21 votes

Streaming TV is better in every possible way

In the recent topic about NBC's new streaming service the claim was made that:

This is straight-up worse for the consumer than it was before.

I responded to that comment, but wanted to expand on it a lot more. So here goes.

If you've never read about it, you might not know what TV was like before the internet, so I want to give a brief history of television in the US as I understand and remember it. I was born in the early 1970s, so that's where I'm coming from.

~1940-~1960 - Televisions are large heavy devices full of vacuum tubes. In order to watch something on your TV you also need a large metal antenna on the roof of your house. There are 3 television stations - ABC, NBC, and CBS and they all broadcast in standard definition. You can clearly pick up 1 or 2 of them, but the 3rd is always kind of staticky because their broadcast tower is just over that hill in the distance, so the signal is weak. In order to watch a show you have to be in front of your television when the show is on. All shows are in black and white. Except the characters. They're all white. And straight. And middle class. And Christian. The shows are "free" because sponsors buy advertising time at the beginning or ending of the show.

~1960-1970 - Televisions are still huge boxes that weigh a ton and are full of vacuum tubes. You still need a large antenna on your roof to get the shows, and it doesn't work very well when it's raining. There are now 2 or 3 local stations that have a variety of programming throughout the day and often show re-runs of older shows you used to watch. You still need to be in front of your television when the show is on in order to see it. Some shows are now in color! Except the characters. They're all white. And straight. And middle class. And mostly Christian, though there is an occasional Jew, usually for laughs. Oh, and the big networks use satellites to broadcast their programs to local affiliates across the country. (This will be relevant in the 1980s.) The shows continue to be paid for with your attention; ads now interrupt the show for a few short minutes between the first and second or second and third acts.

~1970-1980 - You can now buy a small television that uses transistors instead of huge vacuum tubes that always burn out. It has "rabbit ear" antennas that don't require installation on your roof. There are now 5-7 local stations including a public broadcasting station that mainly shows a strange woman doing something called "yoga". For a very high monthly price you can get cable which gives you pristine picture quality of all the channels in your area plus 1 channel that shows movies. You need to have an installer come to your house to set it up, and they can't tell you when they'll be there, but they'll come eventually. All shows are in color (except for reruns of shows from the 1950s). Even the characters are starting to show some color! (But not too much.) There are a handful of LGBT characters, usually played for laughs or shown as someone others consider sick. Advertisements now occur roughly every 5 minutes.

~1980-1990 - Televisions are now all electronic (but still has the huge cathode ray tube displaying the picture). Most don't even need a separate antenna. It doesn't matter anyway because cable is cheap enough that most middle-class households can afford it. (You still have to wait for an installer to come.) There are something like 30 channels! It's insane! You can get multiple cable channels that show recent (only 1-2 years old) hit movies. And you can video tape any show you want to see so you don't have to be in front of the TV when it's on. (Assuming you can figure out how to set the clock on your VCR, and the power doesn't blink off for even a second during the show, and the show isn't pre-empted by any news or sports, and the tape doesn't get shredded or self-destruct.) You can fast-forward through ads, and your TV may have a mute button to turn the sound off during ads if you're watching live. If you're really a TV nut you can buy a satellite antenna. It's a 6-foot diameter round metal dish you stick in your back yard. You can directly receive the feeds from the big networks. This allows you to occasionally see Tom Brokaw eating a sandwich during what would normally be a commercial break. If you can't afford a satellite dish, you get to see ads every 5 minutes, plus product placements during the shows. Characters seem to have gotten whiter, straighter, and Christianer than they were in the 1970s. Ads remain largely as intrusive as in the 1970s, there are just more of them now.

~1990-2000 - TVs remain largely unchanged from the 80s. Everyone has a VCR. Everyone now has cable. (Waiting to get it installed now takes longer than ever, and the cable companies are notorious for terrible customer service.) Cable has 100 channels. Most of it is complete dreck and uninteresting to you. Since these channels have to fill airtime 24/7, much of it ends up being "infomercials." However, because there are so many channels most of the non-white, non-Christian characters move to niche channels. (There still aren't very many LGBT characters.) Satellite dishes shrink to about 1 foot across and several companies launch satellites just to provide consumers with content. Several cable channels spring up to show re-runs with small pieces missing, filled in with ads. The ads are much louder than they used to be.

