• REDACTED@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        It’s the main purpose of them, yes. Define TV to me. I don’t see the point of paying for decoders, smart TV and bunch of other things I’ll never use, much smarter decision is to buy a monitor which focuses on image quality and performance, far more suitable for consoles, Roku, etc.

        Commenter above low-key described that OLED as a monitor more than a TV

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          TVs are fantastic monitors.

          It sounds reasonable to not want to pay for basically a small computer inside the TV.

          But in practice, its not that expensive of a component. And TV volumes are so high that they’re bigger and cheaper and higher quality than an equivalently priced monitor, anyway.

          Hence, while I’m fine with the monitors I have, I’m never buying a “monitor” again. It just makes no financial sense when I can get a 40" 4K TV with 120hz VRR instead, that happens to work fantastically as a streaming box too.

          • REDACTED@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            My experience is that they all look terrible up close, for whatever reason. TVs are essentially designed for further-back viewing

      • REDACTED@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Well, the top killer is Boost, which is a client for Lemmy, sitting at 1/3 battery usage.