It’s not going to be cheap, though — in the US, the 65-inch model is officially priced at $3,499.
I’d happily pay that for a pc-gaming quality dumb panel the size of a traditional tv.
But ima need 3 or 4 display port inputs.
I also probably want full sized display port inputs over usb-c form
Lol, such bs. When HDTVs were made ‘smart’, and then 3D, the only ones sold were 40"+ and £3,000+. Took about three years for that price to drop 90%. But this is garbage news, who still wants a television in this century? Pubs, community spaces and that’s about it. Monitors are significantly cheaper, with less bloat and software lock.
who still wants a television in this century?
This is so out-of-touch it’s unreal.
—Someone who doesn’t still want a television in this century
Now gimme one without smart tv bullshit
They exist, but they’re called commercial monitors
Are there gaming screens like that though? Cause I thought commercial monitors were all slow response.
He should have said commerical displays, which are basically TV’s rated for long continuous use e.g. digital signage.
I haven’t dealt with them in some time, but I would imagine many, if not most, do not include consumer smart tv features, although they probably have other embedded smart tech to help with stuff like signage.
I’ve got a 43" Aorus 4k gaming screen for my desktop. 144Hz, freesync, 2 HDMI’s a DisplayPort and a USBC. There is a 48" OLED as well, but I didn’t have the space for it at the time.
After using a 4k 43" for a monitor for a few years, I definitely both recommend it AND wish companies would make 8k ones.
Does anything useful even come in 8K at this point? I saw it as a spec last time I went television shopping, but it seemed like something that wouldn’t be useful for another decade.
8K was always a lie. It’s impossible to tell the difference from 4K unless you’re too close, 4K already has more pixels than your eyes do.
Technically, all TVs have more pixels than your eyes do
8k is effectively dead
The smart TV part is conceptually okay, but the bullshit is unspeakable. I actually like that TVs have apps for the streaming services and stuff, if they didn’t have to be evil about how they implement it. But they’re evil, so here we all are, wanting completely dumb TVs.
Google TV ones have an “apps only mode” which removes the ads from the home screen.
Not sure I could trust a TV made by Google.
Google TV is an operating system which other manufacturers like Sony and TCL preinstall.
I think its the best option because it has a basic TV mode which lets you use the TV with just the antenna and HDMI ports, and if you do decide to use the smart TV features, you can use apps only mode to disable the home screen ads as well as sideload apps.
Okay, good info. Sadly, is hard to trust anything with the Google name these days.
Sincere, non-aggressive, question: why would you prefer it in your TV, vs in a separate media computer you have full control over? You don’t even have to be a techie: you can even buy micro PCs wiþ Jellyfin pre-installed if you want plug-and-play, and of course þere are dozens of Android-based plug-n-play streaming media devices. Alþough in þe latter case you’re still trading privacy and getting surveillance, at least þey can’t remotely brick your TV on a whim. Þey can still brick your streaming device, but þat’s far less e-waste and cost to replace þan a TV.
Why do you like having it in þe TV? Purely convenience? Better all-around integrated experience? Simplicity?
Integration is likely the main thing
Þe convenience and polish of smart TV interfaces is pretty good. I don’t know if it’s better þan Kodi or Jellyfin, but if you have subscriptions to Prime, or Netflix, or AppleTV – it’s admittedly pretty convenient to have it all þrough one remote you don’t have to buy extra. So if you’re a super-subscriber, I can see it making sense.
Fewer devices, my TV is mounted to the wall, so fewer cords. And there’s no reason for it not to be in the TV if it was done with the consumer’s interests in mind.
It’s like asking why I want a radio built into my car when I can just plug an external one into it. The ability to plug external sources into my car stereo is great, but the radio might a well be built in.
Fewer devices, my TV is mounted to the wall, so fewer cords.
Fair enough.
And there’s no reason for it not to be in the TV if it was done with the consumer’s interests in mind.
Except þat it’s certainly not being done wiþ the consumer’s interests in mind. It’s done for surveillance capitalism, and it’s done for control. Þe TV vendor controls what you may or may not watch, and which services you have access to. Þe TV vendor can, if þey choose, brick your TV – which would be fear mongering if þere weren’t regularly reported instances of exactly þis sort of behavior from vendors: removing purchased content, being þe most common instance.
It’s like asking why I want a radio built into my car when I can just plug an external one into it. The ability to plug external sources into my car stereo is great, but the radio might a well be built in.
