Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cheaper Vizio 4K TVs With Built-in Google Cast Are Here (mashable.com)

Posted by msmash on from the Xiaomi-range-prices dept.

An anonymous reader cites a Mashable report: Cutting-edge technology always comes at a premium for early adopters, but it never stays premium for long. After launching its new P-Series 4K TVs with built-in Google Cast last month, Vizio is bringing the feature to its lower-priced TVs. The 2016 M-Series 4K TVs start at $849.99 for a 50-inch and rocket up to $3,999.99 for an 80-inch. They support high dynamic range (HDR) with Dolby Vision. The E-Series 4K TVs are much cheaper. They start at $469.99 for a 43-inch and go up to $1,699.99 for a 70-inch. Vizio's also selling non-4K full HD E-series TVs with SmartCast starting at $229.99 for a 32-inch and going up to $369.99 for a 43-inch.

81 comments

  1. I'll think about it by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When they come out with a 4K display that is JUST a 4K display, not some super integrated multi-media hub with shit loads of built in software that will invade my privacy, a remote that has more buttons than NASA's mission control and almost requiring a network connection to just turn on.

    I want a 4K display that has ONE input, that I will then connect to whatever multimedia system I choose.

    When that happens I will get a new display, for now I'll stick with my plain HD TV till it burns out and I can't repair is anymore.

    (Yeah, I know that is never going to happen but I can still dream.)

    1. Re:I'll think about it by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      You can just not connect it to the network, and not use the apps. Personally, I prefer the apps on my TV to the ones on the Roku box I used to use, but that's certainly a matter of preference.

    2. Re:I'll think about it by rfengr · · Score: 2

      I'd need one with 3 HDMI inputs; sons XBox, Apple TV, FireTV running XMBC.

    3. Re:I'll think about it by phorm · · Score: 1

      Actually, casting is probably one of the uses I *would* like to see in a smart TV. Screw a bunch of built-in apps that are poorly maintained and don't support future functionality, whatever is on your device should work.

      Still, this seems more like ChromeCast, which is usually a type of buffered casting. I'd like to see something that is more like Mirroring etc, and better support for non-mobile devices. Being able to cast my laptop to the TV/etc as a second display wirelessly would be great (code on one, render on another).

    4. Re:I'll think about it by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      55 inch 4k and a 4k roku cost me less than these at xmas. I've yet to figure out why I want any smarts in the TV. A TV should last 15+ years my 4k replaced a massive 1080 flat tube from 2000 ish who frankly the only issue was the lack of HDCP on it's DVI input. The roku is mostly because 4k hardware decoding it's a bit in it's infancy x265 is coming out so I figure a rpi or similar will be able to hang in a year or two to run plex.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    5. Re:I'll think about it by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Google for commercial displays. Many are smart but there are also many with just display and inputs.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    6. Re:I'll think about it by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, you don't need to wait for a TV with minimal features. It's not like a TV without those extras would likely reduce the cost much anyhow. Just buy the TV with the display you want, and ignore everything else (and don't give it your wi-fi passcode). Third-party media set-top devices appear to be more popular than ever, so it seems unlikely that you'll be forced to using any of those "smarts" anytime soon.

      I'm quite pleased with my current Visio (a normal HD model), and will certainly consider buying another. Like you, I really only need the TV's display capabilities and a single HDMI port. My receiver is my HDMI switching hub, and I use my Xbox One as my primary media interface, with various apps that stream media from paid services or from my local media server.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    7. Re:I'll think about it by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I want a 4K display that has ONE input, that I will then connect to whatever multimedia system I choose

      Why one? Unless you don't have any consoles and are willing to drop all legacy support, they almost can't give me enough inputs.

      But I agree the built in stuff is trash that can't be trusted.

    8. Re:I'll think about it by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      Not connecting it is an option, for now. My friend has a "smart" TV and loves all the built in apps. Though he is starting to get freaked out by the privacy issues that he's heard about.

