Hacker News Reader

Comment by torgoguys | Hacker News Reader

I've never owned anything but a dumb TV so excuse what probably is a dumb question but if you buy a smart TV is there a reason you have to use the "smart" features? Why not just never connect it to the network? (Then use an external streaming box and treat it as a dumb tv.)

View on HN

Digital TVs are driven by software and don't really have a "dumb" mode. You only get the options that the software permits you. In at least one case I've seen, the TV remote doesn't work if you don't connect the TV to the Internet and activate it, so you can't select inputs.

I actually bought a Vizio TV years ago on the basis that it was sold with extremely unobtrusive software -- it had Chromecast support and a configuration/remote app you could put on your phone, but otherwise it did what you told it to do and stayed out of your way. They actually released a firmware upgrade six months or so later that added a crappy smart TV interface that has gotten increasingly crappy and intrusive over the years. It was infuriating. I had no way to opt out.

That's wild, I have my vizio completely disconnected from the internet and mostly use chromecast/ps4/pc devices that are connected to it.

I guess I'm willing to try smart tv features but the vizio kept getting into broken blank screen states. it works perfectly fine as a dumb device though.

These are the perils of giving your TV network access. I have a smart TV but you couldn't tell. I use the power button, input, left and right to select the source, and volume, and that's it. And as far as those functions are concerned, this TV is functioning identically to one from 15 years ago. Yes the remote has a button that says 'netflix' on it, but I don't lose sleep over it.

> Why not just never connect it to the network?

I don’t understand this take. I think it's pretty clear a lot of people use Netflix and YouTube and it's incredibly obvious that they wouldn't want to add an extra $100 for a lesser (read: non-integrated) experience to use it on their TV when the TV can do it natively. Of course I'm going to connect my TV to the internet, that's the only thing I use it for.

I think the only solution here would be for appliance vendors to have a "nutrition box" for privacy and advertising, so the user can pick the least obtrusive TV and the vendor cannot just add ads later.

But in the US I don't see that happening this decade.

I've seen the performance, advertising, bugs, and connectivity issues that happen on these smart TVs and in no way are those plug-in devices a "lesser" experience. An Apple TV interface just works and keeps rocking incredibly well. Once you've got one, you can use their one remote for their own controls as well as common TV ones (turning it off/on, volume). You pay a premium to never have to interact with the cruddy TV interface again.

I think they meant leave the TV off the network but use something like an Apple TV to control the media.

You get this take because the solution that works right now is to never connect the TV to the internet, and instead do all of your streaming through an Apple TV (or a Pi Kodi box or something).

I’ve never had a smart tv that ran Netflix, etc natively better than a Roku or Fire Tv. Non-integrated means nothing here. You press a button and get Netflix whether it’s on the Roku or the slower integrated Samsung software.

> I think it's pretty clear a lot of people use Netflix and YouTube and it's incredibly obvious that they wouldn't want to add an extra $100 for a lesser (read: non-integrated) experience to use it on their TV when the TV can do it natively. Of course I'm going to connect my TV to the internet, that's the only thing I use it for.

A decent Roku can be had for $25 on discount. I think it is $35 regular price. And I'll bet it's better than what most smart TVs offer. I haven't used modern smart TVs, but several years ago, the inbuilt apps sucked. Netflix is more likely going to update its Roku app than some app on some TV. Indeed, those friends of mine who bought smart TVs 10 years ago got burnt by this within 2-3 years of purchase.

The only smart TV I used is a Bravia 4K from 2019 and I was able to install Kodi and side load additional extensions. It was good for me. If Sony stops updating it, I think it’s fine to add a dongle to extend its lifespan. But yeah I was thinking of more expensive pieces like Apple TV.

Apple anything is expensive.

The native TV experience is the lesser experience in this case though, and even my non tech peers agree. These devices are so underpowered they scarcely change the volume without input lag. Most everyone I know uses something like an xbox, apple tv, or fire stick, because chances are the vizio netflix app is terrible, and they might not even offer an app for some other streaming service you buy. The only time I've seen someone personally use a smart tv native app was when it was a tv actually made by roku that integrated the roku device.

