Now get rid of advertising on smart TV OSes
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
337 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
80503 readers
3611 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
just get rid of Smart TVs in general. Go back to simple dumb TVs.
If I want smart features, I can slap a Roku or something else on the TV.
I had to go out of my way to find a dumb HD TV years ago. I don't know if they even exist any more.
Scepter is the only brand I know of that still makes Dumb TVs.
But the screen quality on them can be a real roll of the dice.
Do not connect your tv to WiFi.
8k is pointless. I even rarely use 4k on my 65".
My 55" 4K OLED LG is the single greatest TV panel I've ever looked at. I can't determine any individual pixels, the blacks are black. I have no issues with it in the slightest. And I see absolutely no reason why any TV of that size should need 4x more pixel density (or whatever it is).
Not sure what the manufacturers were thinking, this chart has existed for a long time, you have to be sitting pretty close or looking at a rather large screen for 8K to make sense
What it feels like to look at a TV that's close enough to justify 8K:
Yeah, most people aren't within 6 feet of their TV, and most people aren't buying 100" TVs either. 8K is relevant for virtually nobody.
A lot of companies are successfully working on larger panels (I saw something about a 165" TV recently), so 8K may have a good place in a theatre room one day, but that still leaves you a lot of problems to solve first, and is far from mainstream until all of that becomes a lot cheaper.
We bought a 60" LG LCD first. It was too big for our living room, so when the backlight went faulty and we were offered a refund we chopped it in for the 55" OLED, which is basically perfect for our room.
Turns out 5" really can make a difference.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Where would 1440p lie on this?
1440p screens are all monitors you sit 2-4’ from. That close you can justify a higher resolution but people pick 1440p for other reasons like frame rate.
Yea same. But I fucking DESPISE the LG remote. Holy shit whoever thought about putting a fucking trackpad as the main navigation element needs to burn in hell.
Yeah, it's not great.
Luckily, we do 99% of our viewing through an Apple TV, and we have a soundbar, so the ATV remote covers basically everything we need.
load more comments
(3 replies)
8k is such a waste. Most content people watch isn't even 4k
For a lot of people most of their content isn’t even 1080p. Plenty of people watching DVDs and many TV channels only broadcast in SD.
Display technology has long outpaced content delivery.
Yeah, surprisingly DVD is still heavily outselling 4K bluray. Seems weird to me but I guess the players are ubiquitous.
New blurays are 30-50 each. New DVDs are 5 or less, each. Libraries usually have bigger dvd collections than bluray collections. People use what they can afford, not what is best.
Also there's nearly 30 years worth of DVD content available, it's basically for the same reason why VHS still has a present following.
Well, that, and vhs is one of those things that is fun to play with. It's never going to be perfect, and that's enough to keep people like me coming back to see what new improvements I can make to my vhs setup this time.
Amazon has 3 for $33 sales a couple times a year. I just got Wicked (2024), F1 and Sinners in 4k for $11 each.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Not on desktop use. Which is a market segment that is under served.
Would love to replace my 4x 1440p monitor setup with a 50 inch 8k TV setup.
Presuming you mean 4x 2560x1440 there, you can have close enough to that pixel count today; one of the things Dell released at CES this year was a 52" 6144x2560 display (U5226KW).
Since it's intended to be a monitor, you get a USB hub, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, and other things you wouldn't get on a TV, too.
I've been looking at it longingly, but I can't quite justify that pricetag right now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
and a lot of movies aren't even sharper in 4k. Since for a long time movies used a 2k intermediary format for post production, even if the movie was shot with a 4k camera.
Early 2000s to mid 2010s movies shot digitally? Sure. Film shot movies, especially on 35mm or larger, absolutely look better in 4k. Especially when they’ve been restored from the negative and converted to HDR for a 4k release.
There’s a lot of older movies out there where the UHD Blu Ray is the definitive version to own, looking significantly better than any prior version (and will likely never look better).
They might look better but they're too fucking expensive
Even if they were priced the same as 4K they would still be a bad value. Computers and consoles struggle with 4K 120Hz so 4 times the resolution is too much to ask.
I wouldn't dream of gaming on one at native res, idk if that was even a selling point but obviously something wasn't working
I’ve never seen an 8k TV but ignorance is bliss as I’m still rocking 1080 and happy. I do see the difference at 4k when at friends houses but 1080 still looks good in my living room.
2k is nice. 4k is pushing the limit of utility, even if you can get content for it (or play games with that resolution if gaming). 8k is beyond any need for any normal person. Maybe if you have a private movie studio you could use it, but I don't think that's what this is discussing.
4k's bump in resolution is nice, but the biggest benefit is the improvement in color (HDR or Dolby Vision).
load more comments
(1 replies)
The only market for 8k is movie theaters and megatrons. It’s absolutely not necessary to have it in your tv in your house. And it’s also insanely expensive to get the proper hardware to drive it at full resolution.
megatrons
Fair lol
And it’s also insanely expensive to get the proper hardware to drive it at full resolution.
The shame being 8K (as 2x4K or even more) is awesome for VR headsets, but the only things capable of really driving them are stupidly expensive (thanks NVIDIA) or dual card setups (thanks Mobo producers for making that bad, and CPU manufacturers who insist consumers only need 20-24 PCIe lanes to artificially segment the market, sigh).
load more comments
(7 replies)
Obviously they should have worked on upgrading our eyes before doing that /s
load more comments
(4 replies)
The majority of ppl watching a streaming service with shitty res and crappy compression would do fine on 1080p
I agree. My Plex server is majority 720p with decent bitrate with a lot of 1080p with decent bitrate and a tiny amount of 4K with subpar bitrate (otherwise it’s too large). The 720p is noticeable on the big screen but good luck spotting between 1080p and 4K. It might be different with full 4K Blueray rips but I’m not using 50-80Gb per movie.
I've downloaded some 4k content to do side-by-side with 1080p and it's a struggle to notice the difference.
view more: next ›