      I actually have more of a multimedia setup than he does with 3 game consoles, 2 computers, and a dedicated HTPC connected to my display. I only use one HDMI input on the TV/display, all the input switching and needed display functions (set has RS232 port for on/off/etc. control) are handled by an external HDMI switch and small SBC with some custom programming and I/O hardware to detect what hardware is active and to listen to the one remote that rules them all. I know its way more than most people need but it was fun to setup and only having the single remote is really nice. And it gives me total control over what third party software is running on my TV, none.

      I just think a TV should be a TV, a simple display. The more software that gets crammed into it the more likely there is to be issues later.

      But your totally correct to say it is all a matter of personal preference.

    9. Re:I'll think about it by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      It already exists, it's called Miracast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Having used both Miracast and Google Cast, I can tell you that Google Cast is much better for 99% of the use cases. It doesn't drain your phone battery, is much less buggy and continue to works even if your phone is out of range / powered off. Also with cast instead of mirroring, you can use the TV remote to play/pause which is a lot more intuitive. It's often the best of both worlds: use the cellphone/pc/tablet to search and start the movie (faster CPU, better keyboard), but the TV gets the content directly from the Internet without having to be decompressed/recompressed by your phone/pc/tablet.

      Too bad there is no open standard comparable to Google Cast.

    10. Re:I'll think about it by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      I can relate. As seen in my reply to another post on this thread.

      https://entertainment.slashdot...

      XBMC for the win :)

    11. Re:I'll think about it by slaker · · Score: 1

      I gave my TV an IP only because it supports Miracast. I can use that feature without agreeing to the TOS for the other Smart features. I've never agreed to LG's terms and conditions and in fact I've never used it for anything but a huge computer monitor and/or Miracast destination. If it wants to report to LG that there's some DLNA servers and a bunch of mobile devices, set top boxes and PCs so be it, 'cause it's not going to have the credentials to access anything important.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    12. Re:I'll think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a public service, if you have it on the net, email VIZIO to remove your product ID from (part of) their data collection.
      privacy@vizio.com

      Also, this:
      Thank you for your recent inquiry with VIZIO. I would be more than happy to help you. Here at VIZIO we do offer best in class support.
      Your request to remove your personal information is being processed. Please follow these steps to turn off the Smart Interactivity feature within your TV:
      For VIA TVs:
        1. Press the MENU button on your TV''s remote.
        2. Select Settings
        3. Highlight Smart Interactivity
        4. Press the RIGHT arrow to change the setting to OFF
        For VIA+ TVs:
        1. Press the MENU button on your TV''s remote or open the HDTV Settings app.
        2. Select System
        3. Select Reset & Admin.
        4. Highlight Smart Interactivity
        5. Press the RIGHT arrow to change the setting to OFF
      ---
      Unfortunately, as I understand, you cannot eliminate the possibility of their hashing the video you are watching, and maybe the filenames on the USB, and uploading it to their servers.

      I'll never buy another vizio product - I have to work too hard to try to protect myself from them.

    13. Re:I'll think about it by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      Only need one input because i only use one, external HDMI switch handles the 6 signal sources. But yeah, for most people they are going to need more than one input, unless they have something like my setup. https://entertainment.slashdot...

    14. Re:I'll think about it by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Just stick a Chromecast in and you are good to go. I just don't like using a phone or tablet as a remote. I prefer buttons I can feel and don't have to look at. That's the downside of Chromecast, which is otherwise pretty cool. I do sometimes find that queuing up youtube music videos via a phone is a nice way to explore, as you can choose another while one is still playing.

    15. Re:I'll think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likely never.

      There's no such thing as dumb devices anymore. It's too expensive to design purpose-specific logic for anything because you'll never see any one product in production for a few months.

      You get powerful cheap cpu, ad some logic blocks for your application, and write it all in software.

      Adding smart capabilities ads virtually zero cost to the final product and most consumers see it as an added value.

      Your needs are an edge case and will not get served.

      I suggest you get used to it.

    16. Re:I'll think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then you block the TV's MAC address on your router from receiving or sending packets to the internet.

