> This is a bit like saying you should "never" turn on your new car's engine and should immediately swap it out for a third-party one, because every knows Manufacturer X leaves ticking time bombs in their engines.

I don’t think it’s at all like that.

If anything, it’s more like saying don’t use your car’s built-in navigation, and instead, use another connected device for navigation.

The engine is a critical part of a car — without it, it can’t function. Period.

A TV doesn’t have to be smart to operate it, and you can’t buy a TV without it, even though it’s 100% not necessary, especially if you already have another device for that.

Again, it’s like cars with navigation — completely unnecessary, especially if you have another device for that.

I find this argument weird. Most people don’t want smart TVs. Dedicated smart devices are just better. Even non techies will probably feel this way because the TVs suck and the remote control interface is clunky and confusing. There’s simply no option to buy a dumb tv that isn’t something weird like a monitor or digital signage.

Imo nothing beats a laptop with a wireless mouse and keyboard. So much better than a shitty remote. Browsers and Google are familiar. Can also do games. Can access whatever sites you want or things the smart device wouldn’t approve of. All of these devices like Apple TV and fire sticks seem pretty dumb to me.

Because it's just so convenient to have to plug your laptop in via an HDMI cable and have it permanently tethered to your TV, and I just love sitting on the couch attempting to move a basically nonresponsive laser mouse on the furniture surface.

Cost of chromecast+remote: $30

Cost of secondhand laptop + wireless keyboard/mouse: $250

No ads, better interface, stream sites, no remote, and “everyone” has an old laptop.

To me it’s an obvious choice.

Please provide a source that 'most people don't want a smart TV'. That is not my experience at all.

I'll add some nuance:

- Most people don't know what they're missing re: clunky interface controls

- Most people want a single feature-complete device that doesn't take up an HDMI port or require another set of cables to connect (yes, that's trivial, even enjoyable, for 'us', but 'they' are not 'us').

Most people have no idea what their smart tv can do, and are confused by how to use it. In my experience it’s hardly something they sought. Just anecdata

> This is why consumer protection agencies are created by governments!

Enjoy them while they last (see Part III): https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-decision-...

Exactly. I purchase an Apple TV for each screen in the house, whether that screen is dumb or smart. Actually, I have three screens and two Apple TVs, so for movie nights I move one Apple TV over to the projector so we can watch a movie there (Apple TVs are expensive!)

I also had a Fire Stick and a Roku but refused to keep using them after reading their privacy policies (their UIs are also complete and utter trash, they are so terrible compared to Apple TV)

I think the advice to never allow a screen to connect to Wi-Fi is reasonable, and I tell my family the same. In the past I have give them old Apple TVs or help them set one up to ensure that they are not allowing spyware on their network

Agreed that this needs to be handled by government, as the level of data abuse by these companies is unacceptable

IMO, not a big deal. Google was basically giving away chromecasts with google tv, and if that's still not happening, ONN makes one that works fantastic for 20 dollars. With voice search and all if that's your thing. Both are way faster and easier to use than a built in smarts, and both you can take with you on the go if you want.

> Well yes, but then you're basically buying an expensive monitor and will need a second device to be the "smarts".

If all you want is a TV (as in, connecting to an antenna and tuning to over-the-air channels), you don't need any "smarts".

(The main difference between a TV and a monitor is that a TV has a tuner, while a monitor doesn't.)