What I said makes PERFECT sense.
Yeah, to you.
That big ol red NETFLIX button needs to be setup just like on a smartphone except with a bitmap display keyboard that you have to "hunt-and-peck" with a wand not a keyboard. So in that respect the smart tv is NOT so smart.
Updates STILL apply,
Reboots STILL apply.
What don't you get about either concept here.
I "got it" just fine. YOU are the one that doesn't "get it" and instead of going into pointless details trying to convince you of something you will never be convinced of, it can be simplified to say, SOME PEOPLE (not you) *LIKE* Smart TVs. You clearly have zero conception of what it's like to have family members that don't comprehend technology. Yes, I might still have to set up their smart TV for them when they first get it, but I can do that over the phone. Trying to get my mother to connect boxes to her TV with cables she has no clue about is like pulling teeth. I know you don't believe me. But that's your whole problem. You only see things from one point of view, your own.
I don't have a need/use for a "smart TV" that I can think of offhand, but that doesn't mean I represent everyone else. Some people still play LPs. Some still play CDs. Just because others don't doesn't make them worthless to everyone. Clearly, the entire reason the industry still sells "smart TVs" is because some people LIKE them.
Those that technologically inclined anywhere will have issues and will need to adjust. The fact and point I'm making is most TV's last longer than current chips in a smart-TV so I wager just how long can OS updates support the TV over a 3-5-7yr time frame.
And some people will use Netflix for 3-5-7 years and then have to deal with an external box in that time frame. Is your external box going to last that long too? No, it too will probably be obsolete and need replaced in that time frame. Smart TVs are also just TVs too.
Even if 'YOU' or 'I' upgrade the TV the one that's being replaced will be sold OR handed down to a child or teen in the family, so it will and should have a longer life. A set-top box like AppleTV does get support close to that long. Personally I don't use AppleTV4 I'm still on AppleTV3 and I'm finding the lines being blurred between exclusive use vs AirPlay from my iPhone.
I've still got an AppleTV Gen1 unit (two in fact). That doesn't mean they get much use but they still work (720p only unless upgraded with a broadcom chip, which I've done to one, but it still sucks in speed of the GUI compared to a brand new FireTV 4K running Kodi. Slow doesn't mean worthless.
If you want to talk about a WASTE OF MONEY, look no further than Receivers sold ten years ago. I had a choice between a Yamaha model with or without HDMI. The HDMI model cost almost twice as much (no other difference between the two). I had component units at the time or ones that did both. I bought the component receiver for my home theater. It's now hopelessly out of date that everything is HDMI. But that doesn't mean the other one would have been a better choice either because its version of HDMI wouldn't support 3D, 4K, etc. and so it would still need a newer version. Guess what, you have to buy the whole receiver. I've got a "separates" system upstairs in my high-end music room. Once upon a time, they used to sell "separate" surround decoders. That makes sense for high-end. You only have to replace the out-of-date separate surround unit, not the entire receiver and you can even use a separate pre-amp and separate power amps for each channel! Yeah, good luck with that. It's a good thing I have an old Technics surround processor so I could add surround to my analog only "high-end" system because no one makes the damn things anymore. Almost everything is a receiver now for surround processing. Yeah, there's some boxes floating around Amazon, but they're not exactly high-end. I was able to add an HDMI switcher to the receiver downstairs for now so I can replace it later (things like Dolby Atmos still aren't mega-common yet, etc. and 8K is coming...etc. etc.).
The POINT is you can buy whatever you want, all-in-one, separates, etc. but that doesn't mean the market will play ball over time. Things change and you can't always predict what items will still be made. They could make a smart TV with a removable card slot/bus/whatever so it could be upgraded. Why would they want to? They want to sell you a new set. That's why we have all these new forms of LED, etc. Hey, thinner, brighter, more color bandwidth, etc. etc. Your "1080p" set from 5 years ago is OUTDATED even if it works perfectly fine. 4K costs less than 1080p did then in some cases. So is your TV *REALLY* going to be used for 3-5-7-10+ years? Or will some want the latest and greatest anyway? Some people trade their brand new cars in for a new one after only a year or two! Is there something wrong with them? Probably not. Do they want a newer one. Obviously.
You misunderstood. TV's or OLD TV's had available a converter box or a box compatible.
In the 1930s? 1940s? I'm saying TV is a lot older than the 1970s. Converter and cables boxes are a relatively recent development compared to TV's full lifespan.
Psss: see if you can a) get the TV to pause and slow down trying to catch up to all the channels you rapid fired through,
Yes, high speed channel "surfing" was a real thing once upon a time. It doesn't really work so well with newer cable boxes. They switch far too slow. They would need much faster CPUs, etc. and the industry has been slow to update to something that doesn't have a huge delay just moving the cursor up and down the channel guide, let alone get it to tune/decode in a fraction of a second.
