Would you buy a "dumb" TV?

[Robert Urbanek]

If it were available, would you buy a “dumb” widescreen TV, one that only received broadcast channels through an antenna and could play DVDs? No Wi-Fi service fees, no streaming subscriptions.

My first widescreen TV, bought in 2005 for about $1,200, was “dumb” but I was satisfied and awestruck at the increased image size, going from a 19-inch screen to 32 inches, which today is considered small. I now have a 32-inch smart TV. I like some of the free offerings on Roku but could probably get by with all the movie and TV show DVDs available from my public library.

I sense that a large segment of the population is frustrated by overly complex technology and would like a simpler life. Am I wrong?

 

[deannalw]

If it were available, would you buy a “dumb” widescreen TV, one that only received broadcast channels through an antenna and could play DVDs? No Wi-Fi service fees, no streaming subscriptions.

My first widescreen TV, bought in 2005 for about $1,200, was “dumb” but I was satisfied and awestruck at the increased image size, going from a 19-inch screen to 32 inches, which today is considered small. I now have a 32-inch smart TV. I like some of the free offerings on Roku but could probably get by with all the movie and TV show DVDs available from my public library.

I sense that a large segment of the population is frustrated by overly complex technology and would like a simpler life. Am I wrong?

I'm allergic to new technology- I think if it weren't for James keeping us updated, I'd still be plunking about with an 8 track.

 

[SaxonJackson]

You're dumb if you buy a "Smart TV." I don't watch TV so it matters not to me.

 

[Kruska]

If it were available, would you buy a “dumb” widescreen TV, one that only received broadcast channels through an antenna and could play DVDs? No Wi-Fi service fees, no streaming subscriptions.

My first widescreen TV, bought in 2005 for about $1,200, was “dumb” but I was satisfied and awestruck at the increased image size, going from a 19-inch screen to 32 inches, which today is considered small. I now have a 32-inch smart TV. I like some of the free offerings on Roku but could probably get by with all the movie and TV show DVDs available from my public library.

I sense that a large segment of the population is frustrated by overly complex technology and would like a simpler life. Am I wrong?

Just as it wasn't up to my grandfather to stop "commerce driven innovation" - he simply couldn't get his head around a color TV and especially that "remote control". - it isn't up to our "dying out generation" - but as long as "commerce driven innovation" doesn't force us to abandon older technology - I am fine with it.

Just some days ago I read an article concerning Chinese car makers specifically designing and manufacturing cars, that just last 2 years. !!

 

[Moonglow]

I stream if I watch. I am a cheap date, so it must be free.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

If it were available, would you buy a “dumb” widescreen TV, one that only received broadcast channels through an antenna and could play DVDs? No Wi-Fi service fees, no streaming subscriptions.

My first widescreen TV, bought in 2005 for about $1,200, was “dumb” but I was satisfied and awestruck at the increased image size, going from a 19-inch screen to 32 inches, which today is considered small. I now have a 32-inch smart TV. I like some of the free offerings on Roku but could probably get by with all the movie and TV show DVDs available from my public library.

I sense that a large segment of the population is frustrated by overly complex technology and would like a simpler life. Am I wrong?

.

Yes. "Dumb" appliance are my preference.

.

 

[White 6]

If it were available, would you buy a “dumb” widescreen TV, one that only received broadcast channels through an antenna and could play DVDs? No Wi-Fi service fees, no streaming subscriptions.

My first widescreen TV, bought in 2005 for about $1,200, was “dumb” but I was satisfied and awestruck at the increased image size, going from a 19-inch screen to 32 inches, which today is considered small. I now have a 32-inch smart TV. I like some of the free offerings on Roku but could probably get by with all the movie and TV show DVDs available from my public library.

I sense that a large segment of the population is frustrated by overly complex technology and would like a simpler life. Am I wrong?

Wrong for me. This year I put in a Samsung QN series wide screen smart TV in the living room and traded out a (semi-smart) Sony Bravia (hardly a low end smart TV, but the Samsungs QNs make it look retarded by comparison)here in my study/library, for a 43 inch Samsung QN series smart TV. The pictures on the QNs are unlike anything I have ever seen outside of showroom. These things are smart, even when turned off. If somebody walks in the vicinity while off, they temporarily flash up a screen with local temps, time, tells me what is on the most popular streaming channels and advertises targeted ads. The damned things are almost intuitive, right out of the box. I could do without the volunteer targeted ads, but what can I say? It probably means the South Koreans are listening every time I fart, walking through the house even when TV is off, but they definitely make smart TVs with great picture, and a 20 watt stereo built in, which is far greater than other flat screens in the house, smart of dumb.

 

[Darkwind]

By definition, TV is dumb, so I don't understand what you are saying.

Are you talking about a TV that has apps on it?