Why Not Dumb TVs

[sachinchavan 15865]

In a world where you get Digital Media players from Rs 5000 onwards that have far better user interface, app stores, hardware (resulting in AV quality), updates and support, why do TV manufacturers even bother to make their TVs smart? I wonder what percentage of users stick to the loaded OS. Most would add a Firestick, Apple TV, Roku or any of the many other media players. Instead they could save on the OS development as well as processor/RAM cost and instead provide bigger screens and/or picture/sound quality in dumb TVs with HDMI at the same cost.

Why doesn’t even one TV manufacturer attempt this flanking strategy?

 

[PTP]

In a world where you get Digital Media players from Rs 5000 onwards that have far better user interface, app stores, hardware (resulting in AV quality), updates and support, why do TV manufacturers even bother to make their TVs smart? I wonder what percentage of users stick to the loaded OS. Most would add a Firestick, Apple TV, Roku or any of the many other media players. Instead they could save on the OS development as well as processor/RAM cost and instead provide bigger screens and/or picture/sound quality in dumb TVs with HDMI at the same cost.

Why doesn’t even one TV manufacturer attempt this flanking strategy?

Its entirely based on supply and demand. The uninformed general population prefers all in one solution like a Smart TV and manufacturers are monetising on it.

Sharp Electronics were selling their dumb TVs in India till 2020 and now they are out of business.

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

Its entirely based on supply and demand. The uninformed general population prefers all in one solution like a Smart TV and manufacturers are monetising on it.

Sharp Electronics were selling their dumb TVs in India till 2020 and now they are out of business.

We can’t assume Sharp’s exit from Indian market is on account of selling non-smart TVs. In past many other high quality consumer goods as well as auto companies/brands have exited the Indian market which is excessively cost-focused.

And they don’t need to make their entire product range non-smart. Why not introduce one line of non-smart TVs? In fact, make them targeted at the AV conscious segment. For example, add quality DAC and speakers into the design - why should all TVs be thin? Many of us place TV on the shelf and don’t mind the base to be designed to include high performance speakers. Use the money saved on the Smart part (which many in this segment ends up not using) to differentiate on AV experience and save on the cost of a sound-bar for the customer.

All it needs is for one company to think differently.

P.S. Came across this well-researched article espousing the same principle.

Encouraging quote from the same:
“If you just want an old-fashioned TV without the bells and whistles, you should probably go for the Sceptre U650CV-U that offers a 4K resolution. It has over 2,800 reviews on Walmart's website, many of which are from users who are happy that they finally found a decent non-smart TV.”

If one company has tried to be different and succeeded, there’s merit in the idea.

How to buy a dumb TV — and why you'd want to

Trying to find a TV without any smart platform, assistants or voice controls? Here's how it's possible

www.tomsguide.com

 

[Yelamanchili manohar]

I was using a roku uhd or something a long time back. I also had amazon TV at that time. Discarded both as the TV does it all. And I don't even need a smartphone or tab to control it. Convinience wins in the living room every time

 

[aeroash]

Convinience wins in the living room every time

I hear a Bluetooth clan!

 

[arj]

Reminds me of the time when i went looking for a good phone with wonderful voice reception and without a camera et al. Consumerism, economies of scale etc just made it difficult for those models to survive except in the lowest segments .

I would assume the hardware for both will be the same and hence the main difference in cost being the software which is anyway a freeware considering the volumes hence why take the trouble of saving the hardware cost of a different manufacturing process and more SKUs to distribute/sell ?

I have not done much research but a quick look at a samsung 32 inch smart and dumb tv shows the difference as just 1k and that too am sure just notional to keep a difference.

Considering that you can still use a smart TV with external devices, dont think this is something which might be an economical option for any manufacturer.

 

[jaiwant_alex]

why do TV manufacturers even bother to make their TVs smart?

Maybe it's a legacy from the time when the category (smart tv) was new. At that time they probably went in for developing their own software/OS 1) as a feature , ie the company which comes up with the slickest interface sells the most tvs 2) to use that market share to become dominant in the OS space, ie be the platform for which all content creators would want to develop their apps, much like Apple/Google with smartphones.

But I guess Google's stranglehold couldnt be broken, and these guys just have to keep pushing out this software with their tvs simply because it's there.

 

[MaSh]

That's how the market has become. All want a one box solution without having to pay extra to get another device.

With smart TV's all one needs is an internet connection and done.

MaSh

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

I was using a roku uhd or something a long time back. I also had amazon TV at that time. Discarded both as the TV does it all. And I don't even need a smartphone or tab to control it. Convinience wins in the living room every time

Manohar, you don’t need a smartphone/tab if you have a digital media player like the ones mentioned. Apple TV for example comes with a sleek remote (also voice command enabled) and so does FireTV. I don’t remember when I had to use my TV remote last.

It’d be interesting to compare how many apps are listed on your (or any) smart TV’s platform as against on the digital players. Also, do they get updated as often?

I would assume the hardware for both will be the same and hence the main difference in cost being the software which is anyway a freeware considering the volumes hence why take the trouble of saving the hardware cost of a different manufacturing process and more SKUs to distribute/sell ?

Don’t smart TVs require faster processors and more RAM?

That's how the market has become. All want a one box solution without having to pay extra to get another device

Yet there’s a market for component stereo. Not everyone buys a single box containing Streamer-DAC-Amp. Wouldn’t there be a similar segment for TVs? Already we see people increasingly using sound bars and HT systems. Are we converging or diverging? Probably there’s space for both!

