4 ms·

It's not so much a choice between Smart TV vs. not Smart TV anymore. If you buy a TV today, it is very likely to be "smart". You can just decide to use the feat

by roasm 12y ago

It's not so much a choice between Smart TV vs. not Smart TV anymore. If you buy a TV today, it is very likely to be "smart". You can just decide to use the features or not (or when to stop using the features).

dragonwriter 12y ago
> If you buy a TV today, it is very likely to be "smart". Of course, if you aren't using the built in receiver for OTA broadcasts, you don't really need a TV, you need a monitor. You can get commercial monitors that are just like "Smart TVs" without the smarts and the receiver that makes it a TV instead of a monitor, though you may have to look outside of the consumer-focused retailers that you think of when buying a TV.
- brk 12y ago
  I did this for years, but monitors are oddly more expensive than TVs. All my TVs now are actual TVs, but they are more or less permanently set to HDMI1 input and all the other input source switching is handled externally. The exception being Netflix on the non-theater TVs, for that I usually use the on-TV Netflix client.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The exception being Netflix on the non-theater TVs, for that I usually use the on-TV Netflix client. And, if that fits what you want, great. OTOH, If someone is trying to avoid unwanted features of SMART TVs, some of which may not be separately opted-in and which generally rely on network access, providing network access to the SMART TV to allow the use of the on-TV Netflix client is self-defeating. (I'm personally not so concerned about those features, though I've seen plenty of people who seem to be, I just want to avoid relying on SMART TV features because they are additional potential sources of failure, and because the "SMART" parts become outdated much faster than the display parts.)
    - brk 12y ago
      But you can still get the TV cheaper. If you're using a monitor, that's implying all your sources are outside the TV anyway. You don't need to plug the TV into a network then. So, the TV effectively becomes a monitor, but cheaper.
  - penprogg 12y ago
    It's not odd that they are more expensive, monitors typically have higher refresh rates and faster response times. Both of which imply more powerful hardware for the monitor's driver.
    - brk 12y ago
      Not these days (from what I've seen). I think it's mostly a supply/demand thing. Though some monitors do come with longer warranties, it's not worth the added cost.
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      TV's typically also have dramatically lower pixel density.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  You can't get monitors in the same size as most TVs. They cap out in the 30-40 inch range.

by roasm 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> If you buy a TV today, it is very likely to be "smart". Of course, if you aren't using the built in receiver for OTA broadcasts, you don't really need a TV, you need a monitor. You can get commercial monitors that are just like "Smart TVs" without the smarts and the receiver that makes it a TV instead of a monitor, though you may have to look outside of the consumer-focused retailers that you think of when buying a TV.

brk 12y ago
I did this for years, but monitors are oddly more expensive than TVs. All my TVs now are actual TVs, but they are more or less permanently set to HDMI1 input and all the other input source switching is handled externally. The exception being Netflix on the non-theater TVs, for that I usually use the on-TV Netflix client.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The exception being Netflix on the non-theater TVs, for that I usually use the on-TV Netflix client. And, if that fits what you want, great. OTOH, If someone is trying to avoid unwanted features of SMART TVs, some of which may not be separately opted-in and which generally rely on network access, providing network access to the SMART TV to allow the use of the on-TV Netflix client is self-defeating. (I'm personally not so concerned about those features, though I've seen plenty of people who seem to be, I just want to avoid relying on SMART TV features because they are additional potential sources of failure, and because the "SMART" parts become outdated much faster than the display parts.)
  - brk 12y ago
    But you can still get the TV cheaper. If you're using a monitor, that's implying all your sources are outside the TV anyway. You don't need to plug the TV into a network then. So, the TV effectively becomes a monitor, but cheaper.
- penprogg 12y ago
  It's not odd that they are more expensive, monitors typically have higher refresh rates and faster response times. Both of which imply more powerful hardware for the monitor's driver.
  - brk 12y ago
    Not these days (from what I've seen). I think it's mostly a supply/demand thing. Though some monitors do come with longer warranties, it's not worth the added cost.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    TV's typically also have dramatically lower pixel density.
Igglyboo 12y ago
You can't get monitors in the same size as most TVs. They cap out in the 30-40 inch range.