I don't get it...why do TV manufactures keep producing SMART tV

[3db]

I rather save the cost of the smarts on a display and put that into a larger screen display or a better quality display and let devices like Roku or Westen Digital handle the streaming apps. I really see no use in SMART display. What really p?sses me off is that I cannot get around the SMARTS when looking at displaya larger than 65" . This sucks.

 

[Pyrrho]

Given that one can routinely buy a Roku box for $50, it should add less than that to the cost of your TV. So with an expensive TV, it is an insignificant percentage of the price, so they include such things in expensive TVs. Also, it enables you to use one less device, which means one less connecting wire, and one less thing cluttering up your home.

I personally don't want a "smart" TV because they can spy on you:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/televisions-displays/87736-lg-smart-tv-spying-you.html

Notice, it even sent information regarding things NOT viewed online. Obviously, everything you do online can be watched by others, but this example went further than that. If I ever buy a "smart" TV, I do not plan on giving it my internet password and keep it offline.


There are many examples of things being included that are not always helpful. For example, most of us who use HDMI connections have no use for every device having its own digital to analog converters. I would rather not pay for them in everything, as it is a waste. However, some people do want to use them, and so such things have often been included. They make the devices for selling large quantities, not to please you or me specifically.

 

[3db]

Given that one can routinely buy a Roku box for $50, it should add less than that to the cost of your TV. So with an expensive TV, it is an insignificant percentage of the price, so they include such things in expensive TVs.

I understand what you are saying but the price difference of equivalent quality display between smart and no smart is much more than the cost of a Roku.

Also, it enables you to use one less device, which means one less connecting wire, and one less thing cluttering up your home.

I personally don't want a "smart" TV because they can spy on you:

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/televisions-displays/87736-lg-smart-tv-spying-you.html

Notice, it even sent information regarding things NOT viewed online. Obviously, everything you do online can be watched by others, but this example went further than that. If I ever buy a "smart" TV, I do not plan on giving it my internet password and keep it offline.


There are many examples of things being included that are not always helpful. For example, most of us who use HDMI connections have no use for every device having its own digital to analog converters. I would rather not pay for them in everything, as it is a waste. However, some people do want to use them, and so such things have often been included. They make the devices for selling large quantities, not to please you or me specifically.

That's another reason why I won't get a smart TV.

 

[Pyrrho]

I understand what you are saying but the price difference of equivalent quality display between smart and no smart is much more than the cost of a Roku.
...

That has not been my experience. Among those I have seen, the "smart" TVs usually have various other upgrades as well, such as a better screen or video processing, and so it really isn't otherwise equivalent. If you have some specific examples you would like to discuss, feel free to post those examples.


Also, as one gets to extremely large displays (like what you mention in the opening post), they typically don't use their worst displays on them, as they are not going to be really cheap anyway.

 

[ImcLoud]

A lot of the consumers are not like us, they want one device for everything, pretty soon there will be built in popcorn machines...

 

[j_garcia]

I specifically bought the lower model of my Vizio because it lacked the "smart" features. My Samsung only comes that way, but I've never once enabled any of it, nor do I have any plan on doing so.

 

[Grador]

That has not been my experience. Among those I have seen, the "smart" TVs usually have various other upgrades as well, such as a better screen or video processing, and so it really isn't otherwise equivalent. If you have some specific examples you would like to discuss, feel free to post those examples.


Also, as one gets to extremely large displays (like what you mention in the opening post), they typically don't use their worst displays on them, as they are not going to be really cheap anyway.

Well that's really just an elaboration of 3dbs problem with them. If you want a larger (or nicer) display you're forced into a smart TV. I'd much rather panasonic put the money that went into the smarts on my TV to have gone into making the transformer buzz a little less.

 

[Pyrrho]

That has not been my experience. Among those I have seen, the "smart" TVs usually have various other upgrades as well, such as a better screen or video processing, and so it really isn't otherwise equivalent. If you have some specific examples you would like to discuss, feel free to post those examples.