~2000-2010 - VCRs start getting replaced with digital video recorders that can set their own clocks and schedule shows by name rather than date and time. They can save a number of shows without changing tapes. Some have automatic ad-skipping technology. DVDs replace VHS tapes. Televisions start moving to high definition LCD panels. Installing cable takes longer than ever, but cable carries hundreds of channels including channels devoted only to a single sport like golf or tennis. You can get bundles that include different features like lots of movie channels, adult content, artistic content, sports packages, etc. There are a variety of channels with shows devoted to different groups of people including women, minorities, and LGBT populations. It becomes possible to download an episode of a television show or a movie to your computer or iPod over the internet in only 20 minutes. You can watch on the way to work or on an airplane!

~2010-now - Standard definition TVs are obsoleted. All TVs are now High Definition and some are even 4k Ultra High Definition with High Dynamic Range color. The satellite companies are hemorrhaging customers. People are "cutting the cord" and getting rid of cable TV, though most still get their internet through the local cable provider. There's often only a single choice of provider.

Here's what streaming TV over the internet involves:
You can now be almost anywhere and instantly watch almost any episode of any television show you want with pristine quality. You don't need to install any additional hardware and the device you watch it on fits in your pocket. You can literally go to a cell phone store, buy a phone, and start watching television on your new phone minutes later. And you can put that on your huge high resolution TV, too.

There are hundreds of streaming services, but you don't even need to subscribe to a service to find content. People are uploading it constantly. You can watch old episodes of thousands of shows as well as new original content for around what you used to pay for cable TV. You can watch educational stuff, or just short fun videos. You can find videos on every topic from every type of person about every type of person for better or worse.

And if you want to pay for video there are no ads. Nothing to mute, nothing to fast-forward through, nothing to annoy you. (There are still product placements, though they're usually subtle and make sense within the content.) If you watch part of a show on your phone on the train, when you get home, you can pick up where you left off on your television instantly. The weather doesn't affect the picture quality. Shows are never preempted because some politician is making a speech or a sporting event or awards show went longer than expected. There's always something on, even if it's a holiday or summer or there some big event you don't care about going on.

There is one down side: sometimes something you want to watch is on a service you have and then later it goes away, or it's not on a service you have. Usually you can subscribe to a service for 1 or 2 months, watch what you want and unsubscribe.

26 comments

  1. [11]
    Adys
    Link
    It's the middle of summer in the fair city of Paris. A homeless man walks up to a bar to ask for a glass of water to quench his thirst. Despite having water on tap, the barman refuses, because the...

    It's the middle of summer in the fair city of Paris. A homeless man walks up to a bar to ask for a glass of water to quench his thirst. Despite having water on tap, the barman refuses, because the man is homeless.

    In a different universe, that same man walks the desert of the Sahara. A young woman sees him and asks him for his last sip of water. The man refuses, because it's his last sip.


    What is the difference between the two stories above? Abundance.

    Now we're not talking about water, we're talking about TV and entertainment. Nethertheless, the fact TV used to be a different experience has no impact on whether or not corporations are behaving absurdly today with regards to streaming services (which they absolutely are). And the fact is, the limitations of yesterday are no longer present today. Abundance is key: The limitations are artificial, not technical.

    Sorry, but this post reminds me of Grumpy Grampa yelling "back in my days I walked uphill both ways in the snow to go to school" as soon as the kid complains it's cold out. "You don't get to complain because it used to be worse" is a terrible mindset. We don't progress if we stop pointing out flaws.


    With that said, this is a good post on the history of television, and if this post was interesting to any of the other readers here, hop on to the amazing Technology Connection "Television" playlist for a deep dive into the inner workings of analog TV.

    23 votes
    1. [7]
      Adys
      Link Parent
      To expand on how artificial the limitations are: The music industry has this figured out. Despite the existence of tens of thousands of studios, nearly all the music eventually makes its way to...

      To expand on how artificial the limitations are:

      The music industry has this figured out. Despite the existence of tens of thousands of studios, nearly all the music eventually makes its way to all the popular streaming services.

      Most people familiar with the history of music say that the key difference is that the music industry learned certain lessons the hard way with Radio. I won't expand on that because I'm not the right person to do so, but fuck, there's no reason the TV industry can't figure its shit out either.

