Submitted by randburg t3_103bh7f in technology
Comments
insaneinthecrane t1_j312dgk wrote
Let alone potential latency issues!
a_talking_face t1_j3299z1 wrote
Outside of gaming I don't think latency will be a problem. Even then it still could be fine I guess. Gaming headsets don't have noticeable latency issues so it seems that at least the audio aspect should be fine.
toaster99 t1_j31suur wrote
I feel Samsung has the best solution with the single wire that connects to an external box with all the inputs and stuff. Unfortunately that's paired with Samsung's terrible UI that forces ads onto you.
marqoose t1_j327sbs wrote
Feels like every single smart TV i've ever used has an unbearable UI and a Gameboy Advance processor.
evolving_I t1_j32v1uu wrote
I'm really happy with GoogleOS so far on our new Hisense 65"
PDNYFL t1_j31yz3q wrote
I assume the wire is proprietary as well? So if you run it through a wall or some type of cord concealer and replace it with a different model you have to take the cable back out?
toaster99 t1_j3210ha wrote
Yeah, it's a proprietary connector, but I believe it is at least used across multiple Samsung models.
[deleted] t1_j327nrb wrote
So it's a Samsung lock-in
Unlucky_Disaster_195 t1_j4f94bl wrote
It has to be
Scraw16 t1_j32xqsa wrote
I still don’t really understand why only Samsung has that. I have a TV mounted where I can’t run cords thru the wall and would love to have a single input cord to simplify cord management (even if power was still separate).
toaster99 t1_j33g5g2 wrote
With the Samsung solution, the single cord includes power which is awesome. It's honestly a really good idea.
cntry2001 t1_j321vdb wrote
These things are terrible imo I’ve seen multiple of the input hubs on them die and then need replaced
Beautiful-Ad-2390 t1_j30ytdp wrote
No you’re wrong on this. I’ve been searching for wireless hdmi cables but the quality is not there yet. The main thing is cable management, as well as device management. I use a laptop to connect to my tv. I watch whatever I want with no ads and if I didn’t have to have a 30’ cable running to the tv it would be great. Plus the actual real world applications.
dRi89kAil t1_j31hjql wrote
>wireless hdmi cables
So you mean Bluetooth or Bluetooth type technology?
KarlMalownz t1_j31o2c4 wrote
The person you're replying to is probably referring to video-specific wireless protocols. There were a couple called WHDI and WiDi in the last ten years that were supposed to be substitutes for HDMI. They never seemed to catch on.
dRi89kAil t1_j31t1g3 wrote
Hmm. The more you know.
iRAPErapists t1_j33qlp2 wrote
Plus... I believe Bluetooth bandwidth is.. 2mbps? While hdmi 2.1 bandwidth is 48gbps
I-Love-Cigarettes t1_j319qa3 wrote
Most smart tvs allow you to connect your laptop to it tho. Even windows media player supports it, if you’re a pirate 🏴☠️
[deleted] t1_j3127d7 wrote
[deleted]
truthfulie t1_j32g409 wrote
So this is basically a solution to a problem that is very specific to this TV's formfactor, a problem that the formfactor created in the first place. And maybe a little bit of region-specific architectures.
The TV is on a easel-like stand on four legs. You can't have a traditional media console setup with this TV. You'd like want/need a separate furniture (likely something that is smaller and unassuming in keeping with the aesthetics of the TV) to store any additional devices you might need. If this TV was wired, you would need to run HDMI cable(s) and hide them. Might be easy enough for Americans who have drywall. Easy to cut open the wall, run cables and hide it from plain sight. Might not be the case with other regions that do not use drywall (S. Korea for example).
But by having wireless signals, you are free from cable management which also gives you a bit more freedom in terms of placement of your devices and the box since it gives you up to 30ft.
Obviously, a very very niche problem and a very very niche solution but yeah. I can see why they did this even if it makes little sense for most people. Signature series isn't for most people to begin with.
