How fucking hard is it to make a competent display? I feel like the A/V market is ripe for disruption. Sell a quality line of displays with no "smart" crap and a relatively low-cost receiver with no "smart" crap, a usable front-end with tons of A/V features and a dozen inputs of different types.
This must be harder than I think it is, because no one is doing it.
This is my suspicion as well. It's also why the "top of the line" TVs from a display specification perspective also have "SMART" baked in as well.
That said, is this LG issue because it has smart stuff or because it lacks appropriate shielding? The article kind of hints that it's a lack shielding.
I don't know about most consumers, but the "smart" stuff is a big product negative feature when I'm shopping. I'd much rather add an external device of my choosing, Roku or Apple TV or something else than use the TV internal "smart" apps/channels which may or may not get updated.
Now if some TV added a nice little shelf space, or mount point for an external box behind the TV - I would think that would be a selling feature.
You can just not activate/use the feature, but I find I keep tripping over the button on the remote.
Somehow this stuff seems to sell. Same for Android phones. I hate that every manufacturers feels they need to add some crappy custom UI on top of stock Android but they keep doing it.
For the same reason ISPs and telcos have traditionally included "value-adds" on their Internet connectivity, like email accounts, portals, news, business websites, etc, etc, etc, because they don't want to become commodity "dumb pipes".
The phone manufacturers need to create and push non-standard (and often broken) app launchers and branded skins in order to differentiate, otherwise they'd just be another Android phone maker, rather than, say, the manufacturer of the Samsung phone.
I would love a normally priced TV with no smart crap, but would absolutely not back a Kickstarter for one. It's really just not the right platform for that.
My understanding is that you're overestimating the cost to manufacture the "smart" crap. The basic hardware is so inexpensive that they don't really lose much to just cram some extra crappy software (crappy software that is extra, or software which is extra crappy, your pick) onto the hardware that already has to go into the TV.
Leaving the "smart" crap out isn't for cost savings, it's to create a higher quality product. I will even pay more for a TV with fewer features to get in the way.
You're in a minority, though - that's the problem. Stuff like TVs have huge benefits to manufacturing at scale.
Counter-intuitive though it might seem, it'll be cheaper per-unit to produce a TV with smart TV crap with a market of one million than it will be to make a basic TV with a market of ten thousand.
But the manufacturer might stand to poach 10K incremental sales if they just added a small "disable (outdated) smart functions" switch to the back of the unit...
> it'll be cheaper per-unit to produce a TV with smart TV crap with a market of one million than it will be to make a basic TV with a market of ten thousand
I would go even farther and say that (in longer term accounting) it will be much cheaper to produce a smart TV with 10,000 sales than a basic TV with 10,000 sales.
Or haven't we learned that the first thing a processor + network connectivity is used for is extracting marketable analytics?
These are all essentially large LCD displays (monitors) with little to no extra features (many will have the ability to load via wifi or usb graphics and animations to be rotated on the screen - it's advertising after all).
Your only other option would be large computer monitors, but because these tend to be meant for the desktop, you won't easily find sizes beyond 40 inches diagonal.
Note that for digital signage - you are going to pay more - a lot more (it's one of those cases of pay more, get less - because niche and "you're a business, you have money"); also note that some of these kinds of displays can be found at Business Costco stores (though maybe not the 4K+ units).
Another interesting thing about these units is that they have very small width bezels at the edges, for those cases where you want to tile them to make a video wall (again, retail advertising and menus and such).
Manny different reasons, including:
- monitors have better refresh rate and color accuracy
- tvs don't have sleep functions and won't wake up with your computer.
- tvs that cost $350 don't have have refresh rate, contract etc.
Monitors are more expensive because the have to be more detailed in color reproduction, accuracy, etc.
The pixel density on the 32 inch is mich higher, perhaps this leads to larger manufacturing cost? That seems unlikely to explain the entire gap however.
You're looking at it from the point of view of "but the one over there is bigger". The manufacturer's point of view is "we sell a lot more 40" TVs than we do 32" monitors, so we're going to manufacture the shit out of 40" panels", something something economies of scale.
Same reason we suffered with 27" monitors at 1080 for so long: because LG and the like were selling literal boatloads of 1080 panels to put in TVs. If you wanted something out of band like a 1440 panel, well, get your checkbook out.
Oh, and does that 4K TV do 60fps at 4K? (Honest question, I have no idea if they do or not. Though I would assume so.)