      I just paid over 800 euros for a NAS to store my TV series Linux ISOs. This isn't me "not willing to spend" for TV. This is me not willing to put up with an atrociously inconvenient system (relative to the norm in other industries) of having to switch between a dozen different providers when I find out (if i find out) that some show or some season is missing because some studio figured it's more $$$s to push people to their service than to share with others for a fee.

      800 Euros pays for 4 years of Netflix for an entire family. Still, I don't use Netflix. You know why? Because I used it right up to the point where I found out Brooklyn Nine-Nine (by NBC of all studios) is missing its latest seasons. Then I got pissed off and back to the old ways. Plex is more convenient.

      16 votes
      1. [2]
        Rez
        Link Parent
        Music isn't really comparable. Spotify and Pandora aren't commissioning people to make music, and the costs to make a typical show is in the millions compared to zero to thousands for an album....

        Music isn't really comparable. Spotify and Pandora aren't commissioning people to make music, and the costs to make a typical show is in the millions compared to zero to thousands for an album. The fact that it's all just digital files doesn't change the economy behind what goes into creating that work. Some of it being extremely popular doesn't change the fact it doesn't cost Billie Eilish much to make her music. If you want to see what tons of cheaply produced video content on a consolidated service is like, that's YouTube. There are some lessons to learn from the music industry, but I wouldn't be so quick to forget that there are fundamental differences between the mediums that matter from a commercial perspective.

        TV ads made a lot of money and supported the diversity of television we had in the past, now that ads are less and less profitable, the difference has to be made up with subscriptions. And even then right now it isn't, but we're still in an investment phase where people are jockeying for market dominance. I would expect that in the future, there will be fewer services with more consolidation of libraries, but there will be fewer big budget shows being made. There might be more low budget shows like Ramy and Fleabag, but fewer Witchers, Game of Thrones, Altered Carbons, etc.

        9 votes
        1. joplin
          Link Parent
          I'd love to see what that looks like!

          there will be fewer big budget shows being made. There might be more low budget shows like Ramy and Fleabag, but fewer Witchers, Game of Thrones, Altered Carbons, etc.

          I'd love to see what that looks like!

          1 vote
      2. [3]
        ReapersGale
        Link Parent
        I had stared this is an separate comment but: Very few of these new services actually open their services in Australia so the licensing drops in and out and about - if it's not on one of them...

        I had stared this is an separate comment but:
        Very few of these new services actually open their services in Australia so the licensing drops in and out and about - if it's not on one of them then...

        Streaming is definitely better than TV/cable used to be; but streaming video in comparison to music is fucked - music wise it doesn't matter which service I'm using the bands I listen to new album will be on all of them at the same time; video streaming wise I have to use one of several 3rd party services to track what is where (if it is anyway) and have 3-5 active subscriptions.

        It's literally quicker for me to 'go to Sweden' and acquire the latest episode of X than to figure out where it is steaming here (hint 90% of the time it won't be for up to a year). Piracy is largely a solved issue - it's the reason TV/movies are pirated significantly more than music here and most folk would likely pay more for a single service if there was proper cross licensing.

        8 votes
        1. cwagner
          Link Parent
          Slightly OT, but I wonder if it’s also because people listen to the same music repeatedly, but don’t watch the same thing over and over? I’m not representative by any measure, but I buy all my...

          Piracy is largely a solved issue - it's the reason TV/movies are pirated significantly more than music here and most folk would likely pay more for a single service if there was proper cross licensing.

          Slightly OT, but I wonder if it’s also because people listen to the same music repeatedly, but don’t watch the same thing over and over? I’m not representative by any measure, but I buy all my music and I buy none of my TV Shows (or care about ebook DRM). Because once I’m done with them, they are useless to me. I wonder if that influences things (both for viewers and for decision-makers)?

          9 votes
        2. joplin
          Link Parent
          Yeah, I largely agree with this. Since I live in the US, it's not too much of a problem for me. But I've never understood why a company would want to have a thousand different distributers they...

          Yeah, I largely agree with this. Since I live in the US, it's not too much of a problem for me. But I've never understood why a company would want to have a thousand different distributers they have to deal with in each country. Just make your license worldwide, ffs. I'm sure they have accountants who have run the numbers and it makes sense because service X is more popular in region Y, but service A is more popular in region B. But why are there regions left totally out?

          4 votes
      3. Akir
        Link Parent
        Sure, unless it's niche or foreign. Then you run into the same problems. Right now, in order to legally buy some of the music I like I have to search through every online store to see if they have...

