Ask HN: Are there any 4K “dumb” televisions?

436 points by luke2m ↗ HN
With news like [1][2], and problems I’ve had in the past, I would like a TV with a modern resolution, but just inputs and a tuner, no “smart” features. Does anything like this exist?

[1] https://hackaday.com/2021/11/29/samsung-bricks-smart-tvs/

[2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/10/22773073/vizio-acr-advertising-inscape-data-privacy-q3-2021

517 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 294 ms ] thread
Just don't connect it to the network or agree to any of the license clickthroughs, it can't do things behind your back then. HDMI and the RF tuner can still work fine.
I cant find a source, but I remember a discussion here on a brand of smart tvs that still phone home by connecting to other nearby smart tvs that are connected to a network, even if you don't connect yours to the network.
It was Samsung TVs that will automatically connect to any open Wifi nearby to get their ads updated, even if you tell it not to.
Really? Source? Which models?

I just bought a Samsung 4K TV a month ago. I didn't connect it to wi-fi or do any setup. I just plugged my computer in.

I have not seen any ads. It seems to work fine offline in all respects.

If it actually did this I would definitely return the TV.

In case it matters it was this Q60A "QLED" 43 inch 4K TV: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-43-class-q60a-series-ql...

I got this exact same model today. Never gonna connect it to wifi anyway, seemed perfect.
Can't find a better source since the subreddit where I got the info is now private for some reason: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/bpr6xs/if_you_choo...

Basically Samsung TVs at least used to grab any open Wifi to connect to if you don't provide them with credentials to your own. Also there is no way to fully disable the wifi.

The solution was to set the connection to manual configuration and set all addresses to 0.0.0.0.

Of course this is not an issue if the only network your TV can see is your own, more of a problem in apartments where there might be 20 wireless networks available at any time.

I have a Roku that I block from the internet. It blinks an obnoxious red led to complain it can’t phone home. I need some gaffer’s tape to cover it up I guess.
This is what I did for my TCL Roku TV: just taped over the annoying blinking light.

If enough people do this, I anticipate that in the next model, they'll replace that blinking light with an forced on-screen overlay.

I have a TCL Roku 6-series. If you do a factory reset, and from the start don't let it connect, then you won't get the blinking light.

You only get the blinking light if you take away access after having given it.

I was curious about this -- I've been digging and I can't find a solution, is it possible to tell these things to jump straight to HDMI once you turn them on? Or are you always stuck with at least that one homescreen jump. Trying to make this thing as "dumb" as possible.
Yes, there's an option in Settings to automatically open a specific input on startup.
If you use any device that correctly uses HDMI CEC, then yes. I only have an Apple TV remote with some cheap Element Amazon TV, and I keep the TV remote taped to the back of the TV. Apple TV and Chromescasts will turn it on, off, and swap source to itself when used. I'd imagine Roku/Firesticks do as well.
What is your usecase? Trying to understand the point of having apps without the wifi.

I have noticed a marked increase in youtube ads in the roku app. Prob due to roku has updated itself without permission.

Now i dread having to deal with pihole hacks + routers to fence it out of our home network :/

They said internet, not wifi. Perhaps some Roku apps can play media from your local network? Plex, or a built-in media player?
You know that some devices essentially "require" network connectivity for initial setup? E.g. https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/tv/smart-tv-set-up-witho...
So give it a network connection for initial setup then take it away?
So you'll still have all the adverts, they just don't update?
Annoying, but at least it isn't feeding your information in to the weird ad-driven panopticon (we'll leave that to the content providers!)
> they just don't update?

That's a cursed scenario...

I had to do that. My Samsung couldn’t leave “demo mode” or whatever without going online first and would restart itself every hour. I just let it register and blocked it from coming out my router. It stays quiet like that. I believe removing the wifi showed some nag when booting that I had to deal with. Real scummy stuff.
(comment deleted)
Buy it from a place with free returns. Then if it insists on showing cached ads after the network is pulled (or any other undesirable behavior), just return it. This won't help you find a better model, but it will save you from needing to research these obscure details in too much depth.

. o O ( I wonder if some hostile antifeatures go away if you buy a TV in the US but then activate it from an EU IP address ).

Run it through pihole to block the ad networks? Or just whitelist hostnames/addresses one by one until the setup works.

Not exactly a user-friendly option, but an option nonetheless.

dns block it at the router
Yeah...mine shows a nag about not accepting the online agreements, connecting the TV to the network, etc. Hasn't stopped me from using it as a display for the inputs I was using on my previous non-smart TV.
Yeah I was afraid my new TV would do that. I was planning to return it if it did because I had bad experience with Vizio and TCL smart TVs breaking updates before (I'm an Apple TV user).

I can confirm that Roku firmware works great without the internet and doesn't nag. I just turn it on and switch to my Apple TV.

Not just that. Broadband connection for things will become so cheap in the future that it could become essentially free one day so it can be subsidized by the businesses depending on it. 5G aside, It is believable that in a few years most home broadband routers, even tightly closed ones, could open a channel anyway using a fraction of the bandwidth for exclusive use by devices so that only closed source drivers will be able to instruct WiFi chips to see and use it. The catch being that there won't be any means of preventing the TV or other devices from going online, short of opening them and removing physically the network hardware. I believe we badly need alternative (Open Source, auditable, trustworthy) operating systems for smart TVs too. Next will be cars, fridges, etc. Pretty much everything.
The statement, "just don't connect it to the network" still stands. If something requires a connection, return it. It's clearly anti-consumer and will do nefarious things (which we already know Samsung does).
And then you won't have a TV, and Samsung will keep making these abusive TVs without giving one single fuck about your return.
HDMI cables now come with 10/100 Ethernet built in. So it could connect via your devices connection.

