5 ms·

Don't you just want to buy a monitor instead of a TV then?

• CWuestefeld 11y ago
  Yes, exactly. But that's not the way the market works these days. I want a TV-quality display (which means large, but otherwise having lower specs than the monitor on my desk), with no tuner, no speakers, just a remote control receiver and a few HDMI ports. For some reason they keep adding stuff that I don't want to the device. And "smartness" is the worst of it. I plan to keep the display far longer than the Roku box (or whatever). Consider: is your TV going to be able to play H.265 content when it become available? Chances are your manufacturer won't even upgrade your software - they've got a dismal record for this. But even if they do, you probably don't have the CPU power to handle it. To avoid replacing the display, you'll wind up buying a Roku or Chromecast, and (as was said up-thread) fighting the TV's UI to get to your new box.
  • soylentcola 11y ago
    What usually ends up happening (at least since the last time I bought a TV) is that I can't find anything simpler for the same price since a big part of the (relatively) lower cost of modern high-def televisions comes from volume in manufacturing and sales. Since most come with some token "smart" capabilities, I end up buying something regardless of (or despite) the addons. I just use a basic home-theater-in-a-box receiver for 5.1 sound and because it has a built-in Bluray player (which I have yet to use) and like 3 or 4 HDMI inputs. So I run the cable box into one input, Chromecast into another, game console or HTPC into another, etc. and then output video from that into the TV. So in the end, I only use my TV as a display even though it has other features built in. Having all sources go into the receiver means I can just switch inputs and audio follows video. If I want to watch Youtube or Netflix or listen to streaming music or watch something on my NAS via Plex, I use the Chromecast. If want cable TV for some weird reason, I switch to the cable box, etc. But yeah, a large format display should last me longer than the life cycle of the "smart" capabilities or streaming services. When I bought this TV, there were several streaming sites that didn't exist yet or I didn't use. I want to be able to add or remove hardware as I need it and I want to use services that are currently valuable to me (and not have to skim past all of the integrated ones I never use or don't exist anymore). Right now the two options I see are to use a low-powered HTPC that is still more functional than anything in a smart TV and can be upgraded, or something small and cheap like a Chromecast or extender that lets me tap into sources on my network or on the WAN.
• wlesieutre 11y ago
  Yes, if reasonably priced monitors in the 30-60" range existed, I'd take them over a smart TV. As far as I can find, they don't.
  • spyder 11y ago
    There are a few: http://www.newegg.com/Large-Format-Displays/SubCategory/ID-633 http://www.newegg.com/Large-Format-Displays/SubCategory/ID-6...
    • wlesieutre 11y ago
      Huh, thanks! A bit more expensive than a bottom-end TV still, but worth checking on when I replace mine! Since all I use it for is a Roku and occasionally as a screen for my PC, I'd be happy to do away with all the extraneous stuff like a giant remote and all the TV channel related buttons.
    • yellowapple 11y ago
      Jesus; quite a few of those monitors are bigger than my living room TV.
• DanBC 11y ago
  Yes. Lots of people want a large very high quality but very simple monitor. These don't seem to be available.