3 ms·

Because it's cheap to replace a roku/chromecast as technology evolves, but TVs tend to be longer-term investments. Hating smart TVs is akin to hating cars that

by ff317 5y ago

Because it's cheap to replace a roku/chromecast as technology evolves, but TVs tend to be longer-term investments. Hating smart TVs is akin to hating cars that have built-in factory navigation systems. Content streaming devices/services (and mapping/navigation/music for cars) regularly evolve/change with the fast pace of technology and the Internet, while TVs and Cars are hardware you hang onto for a long period of years. You don't want outdated tech baked into your hardware forever, especially tech built in by companies that don't specialize in that stuff to begin with.

basch 5y ago
If you want to buy a Google or Roku anyway, why wouldnt you buy the appropriate tv with it built in, and THEN upgrade in 3-5 years when the smarts arent as bright anymore? Are people really expecting a 4 year end of life software upgrade to disable the hdmi ports? You might be able to find a one off freak occurrence, but thats not regular practice. Everyone buying a Spectre/Insignia to avoid smarts is getting a considerably worse picture quality (which I would think is almost number one TV criteria after size) in exchange for nothing. People could look at TV OS as a differentiating factor, not a burden. Make picking your OS your first choice, and find the best panel at budget within that category.
treesknees 5y ago
One thing you're forgetting is that smart TVs are much cheaper because the cost is subsidized by the apps, software, and ads. This is why many of these "dumb TVs" aren't hundreds of dollars cheaper than their smart cousins. In my opinion it doesn't matter if outdated software is "baked into your hardware forever" because all I have to do is disable the Internet settings, and plug in a roku/chromecast just like you would on your dumb TV. Difference is my subsidized TV cost way less. In terms of value over time (which is what I assume you meant by calling it an investment) a smart TV makes way more sense even if you don't use the smart features.

by ff317 5y ago

basch 5y ago

If you want to buy a Google or Roku anyway, why wouldnt you buy the appropriate tv with it built in, and THEN upgrade in 3-5 years when the smarts arent as bright anymore? Are people really expecting a 4 year end of life software upgrade to disable the hdmi ports? You might be able to find a one off freak occurrence, but thats not regular practice. Everyone buying a Spectre/Insignia to avoid smarts is getting a considerably worse picture quality (which I would think is almost number one TV criteria after size) in exchange for nothing. People could look at TV OS as a differentiating factor, not a burden. Make picking your OS your first choice, and find the best panel at budget within that category.

treesknees 5y ago

One thing you're forgetting is that smart TVs are much cheaper because the cost is subsidized by the apps, software, and ads. This is why many of these "dumb TVs" aren't hundreds of dollars cheaper than their smart cousins. In my opinion it doesn't matter if outdated software is "baked into your hardware forever" because all I have to do is disable the Internet settings, and plug in a roku/chromecast just like you would on your dumb TV. Difference is my subsidized TV cost way less. In terms of value over time (which is what I assume you meant by calling it an investment) a smart TV makes way more sense even if you don't use the smart features.