Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Affordable Large HD/UHD/4K "Stupid" Screens?
New submitter LOGINS SUC (713291) writes Truly in the first-world problems category, I've been looking for large format (>55") HD/UHD screens for home entertainment. In light of the recent Samsung big-brother monitoring and advertisement injection concerns, does any reputable manufacturer still make "stupid" TVs? I don't want to pay for all the WiFi, apps, cameras, or microphones. I don't need it to have speakers. And at this point, I don't even care if it has the TV receiver functionality. All this stuff leads to vendor lock-in or is well on the path to obsolescence by the time I purchase the device. I prefer all of this non-visual functionality be handled by devices better suited to the purpose and I don't want to pay for screens including these widgets I have no intention of ever using, at all.
I've searched all the normal retail outlets. If I find anything, they are wildly expensive. "Computer monitors" fit the bill but are almost all 55") LCDs in the sub-$3,000 range anymore? Are projectors the last bastion of visual purity for home entertainment?
I've searched all the normal retail outlets. If I find anything, they are wildly expensive. "Computer monitors" fit the bill but are almost all 55") LCDs in the sub-$3,000 range anymore? Are projectors the last bastion of visual purity for home entertainment?
Just use a projector. It's inexpensive and typically has no features other than projecting.
You may actually have to pay more for a large screen without all the WiFi and stuff because the production volume for them is a lot smaller.
Live with the fact that you get "extras" for almost no cost.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
...to put on your tinfoil hat before you get out of your bed from your lead-lined walled bedroom....
It's not tinfoil-hatism when it's true. Big brother issues aside, there's a very valid point in his post: Why pay for all those extra electronics/failure points when all you want is a display device. Personally, all I want is a screen and speakers with enough ports on the back for my various systems.
The word is "dumb."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Remo...
http://gizmodo.com/5887808/eve...
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Their 65" 4k (30hz @ 4k resolution) is now on Amazon for $999. The 39" has worked just fine for me, so I imagine the 65" is comparable in terms of quality. (It does have 4 stars on 600+ reviews)
You don't need to buy a dumb TV. All you need to avoid is plugging it into a network.
If you don't plug your home theatre equipment into your network, it can't call home. Done.
Presumably by leaving it unconfigured or intentionally misconfigured, you could trick it into not being very "smart" at all. I would only consider smart TVs with mandatory connectivity (of which I don't know of any) as really falling outside the acceptable criteria here. If you dont like the "smart" features don't freaking use them. Rip the button off the remote and cover it with a bit of black electrical tape. Whatever floats your boat. However, the features come from a $10 ARM SoC which every vendor is building in nowadays since it really doesn't increase their cost much. In fact, as the question suggests, making special TVs without these features is now more expensive since more people want them than don't.
This is where Comcast building wifi hotspots into their cable modems becomes pretty damned insidious - how long until devices like this are "pre-authorized" to automatically connect to the mothership through any available wireless connection?
Imagine if a Samsung TV automatically phoned home through your neighbor's Comcast wifi/modem link not because you enabled it but because Samsung had paid Comcast to allow its devices through. And of course this behavior is on by default and block it, thanks to some timely lobbying, is now a violation of the first amendment (or something equally deranged-but-feasible vis-a-vis corporate personhood).
For example don't user the remote control that came with it, because it has dedicated app buttons that will take 30seconds to fail to launch netflix for you, or worse, offer to walk your wife through wi-fi setup. So you need another remote too. And since they are special your universal remote won't work out of the box, so you'll need to to button to button remapping to get that to work.
You know what would be even better than turning wi-fi off? Not having it at all...kinda of like what the OP asks for.
To answer the OP's question you can buy commercial TV's (like hotel rooms or restaurants buy for their active menus) and they have no smart features. They are widely available at commerical type stores. Lg also makes them up to 65" (we have some installed here). Big, dumb panel. Here is their site:
http://www.lg.com/us/commercia...
Here's a 65" one from Staples:
http://www.staples.com/LG-Supe...
A friend of mine got a TV (can't remember the brand) from a raffle. he doesn't have internet, and the tv will NOT let him use it if he isn't connected to the network to agree to the TOS.
This is where we are heading......
This is why I ended up buying a smart TV even though I don't use any of the smart TV features. Several companies I looked at treat dumb TVs as a lower tier and smart TVs as their upper tier, and not just in terms of the software functionality. Or at the least, because the smart TVs were newer models, they had other newer parts. The screens they use can be different, with different performances. In my case, there still was a literal $20 between a smart TV model and the dumb TV model of the same size, but the smart TV had better color and a wider viewing angle because it used a newer screen. So when they push new features, they update other parts of the TV too, while even if still selling separate models without those features, not updating them.
I have EXACTLY the same issue with cars.
I really don't want (to buy, maintain, or the extra weight, complexity and/or immediate outdatedness of) LCD touchscreens, navigation, parking aids, multimedia systems, blind spot monitors, voice control, OnStar, 57 airbags, hybrid technology, my car connecting to its manufacturer, etc etc.
These "features" are pretty much all literally unavoidable in all cars these days.
I ESPECIALLY don't EVER want a car that drives itself.
I wish someone would just make a new version what used to pass for a sporty car about 20-30 years ago. I.e.a simple, ergonomic cabin that uses physical controls, analog dials, a good motor and a well-sorted suspension, all without the need for any onboard computers at all. I say this as a software engineer, even I know there are some places that are better off without any technology and computers, and the car is one of the best examples I can think of.
I also second the Seiki 39". Got mine from Amazon.com when it was $400. Now it's 2/3 of that.
On my NUC it actually uses the 4K resolution but I rarely use it as a monitor because of the low refresh rate (15Hz) at that resolution.
It is an AWESOME TV!!! I have it hooked up to
- Roku3
- Google Chromecast
- Amazon Fire Stick
If I had to find downsides it would be
- no "discrete code" to switch to a particular input. One selects "source" then scrolls up or down from the current source to the eventual source input. This makes things tougher for scene-remotes.
Ehud
Don't buy one now. High-dynamic-range television is coming, and a consortium of TV suppliers was announced at COMDEX recently. They will work together on coming up with a single standard for HDR. Netflix has also promised to deliver HDR content by year's end. It would be silly to buy a 4K panel that can only process rec-709 now when HDR is right around the corner.
The manual directs you how to bypass this. He's using an LG TV.
It could be argued (and has) that "Smart TV" features, are a value-add for the manufacturer, not the consumer. (because those very features are used to generate revenue, and are not particularly useful to the end-user).
The only real benefit to the end-user is if they're too dumb or lazy to hook up a Roku or other cheap streaming device (or whatever). In fact; I found my Samsung's menus and apps to be so ridiculously slow and poorly designed, that those features are basically unusable. (example: get up in the morning, turn on TV to watch something while I eat breakfast: TV takes at least 60 seconds before Netflix app can even be selected (please wait, the TV is starting up), then another 30 seconds to START the program, then another 30 seconds to display, pick, and enter the profile - OMG-Teh LAG!; we're all used to Netflix taking about 5-10 seconds to fire up the stream of your selected program, plus the remote is shitty, is very sensitive about direction pointing, weird button placement, poor battery life. . . if I instead use the Roku, it's literally 5 seconds to get into where I'm picking the program, the remote has a simple, intelligent layout, and doesn't particularly care if it's pointed perfectly at the device).
As far as "Smart TV" features go, I think it's just this year's "3d" (which, also, nobody wanted.)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.