Hacker News Reader

Comment by gonehome | Hacker News Reader

Yes - I wish Apple would just make a TV. Call it a living room screen or a living room monitor or something.

Make it OLED, dumb TV, instant on, Apple TV box plugs in. Separate box with front facing ports that connects to screen with one cable. A remote designed by someone who thought about it for ten seconds (why do modern TVs have dozens of buttons no one ever uses?).

This entire market is in desperate need of someone to make something decent.

The best available option today is LG and it’s still laden with ads and takes a few seconds to boot up.

View on HN

As much as I want this to happen. And I have been advocating for it [1] for many years. The more I read into the whole TV, display panel and electronic industry the grimmer it is for such Apple TV set to exist.

An Apple branded TV, even if it is without the TV part or just a monitor would have to be at least 2-3x the price of today's similar TV sets. And if anything OP were only willing to paid an extra $100 is probably why Apple didn't make one.

Some of the TV in the industry isn't just on Low Margin. They are entering negative margin territory if you are discounting Data Selling and software / partner sponsorship.

Unless the cost electronic part continue to raise to the point where Apple has an advantage with their SoC.

I think one of their original purpose or intention for ProXDR was the use the Dual Layer LCD technology to create something like a true Reference Display Monitor. But the technology and cost never got to that point. At least I hope they could continue their investment in that area even if they do not intend it to be in consumer usage.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10710734

The thing is, Apple could charge 2-3x, because the prices have gotten so cheap.

People would absolutely pay $1000-1200 for a 55" Apple TV with nice software, and maybe a nice brushed aluminum frame that looks nice on the wall.

(For comparison, the cheapest 55" I could quickly find from a major retail is around $300, with a "name brand" starting around $400).

they were talking about OLEDs, so 3000-5000 would be a more realistic estimate with that markup.

...and that would only play Apple content.

The Apple TV plays content from other providers just fine.

I've got a 3rd generation apple TV, which is EOL and apps are being slowly discontinued (no disney, youtube is going soon)

However I can still watch Disney on it using airplay from my OG iphone SE (2016). As far as consumer electronics go, apple is well ahead of the pack.

Why would it be 2 or 3 times more? Apple phones are between 10 and 15 times the price of the cheapest Android alternatives (iPhone 12 $999 from Apple, Samsung Galaxy A01 $55 from Amazon). Apple could, and probably would, sell a $4000 television.

Which puts it in spitting distance of some of the highest end Samsung TVs (or short throw projectors) anyway.

(Samsung LSP7 is $3,500)

2x to 3x at a comparable model on Hardware level.

What? Just no, that's like how a Vespa moped an alternative to a Porsche car?

The $300 TV that you found probably has poor audio, viewing angle, contrast ratio, support, etc. From the limited research I did before buying my TV, a 55" TV with good reviews for panel and sound quality that you can rely on for 5-10 years costs C$1,200 today.

Good sound probably requires a sound bar. I'm not sure the physics of flat panel TVs allows for great sound quality. Getting a sound bar went from me mostly using my wall mounted TV as a digital picture frame (which was my primary thinking when I bought it) to actually being the TV I use for streaming most of the time.

5-10 years? I know I'm not on the latest technology step. But 4K isn't worth me upgrading perfectly functional TVs. Maybe if we get to reasonably priced OLED panels but I'm not in a big hurry to upgrade TVs that are working.

You can get a 55” TCL QLED 4K TV for around $500 - Amazon currently has them for $534, I paid $460 a few months back. All the specs are amazing, as is the software - minimal, intuitive, and effective. And the sound is actually rather impressive out of the box, but if you want any low frequencies you need bigger external speakers that cannot physically fit in a flatscreen TV.

I actually took home quite a few (3-4) more expensive TVs from Costco before buying the TCL, and it was far and away the best set while also being 1/2 to 1/3 the price.

I'd say 1500 dollar TV is a viable purchase given that a TV has a life of 15+ years as against to 1000 dollar iphone or any other mobile which actually has a life of may be 4-5 years.

It would be the best of Apple product to show off.

Agreed - Apple could easily charge 3-5k. The LG TVs I mentioned cost that much.

They could offer three sizes. Mini, Normal, Max.

