour wheel issues) then you want LCoS (aka D-ILA). Only JVC and Sony make these, with JVC being most well regarded. But be aware they are about the size of a mini-ATX tower on its side, and a second hand one will set you back a thousand credits at least.
A better way to look at this kind of product would be: TV with an API.
Now apply this orientation to any device which you would connect to the TV with an API. Speakers with an API. DVD player with an API. Device to interact with my Apple TV... with an API.
Imagine what wonderful things would be made possible by such a class of products. I would pay a lot more for this, and I know that many others would too.
1. If you want the functionality of a smart TV without all of the bloat, I've found Apple TV to be fast and functional. Little to no ads.
2. Running a PiHole (or something similar at a DNS level), you can prevent a lot of the "phoning home" these TVs do. That still does not solve the bloatware/speed issue, but point 1 addresses that.
I just want a somewhat trustworthy group to develop a DUMB certification. I would absolutely pay more for a certified DUMB TV.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/10/22773073/vizio-acr-adver...
I love this idea. I'd even do the "buy a smart tv and refuse the agreement so it acts as a dumb tv" if it were certified to be dumb. Otherwise I have absolutely no reason to trust a goddamn television.
They're not even promising me anything; the agreement is a bunch of commitments that I'm making, and they're refusing to provide me their "smart" features because I won't agree to those commitments. That tv can still do whatever it wants to as long as it doesn't break the law in a provable way.
This is so weird. You just don't connect it to the internet. It's that simple. No need for "dumb TVs" to return. Smart TVs are just dumb TVs with extra stuff.
I'll care about this when they start embedding 5G SIMs so I can't prevent it connecting.
- [deleted]
Hah, if only...
The TV I bought 2 years ago and never connected it to the Internet. Not even for setup. Zero issues.
Elaborate?
All Sony Bravia TV’s ask you if you want to configure as a dumb TV during initial setup.
I was looking at those.
Note that they don’t support volume control on their analog line out ports. This is a deal breaker for me.
Hisense seems to be the luddite’s best choice in 2024.
"Line out" is supposed to be just that, line level. Not supporting volume control is correct; that should only be used for headphone jacks. (Yes, they're generally compatible, but they are not the same thing.)
That seems like something that could be fixed with a preamp? I run things into my receiver and then to the TV, so I haven't needed a line-out port before.
What are you using to play the audio from the line-out ports?
I predict that Apple will do this. Supposedly, they are considering making a TV, after years of not wanting to. And it makes sense with the landscape of today, where TVs have become a privacy nightmare and their interfaces are arguably worse than ever. It seems like ripe picking for Apple, playing to their strengths. If they do end up making a TV, I think it would make sense for it to be a dumb TV. Like how the Pro Display XDR is a dumb monitor, not having speakers or a webcam. Apple already makes a good TV remote, which could probably be repurposed easily. And thanks to CEC, I never use my actual TV remote anymore except to navigate its settings menu on rare occasions.
To me, the question is would it have an actual TV tuner in it? Would Apple bother with making a whole interface around scanning for channels and such when it’s not a common use case anymore, adds complexity, and isn’t necessarily in their interest financially? Maybe it will end up being a very large monitor, but sold like a TV. Perhaps alongside the existing Apple TV box, which would hopefully get a rebranding.
Why would Apple make a dumb TV though?
The Pro Display XDR exists because there’s nothing really comparable in the space with those specs and there’s a market to be had for it.
The Studio display similarly exists because the only competitor for specs at the time was its own predecessor.
Both exist at a price point where the specs (specifically resolution at those specific screen sizes and HDR for the XDR) trump the higher cost of entry, and they get paired with an Apple device to take advantage of those capabilities.
TVs are highly competitive on cost because they’re effectively subsidized. Apple might have better processing but they’d get the same panels as everyone else. Unlike the Mac displays, they’d have to deal with the same content that every other TV has so that’s not a differentiator. There’s no money there for a dumb tv and there’s no differentiator for the average customer.