        The music industry has this figured out. Despite the existence of tens of thousands of studios, nearly all the music eventually makes its way to all the popular streaming services.

        Sure, unless it's niche or foreign. Then you run into the same problems. Right now, in order to legally buy some of the music I like I have to search through every online store to see if they have it. Most frequently some of their albums are on iTunes, but sometimes I can find it on Amazon's MP3 store. If I am super lucky, someone's selling the physical CD on Amazon who doesn't think a relatively common CD should cost $80. But for a lot of other music I have to either abstain entirely or pirate.

        The thing is that you are entirely right that it's all about abundance. There are thousands of studios and artists and they all want to be on every storefront because they are competing with all of the others. In the meanwhile there are only five media companies who own the vast majority of TV and film content. Sure, there is also the likes of Amazon Studios, Netflix, and HBO who are all producing original content that is valuable, but they do not have the backlog of content that people want to watch. And when it comes to new shows, guess who owns the IP that grabs people's attention?

        So now we come to the core of why I think that your oppinion, while valid, is irritating. You are right about abundance, but instead of being happy that you can subscribe to one or two services and have more entertainment than you can realistically watch, you are upset because you don't have access to whatever Big5 media. That, to me, makes you a victim of marketing. You are falling to a basic psychological trick every marketer abuses: humankind's oversensitivity to loss. In reality, much of that content is old, was produced to appeal to the largest common denominator, and was fairly boring. Worse, if you are quitting services like Netflix because Big5 are pulling their content, you have stopped supporting the small guys at the service of the big guys.

        I would like to emphasize that once again your oppinion is completely valid. You have as much a choice of who to pay as anyone, and you should absolutely not use my oppinions as reasons to change.

        6 votes
    2. [3]
      joplin
      Link Parent
      Yeah, that's not what happened here. I was responding directly to the claim that: I was describing what it was before, which is much much worse in my opinion.

      Sorry, but this post reminds me of Grumpy Grampa yelling "back in my days I walked uphill both ways in the snow to go to school" as soon as the kid complains it's cold out. "You don't get to complain because it used to be worse" is a terrible mindset.

      Yeah, that's not what happened here. I was responding directly to the claim that:

      This is straight-up worse for the consumer than it was before.

      I was describing what it was before, which is much much worse in my opinion.

      5 votes
      1. [2]
        Adys
        Link Parent
        Fair, but I think then you misunderstood what that original comment meant. I believe it means it's worse for the consumer to have two streaming services splitting the catalogue than one with more...

        Fair, but I think then you misunderstood what that original comment meant. I believe it means it's worse for the consumer to have two streaming services splitting the catalogue than one with more of it. I also believe that's overall true.

        Best scenario is multiple services all with the same catalogue.

        5 votes
        1. joplin
          Link Parent
          Yeah, I would love to see something like compulsory licensing like radio has, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

          Yeah, I would love to see something like compulsory licensing like radio has, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

          1 vote
  2. [2]
    Kuromantis
    Link
    I agree, but streaming was never the problem. What we're complaining about is shitty business practices, which can be done regardless of platform, which are made easier because of streaming, not...

    I agree, but streaming was never the problem.

    What we're complaining about is shitty business practices, which can be done regardless of platform, which are made easier because of streaming, not possible because of them and have certainly existed for far longer than them.

    In the 80s with VHSs were a thing of practical rather than nostalgic value Disney and others often released a movie and then took it away every so often to drive demand and force people to buy it immediately. This is not a problem with Netflix or streaming platforms having the film removed from it's catalogue, it's a problem with Disney and others taking it away for the sake of immediate profit.

    None of our complaints are related to streaming, but to the companies who own the content we're streaming who are consistently making streaming worse for us and have made other types of movie related services like blockbuster so, long before streaming. Streaming is the act of playing a video via a connection through someone's servers and Netflix hasn't been doing bad in this regard. The problem is with the people who own these movies (Disney, Warner Bros, HBO) and others completely unrelated to movies like Amazon opening up streaming services and taking away movies from streaming services originally concerned with streaming us a better experience, to compete for movies, not to make the streaming better for us watching. Streaming companies should be software companies trying to broadcast the same movies in the best way. Instead they're becoming movie studios in their own right because otherwise they will lose all their movies, meaning that if you own any movie, you should open up a streaming service so you can force anyone who likes it to pay your bill so you can make more money. The problem is that subscriptions aren't meant to scale up, meaning that if we have 10 10$/month services, we have 100 dollars a month just to watch movies, when it was 10 or 20 dollars before. (Those are charitable numbers by the way.) I never said streaming is the problem and I agree with your post that streaming is much better than even 10 years ago and especially 50 or 60 years ago but the services who originated from TV are now ruining streaming by making streaming services turn into movie studios so they can be just like the studios currently killing them, all because those same studios can't just play by the rules, compete and make better content to win an audience.

