Why does the article make a big deal about the faraday cage but not explain why it's being used? Is the rest of the office too noisy and they want to test TVs with a single wifi configuration?
They want to take the other variables out of the equation and test each with two different speeds of networks. Without an isolation you wouldn't be able to test the speed of the device with any meaningful accuracy. (One test could have happened when the wifi was interfering with another network that was streaming a bunch of video while another test could have been while she office was at lunch. I've had troublesome network interference when the microwave or a wireless phone was in use. Source: did network installs for clients when wifi was brand new and harder to setup reliably)
I really like that somebody is paying attention to the user experience of these things instead of focusing on pointless spec wars. Those 3 second lags all over the place are subtly annoying every time. I'd much rather the manufacturers fix that then do more resolution bumps that I don't have the bandwidth to get or the screen size to notice, on the 3 shows that actually use it, 2 of which I'm not particularly interested in anyways
Am I the only person who thinks televisions don't suck? This all seems to be about smart TV functionality, which strikes me as superfluous anyway. I would rather buy a TV based on stuff like picture quality and size and buy something to plug into the TV for media consumption.
I'm the same but suspect as usual we are not the target market
I have a full media PC running Linux and external speakers hooked to a cheap dumb Toshiba TV since all I really want it to do is accept HDMI and not look crap.
>buy something to plug into the TV for media consumption.
That sounds like a monitor, which is the thought process I followed until 24" monitors were cheaply available (i.e. 2010). One still can't buy a 50" monitor, however.
LG seems to be making 'dumb' TV's, and I found a 55" one for $700 on Amazon (search for 55LF6000).
Maybe this team could focus on the Netflix software itself on TVs. They recently removed the ability to view all movies in a genre and totally removed all sub-genres. The main reason I bought my TV was for Netflix so now I don't have much use for it or their service.
What, if any, are the bad consequences of instant on for TVs?
Do they have to sleep less deeply than current TVs, consuming more standby power?
Will they be emitting more RFI in standby? My several year old Samsung gives off quite a bit of junk in the 2m, 1.25m and 70cm ham bands when on. That almost all goes away in standby. I'd be displeased if I got a new TV, and it gave off that interference when "off" for the sake of turning on instantly instead of in 10-20 seconds.
13 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 45.2 ms ] threadI have a full media PC running Linux and external speakers hooked to a cheap dumb Toshiba TV since all I really want it to do is accept HDMI and not look crap.
That sounds like a monitor, which is the thought process I followed until 24" monitors were cheaply available (i.e. 2010). One still can't buy a 50" monitor, however.
LG seems to be making 'dumb' TV's, and I found a 55" one for $700 on Amazon (search for 55LF6000).
Do they have to sleep less deeply than current TVs, consuming more standby power?
Will they be emitting more RFI in standby? My several year old Samsung gives off quite a bit of junk in the 2m, 1.25m and 70cm ham bands when on. That almost all goes away in standby. I'd be displeased if I got a new TV, and it gave off that interference when "off" for the sake of turning on instantly instead of in 10-20 seconds.