> In less than two years, the CPU inside the TV quickly becomes obsolete and can’t be upgraded while the display itself easily lasts a decade, and software updates are persphinctery, if they happen at all.
I refuse to buy a smart TV, and when my TV finally dies, I will probably be forced to buy one, and the first thing I will do is either disable, or just refuse to setup and use, the smart part.
I will then plug a Chromecast in. That cost me $35. That actually works with the services I pay for correctly.
Even those Android TV-based smart TVs are useless, because Google does not control them and cannot force the OEM to push Android updates.... although, Android TV does let you Chromecast to it, which is probably what I would use it for.
Although, if I wanted Android TV, I'd buy an Nvidia Shield TV and use that instead, since it actually has a reasonable amount of horsepower, supports H265 Main10 and Rec2020 colorspace (in the hardware, AndroidTV support of it itself is upcoming), thus, true 4k support (not merely 2160p support using 8-bit Rec709/sRGB, which a lot of so called 4k devices and TVs are; for a historical perspective, see all the TVs that can only do 720p and 1080i but not 1080p, thus are not actually HDTV/Bluray compatible at all, this is the same thing al over again).
Technology advances too quickly for a TV to ever be smart. I'd pay more for a dumb TV that has two more HDMI ports instead, ripping out any smart TV SoC, and ripping out the (extremely useless) cable tuner.
Side note: the cable tuner is useless on cable, due to all cable companies moving to encrypting all channels, or moving to IPTV platforms entirely, thus always requiring a box (CableCard is a dead standard and was a mistake, similarly to how smart TV is a mistake and should be just as dead); the cable tuner is always useless on satellite; and if you're trying to do OTA, many TVs, even ones produced today, do not have sufficient sensitivity to dial into channels for many reasons (distance, obscured line of sight, reflections), and even with large enough antennas, you'll get better performance (and sometimes, the ONLY performance) out of a dedicated OTA box.
As of which OTA box, if you need signal performance for extreme OTA situations, Channel Master's tuners, as a set top box, kind of suck, but often are the only ones that can coherently decode a signal.
> I refuse to buy a smart TV, and when my TV finally dies, I will probably be forced to buy one, and the first thing I will do is either disable, or just refuse to setup and use, the smart part.
Heh. That's what happened to me. Got a "smart" Vizio TV 4 years ago. It had a Skype + camera option. One night saw camera light come on when I wasn't using it. Quickly yanked that out. Then at some point the "apps" for Amazon stopped working for it. So that's when I disabled its networking plugged in a fire-stick and just using it as a dumb large screen for Netflix.
Actually that is an interesting niche to play in -- sell a high quality TV display but just with lots of USB and power ports in the back so people can plug in their favorite stream devices. It would be lighter and thinner as well. More power efficient.
Can even make a play on "this is secure, unlike other such devices". And of course the "you save by not paying for extra crap you don't want to use". Advertise that to a few sub-reddits which do xmbc, kodi development, cord cutters. Maybe get Costco on-board as well.
I just bought a Philips 40" 4k-computer monitor with a Chromecast. Mostly because there is a license cost to own a television in my country. This setup saves me $200-300 a year.
not sure about his country, but all countries i've lived in, those TV fees are practically impossible to legally dodge.
all possible things that are considered as TV receiver - any smart phone, tablet, PC including all *book, and of course all possible TVs. "reasoning" - you can still watch stuff online.
and there might be sub-fee for just radio receiving, in case you really don't possess any video-displaying device. And again any of those devices (over internet for example) apply.
I don't pay them where I live currently (Switzerland) - the private company which has government mandate to extract fees (Billag) has questionable legality over incurring any fees (which can go up to 5000 CHF =~ 5000 USD), and they need to physically inspect your apartment before any action. Of course there is no force in universe that would make me let them in. Reason - I haven't watched any broadcast TV station (or any other) for last 5 years. Plus we pay for TV channels to internet provider quite hefty sum already (part of the package, unused). If it's not illegal, it's immoral to extract those fees.
> I refuse to buy a smart TV, and when my TV finally dies, I will probably be forced to buy one, and the first thing I will do is either disable, or just refuse to setup and use, the smart part.
You could buy a short-throw projector instead. These are usually Internet-free and have many inputs for discrete media sources, which may or may not have Internet.
> Side note: the cable tuner is useless on cable, due to all cable companies moving to encrypting all channels, or moving to IPTV platforms entirely, thus always requiring a box
Maybe on your market. In Germany, unencrypted DVB-C is alive and kicking, especially for public broadcasting which everybody has to pay anyway. (I think private broadcasters have switched to an encrypted model or are in the process, but I don't care about them because German private TV is utter crap.)
I refuse to buy a smart TV, and when my TV finally dies, I will probably be forced to buy one, and the first thing I will do is either disable, or just refuse to setup and use, the smart part.
I will then plug a Chromecast in. That cost me $35. That actually works with the services I pay for correctly.
Even those Android TV-based smart TVs are useless, because Google does not control them and cannot force the OEM to push Android updates.... although, Android TV does let you Chromecast to it, which is probably what I would use it for.
Although, if I wanted Android TV, I'd buy an Nvidia Shield TV and use that instead, since it actually has a reasonable amount of horsepower, supports H265 Main10 and Rec2020 colorspace (in the hardware, AndroidTV support of it itself is upcoming), thus, true 4k support (not merely 2160p support using 8-bit Rec709/sRGB, which a lot of so called 4k devices and TVs are; for a historical perspective, see all the TVs that can only do 720p and 1080i but not 1080p, thus are not actually HDTV/Bluray compatible at all, this is the same thing al over again).
Technology advances too quickly for a TV to ever be smart. I'd pay more for a dumb TV that has two more HDMI ports instead, ripping out any smart TV SoC, and ripping out the (extremely useless) cable tuner.
Side note: the cable tuner is useless on cable, due to all cable companies moving to encrypting all channels, or moving to IPTV platforms entirely, thus always requiring a box (CableCard is a dead standard and was a mistake, similarly to how smart TV is a mistake and should be just as dead); the cable tuner is always useless on satellite; and if you're trying to do OTA, many TVs, even ones produced today, do not have sufficient sensitivity to dial into channels for many reasons (distance, obscured line of sight, reflections), and even with large enough antennas, you'll get better performance (and sometimes, the ONLY performance) out of a dedicated OTA box.
As of which OTA box, if you need signal performance for extreme OTA situations, Channel Master's tuners, as a set top box, kind of suck, but often are the only ones that can coherently decode a signal.