4 ms·

The "Smart TV" is like those "all-in-one desktop PCs" -- unless you really prioritize the appearance of the thing, like in an architect's office where clients a

by qq66 10y ago

The "Smart TV" is like those "all-in-one desktop PCs" -- unless you really prioritize the appearance of the thing, like in an architect's office where clients are visiting, etc. -- it almost never makes sense. The display stays good for a decade and the compute is often obsolete in 12 months -- it makes no sense to bundle them. I have a overheating iMac whose compute I wish I could switch out.

rconti 10y ago
The difference is, you sacrifice almost nothing (save a few dollars) to have the Smart TV gubbins inside. The TV still works great as a display -- in fact, my new Smart TV has more inputs and other such non-Smart-TV features than my old Dumb TV did. Also, I call BS on being obsolete in 12 months. My mom wanted to buy a 20" iMac back in ~2009, and I was hesitant to go along with it, as I felt the same way as you did. Then I realized computers last longer and longer these days, and are approaching display level lifespan. She's still using that iMac today, and it works great. And guess what, I bought a 5k 27" iMac to replace my 10 year old Mac Pro (which has a high-end-for-its-time 24" Dell 2407WFP connected to it). The reality is, by the time the computer was too old to be particularly useful, a 1080p 24" display was old hat as well. I don't disagree it makes the disposable culture a bit worse; I'm not particularly likely to try to repair the iMac after a couple of years (which is one reason I sprung for an extended warranty on it which I typically avoid like the plague), but it's not so bad as you suggest. And, of course, the machine can still be used as an external display (or output to another display if it's the display that fails instead of the computer). Perhaps your strongest argument should be that Smart TVs may accelerate the decline of standalone streamers. If that comes to pass, TVs may come to look a bit more like the all-in-one computer world. But for now I'll enjoy my 4k streaming on my Smart TV apps, and replace those functions with standalone devices that do it better, as they come on the market. They're not there yet, though, and I'm not about to throw out all of my other devices and replace them just because I bought a new TV.
- dfox 10y ago
  There is one thing that is painfully missing on any smart TV I've seen: VGA input.
  - rspeer 10y ago
    VGA has limited bandwidth, so it looks horrible at the scale of a modern TV screen. Show someone a VGA signal on a TV and they'll assume the TV sucks.
    - douche 10y ago
      Huh? Maybe if you're trying to push 4K through it, but it's plenty good enough up to 1920x1080.
    - theandrewbailey 10y ago
      I was using VGA to drive a 1920x1200 monitor at work for months. The image was more than sufficient to write code on. Most people looking at VGA on a TV at TV viewing distances wouldn't be able to tell the difference. You get more artifacting from the video codec than VGA output.
  - mintplant 10y ago
    VGA-HDMI adapters are cheap and readily available.
  - stuaxo 10y ago
    This must be a regional thing, in the UK (possibly the rest of Europe) they do. I normally connect my laptop like this.
  - rconti 10y ago
    I haven't owned a laptop with a VGA output since about 2008, so it's not relevant to me. I don't think it's a smart TV drawback, it's just a "newfangled stuff doesn't support old stuff" problem.
- qq66 10y ago
  You don't just sacrifice a few dollars to have a Smart TV inside... It has security vulnerabilities, features stop working, etc... Especially with the "stick" format of Roku etc., I just see no point. I understand why the manufacturers want you in their heinous "LG ecosystem" with an "LG Live Account" etc. but I'd pay extra to have the smart features on a removable stick.
  - kgwgk 10y ago
    If the features stop working, the only thing you have lost compared to the TV which never had those features is... a few dollars. If you are worried about security issues don't connect to a network, you will be just sacrificing a few dollars.
    - theandrewbailey 10y ago
      That's the point: leave the features out and sell a cheaper TV.
- 4ad 10y ago
  > The TV still works great as a display No it doesn't. Every Smart TV I've seen has horrible ergonomics. It takes a while to boot, the remote has lag, it takes a long time to change from one input to another, it takes a huge amount of time to start the app that is responsible for changing inputs. They just suck. Yeah, they have inputs and everything, but android-based UI is hands down the worst UI I have ever had to use, and this included typing magic commands into the mainframe of airline global distribution systems. Oh yeah. You want perfectly synchronised audio/video streams, just like you had before? Not possible with Smart TVs.
  - rconti 10y ago
    I never thought of my TV in terms of ergonomics. Yes, my tv takes perhaps 20-30 seconds to boot if you have it unplugged, but from its normal standby/off mode, it's as fast as any other tv -- perhaps 2 seconds? I don't have input switching problems, but then again, I typically use my receiver as the switch; the TV stays on HDMI4 (ARC). I've never noticed non-perfectly-synchronized audio/video so I can't really comment on that. I've got a Sony x940d, for what it's worth.
justinlardinois 10y ago
There are so many consumers out there who buy new TVs, laptops, phones, and sometimes even cars every few years; just read the comments on any tech news site to find them. I agree that it's silly to bundle the two, but these types of consumers won't care that their 2012 TV's YouTube app stopped working in 2016 because they already bought a new TV years ago.
honkhonkpants 10y ago
People always say this about the iMac but the fact is that the iMac is cheaper than the competing displays. You literally get the computer inside for free. If you don't like the computer inside you can ignore it and use the iMac as a display. Anyway these days a computer should last you five years easily.
- qq66 10y ago
  I still use my iMac, but I can't ignore the massive fan noise that the computer creates if I use it as a target display. I get that the computer inside is "free" but I'd gladly pay extra to have the components separated.

