Hacker News Reader

Comment by hdjjhhvvhga | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why anyone would like to connect such a thing to their WiFi. An external device gives you flexibility and control. The built-in firmware gives you ads and tracking.

View on HN

Yeah, buy smart TVs for their display panels and image processing, not for their smarts. First thing when setting them up is disabling the wifi and bluetooth and not plugging in ethernet, followed by hooking up an Apple TV 4K/Nvidia Shield/PC.

Also worth factoring ability to update firmare without an internet connection when making a purchase decision. Sony TVs for example typically allow updates via a thumb drive.

Most people do that to use integrated streaming apps. This is less expensive than buying an Apple TV/Chromecast

The cost difference is marginal unless you're buying bargain bin TVs, though.

You underestimate how many people buy that ~3k TV on credit and for whom an extra ~150 bucks for an Apple TV is actually non-trivial money.

In fact that's the reason these ads are there - a lot of people can't be convinced to use an external device to escape them. If everyone used Apple TVs/etc, there would be no built-in ads because it's just not worth the trouble.

If I were in that position I think I'd buy a TV that's lower priced but still quite good ($1.5-$2.5k) and spend the difference on a good streaming box. The value per dollar is much better that way.

I agree $150 might be a lot, but you can get these things even under $30:

https://www.amazon.com/Android-Streaming-Control-Assistant-1...

And Chromecast is arounf $50. That's really not a high price for being able to control your own TV.

The funny thing too is that a lot of TV/Cable providers' set top boxes _already_ include built-in apps, so now you've got your TV that does Netflix, Hulu, etc. - then you _also_ have your set-top box being able to do the same thing.

It just makes things so much more frustrating when you're providing support for the less technically inclined.

$3k on a TV but won't spend an extra $50 on a Chromecast?

It's not just the money. I bought a new LG OLED last year. I didn't care that it had integrated Netflix, YouTube, whatever because I had a chromecast.

But the experience of using the integrated apps is just better. It all just works out of the box, there are basically no ads (some "recommended content", but it's pretty unobtrusive) and I don't need to use my phone or worry about why youtube or netflix have randomly decided not to see the chromecast.

I use my Vizio tv for integrated apps. YoutubeTV, Netflix, Paramount+ and Prime Video all work great, except Prime Video will buffer a lot lately but the other apps never do. It's also very easy to enable/disable Viewing Data and Advertising under Menu/Admin & Privacy.

My dad runs Apple TV since his screen is older, and it's marginally better than my Vizio because most of the time YoutubeTV continues where it left off when turning TV back on which is nice.

I like having only one remote with my TV. I get minor anxiety when at other people's houses and they have 3-4 remotes or more, and usually only one person knows what they all do (the one that had to set it all up).

it's amazing what 21st century can consider an inconvenience...

With the Roku stick, you can set up the remote to control TV power and volume. I stuck the TV remote on the back of the TV with velcro so it won't get lost, but in ordinary use the Roku remote is all you need.

I have an Apple TV 4k ↔ LG OLED ↔ Soundbar setup, and it's all controlled via the Siri Remote. HDMI CEC seems to just work.

Because the vast majority of people aren't tech savvy enough to care about ads and tracking, ads and tracking everywhere is normalized.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com