    17. Re:I'll think about it by adolf · · Score: 1

      I can only imagine needing 1 HDMI and 1 component input, because I cannot imagine ever listening to the sound that flat-panel TVs produce and the best solution for that is an AV receiver.

      The HDMI input is obvious. The component input is to handle everything analog, in particular video game systems that predate HDMI, because the conversion from analog component to digital HDMI (which most AVRs can do) can add noticeable latency, while most analog-analog conversions can be handled by an AVR in the analog domain with zero latency.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    18. Re:I'll think about it by IMightB · · Score: 3

      Don't worry, based on my experience, the tv based apps will be unsupported in 12-24 months and you'll go back to the roku. ie many of the apps on my smart tv do not work anymore.

    19. Re:I'll think about it by Holi · · Score: 1

      This one is basically a small android computer with a big display, they even dropped the tuner.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    20. Re:I'll think about it by batkiwi · · Score: 2

      So you want a monitor, not a TV?

    21. Re:I'll think about it by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Um do chromecast support 4k yet? 2nd gen came out last fall with no support for 4k. You can soft decode x265 on a rpi at 1080p 4k not so much.

      Tablets and phones are fine casting from a PC can get interesting with chrome extensions etc. You can use CEC for remote functionality it tends to be a bit clunky.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    22. Re:I'll think about it by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I want a 4K display that accepts DVI/DisplayPort and actually does 60 or 120Hz. I haven't seen any of these displays do anything beyond 30fps (measured, not reported back to the computer).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    23. Re:I'll think about it by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Already exists. I install them all the time.

      it's called a commercial set. but you will refuse to buy one.

      Because the 80" is $11,500. and actually comes with NO inputs. you have to buy an input card for each input. we order them with a single DVI as that is far better than HDMI for places like courtrooms.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    24. Re:I'll think about it by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Dang autocorrect.... Displayport (DP) instead of DVI.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    25. Re:I'll think about it by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      OK, yeah, technically, I want a monitor.

      Not much of a difference anymore. "Smart TVs" are just monitors with built in computers running one OS or another and a bunch of pre-installed run-on-start-up applications with the option of switching to an external input. Just like a dual input monitor.

    26. Re:I'll think about it by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Why do you want an external HDMI switch, rather than have that built into the TV? (Yes, I realize most TVs don't have 6 HDMI in..) Though I admit I use an old hard drive/DVD recorder as a 'switcher' for some analog sources mostly (and watch DVDs through it as it has the best play-faster-with-sound of anything I have.. good for commentary/documentares, etc).

      Though I admit I wish more devices would do daisy-chaining like Xbox One tried (and AFAIK has mostly failed at, but I've personally never used it), and the way you could in the long past with a TV/VCR button on a VCR (to then let the raw cable signal through to use the TV's tuner when recording something, for example).

    27. Re:I'll think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the truth. Consumer electronics companies are not software companies. I would call it "shit it and forget it" when it comes to any TV I have seen.

    28. Re:I'll think about it by dbraden · · Score: 2

      I would agree with you about the audio based on other people's flat-panels, but I must admit I've been very happy with mine. It's a 6 year old 50" Panasonic Viera P50G20 (and, yes, it's a plasma!:), and its audio actually sounds really really good. Sure, it doesn't produce bass that you can feel in your bones, but that's what the surround sound receiver is for, though I rarely use it.

      I dread the day I need to replace it because of the good audio and the picture is still amazing (it's in a basement, so it doesn't need to compete with direct sunlight). Hopefully the newer TVs are even better and I won't be disappointed.

    29. Re:I'll think about it by jcr · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on that. I'm not trusting anything running Android in my house.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    30. Re:I'll think about it by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Umm there is a big difference between a monitor and TV. Monitors almost always have at least a displayport or DVI port as well as HDMI, better DPI, faster response time, and they always have the worst speakers available (think speakers from the reject box from the speak-n-spell factory)

    31. Re:I'll think about it by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      they always have the worst speakers available (think speakers from the reject box from the speak-n-spell factory)

      Manufacturers can thus charge a premium for a "gaming" monitor.

