TVs vs Computer Monitor Reliability & Failure Rate

[nobbnobb1]

Anecdotally, it seems to me that TVs fail much more often than computer monitors judging from personal experience and looking at the classified where people are getting rid of broken/malfunctioning TVs all the time.

So I'm just wondering if this is the case? Is there something inherent in the design of monitors that makes them more reliable? I would've thought they'd be operating under more severe conditions than a TV. For a typical family, a TV may only be on for a few hours every day. Whereas a monitor could be on 8+ hours, along with countless power cycles turning on/off as power savings periodically. I haven't ever had a monitor fail, whereas TVs have a decent chance of having problems after 10-15 years.

Or is it just a cost of repair thing where a TV is just more economical to repair, so people almost never bother repairing failed computer monitors?

[stj]

monitors are built to higher standards.
that said, most houses have more tv's than monitors.
(other than mine )
if you want some faulty monitors to fix - just cruise around industrial parks/estates - lots get put out.
often they still work and the company just upgraded the computers and got new monitors with them.