6 ms·
This is exactly why I prefer buying "dumb" tvs and simply adding chromecast/appletv/firetv, etc. Much better experience.
by rcraft 11y ago
This is exactly why I prefer buying "dumb" tvs and simply adding chromecast/appletv/firetv, etc. Much better experience.
- sliverstorm 11y agoIt doesn't really matter that much if it's dumb or smart. You can use a Chromecast with either, and refusing to buy one kind limits your choices.
- antsar 11y agoYou can use a Chromecast with either, but one of them can also spy on you without your consent.
- kstenerud 11y agoNot if it isn't connected to your network.
- antsar 11y agoValid point. But then you're left with a bunch of crap in the UI that is unnecessary and annoying at best.
- kstenerud 11y agoReally? I'm not. My smart TV defaults to just displaying whatever the incoming signal tells it to. And if some manufacturer decides to clutter things, I just won't buy it. Problem solved.
- rcthompson 11y agoIt's not too much of a stretch for smart TVs to start including cellular connectivity (and advertising it as "zero-setup").
- kstenerud 11y agoAnd who will pay for that cellular connectivity? This is getting well into ad absurdum (a common problem on HN). Smart TVs are perfectly fine for the person who doesn't want a smart TV. Just don't use any of the smart TV features and don't connect it to the network. Problem solved.
- gcr 11y agoNobody thought Amazon would put a cell phone antenna into an eBook reader, but look what happened! :)
- rcthompson 11y agoThat's exactly the example I was thinking of as precedent.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Not if it isn't connected to your network. Not if it isn't connected to a network. But its hardly as if devices with manufacturer-paid cellular connectivity built in and preconfigured don't exist, so there's no reason that it has to be your network. To the extent that manufacturers are either monetizing networked services or deriving useful data from them, making them independent of end-user networking choices has a pretty clear benefit, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it become a common thing in Smart TVs.
- caskance 11y agoIf you don't trust the TV manufacturer to include spying devices in their product, there is no reason to believe the "dumb" TV you brought from them is any less capable.
- tsuraan 11y agoI don't trust the TV manufacturer to secure their initial release of their "smart" os, and I surely don't expect them to keep it patched. Anybody who breaks into your video-enabled tv can see everything you're doing...
- urda 11y agoAnd how exactly is a dumb TV with no WiFi radio, ethernet port, or any other forms of outgoing communication going to phone home? Please enlighten me.
- gcr 11y agoHow can you prove that your TV doesn't have a WiFi antenna inside? There's plenty of space to hide something like that in.
- urda 11y ago... and what network will it be connecting to? Sure maybe a free hotspot here or there, but many of these TVs will not have access to even those. And hell yeah you can prove it's not in there, either with a quick wireless scan or even a simple physical tear down of the housing which can then be put back together. Show me a dumb TV that has been wired up to spy on people that has been in the wild before.
- wutbrodo 11y agoI think his point is based on the (very reasonable) assumption that an equivalent quality Smart TV is going to be more expensive, which isn't worth it in general since you're not using the features that cause the difference in cost. There of course may be realities of the market to cause it to not work out this way, but it's a pretty sensible assumption.
- dragonwriter 11y agoOtherwise-equivalent Smart TVs are usually less expensive than displays (whether TVs or monitors) without the "Smart" features. This is a matter probably largely of economies of scale -- because that's what manufacturers think the consumer market wants, that's what they make most of and flood consumer channels with, and dumb alternatives are a specialty product.
- wutbrodo 11y agoGood to know, thanks. I haven't bought a TV for about five years and I've never bought (or even been interested in) a Smart TV, for roughly the same reasons described here. EDIT: hullo's comment below would seem to contradict this; 32" TVs from Samsung seem like a fair data point to look at (albeit just one data pt), since it's a very mainstream manufacturer and a non-niche size. "Picking a manufacturer (Samsung) and size (32") at random, I see the smart TV for $499 and non-smart options for 219, 269, 299. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products Just for example."
- rsync 11y agoMy last three "TVs" have been commercial display panels. These are the NEC panels that you see in the airport (turned on their side) for departure/arrival boards. They are more expensive than a best buy model. Not terribly so, however, otherwise the airport couldn't buy 200 of them. They are incredible displays.
- detaro 11y agoHow would one go about finding them? (search terms, manufacturers...)
- JustSomeNobody 11y agoAll well and good until the "smart" part fails and makes the "dumb" part unusable. It's only a matter of time until it happens. I would rather take my chances with a "dumb" TV and add the peripherals I want.
- duaneb 11y agoIn my experience, "smart" tvs almost always offer a degradation of user experience.
- ytdht 11y agoa smart TV can be more expensive and have unwanted features and bugs... an hidden webcam is an example and another is when they stop sending you software updates for your TV because it is "too old"
- comex 11y agoSmart TVs tend to have more complex UIs than dumb ones, which are annoying if you don't intend to use the smart functionality, as well as confusing (in terms of duplicated functionality) to less technical users.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoAnd also designed by people who have no business doing UIs in the first place, which makes them crappy. It's a similar situation as with printer "value-added" software from printer vendors.
- rubiquity 11y agoMy wife and I still have our LCD TV from 2005. It's about 5 inches thick but it works great. The TV is even starting to look very cool/retro and we've been complimented on how it completes the look of our living space!
- xorcist 11y agoI still have a CRT TV. Do I win, or is there someone around with a B&W set? :)
- danudey 11y agoI have a Mac 128k in my basement, does that count?
- epenn 11y agoI only have a Mac 512KE. :( But it's featured prominently in one of my rooms if that gets me any bonus points.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoMy Amstrad CPC 464: https://vimeo.com/63990420 https://vimeo.com/63990420
- rubiquity 11y agoI think it's the balance between new and old. You know, if your TV is either too old or too new it looks like you're trying too hard.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cmdrfred 11y agobeware the complisult.
- 11y ago
- ArtDev 11y agoI opted for a Chromebox running Ubuntu+Kodi. Its quite easy to set up! http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=194362 http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=194362
- sharjeel 11y agoI am running my home server on ChromeBox (Linux Mint running Samba attached to a Bravia TV). I don't think I can get something better.
- jchrisa 11y agoProjector!