They could use it as a jumping off point to own the “living room” if they wanted.

All OLED TV, including non LG OLED currently ships about 5M unit per year. The volume of those high price range OLED are tiny in total shipping volume.

And if that specific LG model charges 3 to 5K, Apple will have to sell it at 6 to 10K.

I don’t think so - Apple has a better supply chain, more committed users, more scale, etc.

There is only one OLED TV display panel maker. That is LG.

Edit: I think I need to spell things out a little more clearly. If Apple were to use OLED and aim at a top tier market, then it would be competing directly with LG TV, which also happens to be gaining momentum in terms of both OLED display panel ( LG Display ) and TV set ( LG Electronics ). LG Display will also need to built new Fab for Apple. The recent expansion at Guangzhou doubling their capacity, AFAIK has already been booked and has no relation to Apple. i.e LG has little interest to do it with Apple given they are already fully booked on capacity. And Apple doesn't seems to be interested in pushing LG to partner.

The answer to if Apple could do something will always going to be yes given they have hundreds of billions of cash and has little idea what to do with it other than buying back stocks.

The answer to if Apple will do it is always going to complex. And nothing in the supply chain and BOM cost analysis suggest it is a good strategy worth going for.

I do wish Apple prove wrong though.

Google is adding a “dumb TV mode,” but I’m skeptical.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/the-best-feature-of-...

Presumably will still boot slowly and only the topmost UI layer loads differently, and until they confirm otherwise I’m guessing that even with a simplified UI it still includes all the creepy tracking of everything you watch.

I would imagine people would conflate "dumb tv" with privacy (sort of like "incognito"), when google doesn't actually say that.

How will they track you though, some sort of real time content id of everything you watch? Is there any evidence that they do this? If it’s in dumb tv mode and the display stream is coming from a separate device like an Apple TV then it seems much less trivial to track you than if you’re using the builtin smart features.

Yes, they’re basically all doing this. “Automatic Content Recognition,” called various things by the different brands, lets them know what you’re watching even if it’s coming from another device over HDMI instead of using the TV’s apps.

https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smar...

Android TV might not build it in, but much like android phones, you get extra “features” from pretty much every OEM.

> Is there any evidence that they do this?

Evidence is a high bar. But I can tell you my f...ing smart tv asks me on behalf of tv stations to accept cookies when I switch to some german tv stations. Yes, I'd say they are tracking what I am watching. That is with TV over satellite in Germany.

> The best available option today is LG and it’s still laden with ads and takes a few seconds to boot up.

Sharp offers (most of) their range as dumb TVs[1]. They still take a few seconds to turn on, but not notably longer than a typical computer monitor.

1. https://sg.sharp/products/tv?filters%5B33%3A36%5D=33%3A36

In the U.S., Sharp TVs aren't actually made by Sharp. They are made by Hisense and then rebranded Sharp. The link you posted is the Singapore site.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sharp-to-americans-you-dont-wan...

> In 2015, Sharp signed a deal with Hisense giving the Chinese company the right to use the Sharp name on TVs sold in the U.S. through 2020.

Hopefully that means there are better options this year?

I had no idea that was a thing, though it's not altogether surprising given where Sharp was back then.

At any rate, according to Google it seems to be over[1] and Sharp took back control in 2019.

1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sharp-hisense-idUSKCN1SE1...

> A remote designed by someone who thought about it for ten seconds

I love that a sibling comment to yours calls out the remote as dealbreaker terrible, but I agree with the sentiment that I would love a remote that was really well-designed.

You can go too far in the other direction too, however. Apple TV remote infamously has no mute functionality. And if you do an internet search on how to mute the Apple TV using the remote (because of course there’s a way, right? No one would design a TV remote that has volume control without mute) you get either one of two answers:

- it’s impossible/difficult to do with current tech (not true)

- the classic Apple forum response of “why would you want to do that?”

This turned into a bit of a rant but I’ll conclude the thought by saying that there’s certainly some sort of happy medium between a gajillion buttons on the remote and lack of absolutely critical functionality. In fact if you invest a bit of extra money into the Sideclick add-on to Apple TV remote you achieve exactly that.

I never use the mute button. I just turn the volume down because I know where that button is without looking.

