5 ms·

I think his point is based on the (very reasonable) assumption that an equivalent quality Smart TV is going to be more expensive, which isn't worth it in genera

I think his point is based on the (very reasonable) assumption that an equivalent quality Smart TV is going to be more expensive, which isn't worth it in general since you're not using the features that cause the difference in cost. There of course may be realities of the market to cause it to not work out this way, but it's a pretty sensible assumption.

dragonwriter 11y ago
Otherwise-equivalent Smart TVs are usually less expensive than displays (whether TVs or monitors) without the "Smart" features. This is a matter probably largely of economies of scale -- because that's what manufacturers think the consumer market wants, that's what they make most of and flood consumer channels with, and dumb alternatives are a specialty product.
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  Good to know, thanks. I haven't bought a TV for about five years and I've never bought (or even been interested in) a Smart TV, for roughly the same reasons described here. EDIT: hullo's comment below would seem to contradict this; 32" TVs from Samsung seem like a fair data point to look at (albeit just one data pt), since it's a very mainstream manufacturer and a non-niche size. "Picking a manufacturer (Samsung) and size (32") at random, I see the smart TV for $499 and non-smart options for 219, 269, 299. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products Just for example."
- rsync 11y ago
  My last three "TVs" have been commercial display panels. These are the NEC panels that you see in the airport (turned on their side) for departure/arrival boards. They are more expensive than a best buy model. Not terribly so, however, otherwise the airport couldn't buy 200 of them. They are incredible displays.
  - detaro 11y ago
    How would one go about finding them? (search terms, manufacturers...)
    - 33W 11y ago
      "Commercial display panels NEC" led me to this: http://www.necdisplay.com/category/large-screen-displays http://www.necdisplay.com/category/large-screen-displays
    - spyder 11y ago
      "Large format display" http://www.newegg.com/Large-Format-Displays/SubCategory/ID-633 http://www.newegg.com/Large-Format-Displays/SubCategory/ID-6...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
caskance 11y ago
That assumption is not reasonable at all. Not only are "dumb" TVs no cheaper, hardly anyone even sells them anymore.
- hullo 11y ago
  Picking a manufacturer (Samsung) and size (32") at random, I see the smart TV for $499 and non-smart options for 219, 269, 299. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products Just for example.
  - narrowrail 11y ago
    I can get a 50" LG tv ("dumb"; just connect a Roku over HDMI) for $700 on Amazon.
    - mikeryan 11y ago
      I'm pretty sure you can't get a 2015 model LG that's 50" or larger that's not a Smart TV. The cheapest 50" TV they have is $799 has interactivity. http://www.lg.com/us/tvs http://www.lg.com/us/tvs
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikeryan 11y ago
    Its not a direct comparison. The Smart TV even without the "Smarts" are generally higher end TVs. Though not indicated on the main screen the $299 option is actually a SmartTV if you click through. You have to get down to the $269 option to get to non-smart TV. The difference between the $269 and $299 seems to be about the difference for putting a processor in a TV and making it smart.... (Note I don't make the claim that the SmartTVs are cheaper but for the most part its being absorbed in the cost of higher end devices so you get the Smarts "for free" on better sets)
    - hullo 11y ago
sliverstorm 11y ago
All else being equal, would I skip the smart features? Sure. You don't get that choice though. At least, I never have. Aspects like display technology, color reproduction, contrast, latency, etc are much more important to me than smart vs. dumb, and those things are how I make my decision.

dragonwriter 11y ago

Otherwise-equivalent Smart TVs are usually less expensive than displays (whether TVs or monitors) without the "Smart" features. This is a matter probably largely of economies of scale -- because that's what manufacturers think the consumer market wants, that's what they make most of and flood consumer channels with, and dumb alternatives are a specialty product.

wutbrodo 11y ago
Good to know, thanks. I haven't bought a TV for about five years and I've never bought (or even been interested in) a Smart TV, for roughly the same reasons described here. EDIT: hullo's comment below would seem to contradict this; 32" TVs from Samsung seem like a fair data point to look at (albeit just one data pt), since it's a very mainstream manufacturer and a non-niche size. "Picking a manufacturer (Samsung) and size (32") at random, I see the smart TV for $499 and non-smart options for 219, 269, 299. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products Just for example."
rsync 11y ago
My last three "TVs" have been commercial display panels. These are the NEC panels that you see in the airport (turned on their side) for departure/arrival boards. They are more expensive than a best buy model. Not terribly so, however, otherwise the airport couldn't buy 200 of them. They are incredible displays.
- detaro 11y ago
  How would one go about finding them? (search terms, manufacturers...)
  - 33W 11y ago
    "Commercial display panels NEC" led me to this: http://www.necdisplay.com/category/large-screen-displays http://www.necdisplay.com/category/large-screen-displays
  - spyder 11y ago
    "Large format display" http://www.newegg.com/Large-Format-Displays/SubCategory/ID-633 http://www.newegg.com/Large-Format-Displays/SubCategory/ID-6...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

caskance 11y ago

That assumption is not reasonable at all. Not only are "dumb" TVs no cheaper, hardly anyone even sells them anymore.

hullo 11y ago
Picking a manufacturer (Samsung) and size (32") at random, I see the smart TV for $499 and non-smart options for 219, 269, 299. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/all-products Just for example.
- narrowrail 11y ago
  I can get a 50" LG tv ("dumb"; just connect a Roku over HDMI) for $700 on Amazon.
  - mikeryan 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure you can't get a 2015 model LG that's 50" or larger that's not a Smart TV. The cheapest 50" TV they have is $799 has interactivity. http://www.lg.com/us/tvs http://www.lg.com/us/tvs
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeryan 11y ago
  Its not a direct comparison. The Smart TV even without the "Smarts" are generally higher end TVs. Though not indicated on the main screen the $299 option is actually a SmartTV if you click through. You have to get down to the $269 option to get to non-smart TV. The difference between the $269 and $299 seems to be about the difference for putting a processor in a TV and making it smart.... (Note I don't make the claim that the SmartTVs are cheaper but for the most part its being absorbed in the cost of higher end devices so you get the Smarts "for free" on better sets)
  - hullo 11y ago

sliverstorm 11y ago

All else being equal, would I skip the smart features? Sure. You don't get that choice though. At least, I never have. Aspects like display technology, color reproduction, contrast, latency, etc are much more important to me than smart vs. dumb, and those things are how I make my decision.