2 ms·
The reason I'd be interested in something like this has nothing to do with the cost. Even though the "smart" part is obsolete, and it's entirely used with an e
by LukeShu 7y ago
The reason I'd be interested in something like this has nothing to do with the cost.
Even though the "smart" part is obsolete, and it's entirely used with an external AppleTV/Roku/whatever, because of the "smart" crap, it takes longer to turn on than it takes my computer to boot. They didn't bother to make it compatible with universal remotes, because those wouldn't have access to the "smart" features, so you have to suffer through their incredibly crappy proprietary remote to select between inputs. The "smart" features track you and invade your privacy.
I'm definitely willing to pay a premium for a well-made TV without "smart" crap. (But isn't that just a monitor?)
- jordanbeiber 7y agoYeah, it’s a monitor, and that’s what I want as well. There are no monitors in the 50+ range though, unless you go for commercial screens, and they have even less features but cost at least twice as much as the suggested price of the ironcast. I still use my old LG dumb plasma, and there exists nothing like it on the market anymore, in terms of price/features (where no “smart” is a big feature for me).
- phkahler 7y ago>> There are no monitors in the 50+ range though, unless you go for commercial screens 4k TVs look nice and are cheaper than monitors of similar width.
- jordanbeiber 7y agoBy “monitor” I mean a screen without a tuner or other features. The panels are pretty much the same in a commercial display screen/monitor as in a TV screen.