4 ms·
I think there is a market for it. There's no way that most people actually enjoy the slowness and bloat of modern TVs. The only potential snag (and it's a big o
by bigstrat2003 2y ago
I think there is a market for it. There's no way that most people actually enjoy the slowness and bloat of modern TVs. The only potential snag (and it's a big one to be fair) is that modern consumers are extremely price sensitive, to the point that it's literally the only thing a lot of people care about. So as long as the shitty bloatware TV is cheaper than the actually good TV, they'll sell more of the shitty bloatware TV. But the market for an actual good TV is still there if only some company will actually bother to serve it.
- AlotOfReading 2y agoI don't think people are as price sensitive as is commonly believed. I think consumers broadly don't have reliable signals except for price, so they prioritize what they know. Look at companies where brand is also a reliable indicator of product quality (in popular perception) like Apple or Louis Vuitton. When there's other signals, consumers are frequently willing to prioritize them over price.
- plorkyeran 2y agoYeah, for many categories of products there's basically two reasonable approaches to buying something: put lots of effort into research, or just buy the cheapest one. Many people are willing to pay more for a better product, but that requires being able to identify the better product.
- RiverCrochet 2y agoTV as a whole seems to be basically deprioritized versus one's smartphone and/or gaming PC. In a year or so when I get my own place, I'm not so sure I'll care about having a TV, at least not right away, and if I do, price will be the main factor. It doesn't help that TVs have pretty much all plateaued at excellent picture quality. The main perceptible difference is the size. So, when I go to my local department store and see 3 72" TVs, by different vendors, and can't really tell any difference in picture quality, why wouldn't I pick the cheapest? Price sensitivity - I find it funny that there is seemingly an immense amount of resources going into things that enable tracking for advertising purposes, but consumers as a whole are getting poorer and poorer. At some point it calls into question whether it's really about selling ads.,
- smegger001 2y agoIt doesn't help that the are all stuck on the one video feed and you dont get to play with the remote to explore the ui and get a feel for it.
- vel0city 2y agoI've had excellent experiences with a few different Roku TVs. I think my old dedicated Roku was a tiny bit faster in some menus but in the end it's been the same experience. I do acknowledge the privacy implications of Roku and the fact they inject some ads on the home screen but it's probably been the smoothest streaming platform thing I've used. I had a recent model Vizio. That was absolutely terrible. Eventually the power supply killed itself and I haven't bothered replacing it. Over a decade ago I was a fan of Vizio, that one purchase forever soured me on the brand. I'll never buy and never recommend them again.
- IshKebab 2y agoI don't think people are that price sensitive, or big expensive TVs wouldn't exist. The problem with selling "software isn't annoying!" is that it's very hard to quantify. You can give hard numbers for screen size, resolution, brightness, contrast, etc. It's more difficult for software annoyance, and there isn't really any language to talk about it. And TV makers have no real incentive to highlight how crap their software is.