3 ms·

> it’ll likely be missing several other salient features that you may actually want I disagree with you; the answer they give is pretty reasonable. Sceptre TV

> it’ll likely be missing several other salient features that you may actually want I disagree with you; the answer they give is pretty reasonable. Sceptre TVs are recommended everywhere you look if you search for dumb TVs, they're not hard to find. But people looking for a brand new TV often want common modern TV features, like HDR. Heck, I'm holding on to an old plasma set until I can get a decent OLED at a reasonable price. Hopefully where "smart" features are either absent or enthusiasts have worked out how to eliminate any privacy hazards. A $400 Sceptre is very much not what I am interested in. But I am interested in a dumb, privacy-friendly screen! It's not "denying the premise" of wanting a dumb TV to point out these limitations, as well as offer what is the most practical alternative for most people - just don't connect it to WiFi.

topspin 4y ago
> modern TV features, like HDR Many of the Sceptre 4K models have HDR. MEMC as well. Likely the $400 price point is blown at that point, but who buys 1080p and cares about HDR?
karaterobot 4y ago
> It's not "denying the premise" of wanting a dumb TV to point out these limitations, as well as offer what is the most practical alternative for most people - just don't connect it to WiFi. They denied the premise of the question. The question was "Can You Recommend a Not-Smart TV for Me?" and the answer wasn't just "no, there are none I can or will recommend", which would be one thing. Instead the answer was "I'm not going to answer that question, because you don't actually want the thing you said you want". Since some people want dumb TVs, and they do exist, it would have been possible for the author to recommend the best example of that product, whatever they felt about it personally, or whatever assumptions they had about what the questioner actually wanted.
- bscphil 4y ago
  > "because you don't actually want the thing you said you want" I guess I didn't feel, reading the article, that they were saying that. They never said that you don't really want a dumb TV, they said that none of them are good purchases because the vast majority of people are looking for features that the dumb TVs don't have. From the article: > If you can find one manufactured recently that isn’t smart, I don’t know that I would trust it to be worth what you’re paying for it It's not that it's a mistake to look for a dumb TV, it's that that none of them are (in the opinion of the author) good buys. So it's not so much denying the question as it is making the assumption that the question-asker is probably looking for more than just the one "feature" of "dumbness".

topspin 4y ago

> modern TV features, like HDR Many of the Sceptre 4K models have HDR. MEMC as well. Likely the $400 price point is blown at that point, but who buys 1080p and cares about HDR?

karaterobot 4y ago

> It's not "denying the premise" of wanting a dumb TV to point out these limitations, as well as offer what is the most practical alternative for most people - just don't connect it to WiFi. They denied the premise of the question. The question was "Can You Recommend a Not-Smart TV for Me?" and the answer wasn't just "no, there are none I can or will recommend", which would be one thing. Instead the answer was "I'm not going to answer that question, because you don't actually want the thing you said you want". Since some people want dumb TVs, and they do exist, it would have been possible for the author to recommend the best example of that product, whatever they felt about it personally, or whatever assumptions they had about what the questioner actually wanted.

bscphil 4y ago
> "because you don't actually want the thing you said you want" I guess I didn't feel, reading the article, that they were saying that. They never said that you don't really want a dumb TV, they said that none of them are good purchases because the vast majority of people are looking for features that the dumb TVs don't have. From the article: > If you can find one manufactured recently that isn’t smart, I don’t know that I would trust it to be worth what you’re paying for it It's not that it's a mistake to look for a dumb TV, it's that that none of them are (in the opinion of the author) good buys. So it's not so much denying the question as it is making the assumption that the question-asker is probably looking for more than just the one "feature" of "dumbness".