Recently bought a 50 inch “smart” TV for like $250. But then 30” computer monitors are still like $200.
I’d assume Monitors to be cheaper as they don’t include “smart” components for streaming. What’s the reason?
To be clear I saw a $200 40” tv and a $250 40” monitor. But prices are weird especially when I got my 50” for $250 and it comes with a Roku ($50 base last I checked).
Comments
Refresh rates. The technology behind computer screens is a lot more advanced and smaller components than TVs when you look beyond the size.
The cost of TVs are subsidized by the companies that have services installed on them (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.).
As long as the native resolution is the same, there’s no difference (unless you need higher refresh for gaming). Monitors are generally more pricey because business buys way more monitors than consumers buy TVs. And, business is willing to pay more.
>Recently bought a 50 inch “smart” TV for like $250. But then 30” computer monitors are still like $200.
>I’d assume Monitors to be cheaper as they don’t include “smart” components for streaming. What’s the reason?
The “Smart” hardware is not expensive at all. Its usually the bare minimum required to run androidtv or some other sort of smart tv OS.
PC monitors tend to be more expensive because the actual display hardware is of a higher quality, higher refresh rates and lower latency, both of which are pretty important for gaming.
You can find a cheap 30″ PC monitor for the same price as a 30″ smart Tv. It’s not going to have a 244hz refresh rate, be 4k capable, or have 0.5ms latency between input and refresh time.
Computer monitors usually have much higher refresh rates and their pixel density is much higher since they’re meant for up-close viewing
Your smart TV is subsidized by data collection. Your standard monitor is not.
That’s the primary difference.
Monitors usually have more display modes and are designed to be sharper at close viewing distances.
Smart components are often free or even profitable because they generate revenue through extremely creepy data sales and sometimes ad display.
Monitors typically have much higher specs in terms of pixels per inch, refresh rate, bleed, contrast, etc.
Are the TVs you’re considering the same resolution as the monitors?
> I’d assume Monitors to be cheaper as they don’t include “smart” components for streaming.
Opposite is true, since SmartTVs are full of ads and pre installed apps that subsidize the TV.
Go out there and try to buy a NON-smartTV. Just a regular “dumb” TV. They cost a fortune.
As it’s been said quite a lot. Monitors have faster refresh rates, faster response time. Etc. They may be smaller than tvs but they are providing a lot more then tvs are capable of
I’m going to take some educated guesses here as I don’t know the answer for certain.
TVs have much more competition in the market, leading to lower prices in a race to the bottom.
The “smart” components are usually a cheap circuit board and crap software.
Monitors may have higher quality color representation, as well as higher maximum refresh rate.
There may be better quality of life additions to monitors, such as blue light control, as the expectation is you’ll be using it more often and from much closer.
“smart” TVs get subsidised by advertising.
Define quality.. The stuff they call “smart” usually doesn’t even meet the processing power of a raspberry pi. Smart TVs are the worst thing that has ever happened to TVs. Wanna play console? Wait for 20 seconds boot time. Wanna watch TV? Let me first check for updates. Thought you have no ads, because you subscribed to a streaming service? Ohh.. can this built-in ad interest you in another streaming service?
Pixel density, lower input lag, refresh rate, theyre better at color reproduction (well depending on the type i guess) Oled/Qled and IPS are the best for that . If you game on a monitor vs a tv and playing something like an FPS youll notice the difference. those split seconds can make you miss shots, misread onscreen action etc. Theres also a bigger selection of aspect ratios with monitors vs TVs
A lot of TVs nowadays are subsidized. All those smart features aren’t just there for your convenience. It’s there cause they can make money off of it.
Monitors don’t have apps. It’s just a screen for the most part. Additionally, higher refresh rate and low pixel response times are in demand for gaming. You can buy a monitor for $100 (or maybe less), but it will be 1080p (or lower), and 60hz.
Tv makers lose monney with hardvare but make monney on ads…when you buy tv you probably have allready netflix,rakuten…etc instaled and button…monitor cant earn monney alone widouth pc…and when somone say oh monitor is beter,no its not immagine having hudge smart tv with ultra hd photo and to think it have cheap parts…and tv have usertracking so they sell your data ,what you watch and when….
Not sure, but did anyone mention refresh rates yet?
Color scores
Refresh rate
Different inputs/outputs
Plus making a 4k resolution tv is easy when it is 50 inches. Cramming 4k resolution into a 30 inch screen is much harder
TVs are pretty standardized as far as media display capabilities. TVs are to monitors as game consoles are to gaming PCs. They do the same thing and essentially function the same way but tvs and consoles are not as specific as the other two. Nor are they designed to carry higher workloads than their original design. You can definitely mismatch a monitor and a pc depending on your required output. It’s nearly impossible to mismatch a tv and console as long as they’re within 3 or so generations.
