6 ms·

It stretches credulity to suggest that the lack of non-smart TVs on the market causes the popularity of smart TVs. Would you also suggest that the lack of black

It stretches credulity to suggest that the lack of non-smart TVs on the market causes the popularity of smart TVs. Would you also suggest that the lack of black and white TVs on the market causes the popularity of color TVs?

MereInterest 5y ago
Does it similarly stretch credulity to suggest that the lack of commercial-free cable channels on the market causes the popularity of cable channels with commercials. Something may be "popular" because it's the only game in town.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I challenge the premise. At least in the United States, the number of subscribers to commercial-free cable channels has decreased significantly in the last 10 years, during which time the number of subscribers to streaming services which show fewer or no ads has increased significantly.
  - nicce 5y ago
    I think it was more of example as using term ”popular” in different context, regardless of it is true or not. Arguing if it is not true, does not take this example away.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Of course it does, because “popular” in the original example was referring to their ubiquity and lack of over viable alternatives. An example of a once-dominant product that appears to be losing in the market to a fast-rising new alternative is not analogous.
      - nicce 5y ago
        Argument goes then more for “is this scenario possible at all for term ‘popular’?”, when it certainly is. Example was just weak. Another example could be, why driving a car is “too popular” on country side to move between places. It might be popular, because there is no public transportation. Is the situation same with public transportation? Can we call it popular, because it is forced?
        tshaddox 5y ago
        The whole point is that there's a difference between saying that the popularity of a product can be caused by the lack of what would be a viable alternative (like your example of public transportation versus cars), and saying that the popularity of one feature of a product is caused by the lack of alternatives that do not have that feature. The latter is more like saying "the popularity of 4-wheeled personal automobiles is caused by the lack of 3-wheeled personal automobiles on the market" or "the popularity of touchscreen smart phones is caused by the lack of smartphones with physical keyboards on the market."
Teever 5y ago
Why weren't TVs with built in VCRs and DVD players more popular?
- jpindar 5y ago
  They were mostly small TVs and not the highest quality. And separate VHS or DVD players had more features.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    They were great for a child's bedroom or similar but a big screen with a VHS would just look sort of silly.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  I never wanted one because I was afraid that one or the other would break, then it would be half-useless. My parents had one where the TV part stopped working, but the VCR still worked. It had video/audio out jacks so dad plugged it into their other TV, so they had a dead TV sitting next to their working TV for use as a VCR.
  - RulerOf 5y ago
    Smart TVs from at least the last 5 years have a similar problem. You update the software and they become excruciatingly slow, or you can't update the software and they gradually become useless. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But I can replace an old Roku for $39.
    - Johnny555 5y ago
      True, my old LG TV UI kept getting slower and slower with each update, finally I stopped applying updates and switched to a Roku. Though the good thing is that I can't see the carcass of the old SmartTV laying around, the TV stays connected to the Roku so unless I accidentally hit the Channel up/down button and switch it to TV mode, I never see the LG SmartTV features.
    - 5y ago
Retric 5y ago
Smart TV’s are negative costs to the manufacturers as in they get paid more to install them than they actually cost. Manufacturers therefore have zero incentives to manufacture non smart TV’s.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  There would be a damn good incentive to manufacture dumb TVs if governments added taxs/duties to their smart TVs if they did not also manufacturer dumb ones.
lp0_on_fire 5y ago
Color TVs superseded black and white because it was objectively an improvement for the customer. There wasn't any benefit to the manufacturer besides selling a new unit. the "Smart" TVs of today are riddled with spyware and telemetry that provides a second revenue stream to the manufacture since 95% of the population is too lazy or uninformed or doesn't have the time to turn it off. Yes, there benefits to the consumer in the form of convenience but it's not a paradigm shift like the switch from color to b & w. Also you could buy black and white televisions for _decades_ after the introduction of the color TV. In the course of about 5 years "dumb" TVs have almost completely disappeared from he market. Maybe I'm just cynical but I have a hard time believing that it was because everyone just _had_ to have a TV with a buggy UI (in many cases) and/or loaded with spyware.
- alacritas0 5y ago
  The average customer doesn't even know what spyware or telemetry is. I'd even argue that broadcast TV is dying making some form of video streaming service necessary which the smart TV accomplishes in a nice form factor.
  - vincentpants 5y ago
    … while also making a product out of the user through data collection.
  - CrazyCatDog 5y ago
    What do the smart ones in possession of a smart TV do? Because I constantly bleed time fine tuning pi-hole to limit telemetry and retain functionality…
    - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
      Don't give it network, and use it as a dumb terminal connected via hdmi to a secure pc
      - loonster 5y ago
SquishyPanda23 5y ago
Why does it stretch credulity? It's exactly the reason smart printer cartridges are popular.
mbesto 5y ago
> the lack of non-smart TVs on the market causes the popularity of smart TVs. Consumers buying TVs are driven by prices. Prices of smart TVs are artificially low...to the tune of either slim margins (<5%), no margins, or negative margins. The only reason 90% of the TV manufacturers can make money is by making them "smart", because they make up for margin on collecting/selling data. In other cases, big box retailers use them as loss leaders (see -> monster cable margins). In other words - it's not that simple - the demand for smartTVs is driven partially by an artificially set price point. source - my dad was a sales rep that sold TVs for 15 years late 90's-early 2000's.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Would I care do compare apples to 15th century Venetian artwork? No, so I won't do it here either. The reason that companies were so hellbent on getting "smart tvs" into our households is because of the ad revenue that come with them. They aren't simply TVs, they're paid marketing platforms with captive audiences.
pkulak 5y ago
Do we have a way to measure popularity that isn't what people are buying? If not, then no, there's no way to tease the two concepts apart.
tomc1985 5y ago
What else are people going to buy then?