    7 votes
    1. joplin
      Link Parent
      Thanks for the clarification! I totally agree. I will, however, say that this particular point has actually been a good thing in my eyes: I mean, would we have things like Game of Thrones or...

      Thanks for the clarification! I totally agree. I will, however, say that this particular point has actually been a good thing in my eyes:

      Streaming companies should be software companies trying to broadcast the same movies in the best way. Instead they're becoming movie studios in their own right because otherwise they will lose all their movies...

      I mean, would we have things like Game of Thrones or Orange is the New Black if this hadn't happened? Impossible to know, obviously, but overall, I think this aspect has been a win for consumers. I watch almost nothing from broadcast television anymore because they just don't have the high quality of the shows on the streaming services. (Not to mention the censorship of language and gasp naked body parts! Oh heavens!)

      But yeah, movie licensing has been broken for decades, unfortunately. It does seem to be making small incremental improvements lately, though it might not yet be obvious to the end user. I think the studios are starting to realize that worldwide licensing (or at least broader licensing) now makes sense. (They're realizing it very slowly and it will take years for current contracts to run out, so I'm not predicting a big change in the near future, but I think we'll get there eventually.)

      Also, I hope this topic didn't come off as rude. I mostly wanted to write it up because it's funny.

      3 votes
  3. [5]
    Grawlix
    Link
    You ever wake up and find out someone wrote an entire essay to try to prove you wrong, only they're arguing against a point you never made based on a quote that was misinterpreted and, on top of...

    You ever wake up and find out someone wrote an entire essay to try to prove you wrong, only they're arguing against a point you never made based on a quote that was misinterpreted and, on top of that, taken completely out of context? I just did. :|

    The other thread, like you said, was about NBC's Peacock, and this is the full text of the comment you quoted:

    Yep. Honestly, every time I hear of a new streaming service being announced, my first thought is, "great, that just means more content is going to get pulled from other services." This is straight-up worse for the consumer than it was before.

    I apologized for the misunderstanding, but if the context didn't make it obvious, I thought I was fairly clearly criticizing the fact that giant media companies are creating their own streaming services and, frequently, locking down exclusive content. That leaves us, the consumers, to choose from a greater number of worse services.

    By the way, I'm 30. I remember TV before online streaming.

    Sorry if I'm being a bit irritable. It was a little frustrating to be misunderstood so badly the first time, but it happens. Finding out that misunderstanding was exacerbated and used as a springboard for a dedicated post is a lot more frustrating and, frankly, confusing. Thanks for not naming me, I guess, and at least there's some good history of television in there.

    Still super weird for me to see, though.

    6 votes
    1. [2]
      joplin
      Link Parent
      Noted. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Very sorry.

      Noted. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Very sorry.

      3 votes
      1. Grawlix
        Link Parent
        Apology accepted. For what it's worth, I don't mind an initial misunderstanding—it happens to everyone—or even that it inspired this post. It was just using that quote as a springboard that...

        Apology accepted. For what it's worth, I don't mind an initial misunderstanding—it happens to everyone—or even that it inspired this post. It was just using that quote as a springboard that bothered me.

        Aside from that, all good now. :)

        4 votes
    2. [2]
      Kuromantis
      Link Parent
      Yeah I'm gonna have to agree. At least I can share your sentiment since I really get annoyed when someone says 'technology bad' or 'we should go back' because some company used it for worse and it...

      You ever wake up and find out someone wrote an entire essay to try to prove you wrong, only they're arguing against a point you never made based on a quote that was misinterpreted and, on top of that, taken completely out of context? I just did. :l

      Yeah I'm gonna have to agree. At least I can share your sentiment since I really get annoyed when someone says 'technology bad' or 'we should go back' because some company used it for worse and it gets really absurd when someone makes an argument against an argument that's already bad from the beginning.