Folderpirate t1_j2zwu8a wrote
We are actually incredibly close to wireless electricity.
Telemere125 t1_j30duot wrote
We’re not close, it’s been around since 1891 with the first Tesla coil. The problem is feasibility because you have to put massive amounts of power out of the coil that mostly gets wasted, since it’s not directed, and the fact that it produces high-frequency AC power, so it’s not useable in high tech electronics.
THIS_GUY_LIFTS t1_j308ntt wrote
I mean, it exists. And has existed since at least Nikola Tesla’s experiments.
hautdoge t1_j30u1ne wrote
Nope. Fucked by physics. Inverse square law.
[deleted] t1_j303fc7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j3025im wrote
[deleted]
Ottobahn- t1_j2y0wp0 wrote
Which makes it an inferior TV at premium cost…noice!
AdRelevant3167 t1_j2z6u0k wrote
Digital can transmit without any loss of data.
Edit: not sure why everybody thinks that 4k Netflix video, which came from a 100mbps internet connection, and then transmitted through a home wifi router, would bottleneck at another wireless transmission point.
TheFriendlyArtificer t1_j2zecjw wrote
If there's a consumer wireless AP that can transmit at the 18Gbps HDMI standard, I'd love to see it.
LeLefraud t1_j30qh9x wrote
dont forget hdmi 2.1 which goes up to 48 gbps and will be the future mainline speed
sybesis t1_j2zs7oo wrote
Well damn, I'll have to replace my AP with HDMI cables then it will certainly make the internet faster! /s
eugene20 t1_j30z5hn wrote
There you go mistaking highly compressed video for quality. Some people use their screens for actual high quality media, or displaying games rendered realtime to HD, where input latency is also an issue that isn't a problem for netflix content.
yungplantdad t1_j31mo2b wrote
How much can a Tv use per second? I worked with Netflix on a project to optimize their data transmission performance for phone and it was nowhere near 18Gbps
Gwthrowaway80 t1_j2zhkxk wrote
If you have no requirements, that’s a true statement.
The issue is that HDMI is a very high data rate of 48 Gbps. It’s mostly trivial to do that with a wire, but extremely difficult to do wirelessly. With enough bit errors, there will absolutely be data loss.
sybesis t1_j2zsyqs wrote
People seems to be missing the point that if you need 100Mbps to stream video in 4k. If all you need is 100Mbps having an extra 48Gbps isn't going to make you buffer the video faster since your internet connection speed is way under that even in a LAN and there's no way you'd be able to encode the video in a way you'd need more than a fraction of the potential speed HDMI gives you.
riffruff2 t1_j30fklm wrote
It has nothing to do with buffering or your internet speed. The video file you're streaming over the internet is compressed. If you're using a set top box (like a Roku) then that receives the video and decodes it. Then it sends the uncompressed video via the HDMI cable. That needs significantly more bandwidth than the compressed video. Hence why HDMI supports significantly faster speeds.
Nearby-Ad5092 t1_j30nvkk wrote
Can they put the decompression into the tv?
riffruff2 t1_j31kdoi wrote
Not with HDMI. The HDMI spec uses uncompressed video data. The audio can be compressed though.
Regardless, the issue with this tv is there's likely a 2nd compression and decompression happening between the tv and wireless box. That increases latency and almost certainly has quality loss too. The article is light on details, so there's not really much to go on.
sybesis t1_j3272dr wrote
It doesn't matter. Roku receives a streams and decompress/decodes it to send through HDMI. With that TV what's likely going to happen is that you'll just stream the encoded video directly to the TV without having to decode it.
So even if you used an other system what would happen is the box would stream the video from internet without decoding/decompressing and be sent directly over network to your TV.
