6 ms·

I'm probably not normal, but frankly I would just leave it unplugged from the Internet. At the end of the day my current tv does what I need to do (ie act as a

I'm probably not normal, but frankly I would just leave it unplugged from the Internet. At the end of the day my current tv does what I need to do (ie act as a big monitor) without an internet connection. Given the number of devices already floating around here for browsing the web, I don't really need my tv to do that. For streaming I have Chromecast or whatever. I get that tv makers want to sell me something, but they're really bad anyway at the convergence - so the best option for me is just to use it as a screen and get devices to do what I want. The only real motivation to get a new tv is if the current one breaks. I replace all the other living room devices a lot more frequently than the tv. But the point of bothering to read the terms is well worth knowing so I appreciate the article.

jsmeaton 12y ago
I agree with you. Just bought a new TV myself, and I've disconnected it from the network. When it was connected my internet was seeing slowdowns every 30 seconds, completely destroying a hangout I was trying to have at the time. If I didn't have an HTPC in front of my NAS, I would probably connect it again. But I don't need or want any of the network features. The apps are stupid. Browsing with the crappy remote is an exercise in extreme frustration. And I hardly ever watch youtube from my couch, so "throwing" content to the TV is pointless for me. I can understand why some people would really like some of the "smart" tv features, but all my other devices that I connect to the tv have enough smarts in them anyway. Quite happy using my tv as a dumb monitor.
maerF0x0 12y ago
And go old school like my mom-- put it on a powerbar and truly turn it off when your done.
tmuir 12y ago
I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services. I suppose the economics aren't as straightforward, but I'm of the opinion that Chromecast, Roku, AppleTV, etc are the next layer of crippleware. A small form factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on the market in every category but price. I've never seen a better interface on a media appliance. A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. But most importantly, you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. The best interfaces for all of those services are the full websites. Not to mention all of the other features you get with a full blown computer.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  > every category but price Don't forget convenience. That is not a little thing.
- balls187 12y ago
  > I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services. While I agree that the "media" capabilities of so-called smart tv's suck, it isn't necessarily a conscious decision of the purchaser. TV's typically fall into various tiers: Basic Advanced Premium The Media/App capabilities are usually bundled into the higher tiers, along with other feature upgrades (including size). Eventually as manufacturers find new things to charge money for, what were premium features become standard features on all sets.
- atmosx 12y ago
  Sorry but that comparison is flawed. You are comparing 35$ Chromecast to a 499$ mac mini. I can buy 3 Chromecasts, 1 for every TV in my house and still spare 400$...
- enobrev 12y ago
  > you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. In theory, the same could be said for Chromecast, since the casting server isn't something that Google sets up, but rather a feature the media company adds to their own app / service (which is relatively easy to do). For all intents and purposes, it's an app-driven web browser for your TV with the ability to stream video. Personally, I'm a huge fan of using the actual netflix app to stream things to my television - same goes for youtube, pandora, class6ix, plex, and all the other apps I use to cast to my TVs and Stereos around the apt every day. I don't miss the wireless keyboard / mouse in the slightest.
- SixSigma 12y ago
  Manufacturers are adding these "features" to differentiate themselves in a marketwhere a dumb TV has lots of competition. The value is questionable but the user only really founds out when it's too late but they already got the actual tv part they wanted so they are not too disappointed.
millstone 12y ago
I think you are the rule, not the exception. Most people won't bother connecting their TV to the Internet, if for no other reason than it's a huge hassle. Ever tried to type a WiFi password with a remote? But if TVs start phoning home on their own terms, without my WiFi password or Ethernet cable, then it becomes terrifying.
- coldpie 12y ago
  Just curious, how could they do this? Is there a reasonable possibility of integrating a cell antenna into a TV? I find that implausible...
  - bradfa 12y ago
    Cell phone sized antennas are quite small, especially compared to a 40-70 inch typical US home TV these days. The electronics to connect to a cell network and send useful data over it is probably $10-20, tops, plus the cost of the usage (but that's all dependent upon usage and negotiation of rates). I'd say, if there's a corporate reason to want data from the TV even if the consumer doesn't connect their Ethernet/wifi, the cost and complexity of adding in cell connectivity isn't very high these days.
rsync 12y ago
Why not take it a step further and only buy monitors ? None of my tvs have anything but video inputs. I use dell monitors, and for my large screens, NEC commercial displays. They are as dumb as dumb can be.
- huhtenberg 12y ago
  A nice thing about "smart" TVs is that they come bundled with codecs and can play media off USB drives. This is really convenient, though you can of course get a monitor and something like WD TV box, but ultimately it'd be a wash.
- traitorjoe 12y ago
  How does the price of a monitor compare to the price of a televisions? I looked into buying monitors without tuners or speakers in order to save money, but it seems that inch for inch monitors cost at least as much as a regular television.