Where is this $100 number coming from? Chromecast is $30

Apple TV 4K starts at €199. $100 was an average

Any TV can be a dumb TV if you don’t connect it to the network.

This is a completely solvable problem; spend an extra $20, get a Chromecast, and never deal with this again.

"I hate ads. Hm, I know, I'll use Google products!"

I’ve not once been shown an ad just for using a Chromecast, so I guess it’s relative.

Google tv on my nVidia shield is now showing ads on the Home Screen. I don’t think it’s nVidias doing though, just that Google decided to show ads. I should be able to return it, just like my wink that was supposedly free for life…

If there's a company I'd want in the mix less than Vizio, it's Google.

This won’t be the case as soon as companies figure out how to embed always-on 5G cellular modems. They may not have the bandwidth to do software updates, but they can probably squeeze analytics into even the weakest cell reception spots.

I own a "smart" TV (solely because none of the shops in my area sold dumb ones) but have never connected it to the Internet and never installed any software updates (nor do I ever intend to). It remains a screen. I use an Apple TV and another set-top box from my internet provider for streaming.

Some TVs deliver features they've promised through updates. My 2018 Sony needed an update to support Dolby Vision. More recent models needed updates for HDMI 2.1 support.

There are also bugs that get fixed through updates. (HDMI CEC is notorious for this -- an update might fix something but break something else.)

This is precisely what I do. Plug it in for power, connect receiver and let the receiver handle the rest. Xbox, Nvidia Shield, anything else comes from the receiver. My TV is a display and that’s it.

The menu is annoying (Samsungs) and complains about not being “setup” but it works just fine.

Often you must connect it to download updates and set it up. For my last TV I even had to make a Samsung account for god knows why just to set it up. After that I think you can disconnect from WiFi and use it just fine. You can also turn off the system UI if you have an Apple TV or similar so that it goes straight into Apple TV rather than showing the pre-installed apps.

Fwiw, my LG and Samsung TVs both allow updates via thumb drive.

Neither TV has ever been allowed on a network.

I keep my TVs on a separate subnet so I can control them via network, but they are not allowed to reach the internet.

I’ve bought 2 Samsung TVs in last 12 months, neither required internet access to function as a display.

My Samsung Frame TV has never been connected to the internet (and never will be), but still shows constant nag messages. Not only do I have to not fall prey to them, but also must hope that anyone else using the TV does not lest I get ads foisted upon me. I will never buy another Samsung consumer product under any circumstances.

I've got a samsung tv that asks to set up an account, but I can still apply firmware updates with a USB stick, and the TV works fine if you ignore the prompts, and you pretty much don't see the prompts if you use a 3rd party remote that asks for specific inputs.

I recall my last Vizio didn’t allow me to have it forget the WiFi short of doing a factory reset on the device. Very irritating.

These days even HDMI has Ethernet on it so you have to make sure your streaming box doesn't export that to the TV. Or your TV could connect to your neighbor's WiFi or maybe the TV has a 4G/5G modem in it.

Some years ago there was a paper about transmitting malicious TV signals and getting code exploitation on TVs. That could result in a hacked TV that then starts attacking your streaming box to enable networking etc.

> Why not just never connect it to the network?

One reason might be if the TV channels are delivered over IP to an app running on the TV. One could move the app to a streaming box, but that would be largely functionally equivalent since it would still require the same underlying platform.

This is the case with my TV provider (https://www.init7.net/en/support/faq/TV7-Voraussetzungen/).

Now, ads haven't been an issue. However, unwanted Android TV updates have (I've now disabled them).

A streaming box need not be the same platform. I trust my Apple TV to not wantonly invade my privacy when connected to a network, but not Samsung etc.

Fair point.

This is likely the best answer (at least in the short term).

The TV could ship with cellular modems, and download the ads even if not connected to Wifi. While not done today, it could be how it operates in the not-too distant future.

I recall reading the Samsung TVs need to have an internet connection before you can use them for the first time. I don't have a reference..

I can't speak for all Samsung TVs, but we recently purchased a Samsung 75-in Q70R and it has never been connected to the Internet. Works fine. The only time we use the TV remote for anything is volume control and selecting which HDMI input to show.

for Android TVs, you can't even turn on the TV without it being connected

Reply on news.ycombinator.com