Also, as one gets to extremely large displays (like what you mention in the opening post), they typically don't use their worst displays on them, as they are not going to be really cheap anyway.

Well that's really just an elaboration of 3dbs problem with them. If you want a larger (or nicer) display you're forced into a smart TV. I'd much rather panasonic put the money that went into the smarts on my TV to have gone into making the transformer buzz a little less.

It seems like a waste if one is not going to use it, but the economy of scale in production can make it cheaper to make one model that has the extra features along with being the better TV. If they have to make two models instead of one (because many people do want those features built-in), then the price will likely have to be higher for each of them. It is analogous to what I stated in my first post in this thread:

...

There are many examples of things being included that are not always helpful. For example, most of us who use HDMI connections have no use for every device having its own digital to analog converters. I would rather not pay for them in everything, as it is a waste. However, some people do want to use them, and so such things have often been included. They make the devices for selling large quantities, not to please you or me specifically.

Leaving something off can make the item more expensive. The same idea is very well illustrated in the issue of a home theater receiver versus a separate preamp/processor. Often, the receiver is cheaper for the same (or better) performance, so that they are effectively paying you to take the amplification that is built-in. In the case of a receiver, if it has preamp outputs, one does not have to actually use the built-in amplification. And in the case of a "smart" TV, one does not have to actually use the "smart" features.

 

[darien87]

I guess I'm the weird one here. I wanted Smart TV a long time ago, mainly because the browser in the PS 3 is a pile of crap and I didn't want to have a PC in my living room. I thought, "Why can't my TV surf the web?" Then when Samsung started making smart TV's I thought it was great. Unfortunately the model I bought doesn't have the drivers to connect a BT keyboard to it and the tiny keyboard on the remote is a complete joke. So I end up not really using it at all anyway. It would be nice to be able to surf the web directly from my TV without having to hook up another device though.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

some new TVs will include Roku, now that's Smarts I wont mind
Why Roku TV will save the company - Fortune Tech

 

[ReUpRo]

Leaving something off can make the item more expensive. The same idea is very well illustrated in the issue of a home theater receiver versus a separate preamp/processor. Often, the receiver is cheaper for the same (or better) performance, so that they are effectively paying you to take the amplification that is built-in.

Porsche charges extra to remove the air con system (that comes standard) on the Carman R .

 

[Alex2507]

So for top tier it's all smart TV's? How about the 3D thing? Is that also non optional? I haven't really looked but what's out there for dumb 2D in plasma? I'm down with used. The Panny black level thing ever get sorted out? Is there a turning point in their model line up that is trouble free?

 

[xboxweasel]

I too could be without the whole smart TV feature. I tried in on my VT60. It's very crude and the apps are all low quality. I stopped using the smart feature. My TV is currently only on HDMI 1 input and nothing else. I don't even have a remote for it. All I need to do is turn it on and off. And there is a button for that on the side of the TV.

Mind you, my new receiver also has a ton of features that I will most probably never use. I am using it as a glorified volume knob since I power all my speakers by separate external amps.

It just that getting exactly the features on wants is hardly ever going to happen. Our choice of toys is made for the masses. And the masses like their gimmicks. At least the marketing department thinks so.

 

[herbu]

My TV is currently only on HDMI 1 input and nothing else.

I wonder if that's enough... especially w/ ARC. So we have a whole Home Theater system, all connected together in a "web". Some part of that system IS connected to the internet. If somebody knew what they were doing, and really wanted to, I wonder if they could hack your system whether your Smart TV features were enabled or not. Something tells me Pablos Holman and his guys, (from the YouTube video), could figure out a way.

 

[xboxweasel]

I wonder if that's enough...I wonder if they could hack your system whether your Smart TV features were enabled or not...

If possible, then it could only be done when the system is on. I disconnect my equipment when not in use. We've had too many power dips, power outages.