Instead the expectation is that Apple would lplay to its strengths of vertical integration. Build in their Apple TV hardware with Homekit etc on board. If they did anything less it would be panned.
The Apple TV experience would be the differentiator. It’s already miles ahead of the competition in the ways an average customer would care about, and brings apples privacy+ad stance to bear.
> To me, the question is would it have an actual TV tuner in it? Would Apple bother with making a whole interface around scanning for channels and such when it’s not a common use case anymore, adds complexity, and isn’t necessarily in their interest financially? Maybe it will end up being a very large monitor, but sold like a TV. Perhaps alongside the existing Apple TV box, which would hopefully get a rebranding.
ATSC 3.0 is suppose to have IP networking requirement for ad so Apple would probably be better of abandoning this if they're selling an add free privacy TV.
They don't make their displays in house. Until they bring displays in house, it doesn't make sense to get into the display business.
IMO, if apple were to make a TV, it wouldn't be dumb. It would probably have similar software as their current Apple TV hardware.
The problem was never smart TVs. All the people looking to buy dumb TVs just want to plug a chromecast or raspberry pi in to it to make it a smart TV anyway.
The problem is that the built in OS sucks and is full of OEM malware. Apple could fix this by providing an actually good experience.
Please anyone in hardware: come up with a TV brand that features no built-in internet connectivity whatsoever.
We’d all buy it in a blink.
It’s also kinda urgent. I’m clinging onto my 2007 TV because I don’t want a smart TV. Not sure how long it will last.
Here's a dumb 43 inch screen. It's sold as a gamer monitor. It's a UHD TV display with HDMI in and no onboard smarts.[1]
Here's another Samsung dumb screen, at 55 inches.[2] This is supposed to be for digital signage, but it's really a UHD monitor with HDMI in. But the next size up has "Alexa built in".
Sceptre, which mostly supplies Walmart, has a whole line of dumb TVs, including some big ones.[3] They're a little company in City of Industry, CA, which seems to have found their niche in dumb TVs.
There are lots of "digital signage" displays available. They're usually very bright, reasonably rugged, OK for 24/7 operation, immune to burn-in (they may spend their whole working life displaying mostly the same fast food menu), but not that good
[1] https://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-m70d-43-led-4k-uhd-60hz...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08651PB1J
[3] https://www.sceptre.com/TV/4K-UHD-TV/U750CV-UMRD-75-4K-UHD-T...
I raise Sceptre every time I see this sentiment, but folks just don't seem to know about them. I got a humble 54" 4k from them a couple of years back for a few hundred bucks. Used it every day since, works great. Zero bullshit.
Slow startup, though. Can be like 10-15 seconds.
Sceptre's TVs don't seem to support 120 Hz or variable refresh rate yet, only their smaller monitors, so they're not a good fit for anybody with a current-generation video game console.
Last time I tried to find a Sceptre, the only things in stock were models that were several years old, with features comparable to TVs that were even older.
Sceptre exists on paper but they’re almost always “sold out”
Their monitors have the same startup time issue which is a pain if you need to access the boot menu.
There are always many hundreds of options for "dumb TVs", the secret being that they're called "commercial [TVs|monitors|displays]". For example, B&H lists 2,105 so-called commercial displays as I type this (which you can easily filter to your specifications).
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?q=commercial%20display
I thought their size filter was missing the . but you really can get a 589" display there.
Good to see these have added multiple HDMI ports since I last looked.
Get a short throw projector. You can plug anything into it. It’s the perfect “dumb” screen.
I would totally buy it.
Well, if you are in the UK or some EU countries, Cello has a range;
https://celloelectronics.com/shop-televisions/?filter_produc...
Viewsonice, Benq, and even Samsung make dumb monitors for conference rooms and digital signage. They just are more expensive and people don’t want the added cost. Its like consumer grade laptops are loaded with adware that supplements the price paid, compared to enterprise line of laptops which are more expensive.
Unfortunately the best of them is 1080p.