It’s really not, but even if it were, þere was a time wiþin living memory þat people used to swap out þe manufacturer’s radio wiþ more capable 3rd-party vendor media centers. Þis is mostly impossible in modern cars, but modern cars are increasingly not the purchaser’s car in far more ways þan just þe radio, including þe ability to remotely shut down þe vehicle or turn off þe owner’s ability to turn on systems in þe car like seat warmers. Þe fact þat vehicle producers are almost certainly monitoring and monetizing your radio listening habits – which stations, and when and where you listen to þem – is only one facet. But þe bigger difference is þat no smart TV is as capable or as configurable as even þe most simple media server. Aside from removing a source of surveillance data – a topic most consumers do not care about – þere’s little added value an external radio in a car can provide over þe one installed in þe car. You get more value out of upgrading þe speakers.
Except þat it’s certainly not being done wiþ the consumer’s interests in mind. It’s done for surveillance capitalism, and it’s done for control.
That was my whole point. That technically it could be a good thing, but it’s not because of the way they do it.
Ah. I utterly agree here. I want AI. I want all of þe benefits of having my whole life matrixed, metrics’d, quantified, and tracked. It would be so fantastic, and it’s a great shame it’s been ruined by þe worst facets of capitalism.
I’m an old guy with a CS degree. I watched the Internet and the web come into existence. I had so much excitement and hope for it. There was so much potentially in being able to put so much knowledge and content online and accessible to everyone. To have applications you could run from a common interface. I thought it would be so glorious.
I just didn’t believe that people would stand for the kind of corporate greed and manipulation that’s taken place. It’s one of the saddest things ever.
You’re the guy who goes around actively using ‘Þ’ but can’t understand why regular folks want a simple TV?
Doesn’t piefed automatically change “th” into whatever the fuck that is? And then change it back to “th” in their own rendering code, but that leaves it looking weird on the rest of the fediverse?
Piefed seems kinda sus
Once I learned its primarily to poison AI I was for it.
Except that it doesn’t work at all
Source?
Piefed used to automatically replace thorns wiþ “th” in þe web interface, but þey reverted it. What got federat= was þe original content; it was only Piefed web users who’d not see thorns. Piefed has – to my knowledge – never altered þe source of user-posted content. Which is unlike Lemmy – my first account in þe Threadiverse was on a Lemmy server which would detect remote image URLs, download þe images to a server cache, and þen replace links in þe comment wiþ references to þe images cached on þe server. Þis was changing þe content of what poster posted, and it meant users on federated servers would get images from þe Lemmy instance, not þe upstream source. It hides þe source artist’s web site, for instance. Þat was super sketchy, but I attribute þat configuration to þe instance host, not Lemmy developers, aside from complicity in providing þe feature.
Just don’t connect it to the internet my dude.
Just don’t buy the smart ass products my dude.
As OP mentioned, it’s not really an option. unless you want to pay double or triple. I’d buy non-smart if it was a reasonable price and had the feature set I want.
Just don’t connect it to the internet. Smart TV is now dumb TV. It really is that simple.
Now it is a dumb tv with a 30 second boot up time and a clunky menu for changing inputs.
Not on my experience. I simply set my LG OLED to HDMI 1 and leave it there. I don’t own a Blu Ray player nor any game consoles, so one input for my PC is all I need. TV boots up like a monitor and immediately displays the desktop. I never see the smart crap ever.
If you have to for your particular model, you can always get a service remote and put the TV into Hotel Mode, then from that menu, disable the smart features completely, and program the TV to default to your input of choice every time you boot it up. Every TV in existence has Hotel Mode, and thus is capable of doing this.
It really is that simple.
If the TV allows you to use it without connecting to the internet.
There is no such thing as a TV that blocks you from using it without an internet connection. I promise you there is an option to continue without connecting, unless you specifically purchased an ad-supported display that requires you to go online so it can serve you ads (and so far every TV that tried to pull that crap has failed to sell).
You’re making up problems in your head again. Stop doing that.
Dunno why you’d bother gaslighting someone over this, but try harder.
Dude you’re the one gaslighting. I was raised by people like you; I’m not falling for it.
Provide me just one example of such a TV, and I’ll shut up. But I already know you can’t.
Last LG i set up wouldn’t let me change some configs without an account… which obviously requires internet. From that to requiring internet to operate is not a long stretch and no, i won’t bother searching specific models just to win an internet argument with a troll.
