Is it? I’m still holding onto my TV from 2014 because it doesn’t have “smart” functionality. Every time I look at new ones I can’t find good dumb ones.
Aren’t all smart TVs dumb if you don’t connect them to the internet?
I wouldn’t be surprised if manufacturers start selling TVs that need to be activated online before first use, but I don’t know of any that do that already.
Mine quite happily works as a dumb TV without a connection, and I know many others who do the same. Though I hear stories of TVs being annoying to use without a connection (timing out waiting for a server response that can never come, before falling back to an ad free menu, or just constantly nagging, even while content is playing, about the lack of connectivity).
Yeah I worry about this sort of “annoy the customer into connecting” behavior becoming more common as integrating ads becomes more a part of the business model. Also could connect to open wifi networks in more densely populated areas
The real problem will be integrated cellular connectivity with no option to disable.
I hate my Samsung. All of our TV content comes through our Xfinity internet (no digital antenna, no cable box). However, when you turn the TV on the Samsung defaults to "Samsung TV" set of stations that look like local TV and have commercials. They hijack your internet, bandwidth that you pay for, to feed you commercials that they get paid for.
I have a Samsung but use an Apple TV, I'd recommend disconnecting it and going this route. I was paranoid to give this TV any access to a network, and actually kind of freaked out on my poor wife when she connected it one time when I wasn't home.
Yeah, but if/when that situation comes about, they're not going to let you do that. They'll brick your TV when you pry it out after forcing you to void your warranty by burying it in some difficult-to-access electronic guts.
I'm waiting on some high quality "dumb" TV. I'll happily pay more for not having to worry about all this nonsense and my sense is that I'm not alone (though most people will happily continue to buy non-privacy respecting brands for a lower price).
Likewise (s/Chromecast/Mac Pro/), but mine (LG) has no apparent means to disable Wi-Fi Direct, so it's still potentially vulnerable to local wireless exploits.
That’s Alexa hardware using something like LORAWAN or zigbee or something. Bandwidth is low.
I doubt that (at this stage) TVs have something similar builtin. When they come with Alexa/GHome/... it’s usually the software and not an actual Alexa device built in.
I'm not an expert in this space, but professional displays (e.g., screens mounted in airports, and the like) do not seem notable for their cinematic visual quality-- usually they have a washed out appearance. They're reliable screens, but not made for watching movies.
Can you be so sure it is the screens that are at fault.
When mounted in airports and the like, they are also mounted in environments where the lighting is usually such (i.e., much too bright) that nearly any screen (LCD or old CRT's) would generally appear "washed out". So the effect you see may not be the screens, but instead may be caused by the environments in which you generally see them operating.
> The term you are looking for is “professional display”.
Those cost way more than dumb displays did back before there were smart displays. Look at the 40-inch/43-inch models. They're like $800. I bought all my 40-inch 4k screens for under $300 in 2016.
The insane price gouging in these "professional displays" cannot be explained by advertising subsidies. We weren't paying those prices for equivalent-spec dumb TVs back when those were available for sale.
I have a side-business in digital signage. Professional displays are indeed usually dumb TVs and are made to witstand 24/7 operation and may have higher lumen, etc. They do come at 4k. They also usually come with better management software and more ports. They can be connected to the internet for some remote management but I’ve never used that.
There’s of course a price difference between you $300 cheapo consumer stuff, and a $1000-2000 pro display.
I used to have these pro displays at home with Chromecast, works fine.
If you don't need any "TV" features such as a tuner or speakers, you might consider using a monitor. I use a 32" 4k monitor as my "TV".
In my case, anything with a TV tuner requires an expensive license, so that's another motivating factor, but whenever I use someone else's "smart TV", I'm always relieved that I don't have to deal with glacial UIs and injected ads.
And I use a 55" 4K TV as my "monitor", because sub-$1,000 >>30" monitors with internal 3D LUT-based color calibration aren't a thing.
And, while I don't use the speakers, the TV's S/PDIF output is nevertheless handy for routing the audio output of whichever of the four HDMI inputs is active to the single S/PDIF input on my audio interface.
Finally, the TV has an RS-232 port that allows control of essentially all of the basic "TV" functionality, which was handy for setting up keyboard shortcuts for input switching, power, and brightness control; IME, monitor controls for such things that don't involve diddling with buttons on the side of the device itself are few and far between.
To make matters worse, the SmartTV sold someone in my family just had the SmartTV apps (netflix, etc) taken forcefully off the device because they no longer wished to keep it up to date.
The ubiquitous display control boards with HDMI/VGA on one side and a FFC connector on the other sold... just about everywhere also don't have ads. (Yet.) So get a working panel, pair it with such a thing and you are off to the races!
User friendliness does fall behind a bit, I'll give that.
Depends where you are looking. They are not often carried by big name stores because of a mix of lack of demand and manufacturer kick-backs for selling the smart ones. Any they are relatively expensive, for the same reasons.
Another option is to buy a monitor not a TV, but again because of market scale you'll pay a lot more for a monitor that large. They don't sell enough to consumers for volume savings to kick in, and they are aimed at commercial use so there is at least a little more "make it good rather than cheap" incentive than there is in other markets.
Displays - TVs without the tuner, are very pssibly to buy if you don't mind it beint shipped to you. The sector is a live and well, just not targeted to consumers.
Also, 40-inch 4k screens don't seem to exist anymore. The 43-inch and above have a MUCH larger inter-pixel gap which I can easily notice when using them as a monitor. 50-inch and above are too big for desktop monitor use.
I think the panel manufacturers realized they torpedoed their high-end monitor market with the 40-inch 4k screens which is why they had to nuke them and make the 43-inch displays so crappy.
those have different panels tunned for more ambient lighting and doesn’t have the same color and black reproduction of a good tv panel. just buy a tv and use an external player without connecting the tv to internet and you are set.
Yeah as others have said, the TV can't get online by itself, so you simply don't configure the "Smart" features and it should work just fine (although perhaps that is something to confirm before purchase).
Yes someone else linked to a story where TVs were hopping onto open Wifi, but honestly if a TV I owned ever did that, I would probably toss it and boycott that manufacturer forever.
The sales world you are looking for is a "panel", think something that goes on the wall at a convention center, or as a menu. They very muxh exist, and the stats are no B.S>
Unfortunately they no longer make them. The 43-inch Sceptres have a HUGE black space between the pixels, which you will totally notice if you try to use them as desktop monitors.
I wouldn’t be surprised if manufacturers start selling TVs that need to be activated online before first use, but I don’t know of any that do that already.