Because of mass-market economics, it makes (almost) no difference to the vendor whether the TV is smart or not. So just buy a smart-TV and don't connect it to the internet. It's that simple. Oh, and also, don't forget to live in the EU so you can refuse those contracts that add mandatory data collection.
I have documented how you can use an LG TV and disable its obnoxious "Hi LG" feature without giving it internet access: https://social.treehouse.systems/@Aissen/111267905868798609
They will not. Users only care about 2 things: Price and functionality.
It doesn't cost manufacturers anything extra at this point to include all the 'smart' features. It would cost more to make a 'dumb' TV.
No sane manufacturer is going to make a TV with less features that costs more for the sake of not even a percentage of the consumer base looking for TVs.
If you don't like it, buy a TV that's less egregious and get a PiHole. Then don't use the features you don't want. There. Done.
I've got an LG OLED TV that I'm really happy with, because I rooted it before the exploit was patched, so now it's ad-free, and is more capable than any model presently available.
“Smart TVs are, unfortunately, more like smartphones: designed for frequent replacement.”
Except unlike smartphones, these TVs are not built with high-end components due to the razor-thin margins that have to be optimized for. So you end up with underpowered hardware and janky software that benefits only these companies through ad revenue.
Just don’t connect it to wifi, connect an Apple TV or similar to hdmi 1, and move on.
I’d love a dumb TV, but if you don’t let them online and don’t use built in software it is close enough.
While I agree that smart TVs are a marketing ploy by the manufacturers to increase the revenue by shortening the lifecycle, I'm not buying the premise that I can protect my data by using dumb TVs. Everybody's using AppleTV, Amazon, Google, or Roku devices, which are perfectly capable of collecting that information and using it themselves or feeding it to various vendors (for a reasonable price). Not to mention that all content providers (ie Netflix) are doing exactly the same.
I have a raspberry pi for "smart" TV use.
...to stream from which content providers? They still have your viewing history, and that history eventually will end up at the data brokers to be perused by the interested parties. Which is really not that different from if you were using smart TV, except maybe a little bit more revenue for TV manufacturers.
If you're using only a pi, I think you might be playing local video files acquired in a certain way, tbh. That's the most performance thing for a pi.
Jellyfin
Some dumb TVs still exist, only they’re called computer monitors now. And they’re a lot more expensive than TVs because TV-sized monitors are a niche product, and because manufacturers don’t subsidize them in exchange for your data.
Because of a similar post a few years back I learned you can buy kiosk TVs from commercial vendors. They strip the garbage apps and leave you with a dumb TV. It wasn’t really that much more either. Used them for new conference room TVs for an office build out. They work and last flawlessly.
I only purchase Sony TVs, and I simply just connect an HTPC to them. If there are any smart features, I just choose not to accept the EULA and not to connect it to the Internet.
This is tangential, but I think TV in general, smart or dumb, is slowly becoming obsolete, especially with genZ.
PSA, HDMI carries ethernet, so you depending on the device you connect your TV to, it might get internet access without your knowledge.
This come up every time, and yet I have never seen an actual demonstration or example of this. HDMI can carry Ethernet, sure, but you honestly think an (for example) Apple TV is going to let arbitrary devices use its network connection? You gotta show that it even implements the spec first.
I don't have to do any of those things.
I am not going to address all the fallacies in your comment. Whether you have seen an example of it is immaterial to what the HDMI spec says.
- [deleted]
Smart TVs are the reason I haven’t bought a new tv in almost 15 years. I would like to upgrade to a fancy 4K one instead of my old 1080p one. Dumb TVs back then weren’t more expensive than smart TVs today so I don’t believe price is the reason for smart TVs. Margins maybe…
I'm actually using a 47 inch LG 3D TV that I purchased in 2012 that's 1080p. I keep looking for an excuse to upgrade but it's been working fine. It's been almost 15 years as well and I thought they weren't going to last this long for some reason. I don't even use any of the 3D stuff!
I bought a dumb tv some 2 years ago. 4k, 50ish inch and it has a chromecast v2 attached. Works great.
