4 ms·

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
    Oh that's a good spot I missed the 299. But still $30 is the cost of a chromecast or fire stick, to the gp's original point.
wutbrodo 11y ago
I think you're confused about the meaning of the terms "reasonable" and "assumption". An assumption isn't unreasonable just because it turns out to be untrue. As I said, there may be realities of the market that invalidate the assumption (and apparently there are).
- caskance 11y ago
  What makes an assumption unreasonable, in your opinion?
  - function_seven 11y ago
    I'm not who you're replying too, but I'll try: An assumption is reasonable if it follows logically from facts we know about the world to some conclusion. For example, cars with more features usually cost more than cars with fewer. A washing machine with a detergent dispenser and 11 different wash modes costs more than one with 3 modes and no dispenser. A thermostat that just sets the temperature and does nothing else will almost always be cheaper than one with wifi connectivity and a companion iOS app. Based on that knowledge, its reasonable to assume that a TV with more features will cost more than one with fewer. This assumption is wrong of course, but it wasn't unreasonable. So that means an assumption is unreasonable if there's no reason you'd make it in the first place.
    - caskance 11y ago
      There is no reason to make this assumption (about smart TVs costing less) in the first place. You can retroactively justify anything by twisting and cherry picking facts. A product with more features may cost more if it costs more to produce or customers are willing to pay more for it because they see it as more valuable. Neither of those applies to smart TVs.
      - function_seven 11y ago
        > There is no reason to make this assumption (about smart TVs costing less) in the first place. Sure there is. 99% of everything else I've ever experienced in my life have had a positive correlation between features and price. I'm actually struggling right now to think of another product where—in general—more features are cheaper than fewer. Other than television sets, I cannot think of one right now. (Maybe if I spend some time on it, I can think of another) Therefore, knowing what I know about prices of things, it is totally reasonable to assume that TVs follow the pattern.
molmalo 11y ago
Depends on the market. Where I live, Smart TVs are easily about 2X the price for a similar "dumb" TV.

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
  Oh that's a good spot I missed the 299. But still $30 is the cost of a chromecast or fire stick, to the gp's original point.

wutbrodo 11y ago

I think you're confused about the meaning of the terms "reasonable" and "assumption". An assumption isn't unreasonable just because it turns out to be untrue. As I said, there may be realities of the market that invalidate the assumption (and apparently there are).

caskance 11y ago
What makes an assumption unreasonable, in your opinion?
- function_seven 11y ago
  I'm not who you're replying too, but I'll try: An assumption is reasonable if it follows logically from facts we know about the world to some conclusion. For example, cars with more features usually cost more than cars with fewer. A washing machine with a detergent dispenser and 11 different wash modes costs more than one with 3 modes and no dispenser. A thermostat that just sets the temperature and does nothing else will almost always be cheaper than one with wifi connectivity and a companion iOS app. Based on that knowledge, its reasonable to assume that a TV with more features will cost more than one with fewer. This assumption is wrong of course, but it wasn't unreasonable. So that means an assumption is unreasonable if there's no reason you'd make it in the first place.
  - caskance 11y ago
    There is no reason to make this assumption (about smart TVs costing less) in the first place. You can retroactively justify anything by twisting and cherry picking facts. A product with more features may cost more if it costs more to produce or customers are willing to pay more for it because they see it as more valuable. Neither of those applies to smart TVs.
    - function_seven 11y ago
      > There is no reason to make this assumption (about smart TVs costing less) in the first place. Sure there is. 99% of everything else I've ever experienced in my life have had a positive correlation between features and price. I'm actually struggling right now to think of another product where—in general—more features are cheaper than fewer. Other than television sets, I cannot think of one right now. (Maybe if I spend some time on it, I can think of another) Therefore, knowing what I know about prices of things, it is totally reasonable to assume that TVs follow the pattern.

molmalo 11y ago

Depends on the market. Where I live, Smart TVs are easily about 2X the price for a similar "dumb" TV.