4 ms·

I just want a somewhat trustworthy organization to develop a "DUMB" certification. I would pay extra for a DUMB TV. I like the suggested "Don't Upload My Bits

by ortusdux 10mo ago

I just want a somewhat trustworthy organization to develop a "DUMB" certification. I would pay extra for a DUMB TV. I like the suggested "Don't Upload My Bits" backronym.

ge96 10mo ago
They say you can just get a large PC monitor, for me it's the ads that would drive me nuts
- clhodapp 10mo ago
  I would agree if they would sell them over 55 inches with the latest panel technology in a similar pricing ballpark.
  - buellerbueller 10mo ago
    And audio. I don't want a separate audio setup.
    - SoftTalker 10mo ago
      A separate audio setup could have much better sound than built-in TV speakers.
      - buellerbueller 10mo ago
        Certainly, but I am not interested in dealing with that.
  - ge96 10mo ago
    I really like that thin one featured on LTT a long time ago, it's like just a sheet of glass you attach to a wall, it's crazy.
    - mapt 10mo ago
      Extra-thin LCD panels are typically edge-lit, and edge-lit panels are not faring well at all in RTINGS' longevity test.
raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
Just don’t connect your TV to the internet. Yes I know there is a theoretical capability for it to connect to unsecured WIFI. No one still has unsecured WIFI anymore
- peacebeard 10mo ago
  This theoretical capability could connect to a neighbor's WIFI in an apartment or condo.
  - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
    Every router shipped these days either by the cable company or separately is configured with a password by default.
    - jermaustin1 10mo ago
      And a guest wifi that is password free on by default. All it takes is a neighbor to get a new router from the ISP. I just had to turn my guest wifi off because I noticed a lot of bandwidth on it (likely coming from our neighbor who was bragging about cord cutting).
      - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
        Even that WiFi is gated by having to have an account with the ISP at least it was with Comcast.
        SoftTalker 10mo ago
        what stops Comcast and TV makers from making a deal to use it?
        raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
        So now Comcast is going to make a deal that TVs can use their guest WiFi network without logging in but only to send surveillance information?
Ajedi32 10mo ago
The thing is, I want smart features, I just don't want those smart features to be tied to the display. A separate box allows more consumer choice, which is generally a better experience. Easily flashable firmware would be an acceptable alternative for the same reason.
- dfxm12 10mo ago
  A separate box allows more consumer choice, which is generally a better experience. In the life of my last TV (10+ yrs), I've had to switch out that separate box three times. It would have sucked & been way more expensive to have had to replace the TV each time. Firmware can be updated, sure, but there's the risk of some internal component failing. There's the risk of the services I want to use not being compatible. I'd also prefer to use an operating system I'm familiar with, because, well, I'm familiar with it, rather than some custom firmware from a TV company whose goal is to sell your data, not make a good user experience... Of course, this ties back to the enshittification of the Internet. Every company is trying to be a data broker now though, because they see it as free passive income.
  - usefulcat 10mo ago
    Regarding the failure of internal components--there are some 'failure' modes which I had not even contemplated previously. I have a TV that's only about 5-6 years old and has a built in Roku. It mostly works fine, but the built in hardware is simply not fast enough to play some streaming services, specifically some stuff on F1TV. And before anyone asks, it's not a bandwidth problem--I have gigabit fiber and the TV is using ethernet. Anyway, between that, general UI sluggishness and the proliferation of ads in the Roku interface, I switched to an Apple TV and haven't looked back.
- autoexec 10mo ago
  I'd be happy with a setup box giving me the ability to add apps for streaming services or whatever, but I don't want that STB spying on my either. I feel like even if all TVs were dumb monitors we'd just be moving the real problem of insane levels of data collection and spying to another device. We need strong regulation with real teeth to prevent the spying at which point all of our devices should be protected.
6510 10mo ago
I have this article growing in the back of my head that is currently mostly a rant about how impractical technology turned out by comparing the current state with the old days. It's hard as there are countless examples and I want to address only the most embarrassing ones. Dumb vs smart TV alone could fill a tomb worth of downgrades. Do you remember the variable resistor, the rotary knob that provided volume control? The ease of use, the granularity, the response time! I currently have volume control on my TV, one on the OS on the computer that drives it and one on the application that makes the picture. That is only half the problem https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/pblj86/windows_volume_control_not_working/ https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/pblj86/windows... I own a 60 year old black and white tv. If the volume knob vanished people would know the problem is in my head.
mrinterweb 10mo ago
I would much rather buy a dumb TV. I feel that the smart TV experience is an opportunity it eventually make TVs feel dated and slow. I would rather buy a standalone streamer that I can plug in. Buying a new $100 dollar streamer every couple years is cheaper and produces less e-waste than buying a new giant TV. I isolate smart TVs and other IOT devices to a separate network/subnet, and usually block their network access unless they need an update.
askvictor 10mo ago
The exist, for commercial/enterprise use (usually digital signage and meeting rooms). They cost a few times more than consumer-grade, because of the word 'enterprise'
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > They cost a few times more than consumer-grade, because of the word 'enterprise' They cost more because they aren’t subsidised by this junk.
  - dredmorbius 10mo ago
    Likely much smaller sales volume as well. Economies of scale are a thing, especially where marketing (largely through dealers / vendors / distributors) is a major expense.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > Likely much smaller sales volume as well It’s a good hypothesis. Every one I’ve seen is the consumer version in a more-rugged exterior running different software, so I’m sceptical.
      - dredmorbius 10mo ago
        That would again suggest that it's marketing (that is, the process of finding distributors and buyers) rather than production and design that are the principle cost-drivers. A seller of "dumb" devices has far fewer potential buyers (or at least perceives as such), and fewer channels for distribution, so they're going to have to focus more effort, and cost, on sales and marketing. It's not the cost of designing or producing the products, but of matching them to distributors and buyers, which would dominate. I'm not certain of this, but I'm fairly confident it's a factor.
kovvy 10mo ago
A related alternative would be that the listed tv price included the price of time spent viewing ads, and the sale price of your usage data (and that changing the price, say by showing more ads, required agreement). A DUMB TV costs $x, while a badly behaved smart TV costs $y up front, plus $z per hour for the next few years, where y is potentially slightly less than x.
platevoltage 10mo ago
Look at "Commercial" TVs. This is what they call dumb TV's nowadays. I guess they're mainly targeted at businesses who want a TV to for things like informational displays, conferences, etc. I only found this out because I thought my 15 year old plasma TV had died, but it ended up being the power cord.
adastra22 10mo ago
But a commercial TV - the ones used, ironically, for ad displays in malls and things like that.