The funny part is when younger family members come over, they get frustrated there's no netflix button on the remote! Last time that lead to a drawing sessions instead of some paw patrol nonsense.
As long as I can still open them up to remove/destroy all the wireless radios and networking chips and they keep working as a basic display device afterwards, subsidize them with as much crap as you want.
Reminder: They make them, they tend to be "monitors", "digital signage" or "commercial". You do have to pay a premium for them, for a variety of reasons.
There may be other options, I have a friend that 6-10 years ago got a TV, then opened it up and removed a USB stick that implemented all the smart features.
> You do have to pay a premium for them, for a variety of reasons.
It's not that you pay a premium for the bullshit-free version, but rather that you get a discount for buying the bullshit-packed version.
Another data point: Before all the smart TV stuff you would tend to pay significantly more for an A/V monitor (basically a TV without the tuner) than you would for a regular TV.
Both statements are true. As a baseline it's good to consider the price of the regular TV's before they got smart.
When talking about digital signage in particular, it's clearly a premium because it's such a big price difference. A discount for the bullshit would be much smaller.
You do also pay a premium because they use use panels designed for 24/7 operation, sunlight readability etc.
Digital signage have embedded computers now too. It's only a matter of time before they have mandatory analytics and advertising.
Wouldn't that be pretty good value add? A mic feeding data to some AI model and then camera to track how many people use it or stop and watch.
You seem to be downvoted by ad haters - ads being a sensitive topic - but in the context of a device made specifically for delivering ads, I agree it seems like a good idea.
In the context of being a reasonable human going about my business - I wouldn't want one anywhere near me.
I think they got downvoted because they misunderstood the idea. "mandatory" analytics and advertising would be working for the manufacturer, not the owner. To be an (antisocial) value-add it would have to work for the owner.
The cookie pop up is on this site claimed 1,596 partners. Tremendously ironic.
Dumb websites deserve a comeback
> Streaming Devices Are the Real Smart Choice
This is not true. There are tons of set top boxes out there are underpower piece of garbage. Unless you are getting your hands on Google Streamer/Apple TV.
Why wouldn't streaming devices do all the same surveillance? Don't they have as much financial incentive and broad access as tv manufacturers?
The Apple TV also has giant ads on the home screen, too.
As much as I agree with the sentiment, I can buy a firestick, Apple TV or Roku for a very small cost. Sure, a dumb TV would be lovely, but only because of a quicker boot time.
Given a dumb TV is going to be more expensive, I can't see a market for it based on a small marginal gain for the consumer. And 90% of people don't even care enough about the poor user experience vs the marketing that hypes up features no one uses or needs.
Boot time rarely matters since most TVs just sleep, and not shut down.
Cold boots are reserved for failure situations or updates.
I agree with the point that most people deal with terrible user experience.
A lot of my friends ask me why I went with an Apple TV when my TVs have built in functionality or I could use Roku / whatever Google call their dongles now for cheaper.
The answer is experience. I’ve tried to deal without an Apple TV and my god, the number of ads, the slow UI response, color handling etc.. all have me going back to the Apple TV.
But none of the stuff I mentioned is worth the price difference to the majority of people.
Yeah the Apple TV interface is so much faster, more responsive, and ad-free than virtually every built-in smart TV function. I don't understand how anyone, especially anyone remotely savvy, can stand to use them.
Even the "good" ones like the Android TV in my Sony is sluggish clunky garbage in comparison. I gave it a shot when I bought it, but couldn't stand it. Disconnected the TV from the network and just use the Apple TV and it's nearly perfect.
I have a Samsung smart TV.
I removed all of the broadcast channels and it's now an excellent TV. The apps just work, it doesn't show me ads for anything, and I'm perfectly happy with it.
Am I just lucky to have found a good manufacturer?