 

[amit11]

In a world where you get Digital Media players from Rs 5000 onwards that have far better user interface, app stores, hardware (resulting in AV quality), updates and support, why do TV manufacturers even bother to make their TVs smart? I wonder what percentage of users stick to the loaded OS. Most would add a Firestick, Apple TV, Roku or any of the many other media players. Instead they could save on the OS development as well as processor/RAM cost and instead provide bigger screens and/or picture/sound quality in dumb TVs with HDMI at the same cost.

Why doesn’t even one TV manufacturer attempt this flanking strategy?

I would believe that 95% of people just want to watch TV and they do not have any external speakers, sound bar or anything connected. It is just the TV.

In that case anyone would prefer a smart TV (instead of dumb). This avoids buying (and spending) anything extra. One Tv without any connections, and avoiding multiple remote makes life simpler.

And moreover it is android (Google) who would promote it in the TVs... that way they can invade more into peoples likes / privacy.

 

[jaiwant_alex]

It’d be interesting to compare how many apps are listed on your (or any) smart TV’s platform as against on the digital players. Also, do they get updated as often?

This was one of the reasons why I added an android box. Samsung's Tizen OS didn't have all the apps. This was sometime back, i don't know if things have changed now.

 

[arj]

Don’t smart TVs require faster processors and more RAM?

RAM perhaps yes but wont be surprised if the processor is the same

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

In that case anyone would prefer a smart TV (instead of dumb). This avoids buying (and spending) anything extra. One Tv without any connections, and avoiding multiple remote makes life simpler.

But people have been using an add-on (set top) box over their TV for decades now. First with cable TV and then satellite TV. It’s just another box (digital player) instead now as they transition to OTT. Actually most traditional families I know still use satellite TV and not the smart TV functions in their set. It’s the younger couples/families that have moved onto OTT and are increasingly opting for digital streaming players. It’d be interesting to know the sales and usage data for these platforms.

 

[Yelamanchili manohar]

Manohar, you don’t need a smartphone/tab if you have a digital media player like the ones mentioned. Apple TV for example comes with a sleek remote (also voice command enabled) and so does FireTV. I don’t remember when I had to use my TV remote last.

It’d be interesting to compare how many apps are listed on your (or any) smart TV’s platform as against on the digital players. Also, do they get updated as often?


Don’t smart TVs require faster processors and more RAM?

Yet there’s a market for component stereo. Not everyone buys a single box containing Streamer-DAC-Amp. Wouldn’t there be a similar segment for TVs? Already we see people increasingly using sound bars and HT systems. Are we converging or diverging? Probably there’s space for both!

Hi Sachin ..

My LG TV is really really old. Probably one of the first 4k TV's to have launched in 2014 or 2015. So it's definitely app constrained. I probably only have amazon prime and Netflix apps in it. Wife does keep complaining about the shortage of apps that our neighbours TV's have. I simply can't be bothered to add a fire TV stick let alone an apple TV. I never ever watch TV anyways.

So whenever my wife complains about the apps, I complain about the cost of a new 85 inch 8k TV. And that shuts her up for a few months

 

[Yogesh]

Very sensible Idea. It's my long-time grouse. There should be a TV there with fantastic picture quality with just the panel. I will take dumb TV any day against a Non-Android Smart TV.

And argument of separate box no longer valid since advent of sticks and Smart Set top boxes.

 

[nitin_g3]

I haven't used apple TV but use firetv stick max 4k on my LG OLED,
I can easily tell the difference between volume and picture quality between LGs native WebOS apps and firetv stick.
LGs native apps are way better. The only reason I got the firetv stick is to be able to play network video files through KODI.

I think the apps available on Webos of the TV are well optimized for the hardware compared to generic apps of external streaming device.

LG could simply release dumb versions of their OLEDs but in that case they won't be able to demonstrate thier TVs capabilities which would impact thier marketing and sales down the line.
So it makes sense for the manufactures to have their TVs smart instead of dumb.

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

I think the apps available on Webos of the TV are well optimized for the hardware

Now, that can be one valid argument in favour of smart TVs. Though Apple TV provides screen calibration and numerous other settings to optimise the performance and user experience.

There should be a TV there with fantastic picture quality with just the panel.

Yes. Why even bother with audio? Just give us the best possible picture and size in the money we pay.

 

[chander]

If you guys are looking for dumb TVs - you can look for professional/hotel panels. They come with Hotel OS (for in-room service etc) - but you can shut those down. The panels are the same as commercials TVs I think. I have been using a Samsung for the last 2+ years with Apple TV 4K. No issues whatsoever. Model is Samsung - HG61AJ690UKXXL.

***& They are extremely cheap in comparison!

 

[Donivlapog]

A really old 32 inch Phillips LCD TV I bought in 2010 after being in loft for nearly 6 years when used as a monitor for my desktop computer springs back to life with no issues at all. It was idle for this long and is just HD ready but can beat the living daylights of the dell monitor that i used before thos as the display unit, which went kaput last week, made me think Phillips is still a force to reckon. Not dumb at all.

 

[square_wave]

So whenever my wife complains about the apps, I complain about the cost of a new 85 inch 8k TV. And that shuts her up for a few months

And then, won't she point a steady and unwavering finger at the ever increasing stack of uber expensive audio gear you keep hoarding ? How does that argument end ?