      Remember that desktops are purchased for cubicle drones who, if they are listening to stuff during work hours, should plug in a headset so as not to alert their boss/disturb co-workers.

    32. Re:I'll think about it by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      When they come out with a 4K display that is JUST a 4K display, not some super integrated multi-media hub with shit loads of built in software that will invade my privacy, a remote that has more buttons than NASA's mission control and almost requiring a network connection to just turn on.

      How is this post Insightful? Poster clearly didn't even RTFA, since his complaint is basically the whole point of this TV! The TV has almost no software on it other than Google Cast (think of it as a dumb TV + a Chromecast embedded in it).

      Most of the software is on the (Android) remote control - or you can use any Android device with the Vizio software installed.

      That said, IMO Google Cast is a horrible way for most people to interact with their televisions. They will gain a few millennial customers, but otherwise lose a ton from the rest of their market.

      Anyway, that whole "smart" issue notwithstanding, who cares? The "smart" features don't really add much to the cost. In the end plug in HDMI and it's a monitor, big deal.

    33. Re:I'll think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its audio actually sounds really really good

      No, just no. Good, maybe. But not really good, and certainly not really really good. I think you just need to listen to ANY decent speakers and/or surround system :)

      Also, while plasma still has some advantages over many of the current LCDs on the market, OLED is finally here "for real". The upcoming 2016 LG OLED I have seen are almost unbelievable in their contrast, black level, and brightness. And hopefully by 2017 they will actually also be reasonably affordable...

    34. Re:I'll think about it by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, bought a super shiny Sony TV to go with the super shiny psx and we used to watch youtube vids on it. A couple months later that stopped working and now we are back to using the Rpi for youtube. No updates available, it just stopped working (for whatever reason). Eventually I gave it away and bought a super shiny monitor so that I don't have to pay for a TV license (where I live you have to pay for a TV license if you own a TV, even if you don't watch any of the drivel on public broadcast)

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    35. Re:I'll think about it by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I can only imagine needing 1 HDMI and 1 component input, because I cannot imagine ever listening to the sound that flat-panel TVs produce and the best solution for that is an AV receiver.

      My receiver doesn't have HDMI inputs, you insensitive clod! But my TV does have a digital audio output and it passes audio through to my receiver... and it has multiple HDMI inputs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:I'll think about it by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      P50G25 owner here. Don't be surprised if it dies soon. My unit just popped its 2nd SC board and is sitting on the floor awaiting repair. Disassembly isn't too hard, but the board repair involves a ton of soldering (31 parts, some surface mount), so I sent it out to a re-builder (replacement boards are hard to come by).

      LCDs still aren't on par with plasma viewing angles and black levels. OLED should hopefully be better.

    37. Re:I'll think about it by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Why do you want an external HDMI switch, rather than have that built into the TV?

      Because my TV is mounted on a wall while all my AV equipment is not. I want 2 cables running to my TV: a HDMI cable and a power cable. My receiver serves as the HDMI switch since all my audio has to go through it anyways.

    38. Re:I'll think about it by operagost · · Score: 1

      Monitors rarely have a composite or component input. They also rarely have more than one HDMI input. If you play older console games or have both cable/satellite and a media box or a BluRay player, you're already SOL unless you buy a switchbox or have a media receiver.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    39. Re:I'll think about it by operagost · · Score: 1

      That's what I've done. The answer is to replace my cheap old LG home-theater-in-a-box system with a real receiver, but MONEY.

      I used to have a nice Technics, but that was pre-HDMI and when I went HD the receivers were prohibitively expensive for me.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:I'll think about it by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Not much of a difference anymore. "Smart TVs" are just monitors with built in computers running one OS or another and a bunch of pre-installed run-on-start-up applications with the option of switching to an external input. Just like a dual input monitor.

      Actually, even general TVs always had a OS on them. Even the dumbest of the dumb displays often had firmware updates even without "smart" features (usually labelled as "service" USB port). The only reason we have a proliferation of smart TVs is because the CPU controlling the TV hardware (and doing the GUI and such) went from being a puny ARM used to control the scalers and overlays and GUIs.