Temporarily using a samsung smart TV is the reason I will sooner have no TV than a smart TV. Worst piece of tech I've ever used. I didn't have any of the smart stuff enabled; I was using it almost exclusively to display HDMI (I watched terrestrial TV for Eurovision once a year) and it was a kafkaesque nightmare. It took 15 minutes (when it worked) to go from standby to displaying HDMI. I had to reflash the damned firmware half the time I went to turn it on (from standby). I could go on for hours about it but I won't lol
My Hisense with Google TV has proven to be decent. I never connected the TV to the internet and went with an external Apple TV instead. It always starts on the last video input. I was able to refuse all the EULAs and was still left with all the visual niceties that I don't use like upscaling and motion smoothing.
Samsung and Sony has been the absolute worst in my case. So slow, so much bs. LG works much better, but Im sure it is having a field day with my data.
I like dumb articles - articles with still text and pictures - I tried to visit the site and it was covered in "smart ads" - ads using JavaScript to try in every way possible to shove ads in front of me
Funny the person complaining about ads is working for a site that is part of the problem
I've been fairly happy with the Google/Android TV versions, but the primary feature I bought them for was the ability to pair bluetooth headphones with them. Bluetooth seems to be hard to get, but all Google TVs support them.
The lower end TVs can barely do the Google TV features, often being flaky. The higher end ones tend to implement the features much better, though not perfectly. My TLC 6xxx series is much less flaky than the 5xxx series, but I do sometimes have to reboot it at the beginning of every watching session, depending on the app.
Can’t you just pair your Bluetooth headphones to the device that is providing the video stream? That is the source, the TV should just be the output device.
I happened to notice this article in my HN feed a few minutes after cursing at my Samsung TV about how poor it's internal software is. It's shocking how slow and clunky it is. I have a shield connected to it to skirt it for the most part but it's impossible to avoid it entirely. Not to mention how confusing it is for the less technical persons in my family.
I bought my 65" TV for $299 recently, including shipping to my doorstep. Clearly all the bullshit that's baked into it is subsidizing the price by a lot.
I just never gave it network access and I use it like a dumb TV with a streaming box, so I get to benefit from a price subsidized by the the other 98% of the population who are getting exploited. The whole thing is kinda gross.
It's like there's this enshittification tipping point that you can't come back from. Realistically, who is going to buy a dumb TV at a much higher cost? People who are already savvy enough to get around a smart TV? People who aren't? I don't see it working.
I worry about how long it'll be before the manufacturers either make the TV demand an internet connection, or simply build one right into it.
>Realistically, who is going to buy a dumb TV at a much higher cost? People who are already savvy enough to get around a smart TV?
Exactly, that's why all this "I want a dumb TV!" stuff is, well, dumb.
It doesn't cost any less for a mfgr to make a dumb TV, in fact it would cost more. Modern TVs need a lot of computing power to make them work properly, so making the thing connect to the internet and show you ads really costs them nothing for hardware. Then they get to subsidize the TV with all the ad revenue, the kickbacks from the various streaming apps pre-installed, etc. A dumb TV would end up having the exact same hardware and a higher price tag. What kind of idiot would buy that? Not enough to make it worthwhile for the mfgr. If you don't want ads, just don't connect the TV to the internet.
It's a lot like modern Windows laptops that are cheaper than the same laptop with Linux pre-installed. MS and/or the laptop mfgr get a bunch of kickbacks from the crapware vendors to pre-install their crapware, so you end up paying less than you would for having the mfgr pre-install Linux (a free OS).
HN is so disconnected from reality... No one in the real world actually wants a dumb TV.
Or if they would accept one they would not pay more for one. Minority who would actually do it is so small it is not worth it.
Just turn off the privacy invading features. LG’s options are pretty great, I’ve seen little bloat, and get the native apps for streaming services just fine.
However important, this is a niche problem. Most users will not be able use a dumb TV. Everything becomes more clunky for them. Instead of fighting the uphill battle of making legislation, more people should be made aware of the issue and the - not that complicated - ways to counter this.
Pihole, not giving internet (only local network) / and/or only use a trusted device via HDMI to display content.
- [deleted]
Big monitors (e.g., Gigabyte AORUS FV43U) are today's best dumb TVs.