So pay attention to the hdmi cable you use.

There are no receivers on the market that act as HDMI Ethernet network switches.
They have been for a while. But are these actually used for IP connectivity? If that was the case, a laptop’s HDMI port should show up as network interface, which it doesn’t, at least not on my machine.
Are there any examples of TVs doing this, or is this just a hypothetical?

There are some TVs that will try to connect to the internet via non-obvious means (Samsung TVs were mentioned elsewhere in this thread). TV manufacturers aren't spy agencies though. They're not going to put in that much effort to sneak an internet connection, when most users willingly connect their TVs to WiFi anyway. If I can't find an article about a given TV sneaking in an internet connection, I would be pretty confident that it doesn't.

I've been looking for years and I have yet to find any systems (TV, receiver, or injector) which actually take advantage of this feature.
(comment deleted)
Last year I bought a Proscan 55" 4k dumb TV. Maybe you can find one of them? My review: it's fine.
What is the "startup time" like? Meaning how long it takes to go from poweroff/standby to displaying the signal.
A couple second I guess? There's a blue PROSCAN screen that turns on first. Is that something people worry about? I guess if I was going to watch 30 seconds of TV, waiting 10 seconds would be something I'd consider important.
In last week's "Ask HN: What’s the best TV to buy?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29343338 one recommendation was to look for commercial televisions which usually lack the smart features and are build for reliability.
Commercial TV's are coming more and more with smart capabilities. I know LG commercial displays can be equipped with WebOS and Samsung displays come with Tizen, though I don't know how wide spread they are through their commercial product line ups.
> I know LG commercial displays can be equipped with WebOS

It's a real shame to have a TV that runs Linux and can't be used as an X Terminal...

Hitachi makes some, I have one and it has been great. Before I found their dumb model I was looking at broadcast monitors which were much more expensive and didn't have TV tuning ability or speakers but checked all of the boxes that I wanted with a screen.
I've got one, but it's not very good build or panel quality, just a random Chinese brand. It was in the first batch of 4k models, before all the bonus money from spyware pushed dumb displays out of the consumer tv segment.

Your best bet now is to get an industrial display or find a generic driver board that is compatible with the panel from a smart TV and then DIY a smart TV into a dumb one.

On the DIY perks youtube channel, the host builds a water cooled backlight for a 4k panel in order to make an outdoor-capable TV, and he uses one of those generic driver boards for it.

I was asking myself the same question seeing all the recent TV deals. I came to the conclusion it was best to ignore the deals and look at TVs when I can afford to do some in depth research as to which ones have the least intrusive "smart" functionality (eg quick startup to same hdmi input source, rarely needing to interact with the useless menus, and behaves when given a zero-access wifi network or even better with the wifi module removed).

If you're looking for something smaller I'm using a 43 inch 4K monitor, LG 43UD79 / 43MU79, that was around $450. I'm using it as a monitor, but my backup plan was to use it as a TV if I didn't like it as a monitor. It even comes with a simple remote that is better than common TV remotes because it leaves out all the superfluous buttons (its primary up/downs are volume/brightness). They've since discontinued it and the new model is up at $700 though.

Not that I know of, there are however 4K 'digital signage' displays which are an industrial product. They are the monitors you see in kiosks etc. Be prepared to pay a pretty penny for them however. The last time I checked a 65" digital signage display was roughly 5x the cost of a similarly sized television.

Also note they may have an HDMI implementation that is 'cheap' and doesn't implement the CLEC protocols or HDCP so you may have to jump through hoops to drive them from a PC with commercial content.

>The last time I checked a 65" digital signage display was roughly 5x the cost of a similarly sized television.

The question then is why would any company pay 5x for a device without smart functionality? Does that mean there's now a market for buying smart TVs, stripping out the "smart" tech, and reselling at, say, a 4x markup?

Perhaps, the signage market is generally targeted to equipment that needs to be rather durable and live in a wider temperature range. So typically they have better power supplies, steel rather than aluminum frames, and in the case of LED back lights a longer lasting LED (typically by under driving it IIRC).

That said, I think there is solid market for "monitors" which are just the display and an industry standard interface.

Sometimes you can get a "tunerless" TV which has fewer smarts.

I seem to remember that one drawback of trying for a monitor plus soundbar setup (which has tempted me from time to time) was splitting modern HDMI inputs. Can anyone speak to these issues as they stand today (to the extent that I’ve not misremembered)?
Most TVs have an ARC (audio return channel) labeled HDMI input which sends the sound back. I connected my smart TV to my receiver via the ARC HDMI port, and it sends sound back to the receiver; and I can select inputs from the receiver from my TV's remote.
For literally trying to make a dumb TV out of a monitor and sound bar https://www.amazon.com/OREI-HDA-912-Audio-Converter-Extracto...

If you want actual OTA TV on your dumb TV https://www.amazon.com/ViewTV-ATSC-Digital-Converter-Clear/d...

If you have many sources consider https://www.amazon.com/Output-Switch-Switcher-Support-Contro... or getting a receiver instead of all the above (more costly).

If you want to make your own smart TV look at the Shield TV with a USB TV Tuner, the extractor is probably still best for the sound bar in that case.