HDMI supporting significant faster speed is irrelevant as you basically don't need it for video streaming. The only case it could make sense is realtime video streaming for gaming. That could be an issue but in reality I doubt it's much of an issue. It's not like encoding/compressing video is terribly hard to do as games could output an encoded stream without having to resize frames or anything "expensive".
riffruff2 t1_j35ukuf wrote
>So even if you used an other system what would happen is the box would stream the video from internet without decoding/decompressing and be sent directly over network to your TV.
It doesn't work like that. HDMI carries uncompressed video. Yes, it'd be great if it could do what you're talking about. But that's not possible with HDMI.
>HDMI supporting significant faster speed is irrelevant as you basically don't need it for video streaming. The only case it could make sense is realtime video streaming for gaming. That could be an issue but in reality I doubt it's much of an issue. It's not like encoding/compressing video is terribly hard to do as games could output an encoded stream without having to resize frames or anything "expensive".
Look at the bandwidth requirements for uncompressed video.
sybesis t1_j373e6g wrote
> It doesn't work like that. HDMI carries uncompressed video. Yes, it'd be great if it could do what you're talking about. But that's not possible with HDMI.
It works exactly like that. Because we're talking about not using HDMI. I'm not sure why you're talking about sending uncompressed over HDMI when I'm talking about sending compressed data over network. The speed requirement for uncompressed video over HDMI is irrelevant because we're talking about sending compressed/encoded video over network.
That's the whole point here. Nobody here is saying that HDMI speed is unnecessary for uncompressed video. We're saying sending uncompressed video isn't necessary since video format have lossless compression and can be sent over lower bandwidth network just fine.
MarkedZuckerPunch t1_j37r7l7 wrote
The streaming stick still uses hdmi to connect to the box, so it has to send uncompressed video (Edit: And it might then get recompressed by the box, which further degrades an already degraded video). Also there are many more sources than just a roku device where you get significant quality loss when sending compressed video and high wireless latency, like gaming consoles and bluray players.
So it's not about getting rid of hdmi cables, just the cable to the tv. Even if they magically solve all those issues, it's still stupid because there needs to be a power cable. Just do it like Samsung. One cable for video AND power.
sybesis t1_j37zftj wrote
HDMI sticks mainly exists because TVs didn't usually have the processing power to decode/decompress video streams. Cannot have alternative OS installed to make your TV a Roku TV or a Chrome TV or whatever you want.
So what you do is plug an external device to use your TV as a display. It just happen that HDMI is a widely used standard. It's not a necessity. We don't have to use HDMI. It's just convenient.
Point being, is that if you can receive video on a 100Mbps connection. That's the minimum you need to send it somehow to the TV. That you send uncompressed video over HDMI is completely irrelevant because HDMI isn't the bottleneck. Internet connection is the bottleneck.
It's a bit like how Bluetooth is a drop in replacement for RS232. What LG is doing seems to be introducing a wireless standard to use as drop in replacement for HDMI.
The TV still provide HDMI port on a hub. But see it as a convenience... because nobody else uses this wireless protocol. Eventually we could see HDMI stick connected to a gaming console to emit the video directly over the air just like you can replace RS232 cables by pairs of RS232 <-> Bluetooth <-> Rs232.
> So it's not about getting rid of hdmi cables
It's all about removing cables. It's just it's still early to completely drop HDMI for obvious reasons.
MarkedZuckerPunch t1_j389llo wrote
-
Streaming sticks exist for more reasons than that. Choice being one of them. Replaceability another. Imagine building the tech required for this to work without problems directly into one, skipping the connect box while keeping the small form factor and the 50$ price tag. Not gonna happen.
-
The tech is gonna be proprietary. So get ready for every device incorporating it directly to be vendor-locked. Or buying expensive transmitters to plug into the HDMI PORT of every device you own, which will still require an uncompressed signal because its still HDMI. Or, you know, a single connect box, just like what LG just presented.