Will a Roku stick work with one?
I have no Roku stick, but reviews mention that BluRay players and Apple TV work fine.
LG owner here. I won't connect it to wifi, lan or BT. Once in a while nags me to do it, I might do it eventually, in it's own VLAN and without Internet access.
Here in Portugal all ISP provide a smart box, most of them also have common services like Netflix and so on, no need to any "smart" feature from the TV itself. Completly useless.
> Completly useless.
Not enterely useless, since you payed a lower retail price on it based on manufacturers projected revenue from ads.
The best way to kill the business model is to buy them for the high end display tech but then keep them offline.
The point is tech savvy users can do all sorts of things like ublock origin, DNS, dumb TV etc
The majority of users in this world don't. So there will some people left out to suffer ads/tracking etc.
A little over a year ago I was checking my home network logs and realized my smart TVs were sending gigs of data to Roku servers - when the TVs were off.
I killed all internet access for my TVs, bought Apple TVs to attach to them and never looked back.
Whenever I obtain a 'smart' TV, I never connect it to the internet. I don't want a TV that can phone home.
You can still buy "dumb tvs" tho - well a 2-3 years ago you could I guess.
I've never once considered buying a smart TV - nor would I ever.
I'm awaiting the LineageOS equivalent for Android TV. Is anyone on that?
Custom ROM to drive the TV, no ads, no commercial partnerships. Root your TV.
My Kogan is a dumb panel, but I think it was the last year model where they sold both a smart and a dumb version. I imagine if I went looking theres only smart available.
What’s my best bet if I just want a normal computer monitor hooked up to some sort of sound bar, and I’m happy using something like a Chromecast for all TV needs? Or are there monitors with good enough speakers now?
Soundbars are bad and there's better alternatives at soundbar price ranges imo. Spend the soundbar money on even a relatively humble set of logitech speakers for a really bare bones simple set up.
I’m not really married to that form factor. I guess I’m more curious about HDMI splitters or pass through and what people do there.
get a seperate usb to audio adaptor and speakers. you can do better than a soundbar.
If you're shoveling your data over to Google anyway then why not just get a smart TV and never use its apps?
I’m not paranoid about Google, but smart TVs inevitably come with dreadfully slow boot times, clunky animated menus, and just generally lots of crap to work around, even if you primarily interact with them via HDMI. I miss TVs that respond before you take your finger off the button.
I use a short throw projector with an Apple TV. There’s also a little device called Micca which you can use to play video files you’ve downloaded.
I think they’re called “commercial displays” now (no malware subsidy like smart TVs tho)
That was a really keyphrase-saturated article - they're really going for SEO capture!
I agree. Hacking a smart TV to bypass/replace its OS would make for an interesting project, though.
Oh I would love to have just dumb oled panel with only input cable without that bloatware installed.
My new HiSense TV with Google allows to run it as a basic TV. I think this was added to Google TV in 2021. Problem solved.
If you want the closest thing to a dumb tv search for the hospitality version of a specific television brand.
Depending on your home setup, projector seems like a decent option as well.
Let me defend smart TVs for a second
I own a smart TV that was at least partially subsidized by the mess of ads I see on the home page. But when manufacturers make a high quality panel, I’m not really convinced there’s a market for dumb TVs - people just use their own box if they want, and the marginal cost of the electronics required may even be negative now that Android/Google TV can also handle TV settings while providing a new revenue source.
This sounds like Stockholm syndrome.
I've an old dumb 1080p Samsung TV. Apart from the panel not being up to date everything about it is better than the smart version that I bought 8 years later.
I've owned several lcd tvs and several tv boxes. A big problem with smart tvs is the difference in lifetimes between the two.
Tv boxes have a maybe 3 year lifetime before they get kind of junky. Lcd tvs go at least 5 years, sometimes much longer.
If you have a smart tv, around year 3 or 4, you're going to want to hook up a (new) tv box, but you're still going to have to fight the built in OS anyway, at least a bit.