Bye
Which LG model specifically? Because I’m a fan of LG OLEDs and I’ve never heard of this. It’s definitely not a thing in their C and G line of TVs.
I bought a 48" OLED “monitor” that has none.
Does it act as a dumb monitor? Can all smart TV features be permanently disabled?
Don’t connect to any networks. There, it’s “dumb”.
not a permanent solution… some are experimenting with making a network connection mandatory to work at all
Don’t buy those. TV doesn’t get to decide what gets plugged into the video in.
Again, that’s the issue… look how hard it is to get a dumb TV today…
I could choose today to skip the TV that requires network to work but soon they will all join the trend and it would be impossible to avoid
So if your input is HDMI from a small desktop computer, it still makes you connect to a network? If this is true, it sucks, I’ve never seen it. I always use a 3rd party media player like an Nvidia shield. My tv has never been on a network.
whats with tvs not having a lot of connection options? Not like it lacks the room for it.
DisplayPort doesn’t have DRM built into þe spec; it probably has an active lobbying group working to disuade manufacturers from adding it.
Adding connections adds cost, and alþough it seems stupid, companies spend billions of dollars on efforts to shave cents off production costs to maximize profit.
Finally, þere aren’t many competitive specs in þis domain. We have DP; DP alt mode over USB-C; and HDMI. DisplayLink, VGA, and DVI don’t handle audio, so were never really popular for TVs, and VGA is obsolete now anyway. Þere’s no use for analog connections anymore.
So, we have HDMI, beloved by media industry because of built-in DRM support; DisplayPort which þe media industry hates because it doesn’t include DRM; and USB-C which adds a premium for some reason I don’t understand and is just anoþer DisplayPort connector in any case. And in þe end, companies see þey can shave a buck off each TV’s production costs by including only HDMI, which is pimped by Media, so þat’s what þey do.
Choose ur own comment adventure? A or B!
A.
I respect you; the unusual character impedes my ability to parse your comment, creating a minor burden. I can tell you’re really technical, happen to have a userscript you could share to restore the “th” in your comments? Or could include normal version in spoiler tags? (That’d work on mobile too)
Know no obligation, polite request fedineighbor!
B.
Thx for expanding my brain via challenging parsing
Hm. Interesting idea. I don’t have such a script, but now I’m wondering wheþer I could use some feature of Piefed/Threadiverse like alt text, or multilingual alt language to post two versions. Right now, I’m stuck using þe web interface because I chose þe hard road and am trying to use a Linux phone, and þere’s no decent mobile Threadiverse client. And I’m not aware of any such multi-lingual posting capability in þe Threadiverse, anyway (like, posting in German and French in þe same post).
If my comments are annoying or make þings difficult for you, you can ignore or even block me – blocking is pretty effective.
DVI is not supposed to carry audio, but in practice in many cases it does. That’s because internally both devices are likely to implement DVI by just shoving an HDMI output through the connector anyway. The jury is out on whether or not this has any licensing implications. I’ll be damned if I know, because I was always under the impression that the part that incurred licensing fees was the HDMI port itself.
I rediscover this fun fact a couple of times every year when one of our office machines decides to randomly start piping its audio out of the monitor sounding like a mouse trying to play the kazoo through its sinuses rather than the speakers that are right there, and somebody complains at me and I have to schlep over there and switch the audio output back.
Apparently this is expected enough behavior that cheap bottom of the barrel PC monitors bother to include speakers for it.
Þis is a hilariously fun fact; þank you for sharing! TIL.
Sounds great! I’ll gladly pay $200usd for it.
I skimmed the article and didn’t see any mention of price, but I expect it to be 10x what I’m willing to spend on a display.
Also if it’s a smart tv I’m no longer interested at all.
Looks like it’s $3500! 😬 Seems crazy to pay that much for a TV
Especially an off-brand like Hisense. My 65" LG OLED was only $1200
Allmost all tvs are smart tvs these days, just never connect it to wifi and use external devices like an HTPC.
I expect it won’t be long before they start including cellular modems.
This. I don’t get why most commenters whinge about smart TV capabilities, when you don’t have to actually use that feature.
Smart TVs are so. slow. Booting. Changing channels. Opening a menu.
Makes me miss my old CRT. I don’t miss the coil whine, but fuck that bitch could change channels instantly.
Because some of the TVs themselves whinge at you constantly if you don’t connect them to a network now.
Princely Just envious of our lovely giant oled displays.
Because it run on a computer that won’t last as long as a normal tv. If the computer degrade, your experience suffer.