Personally I find the problem with the apple remote to be the symmetric design (I would have though the puck mouse would have taught that lesson)

I put some gaffer tape on the bottom of my Apple TV remote to make it obvious which end is up. I'm personally not a fan of the touchpad. In principle, it's a decent solution to the problem, but Apple's implementation is somehow not sensitive enough and too sensitive at the same time.

This, it’s like the designers tested it only outdoors.

Who would’ve thought it’s necessary to be able to grab the remote when it’s dark and know what orientation it is in.

I bought some silicon sleeves that fix this issue (the bottom half of the remote face with no buttons is covered by silicon). It also resolve the issue that the remote is very slippery in your hands as well as the issue of being unable to tell which remote goes where if you have multiple Apple TV’s (you can get different color silicon for each TV).

This is a great suggestion, but it is also surprising that it is necessary.

That's why I love the Nvidia Shield remote. It is triangle shaped, and it has accelerometer that lights up the buttons once you grab and move it.

I had to look up a picture because I didn't realize they'd updated the remote at some point. I apparently have a previous generation remote which has all the controls at one end and is pretty usable in the dark. It's sad (but not shocking) to see design usability regress like that.

New versions of the new design have a raised white circle around the menu button which makes it obvious which side is the top (if you couldn’t tell from feeling the trackpad).

People on HN complain about this a lot, but I’ve used it for years and had parents use it without issue. I think it’s a made up problem.

I remember a universal remote that I had on the 90s to control my small bedroom CRT TV. it has only 7 buttons, and had mute button.

I’d probably do something that’s a large dial like an Apple Watch crown for volume that takes up most of a square remote and you push down for mute/unmute.

The other buttons I’d have on it would be power, and input switch.

I’d have an Apple HomePod sound bar which connects to the tv so you don’t have to configure any of that.

Then you’d use the Apple TV remote like normal for everything else. The regular dial remote is just always sitting on the coffee table.

Alternatively they could extend the existing Apple TV remote a bit to add a mute and volume knob or reconfigure to be the one remote for the dumb tv and the Apple TV.

Much as their adware laden TVs drive me crazy, I have to admit that their remote is absolutely amazing. A nice piece of aluminum with a minimum number of buttons, and yet you can control Netflix, Prime, TV etc

Amazon FireTV remote is pretty good, latest gen added a volume control inc. mute button (so you don't need your TV remote). Source switching uses CEC over HDMI. You don't need to point the controller for most tasks as it's Bluetooth. If I had a TV that used CEC I wouldn't need the original remote at all.

The best option that I know of today (in terms of resulting usabilty and long term reliability) is using a dumb computer monitor and roll the rest yourself with a Raspi.

While this option is certainly not available to all, it is the only thing that will really fit your needs. I completely gave up on finding anything decent in that market.

The best for who? This is a ridiculous take, nobody wants to roll their own TV UX except HN users looking for a weekend project.

What usability / long-term reliability perk does your own software running on a RPI have over an Apple TV plugged into a dumb TV / monitor?

I know plenty of folks who run kodi.

I would say not "hn user" level folks, more like "i have a gaming pc".

This comment is a part of why TV sucks so hard - ridiculous users.

Everyone's idea of 'simple' is rather asinine, unimaginative.

The latest Pis come practically preinstalled with everything, just have to load Kodi.

But someone who has found 'their' solution i.e. some crap by Apple e.g. assumes this is how everything should be... And we all get stuck with crappy 'smart' TVs (or don't own one - I have survived 10+ years without a TV - absolutely nothing about TVs today makes me want one. So much hot garbage)

In my experience getting Kodi set up is a massive time sink, to the point that the programmer time needed to set it up would easily double the total cost of a typical home theater setup. Admittedly my experience with it is a few years out of date, but a quick search for incredibly basic functionality like running the big streaming services makes it clear that this hasn’t really changed. On top of most of them being limited to 720p, it looks like the canonical solution nowadays is to run them in Chrome from Kodi, which (1) phones home to Google, unlike an Apple TV and (2) necessitates a mouse or other pointing device since you can’t rely on “keyboard” navigation with a remote - this alone would be a dealbreaker for me.

The best for me obviously. I was the one who made the comment and declaring an object "the best" of any category is always a subjective statement.