Economics of ads subsidizing the tv aside, it makes more sense to have the tv firmware be focused on the essentials like responding to user input quickly and if it has a tuner not locking up on poor or malformed signals, and the user can choose between the tv box ecosystems they like.
Separately, it'd be nice if the tv box ecosystem got some more longevity... Maybe that will happen soon. 4k@60fps with dolby vision and/or hdr10+ seems like a likely plateau of streaming video for a while... if they'd start regularly putting in 1g ethernet to handle peak bandwidth of 4k BluRay rips, things would be pretty good. 8k seems unlikely to get mainstream adoption (but I could be wrong)
Ads come with the spyware to target them.
the smart TV is probably cheaper, but let me buy some pro grade version of the panel without it and vote with my wallet right?
I think I could probably sell you a 55” with no smart features for $4999. Let me know if interested and I can follow up.
I looked into this briefly. Many TVs run Linux under the hood, and can be flashed, as the firmware is available because of the GPL. (Sometimes. Vizio had to be sued into doing so iirc.) so "all" that has to be done is to repackage and rewrite some firmware, reflash the TV to only ever use HDMI1, and Bob's your uncle.
The problem (aside from the fact that redoing the firmware isn't trivial - but that's the fun part) is that TVs are big and bulky, and come in multiple sizes and resolutions. And then shipping them around the country gets expensive, limiting reach, and then that means that taking returns also becomes difficult too. Especially because you'd be reboxing existing televisions to begin with. But maybe you could open up a storefront to sell these from and serve a local area first.
Anyway, this is more a comment on the issues with this as bother me, and not an indightment of the whole idea. Someone else with a lot more capital to bootstrap could pull it off - assuming there really is enough of a market for such a product. It might be like the support for a small phone contingent or light truck. There's a vocal crowd that does exist, but they don't exist in great enough quantity relative to the rest of the market, leading to not enough sales to support a business built on that singular premise.
The other issue is HDCP. If the Apple/Google TV won't play high res content to your modified firmware, the idea's dead in the water without an additional device like from hdfury, but at that point, how many customers are just going to put up with a "smart" tv?
I run airbnbs and would love a low cost dumb TV since I just equip each one with a apple TV box anyways
It's not just TVs. I upgraded the appliances in my kitchen last year. Every "high-end" refrigerator required internet connectivity just to use the product. Most of the dishwashers and ovens had this same requirement.
I've replaced several appliances recently and while, like TVs, all have wifi garbage built in, I've never once connected any of them and they all function perfectly fine.
And on the topic of TVs, my Sony TV also works happily while disconnected and never nags about it.
My workaround is to use a computer monitor connected to a Linux box that I actually control.
The author already mentions the benefits of streaming devices. What difference does it make whether you have a dumb or smart tv if the only functionality you use is from a streaming device?
Dumb cars, dumb blenders as well
I bought a projector. "Dumb" as can be.
Now... when I decide to blow the money, it's going to be replaced with a 100" TV. For now I'm assuming that I won't have too big a battle to use it as a plain monitor.
But I bought a Harmony remote a while ago and returned it after finding out that, to maintain it, I had to set up a BS account with Logitech. A bunch of apologists on Reddit mocked those of us who called out this despicable nonsense.
Just a couple months later, we had the last laugh when Logitech pulled the plug on the whole thing.
I was just looking at some earlier because a friend was asking.
A lot of them seem to be integrating smart TV features for streaming and such. So your privacy is going away there too.
Yep.
I think their days are numbered anyway. Unless you're going to project beyond 100", the worst LCD TV is going to blow away the best projector. Once a 98-100" TV is $1000-1500, forget it.
Every smart TV you don’t connect to the internet is a dumb TV.
There used to always be some smug commenter in these threads pointing out that life's better without any TV at all... Guess it's my turn.
Really - why bother? Can't you feel how it dominates the room? Don't you resent being constantly programmed by a handful of giant companies hiding behind different brands? Not to mention the ads shouting muck into your brain.