Not sure where you where born but yes HDTV's 720i/720P/1080i/1080p DID actually come with Cable TV converters. What on earth are you talking about lol.
(Sigh). I'm over 40. Early HD sets were not all called "HDTVs". In fact, MOST in the late 1990s and early 200s were called "HD READY". That means they did not come with an over-the-air HD Tuner, technically making them a MONITOR at those resolutions, not a TELEVISION. I had a 57" Panasonic CRT based projector that did 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i. It had an NTSC tuner in it, but no HD tuner! This was COMMON then because a model with an HD Tuner typically cost considerably more than one without it! Plus the OTA broadcast standard wasn't finalized when the first TVs were coming out so they could hardly include a Tuner that wasn't standardized yet. I don't think ATSC had the first broadcast in HD in the USA until 1998! My Panasonic unit was a 2nd Gen HD television and I think I bought it in late 1998!
Been around for 43yrs and at least 39yrs watching a TV, I've seen the evolution. You're just bent out of shape for some odd maniacal reason.
Maniacal? You're the one telling everyone " smart TV = 'this is just nuts' ".
I'm simply saying different strokes for different folks.
The difference quite simple is the Remote Box, Set Top box etc CAN be replaced at a MUCH cheaper cost than having to overhaul the complete TV.
I dunno. I'm seeing 60" HDTVs with 4K selling for $800. My first AppleTV cost $399! Some High-end surround decoders cost over $3000 back in the 1990s that were "separate" units. Easy to replace? They had a lot more wires. I don't know if that is "easier". Cheaper? They were $3000. High-end isn't about cheap. What I"m saying is that you're making a lot of assumptions. How much more does it cost a TV set maker to include a smart feature today? $20? $50? When an Amazon FireTV Stick costs $35 and a 4K unit that has a pretty powerful CPU with over 1GB of ram only cost me $80, can I REALLY make assumptions that a Smart TV is a waste of money and pointless when it can still be upgraded like a non-Smart one??? You sure as hell seem to think so, but the numbers aren't what they used to be. That $3000 Surround Processor I'm talking about is put to SHAME with a plane vanilla $299 receiver today and htat thing includes all your switching and amplifier power. Some receivers even come with Netflix now! "Smart Receiver" ? Many have Airplay, Pandora and other features too. Pointless? Perhaps, but even if I ditch a 3rd Gen ATV and move to FireTV 4K, the Airplay feature is still there on the receiver for me or guests to easily use. The FireTV doesn't support Airplay (directly anyway).
Now you understand completely my point and thus it's NOT absurd. You finally got it.
I suddenly "got it" at the end of the post? No, it's more like I know what you were saying all along, but what I or you want/like doesn't speak for everyone and that was the point I was trying so hard to get across.
1999 is old in terms of TV's for you? Man you don't know how good you've had it do ya
Old is relative. 18 years is not that old for a car, but for a computer, it's practically on its way to being a museum piece (like my 1991 Commodore Amiga 3000 or my 1988 Commodore Amiga 500 or my 1983 Commodore C64 or my 1981 Commodore Vic-20 which ran on a cassette deck tape drive).
The 57" HDTV in question weighed over 150 pounds and was about 3 feet deep and had no HDMI on it. It cost $5500. A 57" 1080p LED set might cost you $400 now. But I've got a 20" set in the back room from 1987. The magnetic power switch is broken on it, but it got a lot of use in a kitchen for over a decade.
PS: Stereo's beyond quality, sound frequency and potentially the medium they use ALL do the same thing:
use sound waves to re-produce music or speech for entertainment or information.
AM/FM radio has long been perfected
Has it? I don't recall HD Radio until more recently. My Subaru gets FM quality stereo broadcasts on the AM band in "HD" Digital. It gets closer to CD quality on the FM band in digital. So I suppose it depends on what you mean by "perfected".
and thus the quality of speakers, amplifiers etc, cannot give us better quality than the limits of that medium.
They can give quality better than the limits of that medium. It's called using a different medium (e.g. SACD).
I cannot tell you how many Cassettes I've purchased and portable players and recorders I've gone through.
I hated cassettes. I actually liked 8-Track better (better sound quality and easier/faster to switch to a different song). Sadly, the cheap plastic parts in a typical 8-track album meant they were faster to break than even cassettes which were pretty horrible. I used cassettes to record music for the car. I used LPs until I got a CD player in 1987 and didn't 'look back' really until I started buying vinyl again in the 1990s, but even then I didn't buy a playback rig until three years ago (so I had loads of brand-new 1990s vinyl that was unopened and holy crap is some of it worth a small fortune!!! For example, my $42 1994 Pink Floyd PULSE box set on LP unopened has gone for $800-1200 and I've got one unopened and it will remain unopened). I don't think vinyl is "better" technologically, but there are some albums that sound better on vinyl because many CDs are compressed to hell. Better capability doesn't always mean better used.
