If you don't mind paying more, they do exist in the form of digital signage / commercial displays. They're usually either completely dumb or support "smart" features via standardized pluggable modules, which can host a normal x86 computer, amongst other options.

They probably meant "a reasonable amount more". My understanding is that the digital signage/commercial displays are substantially more while often being lacking in features that are important to most consumers. I'd probably also be willing to pay a little bit more, but not very much since, at the moment, unless you are really paranoid about your privacy/spying to the point that you don't want the TV to even have the connectivity hardware at all, most of these issues can be solved by just never connecting it to the internet, having it default to immediately selecting on of your inputs (I don't know how common this feature is by my TCL can do it), and using whatever device you choose on that input.

Yes, I used to feel the same.

Until I did some research and found out there is no need to go to this extreme --- at least not yet.

It is possible to buy a "smart" TV at a price subsidized by the privacy of "dumb" users and still run it in a "dumb" display mode.

With the TV I just bought, this is called "store" mode. I use it as a big, dumb 4K display connected to "smarts" that I can control.

Store mode often means maximum brightness and super saturated colors to "pop" under florescent lights and sitting right next to other displays.

Yes.

A big difference between a "budget" TV and more expensive is brightness and saturation controls are often purposely limited in "budget" models.

So with a "budget" TV, full brightness actually looks more like "normal" on your neighbor's $$ model.

The reason they dont exist (or rather that they exist but are rare) is because you, and me, are in the minority. Most people do not care if their tv is dumb and likely would be upset if their tv didnt have built in app support.

If there was a larger more vocal market for dumb tvs, they would exist more readily.

You would have to. The smart features are there to generate ad revenue. It's part of the reason that TVs have gotten absurdly cheap over the past decade.

You would. I would. A lot of us would.

But the public has spoken, again and again, with multiple goods. All that matters is price.

You may be able to sustain business selling very high end stuff for people with means.

But most people, out of greed or need, will go with a low cost option. And that will push nearly everything out in a race to the bottom.

> But the public has spoken, again and again, with multiple goods. All that matters is price.

People say that, every time this discussion comes up, but never with any proof.

People buy OLED TVs with four-figure price tags. If those had a "pay $100 more and never see an ad" option, many people would pay for that.

The Kindle e-book reader still has both ad-supported and non-ad-supported models. The non-ad-supported options cost ~$20 (a bit less than 20%) more. Those still sell well enough to be worth selling both models.

Some people buy expensive OLEDs, but I suspect as a percentage of TV sales it’s quite low. As I said there can be a high end niche but it’s not going to be the majority.

All Kindles (except the kids model and the Signature Edition) have ads. Removing ads is basically an IAP which you can pre-buy at order time.

However we don’t know how popular that option is, so it’s not a terribly useful argument. All we do know is it’s not popular enough that they have given up and made them all ad free again.

All that matters is price?

I'm sitting here looking at a Samsung OLED that has lost bonding on it's panel (horizontal stripes). The result is that that corporation is forever blacklisted.