I absolutely hate “smart” TVs! You can’t even buy a quality “dumb” panel anymore. I can’t convince the rest of my family and friends that the only things those smarts bring are built-in obsolescence, ads, and privacy issues.

I make it a point to NEVER connect my new 2022 LG C2 to the Internet, as any possible improvements from firmware updates will be overshadowed by garbage like ads in the UI, removal of existing features (warning: reddit link), privacy violations, possible attack vectors, non-existent security, and constant data breaches of the manufacturers that threaten to expose every bit of personal data that they suck up. Not to mention increased sluggishness after tons of unwanted “improvements” are stuffed into it over the years, as the chipset ages and can no longer cope.

I’d much rather spend a tenth of the price of my TV on a streaming box (Roku, Shield TV, etc.) and replace those after similar things happen to them in a few years. For example, the display of my OG 32-inch Sony Google TV from 2010 ($500) still works fine, but the OS has long been abandoned by both Sony and Google, and since 2015-16 even the basic things like YouTube and Chrome apps don’t work anymore. Thank goodness I can set the HDMI port as default start-up, so I don’t ever need to see the TV’s native UI, and a new Roku Streaming Stick ($45) does just fine on this 720p panel. Plus, I’m not locked into the Roku ecosystem. If they begin (continue?) enshitifying their products, there are tons of other options available at similar price.

Most people don’t replace their TVs every couple of years. Hell, my decade old 60-inch Sharp Aquos 1080p LCD TV that I bought for $2200 back in 2011 still works fine, and I only had to replace the streamer that’s been driving it twice during all this time. Sony Google TV Box -> Nvidia Shield TV 2015 -> Nvidia Shield TV 2019. I plan to keep it in my basement until it dies completely before replacing it. The Shield TV goes to the LG C2 so that I never have to see LG’s craptastic UI.

Sorry, just felt the need to vent. Would be very interested in reading community’s opinions on this topic.

  •  thejml   ( @thejml@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3310 months ago

    I feel like the market is only going to grow in the top end. Audio/videophiles sort of areas with large, high quality, top end feature sets.

    The low end tends to be partly subsidized by the “smart” features. Think TVs that show ads in the menu, or Amazon or Google screens that want you to use their services because it’s “easy” and they’re “right there” so maybe people will subscribe. Couple that with the “feature” that it’s already built in so it saves you an extra box/purchase for people who want cheap TVs, and I don’t see it going away anytime soon.

    •  tiramichu   ( @tiramichu@lemm.ee ) 
      link
      fedilink
      36
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Exactly this.

      Manufacturers are NOT INTERESTED in selling low-cost dumb TVs when they can sell smart TVs and get long-term returns. They are even willing to sell the TVs at cost because they will monetise later with ads and selling your data.

      Manufacturers don’t want you to have a dumb TV, they want everyone to go smart - which is part of why business-targetted dumb panels are priced higher - to disincentivise regular end-customers from buying.

        • Normal manufacturing efficiencies and cost reduction is surely the biggest reason they are cheaper now but it’s absolutely a factor.

          So many companies in so many industries are trying to move from being product companies (make money selling a thing) to being service companies (make money from subscriptions, user data and other monetisation) and I’m doing my damnedest to keep away from any of it.

      • There’s no down-side to selling a smart TV to someone who doesn’t want one/doesn’t use the features.

        The features we “want” from modern TV’s like DolbyVision and all the shit they do the image to make it stand out in the store requires a significant amount of processing power.

        It’s simply better business to sell smart TV’s to everyone than to make dumb TV’s that compete for a tiny fraction of the market when people buy Smart TV’s in every price segment.

    • The paradox being that if therr were “premium” smart TVs for people like us - with proper support, privacy, customization options and no crap like ads - we’d probably buy it, and pay a premium for it.

      But that’s just too much work for them and they probably don’t even realize that kind of market exists.

      • I think they know it, I just don’t think they care. It’s a niche market. On top of that, they’d have to convince the people in that market to trust them.

        If they can get a 10-20% return on 10,000 Smart TVs, why waste the effort on properly developing and supporting 3 PrivaTVs (patent pending, exclusions apply, see your local drunk for details)?

        I could be wrong, I just don’t think the market is large enough that they’d be willing to throw manpower at it.

        • I think people underestimate the value of their tracking data. For a manufacturer, the benefits over the lifetime of the device, can be way higher than 20% the manufacturing costs.

          They could still develop and support those 3 PrimaTVs, but the MSRP would easily be a few times higher than that of an equivalent Smart TV.

          • How many more times? If a regular TV costs $100 then they’re making $20k plus marketing data. The PrivaTV would need nearly a $7000 markup for the same return.

            Obviously these are made up numbers for illustration. I think that for big manufacturers it’s not worth it for the return and amount of effort they would need to spend. Maybe a small manufacturer could do it. Maybe that would spur the big guys to buy them out and take it over once the hard work is done.