Sadly, no. Which is a big problem, since Smart TVs are the most user-hostile thing _ever_.

Auto-play, ads, pre-installed stuff, non-reprogrammable app-shortcut buttons on the remote, user-tracking. And there is no control, no settings, no opt-out.

I have to figure out if I can get an alternative firmware on my Samsungs TV. In theory, Tizen is Open Source.

It is so frustrating.

What about buying a commercial display panel?

https://www.mwave.com.au/product/lg-se3kdb-49-full-hd-ips-le...

Some of these things look like they have API and what not, so maybe they allow you to turn off all the things you don't want?

The thing is, those don't have DVB-T receiver, which some people out there still require to watch cable TV.

Are there external DVB-T receivers?

SiliconDust makes a network-attached DVB-T tuner[0] that works with MythTV & Plex, for DVR + live TV.

[0]: https://www.silicondust.com/product/hdhomerun-connect/

Is that the same as a digital set top box?

>since Smart TVs are the most user-hostile thing _ever_.

Disagree - smartphones are far worse. At least I can buy a dumb tv and plug a box into it (for now) - my work requires mobile based 2fa, my bank/credit cards have features available in their apps that aren't available on their websites, my broadband provider only offers tech support through their app.

My smartphone OS was built by an advertising company and probably modified by the manafaxturer. The OS tracks everything I do, everywhere I go, everyone I contact, and the OS maker, my carrier, my phone manufacturer uses that information to sell ads to other people and put them in devices that I pay large prices for.

I think the difference is that the phone at least works well and you have a lot of settings to control the behaviour.

Half the buttons on my remote are dedicated to services that have been discontinued

I have a smart TV that has some kind of integration with Roku, and never had any issues with ads, bad UI, etc. It also has a tangibly better UI than other TVs I've used, with features such as showing on the start-up screen what's being fed into all the HDMI inputs so you don't have to guess which one is connected to the cable box and which one is connected to the Wii. You can easily ignore all the other stuff it does and just use it as a dumb TV without much trouble. Not affiliated in any way, just something to look into if you're trying to avoid adware and the like.

Why can't you just disconnect the TV from the network?

I can do that and hook up a box, but I have to pay for that box and I already paid for a TV that is supposed to have the functionality of the box.

There is a bunch of ways I can fix the issues with this TV, but why the hell do I have to fix a brand new TV?

Sure.

See this one for example: https://www.philips.ie/c-p/50PFS5503_12/5500-series-ultra-sl...

I have one of these Philips and love it, but I was under the impression that shortly after I bought it (10 years ago?) they left the US market. That this link is Irish doesn't give me enough information to doubt that...

This is surprising and good to find out. Thank you!

Really, everything I watch on the TV is fed to it by another device. I don't need or want a smart TV. I just need it to display the picture. It does seem like one could look into just using a plain monitor for this, since that's all you need now.

Most TVs have quite advanced image and motion enhancement filters that have no use in a computer monitor but make a very visible difference in picture quality. I would guess scaling signals is also looked on more closely on a TV set. If your devices already do enough in this directions it is still somewhat hard to use as you have to find a way to turn the TV on. CEC is most likely not present and the only way to control it and the way its done on computers is not understood by most devices.

Those filters are essentially useless garbage that exist for the purpose of attracting potential buyers on a show floor. If the filters were actually desirable, most could be applied at the content level.

Why do these filters have no place on a computer monitor, but do on a TV? If you ever watch videos on the computer screen, logically it would either also benefit from such filters or they are unnecessary anywhere. What makes the TV special?

It does seem to me like these filters could and should simply be ordinary software, not firmware that is baked into the screen.

The difference is that a TV is intended to be used to watch movies, TV shows etc. (which is why they do these effects in firmware) although a lot of TVs have a "Game mode" or something similar which disables these effects. Computer monitors are used for a lot of things (so - generic usage), and these effects would usually end up being terrible or unnecessary for the experience (do you really need motion enhancement filters for text editing, web browsing or spreadsheets?). If you need to show a video on monitor you can just process the image on the GPU and show it on a monitor, which is exactly how it's done.

These effects add a lot of latency (several pictures) so they are no good for general purpose computing, specifically gaming (hence the "game" or "PC" mode on the TV).

I basically agree with everything you wrote. I was responding to a comment arguing that not having such features built-in in plain monitors is one of the reasons that replacing a smart TV with a (video rendering device, plain monitor) combo was impractical.

Yes, they make a very visible difference. Everything looks like one or more of

- bad HDR photo

- smudgy temporal smoothing mush

- home video

Agreed, most of these filters have no place on a TV, and a lot of talk about quality difference between televisions is that quality is judged as bad if these filters are on, and crisp if they aren't.

> Most TVs have quite advanced image and motion enhancement filters that have no use in a computer monitor

No use? What about games? I bet most "gaming" monitors have better response time, color, and picture quality than your average TV set.

I suspect the point is that all this image processing adds latency, which is fine when you're watching a movie but not when you're doing something interactive. Same reason I understand these TVs have a "game mode" that disables the fancies to keep latency down.

Maybe a separate computer with flir that controls the TV and displays media?

Buy a decent projector and mount it to the ceiling. Or if you don't need an "entertainment center", just get a large monitor and some speakers. There's really no need to have a specific "TV" device anymore. If you want "TV apps" then get a cheap Roku box, this way you can upgrade it when the tech changes.

No, but it is super easy to just not connect your TV to the internet, which is basically the same thing.

I've recently bought 2 new Samsung TVs and just pressed the SKIP button on the setup wifi screen. Then I disabled the home screen. After this I have a dumb TV as far as I can tell.