If you ever want a good place to answer your last question, I found rtings to be indespensible when I was shopping for a new TV last year. The "supported resolutions" section answers your question, and there's lots of other good information:
Don't pc monitors usually have higher standards? And some 4k tvs can be bad. For instance, a few tv manufacturers are making rgbw 4k tvs, which are tvs where 25% of the pixels are white and don't produce color. And also I think that a 4k monitor is more of a premium item. I think the assumption is that if you are buying a 4k monitor you can usually afford to spend money than someone buying a 4k tv.
An RGBW panel has R,G,B and W subpixels. The white is there to increase overall brightness. You can't count your subpixels and call it 4k (although oddly you can count three-thousand...something and call that 4k.). Or are you criticizing the decreased color fidelity that accompanies those higher brightness levels?
Alright, I wasn't quite accurate on the specifics. But I'm criticizing the decreased color fidelity. I don't know how much a RGBW subpixel panel increases brightness, but I really don't think it's worth 25% of the panel losing the ability to display color.
I still think you're making a false equivalency between pixels and sub-pixels. If you look at a microscopic view of an LCD, it is not a seamless field of sub-pixels--substantial surface area is non-emitting black borders between them, but the eye merges the sub-pixels (and pixels, if sufficiently high density) into a unified light source. Adding white emitters does not inherently mean you are getting "less color" -- many factors influence the blending that you perceive. It does, presumably, mean that colors at the highest brightness levels are less saturated, but that may mean you are getting additional, less-accurate color space, without sacrificing the accuracy of the color space you already had. I have no idea if RGBW displays on the market actually have these characteristics, but your dismissal is based on a misunderstanding of the optical properties at play.
Not only that, but then you have the panel lottery. Same TV model ends up using different panels. One version is amazing and the other version is crap, and it is is hard to know which until you get the TV out of the box.
This. I am endlessly frustrated with display manufacturers think that I want to do all sorts of "smart" stuff with my display. No. I want it to display a nice image for the stuff I want to plug into it, that's it!
Setup a new TV for a family member recently and the instructions basically wanted me to Bluetooth pair my phone to the TV so I could set it up. I was like you have to be $&@!ing kidding me. Power, volume, input select. Just give me 4 buttons and that's it and I'm happy.
LG is just a bad company. Most of their products are faulty in some way. I had issues with their monitors and phones. I stopped buying anything LG since then.
Their current OLED TVs are absolutely stunning, and I really like what they've done with WebOS. Unfortunately the price is not something I can justify right now.
Yeah, their TVs look nice. But I wonder what hidden issues it might have? I am just skeptical of everything LG now. Of course this is just anecdotal, so I am sure there are people who say everything LG is awesome.
On the upside, LG refunded me the whole purchase price of the Nexus 5x that broke. So props to that.
"Changing the location or positioning of either the router or the display should resolve the issue," it said.
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"Don't do that!"
---
The article said future models will include additional shielding. Will the people who bought the earlier models be allowed to exchange, or is the above non-solution all they get?
I assume this slipped through because the required certifications don't include rigorous requirements for electromagnetic interference on unlicensed bands? Or was this supposed to be caught in required testing?
I believe the required testing for FCC Part 15 certification only covers what your device emits, not how it responds to the emissions of other devices.
This isn't new. Honeywell monitor used inside Boeing 737 cockpit failed near WiFi as well. They discovered this defect when in-flight WiFi was introduced.
I see this label on most electronic devices I own:
"This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation." [1]
If the display comes with that label, shouldn't that be enough to make LG subject to a class action suit, or at least a huge fine from the FCC? Or is the FCC another agency that's lost its teeth this year, along with the FDA and the EPA?
My understanding is that as owner of the LG display, you simply cannot sue your WiFi router manufacturer for messing up your monitor, hence the "must accept any interference ... including interference that may cause undesired operation."
Part 15 doesn't guarantee that the monitor will continue to operate under interference.
Indeed. My understanding is those terms mean your device can't defensively interfere with the operation of other devices because they are causing undesired operation of your device.
I'm not sure why you'd have grounds to sue on that basis. Isn't this just an example of undesired operation caused by interference received? It's warning you that it must accept that interference.
Shouldn't this mean that all wifi devices are causing harmful interference in violation of that text?
I'm not trying to be snarky either. Am I just completely misunderstanding the meaning of that FCC warning?
63 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadI observed the same thing late last year when I use a foldable wristpad with magnets inside that I got from an AT&T booth at a tech conference.