My own solution has the pros:

- I control precisely what I need and what not, both in terms of features and in terms of usability

- I control when it gets changed/updated

- I control which data flows in and out of the system

- Your device is not a brick when the manufacturer decides to end the support or shuts down the wrong server

The obvious downside is that it means work and requires a certain set of skills. Whether it is worth it or not depends on how important that thing is for you and how much all the TVs suck at doing what you want in the way you want it done.

Or just buy a smart TV and just never connect it to the internet.

That doesn't stop it from spending a minute trying at every boot, or from using a cellular whispernet.

Are the graphics on a Raspi really that good?

A Raspi 4 can run two 4k HDMI streams at once. What do you mean?

The Raspberry Pi 4 can drive 4k displays and easily run Kodi[0].

[0]: https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/build-the-ultimate-4k-home-...

Full-screen Streaming is much less compute intensive than rendering and compositing.

Does this cause issues with HDCP2?

> I wish Apple would just make a TV.

But that would be a TV which you can't use to watch adult content. And Netflix and HBO would be 30% more expensive.

And yet I can do all of that on my iPad without extra cost.

And cast it to a TV using Chromecast and/or Apple TV. I basically never use the "smart TV" features on my TV.

What do you think this device would cost? I’m guessing starting around $7999 for 45”

OLEDs are much cheaper than that. Or do you mean an Apple markup?

Look at recent trends in the price of the mac pro, or how much their headphones cost.

Heck, the stand for the mac pro monitor is $999.

A tv is not a Mac Pro.

Look at the price of Mac mini.

They can't. They already used up the name 'Apple TV' for another of their products (which oddly enough doesn't actually seem to be a TV at all).

Apple TV Pro Max

“For another” sounds singular. Was that intentional? It’s already got a plurality of meanings

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21438152

> A remote designed by someone who thought about it for ten seconds (why do modern TVs have dozens of buttons no one ever uses?).

I'd prefer the remote as an app on my phone. My desk is covered with remotes. Remotes are so 1980s :-/

You'd prefer it until you try using it. When you want to reduce the volume the last thing you need to do is go looking for the app. Now a watch app, that's something.

On iPhone, there is a built in remote app in control center, then you use the volume buttons on the phone to adjust the TV volume. It’s part of the OS, not the remote app from the App Store, and I’ve found it to be a good fit for those emergency volume adjustments. Sharing so others can benefit from what took me a while to discover :)

For that situation, wouldn't you use voice control? I can say "OK Google mute" in less time than it takes to reach for a remote.

Sure. Assuming your voice assistant works first time. Otherwise the dialog would go a little more like this:

Me OK Google mute

Me> OK...Google....mute

Me> OKGOOGLE mute

G> Sorry, I don't understand

Me> mute...

Me> MUTE MUTE MUTE MUTE MUTE

Me> OKGOOGLE MUTE

G> What would you like to mute?

Me> The TV

Me> Mute the fucking TV Google

Me> OKGOOGLE MUTE THE FUCKING TV

G> Sorry, I don't understand

Me> Fuck it. I should have just looked for the controller to begin with.

This comedy piece usually sends my family into laughter when I try to ask Google Auto to play a song or to call someone.

I end up with some vulgarities and ask my children to do it the old fashioned way (that is to tap the name on their phones, not to use smoke signals)

I stopped wondering where kids pick up vulgarities after I caught myself years ago yelling at a guy in another car.

And we usually end up insulting Alexa as well.

I got into a very similar conversation with Chase's robo call the other day. Went like this:

C: bla bla bla, if you want to speak to a representative say "representative".

Me: representative

C: sorry i couldn't understand, please chose an option or say representative to speak with one

Me: re-pre-sen-ta-tive

C: (same answer as before)

Me: REPRESENTATIVE

C: (same answer as before)

Me: GO FUCK YOURSELF

C: Ok, I'll call a representative

I want to believe that their system either sensed the tension in my voice or saw the expletive and decided to call for adult supervision.

I'm not an native English speaker so I have an accent (which isn't too heavy, but still). Using any form of speech recognition is an instant fuck-show.

The standard polite way to request an agent is: "operator operator fuck fuck fuck"

If I roar "I WANT TO SPEAK TO A HUMAN" into the phone, this works about 66% of the time.