-
HDMI IS the bottleneck for anything other than streaming services. That and storage space. Even movies on Blurays are compressed because storage space for uncompressed video would be insane. And even those require the full hdmi bandwidth. Sure they could be compressed even further, but with added latency on top of the wireless latency and even worse quality than direct netflix streams because of real-time encoding an already degraded source. Which brings me to
-
Incredibly high latency and video degradation on video games even IF consoles incorporated the tech directly, which they won't (because of all the reasons above)
And don't even try to compare this to high-compression, audio-only tech like bluetooth, which no audiophile would ever use in their home cinema. If this is going to be like that, they might as well not do it.
- The power cord, nuff said
sybesis t1_j38uq9c wrote
Ok, you clearly don't understand what bottleneck means. If the HDMI cables can handle up to 48Gbps... the cable clearly can't be the bottleneck when all other medium don't have those kind of bandwidth.
That's why we compress video because if we didn't. We'd need many more terabytes of storage or more than 48Gbps of bandwidth on network to be able to transmit them.
When you're able to compress, the bottleneck will still remain the slowest part of your system. In case of streaming, it's your internet connection. If you don't have the required internet speed to download the stream, you can't hope to be able to watch it even if you have 48Gbps capable cables.
Just to show how ridiculous the claim is. If we had a video that requires 2Gbps of bandwidth. That would require an internet connection of at least 2Gbps or more than 17GB of storage for a 60second footage.
In reality, the footage is compressed and can be compressed in a lossless format so quality doesn't degrade and doesn't induce necessarily any latency. One example is like having a frame and having 90% of the pixels identical to the previous frame. There's no point sending all of the pixels. You'd send the 10% of the pixels that changed and only update those. We're not even starting to compress the 10% we send but the frame size will be 90% smaller than the previous one and it won't be slower because if you spend time only updating 10% of a frame you spend less time than updating a whole frame.
> The tech is gonna be proprietary. So get ready for every device incorporating it directly to be vendor-locked.
It's possible, but I sincerely doubt it. Creating vendor-locked technology like that means nobody would want to integrate with their TVs... then it's just a matter of time until a consortium is created to replace their vendor-locked technology to replace it with an alternative that's used by everyone. That's why USB is used everywhere instead of firewire, that's why bluetooth is so common nowadays, how we had RCA cables then HDMI cable instead of vendor locked cables, just like wireless charging support a common protocol instead of reinventing the wheel. Having a vendor-locked system would be a terrible move nowadays. I'd imagine they'll build a consortium and use their basis to build a future standard backward compatible with what they currently made.
MarkedZuckerPunch t1_j39j7zb wrote
I know how lossless compression works. Netflix doesn't use lossless compression because the file size would still be way too large. blurays can't be further compressed losslessly because they already use lossy compression. Trying to compress them losslessly would best case do nothing, worst case it larger. So I don't even know why you mentioned lossless compression, unless you were either actually suggesting that or thought that netflix uses lossless compression.
Also I don't know why you're acting like netflix streams are in any way representative of the speed this connect box would need to reliably and with near zero latency transmit (can't buffer video games), while 4k 120hz 4:4:4 Chroma wasn't possible with HDMI 2.0 (sound like a bottleneck to you?). This means that for that you need more than the 14gbps, quite a bit more actually. 20gbps or more. That's double the wifi 6 max speed. There's also TVs now with 240hz, which even HDMI 2.1 can't do at 4k and once we get to 8k TVs those 42gbps probably won't be enough anyway. That' more than 4 times wifi 6 max speed. Remember: reliable and near zero latency.
Why did those
>That's why USB is used everywhere instead of firewire, that's why bluetooth is so common nowadays, how we had RCA cables then HDMI cable instead of vendor locked cables, just like wireless charging support a common protocol instead of reinventing the wheel.
Why did those even have to be replaced? Because some companies were doing it before everyone else and tried to profit off of it. Why did they get replaced? Because the technology got important enough to warrant the building of consortiums and standards. Will this eventually be the same? Probably. Are we there yet? No. Why? Because it's still experimental. Did other TV manufacturers announce a similar feature? No. So they probably didn't work together on a new standard. Also you act like no company would do anything proprietary these days, which is just false.
