Coming from the hot rodding hobby, there's an old saying, "cheap, fast, and good: pick two." In my experience, that applies to not just speed parts, but brewing too. (ok, maybe replace "fast" with "easy".) Everything has trade offs, the question is do those trade off align with your goals?
The trade offs for a no-boil beer doesn't align with my goals, so I don't plan on trying. YMMV.
Until you try it how do you know there's a negative to the tradeoffs?
Agreed. Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives
(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny
I've tried two no boil (kettle soured) beers and did not like them much. One was mediocre-okay (berliner) and I finished it, the other (gose) was poor enough that I dumped after about a gallon. Overall, the impression I was left with was "too field-raw" and not "beery" enough (this is ignoring the sour aspect). I will boil these style beers from now on when/if I make them again because I've had good berliner's and gose, none of which had this "too field-raw" character.
To bring this back to the original topic, my experience is that I prefer a beer that has been boiled for some number of minutes, but most do not need a 90 minute boil. Sixty minute boils seem to be a very safe length for nearly every style of beer, from my perspective.