My HTC One M8 back in the day shipped with a universal remote app that used the built-in IR blaster and it was fantastic. HTC's subsequent discontinuation of that app (and its replacement with a third-party app that was basically useless) is what immediately drove me to never want to buy an HTC product again.

I had that phone too and I vaguely recall that wasn't HTC's decision to cripple the IR but rather the result of HTC infringing someone else's (because naturally someone would have a patent about something as obvious as using a smart phone as an IR remote....)

we measure innovation by the number of patents given, so gotta keep up the statistics

The AppleTV lets you use your iPhone as a remote. I always reach for the physical remote first. The phone remote is just a huge pain — the physical remote just works.

^this. Though I do enjoy having the app as a backup for when I can't find the damn remote and am too lazy to look for it.

Physical remote > any app. By far.

Die apps, die. I want dedicated remotes for lights, stereo, curtains, garage door, and TV.

Apps won’t be around – forget 20 years, 5 years if you’re lucky. A company can disappear along with its stupid fucking app.

About the only advantage an app has is a keyboard.

> A company can disappear along with its stupid fucking app.

Absolutely true, which makes a good argument also for going back to websites and pages (HTML5 helps a lot) instead of the apps business model that basically brought us back to the pre-www era. Also regarding the phone (mis)use as remote, why nobody mentions latency? Every smartphone I tried had an absolutely atrocious UI latency even compared to my 30 years old Amiga 500, why should I want to use it instead of a dedicated device that does the job immediately and I can substitute with 5€, and sometimes even repair?

Hi systemvoltage!

We heard you like remotes, so how about a remote with dedicated, non-reprogrammable buttons to open apps you never use that don't even exist anymore?

Sincerely, Roku

How about arrow keys and an ok button?

     ^
  < OK! >
     v

Maybe one that isn’t tied to a box that stuffs ads in the UI?

> A company can disappear along with its stupid fucking app.

They can also disappear and when you lose your remote, too bad. (That's why remotes go for $$ on ebay.)

Physical remotes are better, particularly if your hands are dirty (like during eating). A physical remote can be used easily without looking at it and it can be cleaned later easily too. Though it's also true that a lot of remotes are difficult to handle.

What we need might actually be a single remote for everything.

I'd argue the opposite: in my experience, a uniform glass surface is a lot easier to clean (and avoid getting dirty in the first place) than some bumpy surface with crevices into which crumbs inevitably sneak in.

Re: a single remote for everything, the term for that is "universal remote", and not once have I been satisfied with one due to the difficulty and fragility of programming it. Maybe in this day and age we can finally make that programming dead simple and robust; Logitech came close with its universal remote from years ago, but even that still wasn't quite easy enough to setup and use to fully replace all my remotes. That HDMI-CEC or whatever it's called also comes close, but it's restricted to HDMI, obviously leaving non-HDMI devices in the dust.

A lot of the responses disagree. I generally prefer physical remotes, but a touchscreen remote could be pretty sweet for very complex systems (think whole-room/whole-house systems that integrate A/V with lighting, HVAC, etc.) if implemented well. But the whole interaction model with phones and apps is just... wrong for this usecase. The delays, the many swipes and taps just to get to the right screen, the delays, waiting for the app to load and connect to the network, and also the delays.

I've been meaning to hack an old phone to be an instant-on remote with some custom software, but there are always dozens of higher priority projects. If anyone wants to hire/partner with me to build such a thing though...

Logitech's line of Harmony remotes were (are?) great for this. Physical buttons, programmable sequences, and a touch screen.

But have you even seen an app that remained paired to any piece of hardware whatsoever for more than a few minutes?

Using any form of technology? Without dropping one side or the other into an irreparable state that requires power cycling one or both ends at least once and then hoping for the best?

It’d be cool if it worked, by my expectation is that it’ll be implemented by the guy in charge of that YouTube “cast” app that has only theoretically worked one time in a lab in Palo Alto.

I had an app on my Palm Pilot for that, it was really reliable but it was annoying to light up if I was watching something in the dark. One nice thing was that the (rechargeable) battery was always charged up, unlike the physical remote which seemed to be dead more often than it should have been.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com