> smart TVs are cheaper than dumb TVs because they're subsidized by ad revenue.
What if you count having to view ads, and having the tv spy on you as a cost? RN,for many TVs you can just not connect to wifi, but how long until the TV won't work unless it is connected?
> Also, the claim itself doesn't really make any sense. Even if you stop getting software updates, that doesn't prevent you from using it as a dumb display.
Perhaps a better argument is that a bad software can brick the TV, or the components of the smart functionality break in a way that prevents you from using it as a dumb tv (i.e. it has more "moving parts"), and if you don't use the smart functionality, then it is a waste of the materials to make those components, and probably electricity running through the circuits. And it isn't too hard to imagine a future where the tv just stops working if it can't phone home.
>What if you count having to view ads, and having the tv spy on you as a cost?
I don't connect it to wifi, problem solved.
>for many TVs you can just not connect to wifi, but how long until the TV won't work unless it is connected?
Is there reason to believe that it won't work? The "smart" TV I have hasn't been connected to wifi for years and still works.
>Perhaps a better argument is that a bad software can brick the TV, or the components of the smart functionality break in a way that prevents you from using it as a dumb tv (i.e. it has more "moving parts")
I don't get it, are you trying to have your cake (smart functionality) and eat it too (smart functionality randomly breaking stuff)? If you use it as a dumb TV from day 1 I can't imagine why it would randomly break later.
>and if you don't use the smart functionality, then it is a waste of the materials to make those components, and probably electricity running through the circuits
The nvidia shield TV uses 6W while streaming. Presumably the smart TV component probably uses something similar or less than that. In the grand scheme of things it's nothing.
>And it isn't too hard to imagine a future where the tv just stops working if it can't phone home.
That's seems to be more of a theoretical concern than something that's actually happening right now.
> Is there reason to believe that it won't work? The "smart" TV I have hasn't been connected to wifi for years and still works.
I've heard of some tvs that work that way, rn it is the exception rather than the rule, but there is an incentive for tv makers to move in that direction.
> If you use it as a dumb TV from day 1 I can't imagine why it would randomly break later.
Smart tvs have inherently more complicated electronics, and that means more things to break. If you don't use the smart features it might be less likely for those components to break, but unless the designers were careful to sufficiently isolate the smart components, it still increases the chances of breakage.
> That's seems to be more of a theoretical concern than something that's actually happening right now.
For TVs maybe, but it is already the case for other "smart" devices like thermostats.
What if you count having to view ads, and having the tv spy on you as a cost? RN,for many TVs you can just not connect to wifi, but how long until the TV won't work unless it is connected?
> Also, the claim itself doesn't really make any sense. Even if you stop getting software updates, that doesn't prevent you from using it as a dumb display.
Perhaps a better argument is that a bad software can brick the TV, or the components of the smart functionality break in a way that prevents you from using it as a dumb tv (i.e. it has more "moving parts"), and if you don't use the smart functionality, then it is a waste of the materials to make those components, and probably electricity running through the circuits. And it isn't too hard to imagine a future where the tv just stops working if it can't phone home.