I’m sorry a $250 TV is in no way at all comparable to the monitor.
Additionally one of the main reasons and the only reason the TVs are that cheap is the TV manufacturers in that “smart” software to track all your viewing habits and they sell that information.
Advertising and your personal user information is what makes the TVs that cheap.
That TV is not of higher quality
The TV is stealing more of your personal data. The monitor is the monitor and so the margin is higher because there’s no profit after it’s sold. The TV is subsidized because they make more money off of selling your data to advertisers then they do off the TV.
I have exclusively used TVs for monitors for probably 15 years at this point. Refresh rate is probably the big thing but I don’t play games where milliseconds matter. Everything i play is turn based or single-player, and latency doesn’t make a difference. My current set up is three 43 inch tvs. Works for me, probably wouldn’t work for someone playing competitive shooters.
Monitors will always be “higher quality”. TV’s only use the absolute basic necessary features. theyve only very recently begun to use 120hz and VRR, when monitors have been available with 240hz and VRR for a decade. Most tv’s are still only 60hz. bigger doesnt mean higher quality or better.
Motherglass favor a few formats each generation, usually these are optimized for TV. Also monitor can be used for work, heard somewhere people are willing to pay more for multi purpose devices
I would disagree that TVs are “higher quality” writ large.
Monitors are more often higher quality with significantly higher refresh rates specifically which requires better hardware.
TV’s have been able to keep their cost way down because the smart TVs are selling our information to third parties. It’s the data mining they want.
TVs have lower refresh rates and are typically much larger physically than a monitor. The later means the pixels and circuitry is bigger/cheaper/easier to manufacture/etc.
High density pixels that have a high signal rate are what make monitors expensive.
A lot of people are mentioning refresh rates and whatever other features that increase the cost, but probably the biggest driving factor is the “smart” feature itself.
Smart tvs collect user data that the companies sell. I couldn’t find the article from a few months ago that laid out how Walmart makes more money from selling the data from Vizio tvs than they do on selling the tvs themselves.
Data is gold.
Supply and demand. There is less demand for monitors so they cost more as niche products.
I once bought a 50″ “Amazon Day” TV hoping to use it as a computer monitor.
It had about a half second of latency. So move the mouse and half a second later it would actually move. Oooof.
Because there’s marketing tools inside the tvs. It’s a full out advertising vessel, this is why.
monitors are built for performance — higher refresh rates, lower input lag, better color accuracy. tvs are built to sell you ads and harvest your data. that’s why a $250 tv is cheaper than a $250 monitor: one sells a product, the other sells you.
Today’s TVs are subsidized by ads
Monitors can’t sell your browsing data like TV’s can and do.
There is more profit in the data than there is in the TV.
Smart tvs are subsidised because they are “smart.” They get discounted prices by adding features from external parties to advertise to you. ALL of the main streaming apps are tied into my source button, and my tv defaults to tv+ even though it’s only connected to a console. I’m looking at a nashville Samsung tv plus advert right now.
A monitor, however, excluding the tech aspect, is connected directly to something they have no control over. Can’t advertise to me via my monitor that’s connected directly to my pc.
And small 5’’ camera monitors cost like $500+ 😭
A TV just needs to show an image, it could theoretically take 30 seconds to turn it from the signal at the back of the tv to the image on the front and it wouldn’t matter that you are watching something delayed by 30 seconds.
A monitor is used in an interactive way so it needs to receive that input and create the image of the mouse moving as instantaneously as possible so the user can actually use it.
There’s a lot of other stuff too but latency is a big part of it.
Smart TV collect information which has value.
My 32″ 4k monitor was a gamechanger! The old 23″ looks like some sort of plaything compared to it. Monitors use different screen technology. I chose IPS for video editing and gaming. I don’t watch TV, but I think Oled might be the major panel type.
Worst thing about 4k. Pixel density is enourmous. It needs a strong PC. Monitor was around 500€, PC will be around 2000€.
A TV is meant to be viewed from 6 feet or more away; a PC monitor is meant to be viewed from 2 feet away. The image quality, viewed from 2 feet away, of a TV is almost certainly way less than any remotely comparable PC monitor.
Larger electronics are easier to make.
Don’t ever buy a smart TV. TVs these days *should* just be monitors. Built in smart components always have crappy OSs and the manufacturer can decide to stop updating it at any time. Just went through trying to convince a relative not to get a smart tv since they are using a Roku box anyway. What did they do? Smart TV since it was only $150 more than the plain one. Went home and plugged in the Roku. SMDH
You aren’t looking into the specs for each. The tv doesn’t have very good specs.