I just want a somewhat trustworthy organization to develop a "DUMB" certification. I would pay extra for a DUMB TV. I like the suggested "Don't Upload My Bits" backronym.

ge96 10mo ago

They say you can just get a large PC monitor, for me it's the ads that would drive me nuts

clhodapp 10mo ago
I would agree if they would sell them over 55 inches with the latest panel technology in a similar pricing ballpark.
- buellerbueller 10mo ago
  And audio. I don't want a separate audio setup.
  - SoftTalker 10mo ago
    A separate audio setup could have much better sound than built-in TV speakers.
    - buellerbueller 10mo ago
      Certainly, but I am not interested in dealing with that.
- ge96 10mo ago
  I really like that thin one featured on LTT a long time ago, it's like just a sheet of glass you attach to a wall, it's crazy.
  - mapt 10mo ago
    Extra-thin LCD panels are typically edge-lit, and edge-lit panels are not faring well at all in RTINGS' longevity test.

raw_anon_1111 10mo ago

Just don’t connect your TV to the internet. Yes I know there is a theoretical capability for it to connect to unsecured WIFI. No one still has unsecured WIFI anymore

peacebeard 10mo ago
This theoretical capability could connect to a neighbor's WIFI in an apartment or condo.
- raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
  Every router shipped these days either by the cable company or separately is configured with a password by default.
  - jermaustin1 10mo ago
    And a guest wifi that is password free on by default. All it takes is a neighbor to get a new router from the ISP. I just had to turn my guest wifi off because I noticed a lot of bandwidth on it (likely coming from our neighbor who was bragging about cord cutting).
    - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
      Even that WiFi is gated by having to have an account with the ISP at least it was with Comcast.
      - SoftTalker 10mo ago
        what stops Comcast and TV makers from making a deal to use it?
        raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
        So now Comcast is going to make a deal that TVs can use their guest WiFi network without logging in but only to send surveillance information?