These all look good, thanks! I basically just want Chromecast/Apple TV or equivalent in an HDMI port, as high quality as possible with no weird latency issues between video and audio. I don’t mind paying for a good panel, I just don’t like the software and the slow boot times.
I'd definitely go the Nvidia Shield TV (2019) route, I use one for exactly that. It is a tiny box that runs Android TV (which includes Chromecast functionality plus the ability to run apps local) and even the original 2015 model is still getting updates. For control it comes with a hardware remote or you can use your phone or you can cast to it. Supports 4K HDR10, Dolby Vision, and Dolby Atmos as well as full DRM support for Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/etc allowing it to actually receive the 4k versions (or you can just use the Plex app if that's your thing or VLC for local files).

That extractor will passthrough whatever the output is and break out the audio to SPDIF for your soundbar.

Overall it's on the more powerful side and has full hardware acceleration so weird latency issues but you'll want to match the audio offset in the Android TV settings to whatever the display latency of your monitor of choice is to get the audio/video timing to perfectly match (supports both positive and negative offsets in case your soundbar has its own latency problems).

They are not without their drawbacks but you can get an excellent picture quality 4K home theater projector that has none of the ‘smart’ tv features.
The best part is that since they're expensive, niche, and bought mostly by businesses, they will never reach consumer market adoption to the level where adding telemetry and ads makes financial sense.
+1 for projectors.

Some will laugh at getting 4K resolution and then projecting it on a regular white wall, but honestly, you'll get used to it as you project a much larger image than you'd otherwise get with an lcd. Also, there are special paints you can get - or a retractable screen if you feel the need after testing out the projector.

Note: if it is a room with windows make sure to have decent curtains. It's not as FC v bright as a LCD screen.

I seem to recall hearing that certain Google TV’s could be set to dumb mode?

Ah, here it is: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/the-best-feature-of-...

> The new Google TV is a fine smart TV interface, but when it gets integrated into some TV sets later this year, its best feature might be that you can turn it off. A report from 9to5Google details an upcoming "Basic TV" mode that will be built into Google TV, which turns off just about all the smart TV features. Right now, Google TV is only available in the new Chromecast, but Google TV will be built into upcoming TVs from Sony and TCL. Basic mode means we'll get smart TVs with a "dumb TV" mode.

> ...

> When the new feature rolls out, you'll be asked to choose between "Basic TV" or "Google TV" at setup. 9to5Google says that with basic mode, "almost everything is stripped, leaving users with just HDMI inputs and Live TV if they have an antenna plugged directly into the TV. Casting support, too, is dropped." The UI notes that you'll be turning off all apps, the Google Assistant, and personalized recommendations.

I wouldn't expect that to stop tracking or inserting ads. Those are the key features for Google products
How would they do these things if you never give the device wifi access?
Built-in cell modem that can only call home?

Also, Amazon and other companies are building out networks of their wifi devices. I assume at some point they will start selling access to other companies. So, even if you decline to set up wifi, the appliance might be able to get online through your neighbor's doorbell.

> Built-in cell modem that can only call home?

Doing that to get around a feature they put in themselves just seems like conspiracy theorizing at that point.

That's now how they will sell it. It will be about ease and convenience. Plug in the TV and it's ready to go! You don't have to go find your wifi password and type it in with the remote. Nobody likes to do that. It would be sold as something they do to make things easier for their customers.
For those who don't require 4K, I was able to find a 1080p "dumb" TV from the Insignia brand at Best Buy. All their 4K models are smart though, unfortunately.
Depends a lot on country. I think the US has more options than EU (but I might be wrong...). Framework had a blog post (https://frame.work/blog/in-defense-of-dumb-tvs) about this exact thing and NEC digital signage displays are an option or Iiyama (https://iiyama.com/) makes 55,60 inch 4K displays that are non smart.

I was looking for something similar and it's frustrating to see you can pick up a 65inch Samsung Q90A for about $2500-$3000 but a similarly sized comercial display will cost significantly more and use significantly more power (at least as far as I've seen, I might be wrong on this one). Comercial displays are rated for 16/24 or 24/24 usage, so they should, in theory, last significantly longer.

As far as my search went, I ended up going with a Dell U4320Q (43inch monitor) instead. It cost a bit more than the equivalent Samsung Q90A display, but it does have a USB C port with power delivery support, I can keep my desktop and laptop plugged in and it works/looks great. It also doesn't have Smart features, it's just a display. Depending on country you might be able to get some cashback on it and make it even more competitive price wise and the stand + warranty are pretty solid.

Hope this helps!

When I last complained about not being able to buy a dumb TV someone linked me a Romanian electronics site. There where so many option, but non of them are available in Denmark.
Hadn't seen that Framework post; maybe if they manage to be successful in the laptop world long term they can grace us with a TV with the same ideas as the laptops. One can hope, at least...
One thing people haven't mentioned is that there are some non-smart televisions available that are marketed as extra large gaming monitors.

For example, there's the Alienware 55" OLED Gaming Monitor and the ASUS ROG Swift PG65UQ that's 65".

Thanks for the tip! This is a great search keyword to keep in mind.
That's interesting, but it doesn't look like you have many choices at the 55" size unless you're willing to pay double what I paid 4 years ago for my Sony.
(comment deleted)
What value would additional choices serve, if it’s just a pane of glass of a fixed size and resolution?
Downward cost pressure, one presumes.
There can still be differences in color gamut, refresh rates, input lag, viewing angle, black uniformity, local dimming, image retention, supported resolutions, SDR/HDR brightness to name a few.
That's exactly the reason why non smart TVs don't sell.

The smart one's are subsidized by their ads and spyware; so you'll always pay a massive premium to get a dumb one.

That may be a small part but a much bigger factor is price differentiation and market segmentation. A 55" monitor is pretty extreme - any gamer who wants that is going to be willing to pay for it. A 55" TV is perfectly normal though and bought by normal people.