Note: I'm not saying they'll create vendor lock-in. I'm saying they won't do it as you described at all. At least not any time soon.
Note 2: we had open HDR10 at first, but the proprietary Dolby Vision Codec won against HDR10+ and Samsung doesn't want to pay royalties for it.
riffruff2 t1_j39d49i wrote
Dude the entire argument was that if you're using a HDMI device then you will have quality loss with this wireless solution opposed to using a standard non-wireless tv. You're pulling a classic strawman argument. Taking HDMI out of the equation is not an argument. I can't connect my Roku, computer, Xbox, PlayStation, or whatever other device I have to this tv without quality loss.
sybesis t1_j39givz wrote
You're basing your argument on assumptions. Here's a review made by Linus Tech Tips made 1 year ago about a wireless HDMI drop in replacement. Note here that's a replacement for HDMI not simply ditching it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojTyPdhp3s&ab_channel=LinusTechTips
> I can't connect my Roku, computer, Xbox, PlayStation, or whatever other device I have to this tv without quality loss.
Based on what evidence? Do you sincerely believe LG would release a device with a technology that makes video look shitty on their TVs?
riffruff2 t1_j39k0m9 wrote
I mean that device severely limits the quality. The evidence is in your video. It doesn't even support HDR for example. Is that fine for you?
Yes I believe LG would release it. It's to be the first. I work very closely with both LG and Samsung with their hospitality displays. I have weekly meetings with their display engineers. My evidence is from experience.
Gwthrowaway80 t1_j30cd72 wrote
Regarding your edit: Your statement is almost true that 4k Netflix is streamed TK you at a lower data rate than a full bandwidth HDMI 2.1 stream. However, viewing that movie would take the lossy compression from the Netflix stream, decompress it at the receiver, then do a second lossy compression to stream it wirelessly to the tv, where it is decompressed a second time. There will almost certainly be quality lost.
However this scenario totally ignores use cases that aren’t streaming movies. 4k BluRay is one example that could lower quality, but a bigger one is gaming. Pushing a 4k display at 120 hertz will fill that 48 GHz bandwidth of a wired connection. I presume the frame rate will suffer as a consequence of the shift to wireless interconnect.
Without any documentation, I acknowledge that I’m speculating, but it is informed speculation.
[deleted] t1_j2zilud wrote
[removed]
Dawzy t1_j316521 wrote
Regarding your edit… Because that’s exactly what can happen?
It might not, but it certainly could.
Vybo t1_j31dn3v wrote
If you're not streaming it directly to the TVs operating system (using the app on the TV itself), you're introducing another recompression. That's compressed video of a compressed video. It worsens the quality a lot, try to save a JPEG few times over itself and then compare the initial image with the latest saved one. You'll see that the later has more artifacts.
sinyoro t1_j2y2rh8 wrote
Not impressed until it can receive power wirelessly too
no_user_name_person t1_j2zytu0 wrote
Lg's signature lineup is all about gimmicks. I certainly look forward to seeing what they do to the signature lineup every year because even though its impractical, its always cool as hell and that's exciting for me.
venk t1_j2z8jxk wrote
I was expecting to see a post history filled with racist and anti-Semitic content in the OPs. Post history when I saw a link to an article on LG TVs
hold_me_beer_m8 t1_j2zf83y wrote
lol, I was thinking the same thing when I clicked the post!
repeatrep t1_j2zius4 wrote
please elaborate? i’m out of the loop on this one
venk t1_j2zpsy4 wrote
There was another post on here very similar to this with an article on the 2023 LG oleds and a deep dive into the poster post history showed all of his content was LG TV articles and right wing anti-Semitic/racist content.