The main benefit of a giant HD TV - and please correct me if I'm wrong on this - is that the bigger and brighter the TV, the heavier the mental domination. After a long day/week working, you get to subside into the minima of mental and physical effort.
Relaxation and escapism are valid human pastimes, and we have 'choice' over what to watch to a higher degree than ever before... And it's a golden age for TV in many ways. But I can't help but feel that TV's hooks into people's minds are also more cunning than ever.
There isn't a nice way to say this, but... I can't help but notice that people who watch cable news, for example, become quite predictably wrong on important topics, and get very worked up over whatever the weekly outrage bait is. It's a toxic brew..
And the same goes for all kinds of other 'programming', from reality shows to celeb gossip to sportsball. Doesn't it ever feel like you're being... Subdued? Or even herded?
/smug
Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television
https://theonion.com/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesn...
Okay but who uses a tv for cable news or any of that?
I want to put youtube channels on it while cooking in the kitchen, or play video games on it. Does anyone actually watch "TV" tv anymore? Isn't it mostly streaming services?
Yeah, for me it is about intentionality. I turn on the TV because I have something in mind I need that TV to display.
Often a computer game or a TV show.
But I have in mind what I want first, THEN turn it on and do the thing.
I have visited people who like to "have the TV on in the background" for whatever reason and it irks me, I can't stand it.
Yeah that’s never going to happen.
The vast majority of the buyer pool consider the smart stuff a feature.
So the only way the remaining fraction of a percent of buyer make economic sense is with insane markups. And when people hear about the additional +100% markup or whatever for their artisanal dumb tv the interested pool gets even smaller
+1 for Sceptre
Can we just get some physical buttons back! My tv came with a single multi-purpose button. It’s literally the premise of a dilbert comic. Then the button broke from over use. Just volume, power, change inputs. Not that complicated!
I’d like to see a relatable ad campaign. One that’s very “hey, we hear ya, no one actually wants this” type speech.
It would certainly catch an eye because what else is there to say? I don’t remember the last tv ad, it was so forgettable.
Now to the problem, much of the points the author makes are environmental concerns about “consumer” electronics. This is just so far off base to the older consumer audience and possibly entirely. You have to focus on…the ads and the bloat. Explain why your tv costs slightly more, because you made sure the experience was seamless.
I’d really love if this took off, but unfortunately without a titan like Samsung it won’t. Otherwise it’ll just be an outrageously expensive tv with average performance, and we al know that’s not the right formula.
Can we generalize this point to the idea that the user might want to manage the complexity level of products?
It's great to have the fully-integrated television that can be controlled by a phone app. This may seem great, until the spyware implications come to mind.
In a similar vein, I like all of the gadgetry on the recent car purchase. The sensors are nice; we can all back in an "park tactically" like a pro with these rear cameras.
But part of me longs for a purely analog chariot with 1960s-level tech that, sure, requires more skill on my part to operate, but I'm OK with that.
This invites the question: if there were a market for a brand new, but de-gunked car, could it even be legally built? Would there be a market? Why not?
It's almost like there an agenda to allow for corporate and government control of all technology.
So what's the best solution? Suppose you have a dumb TV, or a smart TV locked to a single input. It seems like there are big downsides to most approaches. Rokus and Fire sticks have the same downsides as smart tvs, with ads and laggy interfaces. I currently have one output from my desktop hooked to my TV, but the UI leaves a lot to be desired and of course now I have two input devices to deal with, one for the TV and one for the PC. What's the best way to do it?
Find a decent media remote you can single hand with built in keyboard, i.e. lenovo n5902 (discontinued) - a bunch of cheap airmouse works pretty well. Setup macro for browser, boomarkts , microphone use etc. Adjust desktop UI scaling.
I use an HDMI switch and it works fine for me.
Still using my 2007 television. It's pretty ass dumb. I have new computer displays of course.
cars too
“Smart” things are basically just bullshit.
Don’t have a TV to begin with.
Tv content is actually dumb nowadays it makes you dumb, not the tv.
My cheap smart tv has a youtube app and it's all i need