Same reason nVidia's AI cards are so expensive even though they're very similar to their graphics cards. Or "audiophile" speaker cables are expensive even though they're identical to cheap ones.

Product prices are partly a function of the price people are willing to pay (demand).

You can simply connect them to the internet then disconnect them. Change the WiFi SSID or password id necessary.
Why connect them in the first place?
Firmware updates, changes to post processing, motion processing, fald backlighting software, enhanced gaming features.
USB does that too
The question was "why connect?" and I gave a reason why you might connect despite not using the smarts.
Just don't let it connect to the internet. I have a lot of firewall rules to block my TV off, but you can also just literally turn off the features.
My experience with an LG panel was it slowing down to wait for network requests that would never complete and asking for wifi every time it was turned back on. I just use a projector now; it's a dumber, bigger screen (and as a plus it encourages me to limit screen time to after dark for better picture quality)
A monitor + external TV tuner (and perhaps a HDMI switch)
Seems like this would be a good use case for a "TV Honeypot" that would intercept phone-homes, recognize the model, imitate whatever jank rpc is needed to keep the unit happy, and dump all telemetry to /dev/null.
Imagine if it could replace the ads with pictures of your family, news, inspirational quotes…
Get one into your neighborhood switch; and show your own ads to everyone. Local advertisers desperately want someone to hand their money to.
Imagine if (when ?) the AI chip in each TV in the near future could smartmix© ads with pictures of your family, news, inspirational quotes...
Even better, product placement.

Your 5 year old is now magically holding BrandNewKoolAid™ instead of the original Coke. You grandpa has a fishing rod from BobsFishingEquipment®.

You don't need AI, just social media and reviews. It's been tried. Crazy effective but also feels creepy despite it just being a way to surface reviews and ratings from people you know on FB or Google+.
Oh god - there's the recent posts I've seen about people losing their social media accounts and then having deepfakes of themselves posting about BTC.

But what happens when the platforms get into it themselves?

Today using a loved one's image in a deepfake advertisement might seem invasive and wrong. But I wonder in the future if this would be seen as something acceptable. I'm sure somewhere there's a social media site that is carefully constructing their T&C's to allow them to do this if they so wish.

On the other hand, I think one protection against this particular scenario are the people who make their money using their likeness. Like, what if in that particular situation, Taylor Swift's dad (pick any celebrity) was the one browsing the internet. He just got served an advertisement with not just his daughter's face on it, but an ad with Taylor Swift's unlicensed likeness, where that likeness in most other situations is worth many millions of dollars.

For some tiny group that's below-board anyway with hacking people's social media accounts, I guess maybe there's not much you could do. But for any social media site or other platform, I imagine that IP lawyers trying to protect their client's likeness would descend in packs, which is a probably a genuine deterrent to a group considering implementing something like this.

With pihole you could. Have the ad domains pointed to your own webserver that served you such things.
I don't know who you are, I can't prove to you I am real, but I love you. Have a nice day, and please, down vote this, I was doing so good being invisible until Someone upvoted me to a 1 again...
PiHole[1], with the default adlist/gravity configuration, actually works pretty well for removing ads from my LG smart tv from about 3 years ago. Doesn't keep it from updating, but you can easily configure pihole to block whatever domains you want

[1] https://pi-hole.net/

Some TVs have gotten wise to this, and are using IP addresses or serving ads from domains that are also needed for things like installing the various apps like YouTube/Netflix.
Just don't connect your TV to wifi? That's what I did when I finally had to get one when I was replacing the ancient energy hungry plasma I'd been using. I already have other devices for watching Netflix/YouTube/ChromeCast.
Also make sure there are no open access points anywhere nearby. Some models automatically connect to them.
That isn’t going to work for long, your neighbor’s Alexa is now automatically sharing his internet with you, it’s just a matter of your TV manufacturer striking a deal with amazon for access to their mesh network.
Thanks, I really hate this.

But seriously, what can we do here? How to I inform people like my parents of this kind of thing without being an alarmist? Should I even care?

The damages are largely theoretical at this point. Most of the time the compromised devices just join a botnet and don't directly steal much from the owners because they don't have access to much. For the privacy concerns it's also largely theoretical at the moment because to our knowledge (at least mine) the government hasn't used SmertTVs to do spying (yet).
4K monitors. You need a soundbar though or some kind of audio setup + remote. Also no built-in tuner or such but I assume you get a set top box from your service provider or use a streaming device (Apple TV, Fire stick etc.)

4K OLED https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=384002160&P=7

4K IPS https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=384002160&P=2

4K VA https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=384002160&P=4

4K 55" or bigger monitors (there aren't many choices) https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#P=2,7,4&r=3840021...

The 4K 55" OLED Alienware has speaker but I doubt that it is any good https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/new-alienware-55-oled-gaming... (actually comes with remote too)

Linus made a video of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3oqktdx2a8

Last but not least you can go even higher resolution than 4K but these are all IPS only and they are not bigger than 34" https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=768004320,57600...

(comment deleted)
all it needs is a computer... then youre on the systemd botnet thats one hilarious tradeoff.
Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years?

It looks like the situation is still that in the 4k OLED space there are a few ~$4000+ monitors and dozens of ~$1000 TVs. Per the pcpartpicker link, maybe the Gigabyte FO48U will change that, but it's still out of stock. Besides, I feel like this has happened before with HDR and 4k and IPS. First it shows up in TVs, a year later it is cheap in TVs, a year later it is expensive in monitors, and finally it becomes cheap in monitors. But it takes years. Which seems odd, since surely they use the same panels? Is it an industry structure thing, where panel manufacturers integrate and co-develop with TV manufacturers but monitor manufacturers are separate, only get the panels after release, and need a year or three to turn things around?

> Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years?

because there's more money to be made selling TVs than monitors?

consequentely, it's TV manufacturers pushing the entire display maker industry ahead? and so they get the newer tech first??

That's what I suspect, yes, but if that's the case it feels like integrating a monitor manufacturer would be a quick and easy business win for the TV guys.
> it feels like integrating a monitor manufacturer would be a quick and easy business win for the TV guys.

What does this even mean? The same companies that make panels for monitors usually make panels for the TVs as well. They already have production facilities that can manufacture panel sizes ranging from cell-phone size to 200" commercial wall panels.

Most people don't buy the volume to get a special size panel. Want a panel, you can save a ton of money buying one we already make. My company has obsoleted perfectly good embedded systems and had to redesign a new UI just because the panel we used went out of production. (I knew all along doing pixel perfect UI instead of one that scaled was a stupid idea, but I got overruled, now we spend a ton of money making our UI scale)
TV manufacturers can offset the lower price by selling ads to show you on your “smart” tv
That wouldn't explain the delay, and do they really expect to sell $3000 of ads per customer? I have doubts.
They get money from the ads, they get money from selling your usage data, they get money by selling space on the remote for streaming apps, and probably through some other means as well.
Sure, but my intuition says they might get a few hundred dollars that way, tops. Is my intuition off by an entire order of magnitude?
Vizio, as a public company, now has to share their ad revenue data:

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/11/10/22773073/vi...

> from $10.44 to $19.89.

Yeah, I thought $3000 sounded silly, and my only mistake was that I thought it was one order of magnitude silly when in fact it was two orders of magnitude silly.

No, that's completely wrong.

That number is specifically for their SmartCast subscriber service. It's not clear what the rate is, but they subsequently talk about Roku making $40/mo; so it's possible that's the monthly rate. Assuming it is monthly, a television lasts for five years, and that is their only other source of revenue from the televisions, that's ~$1200.

The telling part of the article:

> ...[Vizio's] Platform Plus segment that includes advertising and viewer data had a gross profit of $57.3 million. That’s more than twice the amount of profit it made selling devices like TVs, which was $25.6 million, despite those device sales pulling in considerably more revenue.

If those are actually monthly figures you might be right, but I'm still not convinced that they are. $40/mo sounds implausibly high to me. Even if Roku, in a non-monopolized space, managed to swing a hefty 30% cut, that would mean an average of $120 spent on streaming services per month.

Are sports channels really expensive? Is that what I'm missing?

Most of the ad money comes from WatchFree Plus app on the tv.

"Vizio execs said 77 percent of that money comes directly from advertising, like the kind that runs on its WatchFree Plus package of streaming channels, a group that recently expanded with content targeting. The next biggest contributor is the money it makes selling Inscape data about what people are watching."

>The next biggest contributor is the money it makes selling Inscape data about what people are watching

sigh.

your argument requires that advertising is cost effective for the advertiser. what if therre was a competing ecosystem, in which advertisers pushed up prices overall in a bid to out-compete each other? essentially, the cost of advertisments is added to the cost of consumer and all other goods. advertising increases cosumer costs, and decreases consumer choice.
> That wouldn’t explain the delay

That and expected maximum market size (or, more precisely, expected shape of the demand curve) do, I thimk, explain the delay, and higher price even before considering subsidy from advertising/data revenue, because there are fewer units to amortize fixed per-design production line costs across.

4K OLED laptops are more available and at a much smaller premium, perhaps because people buy a lot more laptops than desktop and larger monitors.

TV display quality is dogshit compared to monitors. Even cheap low-end monitors tend to have better displays. They aren't the same panels at all.
Nope. I'm using an OLED TV as a monitor on my main PC, and it kicks the pants off any monitor I've ever used before, including the 2021 MBP monitor I'm typing this on right now.
Which one are you using if you don't mind me asking?
LG C1. I have to turn it off and on with a remote, take the usual OLED precautions, and tolerate its "smart" nonsense, but the color is gorgeous and the contrast is magical.
Does autodimming work decently on C1? It's really bothering me when I try to use my CX as a monitor.
Agreed, auto-dimming is rough. I turned it off. 60% constant brightness for work, uncapped HDR mode for play.
How do you switch? Can you do it with just the keyboard?
I boot into Windows for gaming and when I launch a full screen game an "AutoHDR" badge pops up and the brightness limit is lifted. A similar thing happens when I launch a streaming app in the TV. I don't consume content through Linux because as far as I can tell linux doesn't support HDR yet.

Speaking of booting into Windows, I finally figured out how to make it painless: use a separate hard drive, not a separate partition. I wish I could go back in time 20 years and tell myself that. The number of hours I wasted debugging poorly written installers, bootloaders, and updaters exceeds the cost of hard drives by a factor too terrifying to calculate. Ah well. Now I know.

Any worries of “burn in”? I read the risk of using one as a monitor is that with a computer there is often static images like your task bar. Those can burn into the screen permanently where as if it is just tv the image often changes. Shows like news often have a bar at the bottom and was warned those too can cause burn in. Curious what your experience has been? Thanks
Yes, OLED care is a concern, and I take the usual precautions: no fixed menubars, no tiling WM, rotating desktop wallpapers, and reduced brightness (which isn't a compromise -- anything above 80% makes light-mode content uncomfortable, and auto HDR raises the limit for actual HDR content).

Even if I were not taking these steps and generally abusing the monitor, I wouldn't expect to see burn-in yet, so I can't really speak to how the situation will develop.