Zenketski_2 t1_j2ztvxj wrote
I have two passions in life, anti-Semitism and LG tvs.
6BigZ6 t1_j30vcrq wrote
And they were all out of LG’s at my Best Buy….
KrazyRuskie t1_j313653 wrote
The Jews bought them 🤣
erosram t1_j3010nl wrote
Ah, so you of course assumed that any post about LG tvs was probably related to racist origins.
5exy-melon t1_j31cr24 wrote
Do people usually check everyone’s post and comment history?
venk t1_j31o61t wrote
odds are someone will if a post gets popular enough.
olqerergorp_etereum t1_j31r5jn wrote
I don't even check my own comment history
5exy-melon t1_j31rbob wrote
Does your name have a meaning or is just random letters?
olqerergorp_etereum t1_j31syne wrote
random letters my bro.
it's mean to be anonymous 😉
5exy-melon t1_j31ugr0 wrote
Cool name either way my g.
AlphaZorn24 t1_j30k60v wrote
They're not racist they're "joking".
Black_Audi_TT t1_j2ytya3 wrote
Not interested in buying a signature series TV. However, this would be a cool feature to make it down to regular models in a few years. Could make wiring up the entertainment center simpler.
A40 t1_j2y0d23 wrote
My 19-year old Toshiba receives all of its audio and video through wires. I don't see the point of wireless...
biff64gc t1_j2yz3sh wrote
Get the pleasing wire free look without the effort of running cables in walls while sacrificing quality and your wallet.
A40 t1_j2zi822 wrote
My TV sits on an antique cabinet beside a low stereo stand (with my turntable on top and LPs below). No cables are easily visible even though none are run through the walls.
CoolRichton t1_j2zlfpt wrote
Guess they didn't design it with you, specifically, in mind then.
A40 t1_j2zo5dx wrote
I guess not. "The pleasing wire free look" is wasted on the likes of me...
Zenketski_2 t1_j2zu2nm wrote
You and every single human being on the face of the planet who owns a TV stand / entertainment center
Elliott2 t1_j2yru5f wrote
19 years old? That tv probably looks awful
Esquyvren t1_j2y8oe0 wrote
It means you can put the TV anywhere with an outlet, like above a fireplace, or mounted on a brick/concrete wall. Sometimes it’s not possible to run a new conduit without causing damage, and a TV like this solves that issue.
By_your_command t1_j2yic3h wrote
> It means you can put the TV anywhere with an outlet, like above a fireplace…
Literally the worst place to mount a television. Don’t do this.
jeepster2982 t1_j2ym1kj wrote
I’m sure the added latency will be just great for gaming……
constantino675 t1_j2yve25 wrote
Lots of tvs suck for gaming, not a big issue in most cases
A40 t1_j2yiwjh wrote
I plug in the TV, and then plug in the blueray, stereo, etc. Not a single conduit anywhere.
[deleted] t1_j2ygxum wrote
[deleted]
WCWRingMatSound t1_j2ylrgl wrote
Wires are not aesthetically pleasing. LG Signature line is form-first, pride be damned.
I own an older one and I love it, but it doesn’t do anything that a TV half its price wouldn’t have done.
badchad65 t1_j2zkjbh wrote
There has got to be a ton of compression, right? I’d think this really detracts, especially for larger sound systems.
[deleted] t1_j2yutm2 wrote
[deleted]
ElfegoBaca t1_j2yyz57 wrote
Pi-Hole seems to keep my new Samsung TV from displaying ads. At least compared to what I've seen others describe on their sets.
Slave_to_dog t1_j2ypv9t wrote
This sounds terrible except for extremely specific situations
Draskules t1_j304ioq wrote
This would create more problems than it solves. Cables are normally superior to wireless in terms of quality. Compare a wired microphone to a wireless microphone. The wired one tends to be clearer.