So this is not limited to that specific LG display. Mine is an LG 24MA32D that I bought about 3 years ago.
[1] http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/io/universal-serial-b...
My network is mostly 5Ghz w/ a Google Wifi
This must be harder than I think it is, because no one is doing it.
That said, is this LG issue because it has smart stuff or because it lacks appropriate shielding? The article kind of hints that it's a lack shielding.
Now if some TV added a nice little shelf space, or mount point for an external box behind the TV - I would think that would be a selling feature.
You can just not activate/use the feature, but I find I keep tripping over the button on the remote.
The phone manufacturers need to create and push non-standard (and often broken) app launchers and branded skins in order to differentiate, otherwise they'd just be another Android phone maker, rather than, say, the manufacturer of the Samsung phone.
Counter-intuitive though it might seem, it'll be cheaper per-unit to produce a TV with smart TV crap with a market of one million than it will be to make a basic TV with a market of ten thousand.
I would go even farther and say that (in longer term accounting) it will be much cheaper to produce a smart TV with 10,000 sales than a basic TV with 10,000 sales.
Or haven't we learned that the first thing a processor + network connectivity is used for is extracting marketable analytics?
Look up "Retail Digital Signage" and "Retail Video Displays" (and similar terms) - for instance:
http://www.planar.com/products/large-format-displays/ultrare...
These are all essentially large LCD displays (monitors) with little to no extra features (many will have the ability to load via wifi or usb graphics and animations to be rotated on the screen - it's advertising after all).
Your only other option would be large computer monitors, but because these tend to be meant for the desktop, you won't easily find sizes beyond 40 inches diagonal.
Note that for digital signage - you are going to pay more - a lot more (it's one of those cases of pay more, get less - because niche and "you're a business, you have money"); also note that some of these kinds of displays can be found at Business Costco stores (though maybe not the 4K+ units).
Another interesting thing about these units is that they have very small width bezels at the edges, for those cases where you want to tile them to make a video wall (again, retail advertising and menus and such).
Seems the 32 inch space prices are way too high.
Monitors are more expensive because the have to be more detailed in color reproduction, accuracy, etc.
Same reason we suffered with 27" monitors at 1080 for so long: because LG and the like were selling literal boatloads of 1080 panels to put in TVs. If you wanted something out of band like a 1440 panel, well, get your checkbook out.
Oh, and does that 4K TV do 60fps at 4K? (Honest question, I have no idea if they do or not. Though I would assume so.)
http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/x850c#comparison_200
the tv market is one giant shit show designed to sell you all the crap falling from production lines.
i spent weeks looking at and testing tv sets. reading reviews. watching videos. in the end i returned everything and gave up.
If I wanted a smart TV I'd attach a brain to the VESA bracket on the back.
Setup a new TV for a family member recently and the instructions basically wanted me to Bluetooth pair my phone to the TV so I could set it up. I was like you have to be $&@!ing kidding me. Power, volume, input select. Just give me 4 buttons and that's it and I'm happy.
On the upside, LG refunded me the whole purchase price of the Nexus 5x that broke. So props to that.
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"Don't do that!"
---
The article said future models will include additional shielding. Will the people who bought the earlier models be allowed to exchange, or is the above non-solution all they get?
From MacRumors: https://www.macrumors.com/2017/02/03/lg-27-inch-5k-display-r...
> Owners affected by the issue are advised to get in touch with Apple, LG, or their reseller to arrange for a repair.
"yep, that should do it, all better now!"
I bought their smaller 4K monitor last week and so far, except for a not perfectly fitting usb-c socket, all is great so far. I love it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13530709
http://aviationtroubleshooting.blogspot.com/2014/10/display-...
Edit: added link and clarification that the display is used inside the cockpit.
"This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation." [1]
If the display comes with that label, shouldn't that be enough to make LG subject to a class action suit, or at least a huge fine from the FCC? Or is the FCC another agency that's lost its teeth this year, along with the FDA and the EPA?
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/15.19
My understanding is that as owner of the LG display, you simply cannot sue your WiFi router manufacturer for messing up your monitor, hence the "must accept any interference ... including interference that may cause undesired operation."
Part 15 doesn't guarantee that the monitor will continue to operate under interference.
Shouldn't this mean that all wifi devices are causing harmful interference in violation of that text?
I'm not trying to be snarky either. Am I just completely misunderstanding the meaning of that FCC warning?