I used to have the Acer B326HK (32 inch 4k) which is marketed as a monitor and it still had really bad burn in
(comment deleted)
I'm using a Sony 43" X720E. IPS. I'm quite happy with it, can't complain. It's as good as any monitor I've seen except OLED, and the size is wonderful. I would like to have 120Hz though.

I will eventually go to OLED but 48" is the smallest size OLED TV available, and that's a bit bigger than I'd want on my desk.

Hopefully a reasonably-priced 43" OLED will come out.

Monitors are built for being an arm's length away. TVs are built for being several yards away. The pixel density changes accordingly
And so does the ability to use IR or some other remote control mechanism.

A “dumb tv” would just be a monitor with a remote to control power and volume.

There are monitors built specifically for digital signage, these have the same specs as large TVs but no tuner or adware.
Volume? Whether we're talking about TVs or monitors, the most competitive offerings are always the segments that sell in volume.

Just because OLED tech "exists" doesn't mean the equipment exists to make it economically at any particular size, format, etc. We have affordable TV-sized and phone-sized OLEDs because LG has invested in the equipment to make those particular panels in those particular sizes.

Maybe in the high-end only?

Speaking of low to mid end tvs, the ones I saw on display in local shops, they were just overpriced junk..

Even though it's smaller, I installed my 7? year old 24" benq fhd e-ips monitor as a tv for my parents. $120 + $20 for the cheapest 2.1 sound (I think 2x10W + sub), cranked the bass much higher than advised, put the speakers behind the monitor and the sub on the floor + ISP tv box with remote. Speakers and monitor are always on, they got their own power saving stuff. My parents are ecstatic, guests are asking where they got the TV from... apparently it looks better that the ones you could buy for $500+...

Last time I checked, I remember finding somewhere most tvs don't actually operate at the advertised resolution, they got all kinds of "prettifying" algos. Not going to trust them ever.

The panels have the advertised resolution, but yes, for "smart" TVs you always have to figure out how to turn off the gross sharpening/compression filters that they use to win the Great Best Buy Screensaver Battle. It can be done, though, and certainly if the manufacturer wanted to omit them in a monitor offering it could.
Two of the most important settings:

Game mode. This turns off most/all the image processing, which greatly increases the lag.

Overscan. Also turn it off. This zooms in the picture a little to crop out artifacts around the edge.

>Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years?....

Monitor used to have "much" lower input latency, higher PPI, much higher refresh rate and generally higher reliability because they are expected to be constantly on. i.e Their panels have different specifications.

Although I am not sure if most of the above are true anymore especially with OLED. Given how TV manufactures have also had focus on gaming. But reliability is still a thing on monitor. That is the similar to reference TV that uses panel from one of two years prior.

Edit: I had to look up Panasonic TV set and panel and then I discovered they are pulling out of TV production and outsource to external partner. Sigh.

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=...

Yeah, I use gaming mode for my TV-as-a-monitor and if I don't the lag is noticeable even on the desktop. It has the nice side effect of disabling the obnoxious sharpening filters, too.

My dedicated monitors have had dismal reliability: one died right after the warranty, one died inside the warranty and they flaked on the warranty anyway. My reliability expectations are rock bottom, my TV will have to work hard to undershoot them.

> Why does (consumer) monitor tech always seem to lag TV tech by a few years?

Well, “always” seems like an exaggeration; consumer monitors were far beyond 480i before consumer TVs were.

> It looks like the situation is still that in the 4k OLED space there are a few ~$4000+ monitors and dozens of ~$1000 TVs.

That’s not monitors being behind in tech, that’s TVs being cheaper because of economies of scale and opportunity for ad serving and data harvesting.

> Is it an industry structure thing, where panel manufacturers integrate and co-develop with TV manufacturers but monitor manufacturers are separate

AFAIK, LG, Sharp, Samung, and Sony are all four panel/TV/monitor manufacturers; I dont think that’s an issue.

Scale and ads are plausible explanations for why monitors are behind in tech, but they're still behind in tech.
What a weird nonsensical statement.

Monitors and TVs are manufactured with the same "tech", just to different specifications to fit their desired purpose/niche, and to capture the maximum possible value from that market.

You could maybe make an argument that Samsung panel tech is behind LG's or something, since companies have separate R&D labs and actually have different technology, but in order to do so you'd have to be an industry expert.

In what world is a comparison "nonsensical"? They both displays pixels. Each can be substituted for the other with a modest amount of non-panel-related effort. They compete. We can compare them.

> the same "tech", just to different specifications to fit their desired purpose/niche

Clearly not. I am using a TV as a monitor right now, because 4k + OLED + HDR + 120hz was just not available for $1100 in the monitor space six months ago (I think there was a $6000 offering, lol). Looks like it still isn't. This situation has been going on for years. Before OLED it was HDR, before HDR it was 4k, and so on. TVs are always far ahead, monitors are always far behind.

I'd rather not use a TV as a monitor because it's a PITA. I have to put up with substantial non-panel-related silliness to make this happen (turn the TV off/on with a remote, deactivate the laggy filters, tolerate the "smart" BS, etc). If monitors are so well tailored to their own niche, why are they losing so badly to a competitor who isn't even trying?

> to capture the maximum possible value from that market

That's the only explanation I can come up with: monitors are a backwater that the industry just doesn't care much about because volume is lower. Tech has to trickle down, and that takes years.

> TVs are always far ahead, monitors are always far behind.

Your own description isn't of TVs being ahead in tech, but offering the same tech at a lower price point. (There often is some actual tech lag, for many of the same reasons, but it's much shorter.)

> I'd rather not use a TV as a monitor because it's a PITA. I have to put up with substantial non-panel-related silliness to make this happen (turn the TV off/on with a remote, deactivate the laggy filters, tolerate the "smart" BS, etc).