by qq66 10y ago

rconti 10y ago

The difference is, you sacrifice almost nothing (save a few dollars) to have the Smart TV gubbins inside. The TV still works great as a display -- in fact, my new Smart TV has more inputs and other such non-Smart-TV features than my old Dumb TV did. Also, I call BS on being obsolete in 12 months. My mom wanted to buy a 20" iMac back in ~2009, and I was hesitant to go along with it, as I felt the same way as you did. Then I realized computers last longer and longer these days, and are approaching display level lifespan. She's still using that iMac today, and it works great. And guess what, I bought a 5k 27" iMac to replace my 10 year old Mac Pro (which has a high-end-for-its-time 24" Dell 2407WFP connected to it). The reality is, by the time the computer was too old to be particularly useful, a 1080p 24" display was old hat as well. I don't disagree it makes the disposable culture a bit worse; I'm not particularly likely to try to repair the iMac after a couple of years (which is one reason I sprung for an extended warranty on it which I typically avoid like the plague), but it's not so bad as you suggest. And, of course, the machine can still be used as an external display (or output to another display if it's the display that fails instead of the computer). Perhaps your strongest argument should be that Smart TVs may accelerate the decline of standalone streamers. If that comes to pass, TVs may come to look a bit more like the all-in-one computer world. But for now I'll enjoy my 4k streaming on my Smart TV apps, and replace those functions with standalone devices that do it better, as they come on the market. They're not there yet, though, and I'm not about to throw out all of my other devices and replace them just because I bought a new TV.

dfox 10y ago
There is one thing that is painfully missing on any smart TV I've seen: VGA input.
- rspeer 10y ago
  VGA has limited bandwidth, so it looks horrible at the scale of a modern TV screen. Show someone a VGA signal on a TV and they'll assume the TV sucks.
  - douche 10y ago
    Huh? Maybe if you're trying to push 4K through it, but it's plenty good enough up to 1920x1080.
  - theandrewbailey 10y ago
    I was using VGA to drive a 1920x1200 monitor at work for months. The image was more than sufficient to write code on. Most people looking at VGA on a TV at TV viewing distances wouldn't be able to tell the difference. You get more artifacting from the video codec than VGA output.
- mintplant 10y ago
  VGA-HDMI adapters are cheap and readily available.
- stuaxo 10y ago
  This must be a regional thing, in the UK (possibly the rest of Europe) they do. I normally connect my laptop like this.
- rconti 10y ago
  I haven't owned a laptop with a VGA output since about 2008, so it's not relevant to me. I don't think it's a smart TV drawback, it's just a "newfangled stuff doesn't support old stuff" problem.
qq66 10y ago
You don't just sacrifice a few dollars to have a Smart TV inside... It has security vulnerabilities, features stop working, etc... Especially with the "stick" format of Roku etc., I just see no point. I understand why the manufacturers want you in their heinous "LG ecosystem" with an "LG Live Account" etc. but I'd pay extra to have the smart features on a removable stick.
- kgwgk 10y ago
  If the features stop working, the only thing you have lost compared to the TV which never had those features is... a few dollars. If you are worried about security issues don't connect to a network, you will be just sacrificing a few dollars.
  - theandrewbailey 10y ago
    That's the point: leave the features out and sell a cheaper TV.
4ad 10y ago
> The TV still works great as a display No it doesn't. Every Smart TV I've seen has horrible ergonomics. It takes a while to boot, the remote has lag, it takes a long time to change from one input to another, it takes a huge amount of time to start the app that is responsible for changing inputs. They just suck. Yeah, they have inputs and everything, but android-based UI is hands down the worst UI I have ever had to use, and this included typing magic commands into the mainframe of airline global distribution systems. Oh yeah. You want perfectly synchronised audio/video streams, just like you had before? Not possible with Smart TVs.
- rconti 10y ago
  I never thought of my TV in terms of ergonomics. Yes, my tv takes perhaps 20-30 seconds to boot if you have it unplugged, but from its normal standby/off mode, it's as fast as any other tv -- perhaps 2 seconds? I don't have input switching problems, but then again, I typically use my receiver as the switch; the TV stays on HDMI4 (ARC). I've never noticed non-perfectly-synchronized audio/video so I can't really comment on that. I've got a Sony x940d, for what it's worth.

justinlardinois 10y ago

There are so many consumers out there who buy new TVs, laptops, phones, and sometimes even cars every few years; just read the comments on any tech news site to find them. I agree that it's silly to bundle the two, but these types of consumers won't care that their 2012 TV's YouTube app stopped working in 2016 because they already bought a new TV years ago.

honkhonkpants 10y ago

People always say this about the iMac but the fact is that the iMac is cheaper than the competing displays. You literally get the computer inside for free. If you don't like the computer inside you can ignore it and use the iMac as a display. Anyway these days a computer should last you five years easily.

qq66 10y ago
I still use my iMac, but I can't ignore the massive fan noise that the computer creates if I use it as a target display. I get that the computer inside is "free" but I'd gladly pay extra to have the components separated.