In my experience there are still problems: slow to turn on and off, audio/video syncing issues, bugs, terribly designed remotes, and of course you’re paying a much higher cost for hardware and software you don’t use. So it’s still a major problem that only smart tvs are available: they’re just shittier.

We need a linux distribution that could be installed on one of those Intel NUCs (for example) that give you a digital tuner and the applications that you want to have on you TV.

I've always thought that attaching computers to dumb monitors to escape the tyranny of smart tv centralization would establish a good base for more generalized home servers. Why not have my indie smart tv handle my email and PVR stuff, too?

Sounds like you want Kodi: https://kodi.wiki

That's called an HTPC, and people have done it with many different types of computer. Kodi is probably the most popular software.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_theater_PC

If you buy a smart TV and just not connect it to the internet you can use it as a dumb TV.

Unless it attempts to aggressively get internet for itself. Those xfinity (eg) hotspots from neighbors come to mind. As does simply waiting for days to get a passive crack on any available wifi. And before anyone cries paranoia, look how much effort and customer ill will the IOT vendors are enduring in order to phone home: there must be a pile of money on the table.

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/113502/how-to-p...

May as well RF shield your house at that point.

http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html (beware, this place sells literal tin-foil hats)

Or at least shield the iot device. Kinda hard with a tv though.

I liked the advice "Use a honeypot router".

I find that even if you don't use the internet features, you're still left with a massive slow box that takes ages to boot up, has a sluggish UI, and regularly gets video and audio out of sync.

Slow boot is a feature from the manufacturers POV - it encourages you to leave it on all the time. If it's not on, you're not watching ads!

smart tvs really went back in time to pre vlc/real player levels of garbage wow

For now...

Just wait until they have always-on cellular service which is used to deliver ads, spy on you, and "upgrade" firmware.

Always on cell modems are eventually going to be installed in most electronics and it kind of terrifies me. I only want a handful of internet connected devices in my home and at some point that won't be possible. I can keep my "smart" TV offline today, but what about when it has a cell connection? Will I need to physically destroy the cell modem on my TV, refrigerator, stove, etc just to maintain some modicum of privacy?

That's what I fear most. For cars, this is already becoming reality.

The vendor can simply add a GSM modem with a pre-paid SIM card.

That seems like a large expense to get access the small minority of people who won't connect their devices to their own internet.

It's still a shittier tv experience.

Look for the "Anytyme" brand of 4K TV Monitors - they are only a monitor, no "smart" no built in CPU of any sort, it's just a big, beautiful, dumb mutherfucking 4K monitor - and they cost around $200 US - I have 4 of them.

Did you mean Atyme?

"Dumb" TVs cost much more than these smart TVs cost, since they are able to amortize the benefit from all their tracking/ads and price the hardware competitively. Its a razor/blades model, only someone else is buying the blades...

That said, the easiest way to make a smart TV into a dumb one is to connect it to your local internet through a Pi-Hole or other gateway, and then block everything but the Netflix/Amazon domains needed to stream content. If the Smart TV can't phone home, it can't leak data.

I’m less concerned with putting it in a condom than I am the notably degraded functionality of the core tv.

A projector and screen.

Best decision I made, once we moved to a house with the space for it.

It also discourages mindless TV watching, makes it an event since you tend to want to dim the lights.

If you're not into dimming the lights, get a projector that's at least brighter than 3000 lumens. Occasionally, when watching something dark during the day, I'll need to adjust other light sources. Basically the same degree of annoyance as resolving glare issues when watching TV. I've had a projector for a year in an apartment with a floor to ceiling window (that has blinds) in the room where I watch.

Having greater than 1080p quality is the primary compromise, IMO. But that costs more whether getting a TV or projector anyways.

Gee that sounds awesome when I'm trying to watch the local news at 9AM in the morning.

Not for habitual watchers of broadcast TV, sure (I haven't watched broadcast TV in 15 years). But if you use TV for quality series and movies, and the occasional live sports, it's fantastic.

Last time I bought one I looked but couldn't find anything that fitted my requirements, (~55", excellent image quality preferably with HDR, supports ARC and CEC).

If there was a DumbTV that did all those things and was reasonably priced, I'd have bought it there and then.

You can get dumb panels if you look into the b2b offerings. These are ment to be mounted in various business settings (show commercials in the checkout line in the grocery store etc). Often they don't even have any speakers, but the normal builtin speakers are crap anyway. A chromecast or android tv box and a sound system and you have yourself a smart TV setup where each part can be upgraded separately.

The downside is the price and inconvenience (as a consumer they are not easy to find). Buying a consumer grade smart tv is usually cheaper than buying the same panel as a "panel only tv".

I'd also imagine that the image quality is pretty terrible on those compared to a comparably priced OLED TV.

Price for these units is prohibitively expensive.

It's really hard, and the choices are limited, but it's possible. Insignia, has some non-smart TV options. I've had the 55-inch for a little over a year. It's pretty good, and was cheaper than smart TVs.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/insignia-55-class-led-1080p-hdt...

Yes, there's definitely some out there. I got this one this year and I'm very happy with it: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07C2N7DKG

I prefer my TV a bit smaller, but I found larger 'dumb' tvs as well when looking for this one.

In Europe it is, there are plenty of offers around.

Such as?

I see many offers from Philips and LG TVs that have "Smart TV: No" next to them.

Such as Kaufland and Real stores in Germany.

They are all pretty dumb if you don't connect them to the network. :) I cable the TV's up to do software updates and then remove the cable and leave them unconnected. I handle streaming with a "less ad invasive" box.

I read months ago here on hacker news that digital signage devices are the way to escape from smart tv because these IIRC are not bundled with any "smart" software but very basic stuff only.

Large computer screen + laptop + VLC/Netflix. That's basically what I currently use my large TV for anyways.

Just don't give your TV network access