      Thing is, the smartphone revolution has made it such that it's more economical to build the video processing hardware into the GPU and tie it into a dual core or higher processor. Qualcomm at one point wanted to release a "TV SoC" but low demand made them cancel it.

      So basically TVs started getting smart features because the video processors started getting super powerful as smartphones made the SoCs really cheap. TV manufacturers could use the old scaler chips or for the same price (due to higher volumes) use the new SoCs with higher end GPUs and scalers. At the same time, they could add value by adding the smart features to soak up some of that excess CPU and GPU power.

    41. Re:I'll think about it by phorm · · Score: 1

      Sorry, what I meant to say is that I wish more TVs etc supported Miracast (and as mentioned, it would mainly be for non-phone purposes).

      Google Cast is good but limited to supported apps. No reason they can't support both though.

    42. Re:I'll think about it by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      win10 (and 8?) has built-in support for Miracast, even on non-phone.

    43. Re:I'll think about it by phorm · · Score: 1

      According to Google, there's also "MiracleCast" in the Linux realm which should work, but one still needs a supported TV (or a dongle, I suppose, but built-in would be nice).

    44. Re:I'll think about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A TV has a NTSC/ATSC tuner. A monitor does not have a tuner. That is the difference between the two.

    45. Re:I'll think about it by ooshna · · Score: 1

      "gaming" monitors have nothing to do with speakers. Its all about that sweet sweet refresh rate.

  2. Only if it's airgapped by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Vizio smart TVs sell your viewing habits to advertisers. The day I learned that is the day I yanked my Vizio's ethernet cable, hardcoded it's Wi-Fi network address to 169.254.something, and added its MAC addr to my router's banlist. There's no way in hell I'd ever, ever connect a Vizio TV to my home network, because the corporation has a demonstrated and recent history of treating its paid customers like trash.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re: Only if it's airgapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. I'm supposed to be upset that Vizio or Yahoo know that I watch Daredevil, Arrow, and Jessica Jones? Allowing them access to such benign information is worth it to have one button access to Netfliix, Amazon, and others.

    2. Re:Only if it's airgapped by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      yanked my Vizio's ethernet cable...

      You could have stopped right there.

      ... hardcoded it's Wi-Fi network address to 169.254.something, and added its MAC addr to my router's banlist.

    3. Re:Only if it's airgapped by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Wait till they cut a deal with the cable company's so it registers to their wifi roaming to phone home. Not that hard to have them look for CableWIFI or similar.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    4. Re:Only if it's airgapped by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      169.254.x.x is not a private network IP space. You're using someone else's allocated IP space, and leave yourself theoretically vulnerable to network failures by using it.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    5. Re:Only if it's airgapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can disable the data collection via the menu.

    6. Re:Only if it's airgapped by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      What're you talking about?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:Only if it's airgapped by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      You could have stopped right there.

      I'd configured it for Wi-Fi before I learned that it was malware, and there's not a way to unconfigure it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:Only if it's airgapped by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      They enabled it without asking. I have zero confidence that they won't do so again.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:Only if it's airgapped by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Well, I learn something new every day. But 169.254.x.x is still not private network IP space.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    10. Re:Only if it's airgapped by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Again, what are you talking about?

      Link local addresses are a specialized type of private network address space. In contrast to ranges specifically called out for private networks, the addresses are both non-global and non-fowardable. You are not supposed to manually configure an interface with a link local address because that configuration may not respect certain rules regarding duplicate detection and automatic configuration, but if you want to guarantee that the traffic will not be forwarded it's a hacky way to do it.

      A non-hacky way to do it would be MAC address filtering, but a lot of consumer routers only permit you to whitelist MAC addresses, which is a royal pain in the ass. I suppose that you could also assign the device a reserved, private network IP through DHCP and then specify a static route to nowhere or a firewall rule. That presumes that you have equipment which allows you to do that.