Ajedi32 10mo ago

The thing is, I want smart features, I just don't want those smart features to be tied to the display. A separate box allows more consumer choice, which is generally a better experience. Easily flashable firmware would be an acceptable alternative for the same reason.

dfxm12 10mo ago
A separate box allows more consumer choice, which is generally a better experience. In the life of my last TV (10+ yrs), I've had to switch out that separate box three times. It would have sucked & been way more expensive to have had to replace the TV each time. Firmware can be updated, sure, but there's the risk of some internal component failing. There's the risk of the services I want to use not being compatible. I'd also prefer to use an operating system I'm familiar with, because, well, I'm familiar with it, rather than some custom firmware from a TV company whose goal is to sell your data, not make a good user experience... Of course, this ties back to the enshittification of the Internet. Every company is trying to be a data broker now though, because they see it as free passive income.
- usefulcat 10mo ago
  Regarding the failure of internal components--there are some 'failure' modes which I had not even contemplated previously. I have a TV that's only about 5-6 years old and has a built in Roku. It mostly works fine, but the built in hardware is simply not fast enough to play some streaming services, specifically some stuff on F1TV. And before anyone asks, it's not a bandwidth problem--I have gigabit fiber and the TV is using ethernet. Anyway, between that, general UI sluggishness and the proliferation of ads in the Roku interface, I switched to an Apple TV and haven't looked back.
autoexec 10mo ago
I'd be happy with a setup box giving me the ability to add apps for streaming services or whatever, but I don't want that STB spying on my either. I feel like even if all TVs were dumb monitors we'd just be moving the real problem of insane levels of data collection and spying to another device. We need strong regulation with real teeth to prevent the spying at which point all of our devices should be protected.

6510 10mo ago

I have this article growing in the back of my head that is currently mostly a rant about how impractical technology turned out by comparing the current state with the old days. It's hard as there are countless examples and I want to address only the most embarrassing ones. Dumb vs smart TV alone could fill a tomb worth of downgrades. Do you remember the variable resistor, the rotary knob that provided volume control? The ease of use, the granularity, the response time! I currently have volume control on my TV, one on the OS on the computer that drives it and one on the application that makes the picture. That is only half the problem https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/pblj86/windows_volume_control_not_working/ https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport/comments/pblj86/windows... I own a 60 year old black and white tv. If the volume knob vanished people would know the problem is in my head.

mrinterweb 10mo ago

I would much rather buy a dumb TV. I feel that the smart TV experience is an opportunity it eventually make TVs feel dated and slow. I would rather buy a standalone streamer that I can plug in. Buying a new $100 dollar streamer every couple years is cheaper and produces less e-waste than buying a new giant TV. I isolate smart TVs and other IOT devices to a separate network/subnet, and usually block their network access unless they need an update.

askvictor 10mo ago

The exist, for commercial/enterprise use (usually digital signage and meeting rooms). They cost a few times more than consumer-grade, because of the word 'enterprise'

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> They cost a few times more than consumer-grade, because of the word 'enterprise' They cost more because they aren’t subsidised by this junk.
- dredmorbius 10mo ago
  Likely much smaller sales volume as well. Economies of scale are a thing, especially where marketing (largely through dealers / vendors / distributors) is a major expense.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > Likely much smaller sales volume as well It’s a good hypothesis. Every one I’ve seen is the consumer version in a more-rugged exterior running different software, so I’m sceptical.
    - dredmorbius 10mo ago
      That would again suggest that it's marketing (that is, the process of finding distributors and buyers) rather than production and design that are the principle cost-drivers. A seller of "dumb" devices has far fewer potential buyers (or at least perceives as such), and fewer channels for distribution, so they're going to have to focus more effort, and cost, on sales and marketing. It's not the cost of designing or producing the products, but of matching them to distributors and buyers, which would dominate. I'm not certain of this, but I'm fairly confident it's a factor.

kovvy 10mo ago

A related alternative would be that the listed tv price included the price of time spent viewing ads, and the sale price of your usage data (and that changing the price, say by showing more ads, required agreement). A DUMB TV costs $x, while a badly behaved smart TV costs $y up front, plus $z per hour for the next few years, where y is potentially slightly less than x.

platevoltage 10mo ago

Look at "Commercial" TVs. This is what they call dumb TV's nowadays. I guess they're mainly targeted at businesses who want a TV to for things like informational displays, conferences, etc. I only found this out because I thought my 15 year old plasma TV had died, but it ended up being the power cord.

adastra22 10mo ago

But a commercial TV - the ones used, ironically, for ad displays in malls and things like that.