jsmeaton 12y ago

I agree with you. Just bought a new TV myself, and I've disconnected it from the network. When it was connected my internet was seeing slowdowns every 30 seconds, completely destroying a hangout I was trying to have at the time. If I didn't have an HTPC in front of my NAS, I would probably connect it again. But I don't need or want any of the network features. The apps are stupid. Browsing with the crappy remote is an exercise in extreme frustration. And I hardly ever watch youtube from my couch, so "throwing" content to the TV is pointless for me. I can understand why some people would really like some of the "smart" tv features, but all my other devices that I connect to the tv have enough smarts in them anyway. Quite happy using my tv as a dumb monitor.

maerF0x0 12y ago

And go old school like my mom-- put it on a powerbar and truly turn it off when your done.

tmuir 12y ago

I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services. I suppose the economics aren't as straightforward, but I'm of the opinion that Chromecast, Roku, AppleTV, etc are the next layer of crippleware. A small form factor Windows box or a Mac Mini are superior to every set top media player on the market in every category but price. I've never seen a better interface on a media appliance. A wireless mouse always trumps a remote. But most importantly, you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. The best interfaces for all of those services are the full websites. Not to mention all of the other features you get with a full blown computer.

jamesaguilar 12y ago
> every category but price Don't forget convenience. That is not a little thing.
balls187 12y ago
> I can't believe that people buy integrated media players with their TVs. They are usually multiple hundreds of dollars on top of the base TV model price, have terrible interfaces, and are crippleware, using apps with very few services. While I agree that the "media" capabilities of so-called smart tv's suck, it isn't necessarily a conscious decision of the purchaser. TV's typically fall into various tiers: Basic Advanced Premium The Media/App capabilities are usually bundled into the higher tiers, along with other feature upgrades (including size). Eventually as manufacturers find new things to charge money for, what were premium features become standard features on all sets.
atmosx 12y ago
Sorry but that comparison is flawed. You are comparing 35$ Chromecast to a 499$ mac mini. I can buy 3 Chromecasts, 1 for every TV in my house and still spare 400$...
enobrev 12y ago
> you don't need the manufacturer to strike deals with Netflix/HBO/Hulu, you just need a web browser. In theory, the same could be said for Chromecast, since the casting server isn't something that Google sets up, but rather a feature the media company adds to their own app / service (which is relatively easy to do). For all intents and purposes, it's an app-driven web browser for your TV with the ability to stream video. Personally, I'm a huge fan of using the actual netflix app to stream things to my television - same goes for youtube, pandora, class6ix, plex, and all the other apps I use to cast to my TVs and Stereos around the apt every day. I don't miss the wireless keyboard / mouse in the slightest.
SixSigma 12y ago
Manufacturers are adding these "features" to differentiate themselves in a marketwhere a dumb TV has lots of competition. The value is questionable but the user only really founds out when it's too late but they already got the actual tv part they wanted so they are not too disappointed.

millstone 12y ago

I think you are the rule, not the exception. Most people won't bother connecting their TV to the Internet, if for no other reason than it's a huge hassle. Ever tried to type a WiFi password with a remote? But if TVs start phoning home on their own terms, without my WiFi password or Ethernet cable, then it becomes terrifying.

coldpie 12y ago
Just curious, how could they do this? Is there a reasonable possibility of integrating a cell antenna into a TV? I find that implausible...
- bradfa 12y ago
  Cell phone sized antennas are quite small, especially compared to a 40-70 inch typical US home TV these days. The electronics to connect to a cell network and send useful data over it is probably $10-20, tops, plus the cost of the usage (but that's all dependent upon usage and negotiation of rates). I'd say, if there's a corporate reason to want data from the TV even if the consumer doesn't connect their Ethernet/wifi, the cost and complexity of adding in cell connectivity isn't very high these days.

rsync 12y ago

Why not take it a step further and only buy monitors ? None of my tvs have anything but video inputs. I use dell monitors, and for my large screens, NEC commercial displays. They are as dumb as dumb can be.

huhtenberg 12y ago
A nice thing about "smart" TVs is that they come bundled with codecs and can play media off USB drives. This is really convenient, though you can of course get a monitor and something like WD TV box, but ultimately it'd be a wash.
traitorjoe 12y ago
How does the price of a monitor compare to the price of a televisions? I looked into buying monitors without tuners or speakers in order to save money, but it seems that inch for inch monitors cost at least as much as a regular television.