Usually, all of those except for the filters are effectively bypassed when using an input that supports CEC.

> Your own description isn't of TVs being ahead in tech, but offering the same tech at a lower price point

I specified consumer TVs. You didn't read what I wrote, and then you decided to nitpick anyway.

> Usually, all of those except for the filters are effectively bypassed when using an input that supports CEC.

Yeah, I heard about that, but evidently it needs more work before it Just Works.

that looks like a price problem, not a tech problem. you said it yourself, the tech exist, just much pricier.

And like the other person said, one of the reason is just basic scale. TV is multitude much bigger market than monitor ever is.

I don't quite see how "TVs are cheaper because they earn money beyond the sale and have more economies in scale" translates to "monitors are behind in tech"? They have similar tech, but at different price points.
Everyone shops at a price point, and the existence of a $6000 professional monitor just isn't at all relevant for most people. Consumer monitors are years behind consumer TVs in tech.

EDIT: Actually, I did specify that I was talking about consumer TVs. You didn't read my post, and then you decided to nitpick anyway. Bravo.

TV's are such a big business that they overwhelm the rest of the display manufacturing world. That's why 16:10 monitors basically disappeared - 16:9 is 1080p is a TV.

On the other end of the spectrum is professional industry displays which are ahead of consumer facing devices, like are shown at NAB (vs CES) and there you'll find 8k monitors for tens of thousands of dollars.

If I had to guess I’d say it’s just market size. I’d bet there’s a larger market if people who want a large, high definition TV for movies and shows than there is for people who want a high definition monitor.

Most business uses for monitors don’t require high definition, so you’re really looking at specific industries and gaming.

Excluding that Mac market, I don't think Apple sell anything new anymore that is under 200 PPI.
It's amazing how much more expensive those are than traditional TVs, non-starter even.
Economies of scale, and subsidies. TVs that ship with Netflix buttons on the remote, Prime Video app, and built-in crappy ads all over the place are being subsidized by those companies.

Meanwhile, no one is buying non-smart TVs, so lower quantities are more expensive.

(Or they know that non-smart TVs are a niche product that they can charge more for.)

Netflix is paying to have the button on the remote? I actually thought it would be the other way around.
You can get OTA tuners for incredibly cheap. Like $30 for a basic one. These come with the bonus of allowing you to plug in a USB HDD and record live TV. For a little more you can get a HDHomeRun or Tablo and have a network connected tuner so you can stream live TV to tablets or phones and streaming boxes like the FireTV.

Powered bookshelf speakers are also an alternative to soundbars.

I personally use a monitor as a TV. One con is that some devices like the Fire Stick don't send HDMI display off signals but instead a black screen in sleep mode which wakes the monitor and keeps it on. You need a smart switch to easily turn it off.

I would assume most setups leveraging a monitor as the display would also be going through an AVR and that should take care of this kind of thing?
Sound bars and powered speakers are also an option and don't require an AVR but also typically don't offer HDMI/AV pass-through at least on the cheaper side. Going the AVR route adds even more cost and more space as a decent sound bar or powered speaker set costs less then even a low-end AVR. I went the monitor route as I just don't have room for both a desktop PC setup and a TV. I do have an HDMI switch with audio extractor but that also picks up on the Fire TV stick and auto switches to it. TBH it's just a design flaw with the Fire TV and I really wish Amazon would fix it but I bet it saves them 7 cents or something to do it this way.
That's good to know. I've been through a few units (Denon, Pioneer, Onkyo) and they really feel like the weakest link in my setup, with fussy menus and strange failure modes involving cryptic error codes— the Denon in particular would go into a fault state that was probably a thermal problem but might also have been a voltage regulation issue.

It's definitely overkill given that I'm only driving stereo speakers anyway, so maybe next time I have issues I'll go this direction.

The price spread seems so drastic, more than four times. There is obviously much that I'm missing.
4K OLED monitors are insanely expensive. You can get an LG 65" OLED TV for $1,800. The OLED computer monitors I have seen start at $4,000.
A Gigabyte FO48U (48" OLED, same LG panel as the C1) goes for around $1500
83% of the price for 54% of the area.
For use as a monitor, smaller panels may be more desirable, more pixels per unit area.

I don't want a 72-inch wall monster. I'm going to be viewing it from about a meter from my face.

But that's just my face. Other faces might work better.

(comment deleted)
AW5520QF (55" 120Hz) is on sale for $2500. That's getting down to about double the cost.
With 4k monitors you usually pay a larger premium for latency, refresh rate, gsync/freesync, etc. All of which gamers care a lot about but are irrelevant for TVs.
Not really, just like TV's there's certainly a 'premium' range for those that are interested but there's a wide range or regular 'work' monitors. e.g. a few years ago I got a 43" 4K monitor with 10-bit colour-depth, 60Hz refresh, good local dimming etc. for $800.

In OP's link for IPS, a monitor of the same size and brand that seems to be the next version after the one I got is $550. It's hardly a premium over a comparable TV.

I got such a monitor earlier this year for around $600. It's amazing for work but could totally work as a television with an appropriate device connected, especially since it has decent, loud audio built in.
Console gamers care about TV latency too.
>Apple TV, Fire stick etc.

That's just offloading the problem to a separate device.

I think they help by siloing the snooping.

Our smart TV seems to actively try to figure out what is attached to the HDMI. Its probably reporting that back. At least every time I plug my notebook into the tv it seems to wait at least 20 seconds before forcing me to select "PC" as the input device. The old tv the notebook shows up instantaneously.