    11. Re:Only if it's airgapped by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about this

      169.254.x.x are not defined as private network IPs (RFC1918), and it operates on different rules than a private network IP. You cannot directly route out packets from a private network IP to a legitimate internet IP and vice versa, period.

      I'm not sure why link-local addresses (169.254.x.x) needed to come about, but its appears network engineers wanted a fallback towards IP assignment if the DHCP server failed. Even though 169.254.x.x is not supposed to be directly routable to the internet, it appears that it can be routed anywhere within a domain of internet-valid IPs, which could make it vulnerable to an unintended routing configuration error.

      If I wished to "guarantee" there would not be a way to hack a direct connection from the internet to a machine in a private network, I would be using RFC1918 defined IPs, not link-local addresses.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    12. Re:Only if it's airgapped by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Even though 169.254.x.x is not supposed to be directly routable to the internet, it appears that it can be routed anywhere within a domain of internet-valid IPs, which could make it vulnerable to an unintended routing configuration error. ...

      If I wished to "guarantee" there would not be a way to hack a direct connection from the internet to a machine in a private network, I would be using RFC1918 defined IPs, not link-local addresses.

      Link local addresses cannot be routed. RFC6890 specifically states this. If you're willing to assume equipment that violates this, then there's no reason to assume that a private network address will be treated any differently.

      Your zeal to be correct ignores the original problem -- RFC1918 defined IPs are forwardable. Consumer equipment already, by default, assignes a private network IP and forwards the traffic to the global network. That is what the original poster specifically did not want to have happen. The original poster does not care whether there is a "direct" or forwaded connection -- he or she wants no connection whatsoever.

      Your solution is simply not a solution.

    13. Re:Only if it's airgapped by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. Delete the wifi password, and turn off the network connection.

      Or do a reset.

    14. Re:Only if it's airgapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I learn something new every day. But 169.254.x.x is still not private network IP space.

      Nobody said it was. You're arguing with nobody. It's not routable, which is exactly what the person you responded to wanted. The whole rest of this threat is you going down some crazy rabbit hole.

    15. Re:Only if it's airgapped by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      You can't delete its password or turn off the network. It's always on, and the best you can do is reassociate it. Rather than all that, I just gave it an unrouteable network.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    16. Re:Only if it's airgapped by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I double checked our Vizio E400i-B2 and you're right, you can't turn off the network. Though I wonder if it will turn off wireless if you plug in a network cable. The only solutions I could see were using an invalid/unroutable address and/or invalid password and/or playing around with MAC filtering or other router features..or going with a full factory reset.

      For my sake, switching the thing to DHCP would also work since our setup uses static addresses and DHCP is not enabled on the router.

    17. Re:Only if it's airgapped by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I've toyed with temporarily configuring my router with a weirdly named guest network, associating my TV to that, then removing the guest network so that it's trying to associate to something that no longer exists. I should probably get around to trying that.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  3. Do they put DisplayPort on these? by swb · · Score: 1

    I could almost see a 43" 4k computer monitor on my desk. It would be physically big enough to use without display scaling.

    1. Re:Do they put DisplayPort on these? by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Many people do this. The key is to get a TV/monitor of high enough quality to support a 4:4:4 chroma values (big difference in text clarity), HDMI 2.0+ ports (or displayport), can support 60hz at 2160p, and the response time/input lag has to be quick enough to not spoil lower end gaming. Unfortunately, they're still too expensive, and there are still too many gotchas.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    2. Re:Do they put DisplayPort on these? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not sure if these specific TVs have DisplayPort, but some do. You could also get a video card that supports HDMI out at 4k. Or a DisplayPort to HDMI active adapter (though that might add some lag).

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Do they put DisplayPort on these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mango wasabi has a 4k that is exactly what you want for a bit over 600, even includes freesync(vesa adaptive sync). can go larger but imo 40" class(38-42" or so) is the perfect size for a normal desk.

    4. Re:Do they put DisplayPort on these? by swb · · Score: 2

      I have three 1680x1050 displays now (I built my own desk 15 years ago to accommodate 2x21" glass tubes) so I have the room for it.

