Hacker News Reader

Comment by jelder | Hacker News Reader

All I really want my TV to do is turn on, quickly and reliably, and display whatever is plugged into HDMI1. The market is flooded with “Smart” (actually Surveillance) TVs so not buying one isn’t really practical.

View on HN

I wonder if your comment suggests a re-framing of the TV's name. Start referring to them as "Surveillance TVs" in all contexts. Maybe the idea will spread?

Just call them telescreens.

Not everyone has read 1984, so it's accurate but not horrendously useful.

My Sony Google something or other from 2-3 years ago turns on directly to the active HDMI, more or less reliably for most devices, otherwise it'll turn on to the last used HDMI. I never connected it to the internet. I don't buy TVs very often so I was kind of shocked I didn't need the remote anymore to switch inputs when switching between devices. I expect every TV to do this now. It is sad to know that this may not be the case if I ever decide to buy a new TV.

Not connecting the TV itself to any WiFi/ LAN networks used to help. Is that not the case anymore?

My parents got one from Walmart and to use any of the software interface they needed to login to a Walmart account. Scary.

Does selecting inputs work? That's all I need from a TV. If anything, needing to sign in to use the native interface would be a bonus, because it'd prevent non-technical family members from accidently using it. "Babe, we have Netflix on [the dongle], why'd you sign in on the TV?" is a conversation I've had more than once.

That doesn’t preclude plugging an Apple TV into HDMI1. If it does, then back in the box it goes.

You can buy what are called digital signage displays which are mostly just that. A quick search shows a 65" Samsung model available in US retail for $1400.

A quick search shows…

I’ve noticed that very few people recommending signage displays as a substitute for a traditional TV ever say, “here’s the one I bought…”

That’s because one will quickly discover that signage displays aren’t very good TVs.

I have a 55" LG Wallpaper signage display on my living room wall right now, with just an Apple TV plugged in, and it's fantastic. Cost $5000, 3.65mm thick, no smart features at all.

And at only 10x the price!

Digital signage displays are not TVs though. They are much more expensive and frequently don't have features that dumb TVs had 40 years ago such as speakers, TV tuners, and multiple inputs.

Perfect.

That matches exactly how I've used every television I've owned for 20-ish years: I don't have the outside antenna I'd need for ATSC reception here so a tuner is useless, and I don't ever wish to hear the slightest utterance from a television speaker so speakers are useless, and I don't need it to have multiple inputs (but the digital signage displays usually seem to have a few, anyway, just as PC monitors do).

Go buy an AVR and get yourself a proper 5.1.2 home theater (even in a living room); and then the TV will be just a dumb display with the AVR acting as multiplexer.

Part of the reason they're more expensive is that they're not subsided by ad revenue.

Neither were dumb TVs in the 90s, but they were still somehow affordable.

The price of the median purchased TV in 1997 was ~$4000, in nominal (1997) dollars. The price of the median TV in 2026 is ~$800.

So before we account for inflation, consumers are paying about one-fifth the price for a TV now. When we account for inflation, consumers are paying 3.7% of the price for a TV that they did in 1997. And it’s not even the same TV!

An apples-for-apples comparison, a 44” flatscreen TV with 1080i input was $45,000 in 1997 dollars, whereas the current price for a comparable model is $220. (The 2026 model is still better, with a lower operating cost and no burn-in, but it was the worst I could find.)

TVs today are significantly cheaper than those in the 90s. It’s not the TV’s fault they’re unaffordable.

The Sony KV-32FS120, a high-end set in 2004, had an MSRP of 600 USD.[1] (remember, HD hadn't really happened yet, so anything with that feature wasn't a normal consumer item until at least 2005 (unles you were in Japan)) 1080i basically didn't exist in 1997, unless you lived in Japan, where it had barely got of the ground. The modern day comparison is a 100 inch 8K OLED. Your median is so far off base I have a hard time we live in the same world.

[2] https://crtdatabase.com/crts/sony/sony-kv-32fs120

> The price of the median purchased TV in 1997 was ~$4000, in nominal (1997) dollars.

I think you added a zero, where is this figure from?

> The price of the median purchased TV in 1997 was ~$4000, in nominal (1997) dollars

I'm sorry, what? How does this pass the sniff test? Are you saying people spent four thousand 1997 dollars for a tv? Or the equivalent of $4000 of 2026 dollars? Either way, that is extremely high and 1997 was not that long ago.

Nominal dollars refers to the sticker price, in dollars at the time. 1997 was thirty years ago. TVs back then were a large ticket item!

Yes people spent that much for a TV in 1997.

Not as a median, they didn't.

Right? I was there. My family had a tv. We didn't not spend the equivalent price of a honda civic on it.

You can't get a Honda Civic for $4k now. And you couldn't get one for $1.9k in 1997 equivalent dollars[0]. Perhaps you're thinking second hand. And forget that a 35" Sony CRT-TV was $3.8k in 1997 (2x average sale), or a 42" plasma was $23k (more than 12x average sale). Not everyone bought/replaced a TV around the time.. continued with their 25" 1992 screen.. and they were smart if they survived until ~2005 when prices drastically shifted.

[0]: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2026?endYear=1997...

I'd like to present a newspaper insert from Circuit City in 1997 that advertised the televisions they offered: https://web.archive.org/web/20261025051358/https://i.ebayimg...

Front page at https://web.archive.org/web/20261025052016/https://i.ebayimg...

A 35-inch Sony TV was $1.4k, or ~$2.9k today.

25-inch GE sets were $219, or ~$458 today.

And the original comment was the "median price of $4k".

Yep. And to be justifiably curt: It's fucking bullshit.

At best, it's deliberately manipulative. At worst, it's a pack of lies.

The median bullshit quotient here is: Festering.

But I think that's the point? One thing I find silly is seeing all these smart TVs with "fancy" speakers sitting behind a sound bar that has a Roku/fire TV/Chromecast plugged in. Paying twice for devices with a large overlap in features...

Ok, but in this context it's EXACTLY what the user wants for a TV. Everything can go to an HDMI switch, including external tuners, and you'll have a soundbar because TV speakers are GARBAGE today.

I already don't use the speakers, TV tuner, or multiple inputs of my TV. That's what I have a sound system and streaming box for.

TV speakers have been been absolute crap ever since TVs have been flat, good riddance.

absolutely true. I wanted a dumb one too. It seems these companies are subsidizing their hardware by recouping costs through data collection.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com