Another approach is to look not for things advertised as "monitors" but instead look for "digital signage"[1]. Nowadays most of these contain some networking features but they'll be oriented at local control (i.e. by you via something on your LAN), not some third-party control center accessed via the internet.

Anecdotally this is the approach I took ~20 years ago when buying a (then slightly exotic) plasma flatscreen from Panasonic. It is still working flawlessly today, though I keep hoping it will die so I can guiltlessly replace it with something newer/bigger/higher-resolution.

[1] A random example https://www.usa.philips.com/p-p/86BDL3050Q_00/signage-soluti...

Digital signage is good but from my understanding (and I could be wrong) probably over-engineered for home usage. They're intended to be powered on 24x7, and last a long time. Probably more resistant to burn-in too. All of which is good, but if your use case isn't so intensive you could get by with something lower-end. (Especially if you want to eventually replace the device and are looking for an excuse ;) )
My direct experience is somewhat out of date, but from an engineering perspective the unit I have is much simpler than any TV, since it lacks a tuner or any fancy video scaling capability, and has no audio capability of any kind (that was a feature to me, since I use an A/V Receiver for sound). I think in general screens meant for signage are probably brighter than most TVs/monitors, but depending on the room that could be a useful feature as well.
The model that I have js definitely over engineered. I have a 2k sign display which uses display port and its 8 years old.

It's It's bit ugly, but as long as you are okay with that.

But does digital signage have good panels like "real" TVs? Eg. the high end oleds with deep blacks and stuff?
It depends. I have an Iiyama 44” and the display, while nominally 4K, is noticeably not as good as a good 32” 4K monitor. It’s not really visible when watching video, but using it as an external display looks horrible close up.

This is one of the ones with an android board in it, and if I did it again, I’d be getting someone sold as a computer monitor.

Of course a 44" panel doesn't look as good as a 32" one, it has lower pixel density. This has nothing to do with it having a bad panel.
The pixel density difference is about 30%. With careful close observation, you can easily see the pixels in each one. The monitor has smooth solid colors. The Iiyama looks more like it's a native 1920px wide with some 'interesting' pixel layouts for more dynamic range. It looks like complete crap with things like window titles, the MacOS blue highlight, and other gradients.
My experience is that not only are the panels generally worse, support for things like color calibration or Dolby Vision is almost impossible to find. Which is understandable because it's not obvious what advantage HDR would bring to digital signage.
While not HDR, I'd think colour calibration would be fairly important for signage.

If your company red is too washed out, or one section of a video-wall menu board is inconsistent brightness, it looks bad on your brand.

Same thing I did 20 years ago. IIRC it was the only way to get a flatscreen at the time. Mine was a NEC. 40" plasma. 1366x768. Not even full HD. I think it would work out to about $7000. It pissed me off that it didn't even come with a wall bracket and I had to shell out another $600 for that. For the price of just my wall bracket you can now buy a pretty nice 65" 4K screen I'm sure.
This is good advice but if you're looking for something fancy like HDR or DV you will be dissapointed as (in my experience) digital signage displays often lack those features.

I have a big 4k tv that was destined for a sports bar but it was slightly damaged, got it for a great price. Sadly it doesn't have HDR either, but it is an older model. Anyway, its great as in there's no WiFi. There is a network port but there's no streaming apps or anything installed on it. I use it paired with an nvidia shield and a nakamichi soundbar and have been enjoying the experience.

But I digress, look for business displays

I recently opted for Sony Google TV because at least I can trace where my stuff is going with Google. Also it’s hard to find a capable 4K120Hz devices so you’re pretty much stuck with in-device apps to get the best quality.
4K dumb projectors are easy to find. They're not for every room but can give you a great home cinema result while still working for normal TV and games.
Projectors are still a fairly poor substitute for a TV in the same price range, though. Every time I look at them, I'm not happy with the trade offs even if they've been getting better. Most recently it was a combination of price, brightness (HDR) and framerate (VFR, 120Hz).
It depends on what you value. For us it was image size, low noise and good color to get a great cinema experience at night. We couldn't get the same at any reasonable TV price and we also hid it really well so that when it's not on it's just an empty white wall and the room doesn't seem to have a TV at all. It's definitely a tradeoff and not for everyone.
My Sony Bravia is just a couple years old and I just turned off the wifi and watch broadcast and drive it with a mac mini.

I suppose newer systems would use the LAN to update drivers and take over smart functions. If in the US, go by Best Buy and ask them for the remote for the display tv you like and see that it lets you kill internet function. Also that there aren't any always-on apps (or if there are, the menus let you disable them).

I don't buy TVs anymore, I buy monitors.

There's no reason to own a television with a shitty computer built-in, when I can just buy a screen and plug it into my actually good computer.

Right now I have a 27" ThinkVision display and a pair of studio monitors, with both laptop and Switch connected to it. Media comes over the computer (who even buys cable in 2021 anyway?), audio patches into the display over USB-C/HDMI and out to the speakers.

I'm moving soon and I'll probably spring for a 30+" 4K for the living room at some point, and look into a receiver and theatre speakers but honestly I don't see the point.

You do pay a bit more for the display-per-inch, but the reason those "4K smart TVs" are so cheap is all the adware money, so they're only "cheap" in the way that Facebook is "free".

good luck finding 65" - 85" monitor
So if you just use the HDMI port, does the smarttv know what is going through the HDMI port?

A smart tv with no internet connection that only uses its HDMI ports is a dumb tv, isn't it?

Yeah, that works for several models. I do it with my slightly older Samsung to make it dumb.

Unfortunately, many manufacturers are now forcing you to stay connected to WiFi to use the TV. “TV phone home!”