Next is the cost. Firstly, you are spending a lot of money on the tv. Now you would have to factor in the adapters that the average person would have to buy in order to use wireless vid and audio. Game consoles, media players, speakers, and cable tv boxes would mostly have to have special adapters that will then most likely sell for much more than a cable, as now you would need to have pcb's as apposed to copper wire
Reaps21 t1_j2zzj3h wrote
Is this subreddit turning into a lg advertisement sub?
DarqSol t1_j307pyq wrote
CES starts tomorrow so expect to see this stuff from all manufacturers over the next three days.
IM_INSIDE_YOUR_HOUSE t1_j30ltcn wrote
Why is this a good thing? Seems like just more ways for it to fuck up for no real gain.
8bitpony t1_j31mond wrote
I feel the majority of people in the market for LG OLED lines are people who would prefer quality over convenience, and I’m not sure I’d believe the technology is there to satisfy audiophiles with Dolby Atmos setups yet. Wireless data transfer sounds great for people who aren’t so concerned with hard specs and data transfer off 4K blu ray disks and the like, but those people aren’t in the market for the top of the line LG panels.
gregsapopin t1_j2zldii wrote
Who has space for a 97in TV?
werdmouf t1_j304say wrote
I love video compression
DunebillyDave t1_j30dc5c wrote
This is a potential exploit for hackers. When I worked for a major shipping company, they used no wifi or Bluetooth connections. I couldn't even use a wireless mouse when I injured my hand. Everything was hardwired. Our IT guy said it was a security issue.
Ihavetwobucks t1_j31viq5 wrote
It is, but not really any different from the dozens of other wireless devices most people already keep in their homes. Definitely wouldn't recommend for a business, but I don't think that's the target demographic here.
DunebillyDave t1_j341n5c wrote
You're absolutely right. I mean LG will be tracking your watching habits anyway.
I was just trying to make security conscious people aware of the potential exploit that is Bluetooth. We Luddites gotta watch each other's back.
Ihavetwobucks t1_j3429ih wrote
Fair enough!
markorokusaki t1_j30q03r wrote
I don't like how we are put of options of "just" a tv without smart. I want great picture, the rest is ousourced. I have an audio system, I connect my ps and android box on the tv. I don t want smart options cause I don't need them. The less the better for me. But that kind of a tv doesn't exist or at least there is no one in my country.
Stenotic t1_j30z8or wrote
I felt the same way but at this point the hardware making most TVs smart is like 20 dollars added to the manufacturing costs so it's like whatever.
phaedra-moog t1_j2yh0el wrote
If this is a two-in-one package... I'm guessing this Zero Connect box is replacing the TV as the operating system? Is the TV still operational without it? Are you meant to update firmware for both devices?
Kurotan t1_j2ypmac wrote
Okay, but then what. Do I plug all my stuff into a box that transmits to the TV? I barely watch anything anymore, this TV is clearly not meant for gamers since that would cause input delay of some kind.
littleMAS t1_j2zchbt wrote
Eventually, these displays will become wallboard when the price drops. It will be a must-have for windowless rooms.
[deleted] t1_j3085a2 wrote
[deleted]
Telemere125 t1_j30e1js wrote
My theater projector already receives video wirelessly, what’s the revolutionary tech they have here? bluetooth has been doing wireless sound for a couple decades
Theedon t1_j30jyax wrote
I have a 55 inch Vizio that is 20+ years old. The picture is perfect.
derekneiladams t1_j30pkyg wrote
My TVs have had this capability since the I was born in the 80s. Not much selection but VHF was fire, UHF was cool too. Signal. Everywhere.
Arts251 t1_j31nqez wrote
I don't see how wireless AV is very beneficial and would only be a bottleneck for throughout compared to hardwired. I would pay more for one with hardwired connectivity.
dan_who t1_j322ebu wrote
So UHF or VHF?
truthfulie t1_j32hp8j wrote
People aren't realizing why this TV is wireless. If we look at the formfactor of the TV and the design aesthetics it is going for, we can sort of guess why they opted to to wireless. Signature series are usually sold with high premium and are in some way, hybrid of high-tech and lifestyle product that focuses on design and aesthetic while also giving you high-performance. But in order to achieve certain design/aesthetic and still offer some practicality, they would sometimes need a gimmick and this time, it's wireless signal.
