I know there isn't a market for it, but I'd really like a dumb TV that is snappy with an excellent panel. I don't even need speakers, or multiple inputs...
It doesn't help that TVs have pretty much all plateaued at excellent picture quality. The main perceptible difference is the size. So, when I go to my local department store and see 3 72" TVs, by different vendors, and can't really tell any difference in picture quality, why wouldn't I pick the cheapest?
Price sensitivity - I find it funny that there is seemingly an immense amount of resources going into things that enable tracking for advertising purposes, but consumers as a whole are getting poorer and poorer. At some point it calls into question whether it's really about selling ads.,
I had a recent model Vizio. That was absolutely terrible. Eventually the power supply killed itself and I haven't bothered replacing it. Over a decade ago I was a fan of Vizio, that one purchase forever soured me on the brand. I'll never buy and never recommend them again.
The problem with selling "software isn't annoying!" is that it's very hard to quantify. You can give hard numbers for screen size, resolution, brightness, contrast, etc. It's more difficult for software annoyance, and there isn't really any language to talk about it. And TV makers have no real incentive to highlight how crap their software is.
It works fine connected to an AppleTV 4k and and appleTV is the only smart TV software I'll use. It's smooth as butter, has no ads, and integrates with the rest of my devices with minimal setup.
Apple has their dark pattern approach to promote the Apple TV+ service. Netflix refuses to participate in the global search. Apple constantly injecting ads about their content into other content.
It can also serve as a front end for a Plex server if you run that. While this isn't "local files", it works well and serves a similar purpose. Note: there is a very fair, cheap monthly/yearly/lifetime subscription required for any advanced features but it's free to try. I pay $12.99 for the yearly subscription and I'm incredibly satisfied. If this reads like an ad, it's not, I'm just really happy with it.
Like, I don't want to plug a chromecast into my "old" tv to "upgrade" it and having to live with a second remote control and more batteries, plugging another device to the electricity outlet and being able to use it only with wifi while the ethernet port of the TV is now rendered useless - I'd really like to be able to upgrade its internals without having to go broke while buying a new one.
They do this so a manufacturer can use the same parts among different products or simply install an upgraded one to unlock more features.
If it were standardized, this would be fairly easy given that they all pretty much work the same but then they would have write actually good software and UI for people to elect to use their specific product.
You could have 2 tiers of board: Essentials, which is cheap and only has as much hardware and software as is strictly necessary to produce a pre-smart-TV experience, and Deluxe which would be pricier and built around a recent flagship SoC (e.g. Snapdragon 8 Gen 1/2/3) with an unlocked bootloader and preloaded with Android TV.
> 24V for the display
Cathode Ray Dude has a few episodes about them.
https://youtu.be/q9a3dCd1SQI?t=2006
They're called Open Pluggable Specification Modules.
https://www.postium.com/8k-series
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1768977-REG/postium_k...
E.g. 4k 55" for $599: https://www.sceptre.com/TV/4K-UHD-TV/U557CV-UMRB-55-4K-UHD-T...
I've also seen Supersonic and Caixun mentioned in these discussions.
Can also be worth looking at "outdoor TVs" like Sunbrite.
1. Is this still true that TVs are considerably cheaper than monitors?
2. Is there a difference, or one I should care about between the two?
There are differences.
Just to name a few:
Monitors have better colour accuracy, higher refresh rates, have features like Gsync/freesync, way faster response times, more and better ports like displayport 2.1 and usb c, lower input lag.
First, most/all new Smart TVs are doing automated content recognition, collecting and sharing details about what you watch with the manufacturer, which they sell and/or use to show you ads. My understanding is that most new Smart TVs are showing you ads regardless. I'm opposed to this on principle.
Second, at least the Smart TVs I've personally used (a couple of Vizio sets, a late-00s FHD Samsung, a mid-10s 4k LG) all have really slow and unpleasant UIs. The Vizio in particular was glacial, and I couldn't understand why the set owner even bought it (they were only streaming through built-in apps). I'm guessing newer and higher-end sets are fast, but I haven't used one myself.
And finally, I don't want an integrated device like this anyway, I would prefer to pair a really nice panel with a separate smart device (roku, apple tv, linux, whatever) so I can upgrade those independently. If I am buying a Smart TV with no intention of using the smarts, I feel like I'm either paying too much, or not getting as nice a panel as I otherwise could.
And there's key combinations on both Apple TV and Roku (rot in hell) that will occasionally trigger the LG WebOS UI to take over requiring fetching the LG remote from the bowels of the console to deactivate it.
God forbid someone slam a door while you're watching TV and it triggers the gyroscopic TV remote to wake up and put a hot pink mouse cursor on screen.
Though I do have a funny interaction with the former kind of "smart features" with my (otherwise wonderful) LG C1 and PS5 where if I start the PS5 first it takes too long to trigger the TV to turn on and gets confused and puts the PS5 back to sleep as soon as the TV wakes up and switches to the input. But honestly I think I get more amusement than frustration watching the two smart devices outsmart each other constantly.