      But I did two simple scale drawings -- one of pixel resolution and one of physical dimensions.

      The good -- a single 3840x2160 panel at 1:1 scaling is 5x the display real estate of a single 1600x1050 display (more like 4x usable 1680x1050 displays). I could literally dump my entire multi-monitor setup for the 40" Mango display and gain the equivalent of a 4th display.

      The bad is I would worry the additional height would be a bit of an egonomic nightmare. My existing displays are 4" above the desktop. The Mongo stand appears to be lower than mine, but not much more than 2", which would leave the top edge of the display area nearly 7" taller than my existing display.

      The only other thing I can think of that might be an issue is how retarded "full" screen is and Windows clunky display for virtually splitting large screens. I use DisplayFusion now and it can do virtual window splits (so that maximizing a window in a region treats it as if it was a display the size of a region), but it only really works for window management -- watching a video "full" screen takes over the whole screen.

    5. Re:Do they put DisplayPort on these? by bobwoodard · · Score: 1

      I do this and something I've changed my mind about is monitors with a curve. I thought the curve was a gimmick, but after using a 43" 4k samsung for a few months, I'm wishing I would have spent the extra $ on the curve. Even at 43" (I sit about 3' away), stuff in the corners is noticeable "far away" from stuff in the middle of the monitor.

      Refresh rates on the monitors and video cards that support them are the other part of the equation. No use plugging the monitor into a video card that can't support a decent refresh rate

  4. You're doing it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the inputs go the the receiver which does the switching. The receiver has a single HDMI to the TV and none of the other boxes need to live near the TV.

  5. I can work with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it has memory, it can be flashed. So I'll just adapt (read - find) it to the software of my choice.

  6. So like Android TVs do already by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

    What make these Vizio TV any different from the many Android TV devices that have had Google Cast for a while now?

    My Sony 65x810C has had Google Cast since I bought it for $1200 at Black Friday. Same price range as the Vizio e-series.

  7. p.s. proper way to install a smart t.v. by m.dillon · · Score: 1

    ... is to disable all of its smarts. If you value your privacy, don't let it connect to the internet!

    I'll take a regular 4K monitor without any bells and whistles thank you very much. And if it has a microphone or camera built into it that will be the first thing I stick my soldering iron into before I begin using it for real. Gouge out its eyes and ears, and we're good.

    -Matt

    1. Re:p.s. proper way to install a smart t.v. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      All the candidates stink and there's no way you can agree with everything they say. Just get over it and move on with your damn lives.

      You people do realize that you can't have cable service either, since the settop boxes are all capable of snooping.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    2. Re:p.s. proper way to install a smart t.v. by m.dillon · · Score: 1

      Which is why I run the cable box into a dedicated ethernet port on the server and run a point-to-point VPN to a colo. Comcast aint gonna be snooping much :-) Nor will Verizon, since I drill an openvpn link to the colo from my phone as well.

      -Matt

    3. Re:p.s. proper way to install a smart t.v. by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense. If you are watching cable or streaming video, the provider knows what you are watching, VPNs won't change that.

    4. Re:p.s. proper way to install a smart t.v. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense. If you are watching cable or streaming video, the provider knows what you are watching, VPNs won't change that.

      Nobody but extreme paranoids cares if the cable co knows what they are watching on cable. This is about not having the box snooping your network, especially if it is compromised.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:p.s. proper way to install a smart t.v. by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      It was for the poster I responded to...

      Which is why I run the cable box into a dedicated ethernet port on the server and run a point-to-point VPN to a colo. Comcast aint gonna be snooping much

      cable box = Comcast. Do as much as you want to encrypt a cable box's network access, it's pointless if they own the software on the box itself!

  8. Vizio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never heard of them before.

  9. It is Vizio .... a dead TV after 2 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When it comes to Vizio, the words "you get what you pay for" are always applicable.

    Vizio makes garbage TVs. They are the most unreliable brand in the market today. Vizio TVs are notorious for not lasting more than 2 years.