As silly and unnecessary as it first sounds, hear me out. The TV is on a easel stand which means you aren't likely going to use this TV with a traditional media console/TV stand, where you would normally concealing extra devices and manage cables much easier. But without media console, you basically have to run the cables in the wall (which isn't as easy for other parts of the world where they may not be using drywall) or live with the cable clutter. Wireless signal does solves this issue and gives you more freedom in terms of device placement since the box can be up to 30 ft away from the TV.
aldoggy2001 t1_j32mhm4 wrote
Without reading the article….isn’t this how ALL TVs work now? It’s called wifi. I’ve only had the power plugged in for years now. No other cables.
socalsw t1_j3awsss wrote
Sony QD oled for me. Hopefully they’ll have a 77inch model
eugene-fraxby t1_j3bio5n wrote
What could go wrong?
DespicablePickle69 t1_j300eel wrote
I have a roku from Walmart that also gets all its content wirelessly. I don't see why this is a big deal.
[deleted] t1_j307u6f wrote
[deleted]
Stenotic t1_j30zcyb wrote
LoLs, no, this is a brand new technology for transmitting AV from an input box that takes HDMI inputs and can be positioned up to 30 feet away from the TV. So no HDMI cables going to the TV etc.
DespicablePickle69 t1_j3jftps wrote
...... And? Yawn.
Stenotic t1_j3jpeat wrote
And you're not very smart are you?
Stenotic t1_j3jptoy wrote
The data bandwidth it's transmitting is probably like 15 times faster and larger than what your TV is able to get for streaming.
DespicablePickle69 t1_j3jyguc wrote
So? Am I supposed to be impressed? You're a silly fan boy lol
Stenotic t1_j3kbayn wrote
Don't give a shit if you're impressed or not. Just informing you of facts you were apparently completely ignorant of. I am indeed a fan of technology. It can make our lives better and help our loved ones live longer.
DespicablePickle69 t1_j3kd6b3 wrote
You can't actually be seriously suggesting that a wireless tv makes you live longer?
Look, I love tech too. I'm typing this on my iPhone while I listen to electronic music on my air pods in my home lit with electricity and heated with climate control. It's grand. That said, I still don't see why this is some sort of a technological leap forward, it feels like so much marketing fluff from a mega corp and about such things, I give exactly zero fucks.
Stenotic t1_j3kgxqs wrote
You know I wasn’t suggesting that, you asked that “question” just to be contrarian and argumentative. The funny thing is I never said I wanted to buy one of these TVs, because I don’t and likely never will. I generally prefer everything to be cabled for the absolute highest quality and lowest latency. I just find the direction interesting. You don’t find this interesting because you don’t understand the difference between what these TVs are doing with ultra low latency, ultra high bandwidth AV and when your your TV is receiving shitty low quality high latency streaming from Netflix. Some people can’t tell the difference between a 60 frames per second and 240 hz or between the video compression on streaming vs. a Blu Ray…. When there is a fucking huge difference and it’s easy to see.
DespicablePickle69 t1_j3kjaz5 wrote
I know well the difference, my main setup is likely better than yours lol
That said, my point remains. This is no technological leap and is instead a meager attempt by LG to peddle some pointless advance that nullifies all the quality you spoke of in your comment.
The point that it's wireless means exactly zero, and that's literally the entire point of the OP.
Again, meh.
PDNYFL t1_j2z92vq wrote
I have a 55inch LG OLED and influenced my parents to get a 55 and 65 inch OLED.
This seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The TV still needs power so this doesn't make it wireless. It just introduces another thing to not work properly. Cables just work!