      I apologized for the misunderstanding, but if the context didn't make it obvious, I thought I was fairly clearly criticizing the fact that giant media companies are creating their own streaming services and, frequently, locking down exclusive content. That leaves us, the consumers, to choose from a greater number of worse services.

      I agree, and have made comments on posts about people misinterpreting this twice already, one for this post.

      Well, at least we are actually open to change and can move on and leave better off.

      1 vote
      1. Grawlix
        Link Parent
        Yeah, my point was definitely not that the technology has made us worse off. I mean, there are some cases where technology can have drawbacks, but I'm no luddite, and streaming is certainly better...

        Yeah, my point was definitely not that the technology has made us worse off. I mean, there are some cases where technology can have drawbacks, but I'm no luddite, and streaming is certainly better than cable in every meaningful way.*

        The problem is the companies behind the streaming services, and the fact that they have an incentive to do things like this. They make more money by controlling the platform, and rather than all the options leading to competition which leads to innovation, streaming is just a bit more finicky than it used to be.

        *...I do like live reactions to TV premieres, though. :p Granted, that's not a thing that's impossible with streaming services, just something that most of them don't do. I'd love it if they live streamed premieres, and then put them on demand immediately after.

        2 votes
  4. [2]
    Eylrid
    Link
    Good history lesson. The user experience of streaming is soo much better than broadcast television. And there's so many more shows being produced now than ever before. The more streaming services...

    Good history lesson. The user experience of streaming is soo much better than broadcast television. And there's so many more shows being produced now than ever before. The more streaming services there are, the more content they produce to compete with each other, and the more shows there are out there to watch.

    There is one down side: sometimes something you want to watch is on a service you have and then later it goes away, or it's not on a service you have.

    It is so frustrating to be in the middle of a series and have it removed. Platform originals, while part of the "it's not on a service you have" problem, are a solution to the problem of shows being removed. That or just buying the shows you most love on DVD.

    4 votes
    1. joplin
      Link Parent
      Yeah, that is frustrating. And DVDs/Blu-rays aren't perfect either. They have terrible user experiences. But that's a whole other topic.

      Yeah, that is frustrating. And DVDs/Blu-rays aren't perfect either. They have terrible user experiences. But that's a whole other topic.

      2 votes
  5. [7]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [3]
      JXM
      Link Parent
      If you're that concerned About surveillance, then you may as well not even leave the house at all...

      If you're that concerned About surveillance, then you may as well not even leave the house at all...

      4 votes
      1. [3]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. UniquelyGeneric
          Link Parent
          I can’t write a long drawn-out response right now, but I do this for a living, and it’s not nearly as sophisticated for tv viewing as you think. VPPA and COPA are real laws that have protected...

          I can’t write a long drawn-out response right now, but I do this for a living, and it’s not nearly as sophisticated for tv viewing as you think. VPPA and COPA are real laws that have protected consumers present (GDPR and CCPA do so in theory, but I’m more skeptical on those). Not saying it hasn’t trended to get worse, or that some businesses aren’t doing shady things, but 2020 is a lot closer to Brave New World than 1984.

          3 votes
        2. Hidegger
          Link Parent
          You are about to start getting data mined from the new style breakers they are creating as well, which will be the standard requirements that electricians will be forced to use in your homes.

          You are about to start getting data mined from the new style breakers they are creating as well, which will be the standard requirements that electricians will be forced to use in your homes.

          1 vote
    2. joplin
      Link Parent
      You're not wrong. I don't have a smart TV (and won't get one) and on my computer and phone use aggressive ad and tracker blocking. I have only a few subscriptions and they're with companies that...

      You're not wrong. I don't have a smart TV (and won't get one) and on my computer and phone use aggressive ad and tracker blocking. I have only a few subscriptions and they're with companies that don't have a history of selling me to advertisers. It's not perfect, but I'm OK with the trade-offs. There's a lot of really good stuff made for TV right now.

      1 vote
    3. [2]
      weystrom
      Link Parent
      Or you could just not plug it into your network and it would serve as a dumb display?

      Or you could just not plug it into your network and it would serve as a dumb display?

      1 vote
      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. weystrom
          Link Parent
          Do you have a source on that? Seems pretty wild, but of course believable. Other option would be to firewall it off on the router, I guess.

          Do you have a source on that? Seems pretty wild, but of course believable.
          Other option would be to firewall it off on the router, I guess.

          1 vote