It stretches credulity to suggest that the lack of non-smart TVs on the market causes the popularity of smart TVs. Would you also suggest that the lack of black and white TVs on the market causes the popularity of color TVs?
the "Smart" TVs of today are riddled with spyware and telemetry that provides a second revenue stream to the manufacture since 95% of the population is too lazy or uninformed or doesn't have the time to turn it off.
Yes, there benefits to the consumer in the form of convenience but it's not a paradigm shift like the switch from color to b & w. Also you could buy black and white televisions for _decades_ after the introduction of the color TV.
In the course of about 5 years "dumb" TVs have almost completely disappeared from he market. Maybe I'm just cynical but I have a hard time believing that it was because everyone just _had_ to have a TV with a buggy UI (in many cases) and/or loaded with spyware.
https://i.imgur.com/FlbKQEu.jpg
It was super trivial to remove. There is actually a removable panel on the back of the TV that lets you access it. Once I saw the antenna connector I knew what it was.
(I trust Apple more than Samsung. Except when it comes to remote control design.)
I think smart TVs are great, the chips that they put in the €1000 models are good enough for 4k streaming now. No more cheap mediatek crap. The only remaining problem that needs to be solved is long term support.
It really makes more sense for smart functionality to be a different box so you can pick it independently
The average customer doesn't know what telemetry is. They usually know what spyware is, and, if they don't, they will find out very quickly. Of course there are exceptions like your favourite Smart TVs or Google (MS, Apple) products.
B&W TV w/ built-in roku-like/streaming capabilities.
I wonder how expensive it would be to manufacture a B&W TV these days
I've found some Chinese factory which claims they can do it, but they seem to be using new-old-stock tubes.
I believe EU regulations regarding lead in consumer products prevent this too.
As you indicated, dumb TVs did compete against smart TVs for many years. The options were more like:
1. Buy a smart TV that might contain spyware and bugs.
2. Buy a dumb TV, and also buy another device to play content which can just as easily contain spyware and bugs. Oh, and the dumb TV already costs the same as the smart TV, because the "smart" hardware is extremely cheap at scale even without any secondary revenue streams.
How long will tv manufacturers be supporting and providing updates to smart tv software? If the smart components in the tv bug out or get bricked, you need a whole new tv.
It didn’t seem enough at the time to warrant sending the TVs back but perhaps I should have.
They’re segregated from the rest of my network at least. I may try to MITM them and strip out the ads.
- When I got the TV 4K was only just becoming mainstream and most dongles didn't support it. My TV natively supports 4K, HDR and Atmos on Netflix and Plex. (Does YouTube support HDR and Atmos?)
- My TV is 5 years old. The manufacturer (LG) hasn't introduced any new features that shove more ads down your throat [0], and all of the original features still work [1].
- Everything is controlled by 1 remote, so no need to explain to my wife you need to turn this on then this on (yes with HDMI CEC this should be possible, but the key word is "should").
- Using a dongle would have exactly the same privacy concerns - unless you run Netflix on a Linux laptop, but then you are stuck with 720p.
[0] https://www.consumerreports.org/streaming-media-devices/what...
[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/roku-youtube...
And on the flip side your TV probably isn't receiving security updates anymore either.
Hope you have it segregated from the rest of your devices.
Not having to procure or mess around with external devices and cables is a huge plus for most people. People who buy new TVs want great image quality, and are mostly concerned with where it will fit and whether they want 8k or are happy with 4k.
Another example could be, why driving a car is “too popular” on country side to move between places. It might be popular, because there is no public transportation. Is the situation same with public transportation? Can we call it popular, because it is forced?
Consumers buying TVs are driven by prices. Prices of smart TVs are artificially low...to the tune of either slim margins (<5%), no margins, or negative margins. The only reason 90% of the TV manufacturers can make money is by making them "smart", because they make up for margin on collecting/selling data. In other cases, big box retailers use them as loss leaders (see -> monster cable margins).
In other words - it's not that simple - the demand for smartTVs is driven partially by an artificially set price point.
source - my dad was a sales rep that sold TVs for 15 years late 90's-early 2000's.
Manufacturers therefore have zero incentives to manufacture non smart TV’s.
My parents had one where the TV part stopped working, but the VCR still worked. It had video/audio out jacks so dad plugged it into their other TV, so they had a dead TV sitting next to their working TV for use as a VCR.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
But I can replace an old Roku for $39.
Though the good thing is that I can't see the carcass of the old SmartTV laying around, the TV stays connected to the Roku so unless I accidentally hit the Channel up/down button and switch it to TV mode, I never see the LG SmartTV features.
But there was also the tradition in higher end A/V equipment of selling components instead of complete systems so it was limited to the low end.
I think the issue with Smart TVs is that people became aware of the extent of the downsides only years after they became aware of the convenience.
The reason that companies were so hellbent on getting "smart tvs" into our households is because of the ad revenue that come with them.
They aren't simply TVs, they're paid marketing platforms with captive audiences.