4 ms·

Bought a Vizio in 2017 (because 5 HDMI ports, 4K HDR, dolby vision), and I just couldn't find one non-smart TV that was 4K HDR. So I resorted to use it with Ap

Bought a Vizio in 2017 (because 5 HDMI ports, 4K HDR, dolby vision), and I just couldn't find one non-smart TV that was 4K HDR. So I resorted to use it with Apple TV only (its great that Apple TV also has Dolby Vision support, so DV content looks stunning on this display). I thought I was smart in not connecting the TV to the internets. Once I did connect it for a few days, later at some point Vizio forced me to connect it because, they changed the physical remote, sent it to me for free, and then the UI was blocked until I setup the new remote, which needed internet. For a moment, I thought of returning the TV to Costco saying "it is not working". But I didn't have the patience to do that :-/ So technically, Vizio or any smart TV can prevent you from using the TV after you start using it, if you refuse to update the firmware, remote etc. I'm willing to pay 2x the price I paid for Vizio, if Apple comes out with a display, because thats the only brand I trust for privacy. But only problem in that case, will be HDMI ports. I doubt an Apple Display would have more than 1 or 2 HDMI ports (looking at how they are port unfriendly on Macbooks :)

dcd0101 8y ago
I had this scenario with my Vizio, too (I mentioned it above). I got the new remote amd they had replaced Chromecast firmware with their own smart tv junk that required TOS acceptance for monitoring. I had to ban my own tv from using the network ever again. I assume Google is reporting on my Chromecast usage, but Vizio doing unaccepted updates to essentially brick my tv unless I agree to be monitored? That’s a step or two too far.
kitsunesoba 8y ago
I recently bought a Sony 900F. Great TV, but I’m not connecting it to the internet and the Android “smart” portion may as well not exist. There’s no reason to use it when the Apple TV 4K, PS4, etc all do the smart bits better. I too would pay a sizable premium for a high quality mid-high tier dumb TV just to never have to worry about the associated privacy implications. I’d guess most folks who have any kind of serious media center setups would also agree. Perhaps it’s time for a few boutique TV companies to enter the scene?
- photojosh 8y ago
  Hopefully for that premium you’d also get a TV that powers-on close to instantly (or at least faster than whatever box you’re using it with), gives you a control over display settings per-HDMI input, lets you use Bluetooth headphones (the ATV can do this, it’s great). Unfortunately it would be niche indeed, as it’d be a very hard sell to push a “non-smart” TV at a premium, and I can’t see how the economies of scale could ever work. :(
  - kitsunesoba 8y ago
    A sharp, clean, timeless HUD design and FOSS reflashable firmware would a nice plus too. I would assume the biggest cost would be that big display panel, but have no experience with manufacturing/supply chain to back that up. How does one research such a thing I wonder...
CSDude 8y ago
I have the same setup with an LG display and love the Dolby Vision on Netflix
phobosdeimos 8y ago
I bought an LG TV. You can update the firmware offline with a flashdrive old school style. I imagine other TV manufacturers have this as well.
craftyguy 8y ago
> So technically, Vizio or any smart TV can prevent you from using the TV after you start using it, if you refuse to update the firmware, remote etc. Not if you never connect it, right? It seems you were fine until you connected it online "for a few days"...
- calvinbhai 8y ago
  True :( (I don’t even know why I did that)

dcd0101 8y ago

I had this scenario with my Vizio, too (I mentioned it above). I got the new remote amd they had replaced Chromecast firmware with their own smart tv junk that required TOS acceptance for monitoring. I had to ban my own tv from using the network ever again. I assume Google is reporting on my Chromecast usage, but Vizio doing unaccepted updates to essentially brick my tv unless I agree to be monitored? That’s a step or two too far.

kitsunesoba 8y ago

I recently bought a Sony 900F. Great TV, but I’m not connecting it to the internet and the Android “smart” portion may as well not exist. There’s no reason to use it when the Apple TV 4K, PS4, etc all do the smart bits better. I too would pay a sizable premium for a high quality mid-high tier dumb TV just to never have to worry about the associated privacy implications. I’d guess most folks who have any kind of serious media center setups would also agree. Perhaps it’s time for a few boutique TV companies to enter the scene?

photojosh 8y ago
Hopefully for that premium you’d also get a TV that powers-on close to instantly (or at least faster than whatever box you’re using it with), gives you a control over display settings per-HDMI input, lets you use Bluetooth headphones (the ATV can do this, it’s great). Unfortunately it would be niche indeed, as it’d be a very hard sell to push a “non-smart” TV at a premium, and I can’t see how the economies of scale could ever work. :(
- kitsunesoba 8y ago
  A sharp, clean, timeless HUD design and FOSS reflashable firmware would a nice plus too. I would assume the biggest cost would be that big display panel, but have no experience with manufacturing/supply chain to back that up. How does one research such a thing I wonder...

CSDude 8y ago

I have the same setup with an LG display and love the Dolby Vision on Netflix

phobosdeimos 8y ago

I bought an LG TV. You can update the firmware offline with a flashdrive old school style. I imagine other TV manufacturers have this as well.

craftyguy 8y ago

> So technically, Vizio or any smart TV can prevent you from using the TV after you start using it, if you refuse to update the firmware, remote etc. Not if you never connect it, right? It seems you were fine until you connected it online "for a few days"...

calvinbhai 8y ago
True :( (I don’t even know why I did that)