MereInterest 5y ago

Does it similarly stretch credulity to suggest that the lack of commercial-free cable channels on the market causes the popularity of cable channels with commercials. Something may be "popular" because it's the only game in town.

tshaddox 5y ago
I challenge the premise. At least in the United States, the number of subscribers to commercial-free cable channels has decreased significantly in the last 10 years, during which time the number of subscribers to streaming services which show fewer or no ads has increased significantly.
- nicce 5y ago
  I think it was more of example as using term ”popular” in different context, regardless of it is true or not. Arguing if it is not true, does not take this example away.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Of course it does, because “popular” in the original example was referring to their ubiquity and lack of over viable alternatives. An example of a once-dominant product that appears to be losing in the market to a fast-rising new alternative is not analogous.
    - nicce 5y ago
      Argument goes then more for “is this scenario possible at all for term ‘popular’?”, when it certainly is. Example was just weak. Another example could be, why driving a car is “too popular” on country side to move between places. It might be popular, because there is no public transportation. Is the situation same with public transportation? Can we call it popular, because it is forced?
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        The whole point is that there's a difference between saying that the popularity of a product can be caused by the lack of what would be a viable alternative (like your example of public transportation versus cars), and saying that the popularity of one feature of a product is caused by the lack of alternatives that do not have that feature. The latter is more like saying "the popularity of 4-wheeled personal automobiles is caused by the lack of 3-wheeled personal automobiles on the market" or "the popularity of touchscreen smart phones is caused by the lack of smartphones with physical keyboards on the market."

Teever 5y ago

Why weren't TVs with built in VCRs and DVD players more popular?

jpindar 5y ago
They were mostly small TVs and not the highest quality. And separate VHS or DVD players had more features.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  They were great for a child's bedroom or similar but a big screen with a VHS would just look sort of silly.
Johnny555 5y ago
I never wanted one because I was afraid that one or the other would break, then it would be half-useless. My parents had one where the TV part stopped working, but the VCR still worked. It had video/audio out jacks so dad plugged it into their other TV, so they had a dead TV sitting next to their working TV for use as a VCR.
- RulerOf 5y ago
  Smart TVs from at least the last 5 years have a similar problem. You update the software and they become excruciatingly slow, or you can't update the software and they gradually become useless. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But I can replace an old Roku for $39.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    True, my old LG TV UI kept getting slower and slower with each update, finally I stopped applying updates and switched to a Roku. Though the good thing is that I can't see the carcass of the old SmartTV laying around, the TV stays connected to the Roku so unless I accidentally hit the Channel up/down button and switch it to TV mode, I never see the LG SmartTV features.
  - 5y ago

Retric 5y ago

Smart TV’s are negative costs to the manufacturers as in they get paid more to install them than they actually cost. Manufacturers therefore have zero incentives to manufacture non smart TV’s.

hilbert42 5y ago
There would be a damn good incentive to manufacture dumb TVs if governments added taxs/duties to their smart TVs if they did not also manufacturer dumb ones.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago

Color TVs superseded black and white because it was objectively an improvement for the customer. There wasn't any benefit to the manufacturer besides selling a new unit. the "Smart" TVs of today are riddled with spyware and telemetry that provides a second revenue stream to the manufacture since 95% of the population is too lazy or uninformed or doesn't have the time to turn it off. Yes, there benefits to the consumer in the form of convenience but it's not a paradigm shift like the switch from color to b & w. Also you could buy black and white televisions for _decades_ after the introduction of the color TV. In the course of about 5 years "dumb" TVs have almost completely disappeared from he market. Maybe I'm just cynical but I have a hard time believing that it was because everyone just _had_ to have a TV with a buggy UI (in many cases) and/or loaded with spyware.

alacritas0 5y ago
The average customer doesn't even know what spyware or telemetry is. I'd even argue that broadcast TV is dying making some form of video streaming service necessary which the smart TV accomplishes in a nice form factor.
- vincentpants 5y ago
  … while also making a product out of the user through data collection.
- CrazyCatDog 5y ago
  What do the smart ones in possession of a smart TV do? Because I constantly bleed time fine tuning pi-hole to limit telemetry and retain functionality…
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    Don't give it network, and use it as a dumb terminal connected via hdmi to a secure pc
    - loonster 5y ago

SquishyPanda23 5y ago

Why does it stretch credulity? It's exactly the reason smart printer cartridges are popular.

mbesto 5y ago

> the lack of non-smart TVs on the market causes the popularity of smart TVs. Consumers buying TVs are driven by prices. Prices of smart TVs are artificially low...to the tune of either slim margins (<5%), no margins, or negative margins. The only reason 90% of the TV manufacturers can make money is by making them "smart", because they make up for margin on collecting/selling data. In other cases, big box retailers use them as loss leaders (see -> monster cable margins). In other words - it's not that simple - the demand for smartTVs is driven partially by an artificially set price point. source - my dad was a sales rep that sold TVs for 15 years late 90's-early 2000's.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

Would I care do compare apples to 15th century Venetian artwork? No, so I won't do it here either. The reason that companies were so hellbent on getting "smart tvs" into our households is because of the ad revenue that come with them. They aren't simply TVs, they're paid marketing platforms with captive audiences.

pkulak 5y ago

Do we have a way to measure popularity that isn't what people are buying? If not, then no, there's no way to tease the two concepts apart.

tomc1985 5y ago

What else are people going to buy then?