Higher refresh rate. Good monitors are 165 and up. A tv is 120. This is a factor when gaming.
TVs don’t need to be nearly as color accurate
why is everyone forgetting the ATSC tuner hardware in a TV
smart TV =/= “quality”
smaller pixels means more difficult to produce
economies of scale (more people buy tv’s than monitors)
higher refresh rates in monitors vs tv’s
OLED vs TN/IPS
if you actually try to compare apples to apples, lets say a 42″ 4k 120hz OLED monitor vs tv, it gets pretty comparable
Refresh rate
OP: “TVs of higher quality”
Also OP: $250 TV
A $250 TV is bottom-of-the-barrel trash.
A good 50″ tv is like $1200. The cheap ones are crap that start failing to do anything after a couple years of OS updates (if they even survive that long without components failing). My girlfriend’s Roku tv takes like 3-4 tries to open any of the apps and its only 4 years old.
monitors are built with different priorities—things like faster refresh rates, lower input lag, better color accuracy, and higher pixel density for sitting close. tvs are designed mainly for passive viewing from a distance, so they can focus on size and visual flash without needing the same precision. you’re basically paying for performance and responsiveness with monitors.
TVs are cheaper because they are cheaper to make. Also consider that smart TV operating systems run advertising, which actually offsets cheaper prices.
TVs are also cheaply made. The screens are good but the chips inside them are incredibly slow. I have two Apple TVs because of how slow my Vizio and Samsung TVs are. Both were $500 and $800 and the smart OS is dogshit.
bigger != better, all other things equal it generally makes the screen cheaper (same number of pixels shoved in less space requires denser tech)
Monitors usually have higher pixel density (because you sit closer, usually), higher refresh rate, and less latency
“smart” components pretty much amount to the cost of a chromecast, which is so cheap Google literally gave away (probably hundreds of) thousands of them trying to bring people to Stadia (I’m referring to the promotional package they gave out to youtube premium subscribers)
It’s pixel density, then quality. Obviously a 30″ 4k monitor will look better than a 50″ 4k TV, because the image is more dense. On top of that a $300 monitor is bound to be way better than a $250 TV. For the panel quality of a monitor to match that TV it would probably need to cost between $100-$200.
Which is why I bought a high end 4k tv to use as a moniter since it was like, $600 less than a moniter of the same size and capability lol.
Everyone in my home uses a smart tv for our pcs. That way when we aren’t gaming we at least can watch hulu/disney/whatever.
I’ve been using a 40″ 4K TV (~$300) as a monitor for over 6-7 years. They don’t make 40″ 4K TV anymore, only 43″+.
Don’t get an HD (1920*1080) 40″, it’s too coarse for a computer.
To be blunt, the higher specs on monitors for the proper gamer crowd or people who actually care about technical specs, are crap anyway. The only true way to appreciate higher spec screens, or at least a noticable difference, is on a larger screen. PC gamers will be butt hurt about it but its true🤷♂️🤷♂️
Your eyes are 1 to 2 feet from monitor, but 6 to 10 feet from TV. When you sit at such close distance, the panel needs to be higher quality. It also needs eye care features so it doesn’t leave you with eye strain.
Because people will pay that instead of buying a small TV and an HDMI cable.
The best way to think of it, is that TVs are a one way service.
Press play, and then the rest of the engagement with that display is from it, to you.
With a computer display, it’s two way, constantly. Your mouse moving, your keyboard typing, it’s always a constant engaging, which means your monitor needs to react to that change.
This is the difference between TV and a computer monitor. One only has to push as m an image to you once every 24 seconds (and, it anyway know what the next image will be) vs a computer monitor which has no clue as to what’s coming next.
A few reasons.
Monitors actually are generally higher quality displays than televisions, they are rated for far more hours, they have to avoid burn-in because they stay longer on static images. The gaming varieties usually have faster response rates, and support features like v-sync. Graphic design monitors support much better and more accurate color reproduction. Also monitors generally have to be a little bit sharper of an image to make reading small font text easier.
As counter intuitive as it seems, adding the “smart tv” features actually reduces the price instead of increasing it. They gathered data on you and often display advertising. This basically subsidizes the costs. You can usually disable these features, but relatively few people do, so it still generally allows the manufacturer of the television to actually make money off of the TVs they sell.
smart tv’s are subsidized by the viewing habit data they send back to the manufacturer.. not kidding.
Higher pixel density and accuracy, better response times, tech like VRR even on cheaper monitors.
Tvs are subsidised because they make loads of money after you’ve bought it from you using their software. Not sure how, but adverts, selling putting streaming software on there, that sort of thing.
Your $250 TV is a piece of shit that’s why.