Unfortunately the firmware was the issue, not just OS software. So factory-resetting didn’t help us. But yeah, that definitely radicalized me to the “never connect it to the internet” camp for future TVs.
You used to be able to still buy ‘dumb’ TVs from Sceptre up until a year or so ago, but even they’ve stopped selling them now. (I’m kicking myself for not buying one when I had the chance…)
I mean, that’s great in theory. But the amount of manufacturers of non-smart TVs is tiny, and if you are interested in the best panels and display technology, refresh rates for gaming, etc (even removing affordability), it’s very very hard to just boycott if you want to have a modern TV at all.
Automatic litterboxes, fancy toothbrushes, vidya consoles, air purifiers are all examples of physical items often sold at a loss in anticipation of a future revenue stream off the top of my head. Ad specific, lower end smartphones are cheap to free because the money comes from selling your data (by way of tracking apps the manufacturer is paid to include). That their motives aren’t altruistic kinda goes without saying. I would be very surprised if televisions were excluded from this process, and need a new explanation for walmart’s sub-$50 ad-choked tv selection
I wasn’t asking for a citation that their methods aren’t altruistic; I was asking for a citation that they aren’t enshittifying the product with ads or subscriptions or whatever and then gouging you for full price anyway.
They’re saying the company may be selling the device for less than the cost to produce it expecting the low price to draw in consumers while their predatory ads rake in much more money, so buying it and never connecting it means they took a loss. I’m skeptical that companies would do that these days. More likely they overcharge for the physical hardware AND have predatory ad software, you know to maximize shareholder value.
Even if that were true, you’re still paying more than you would be for a “dumb” TV that doesn’t have those features. So everybody loses but the company selling the hardware still sees a sale. They lose a lot more if they pay the cost to produce and then never sell the device.
You are asuming the cost of a network card and a microchip is higher than the profit they expect from the ads. Many smart TVs are cheaper than an equivalent dumb TV
Unfortunately the firmware was the issue, not just OS software. So factory-resetting didn’t help us. But yeah, that definitely radicalized me to the “never connect it to the internet” camp for future TVs.
Buying the TV and then not connecting it still rewards the bad behavior.
We have to boycott these fucks and lobby to get the behavior outlawed.
You’re implying there is an option other than not owning a TV. Please send us specifics so we can join you.
You used to be able to still buy ‘dumb’ TVs from Sceptre up until a year or so ago, but even they’ve stopped selling them now. (I’m kicking myself for not buying one when I had the chance…)
But the important part of my comment was this:
I mean, that’s great in theory. But the amount of manufacturers of non-smart TVs is tiny, and if you are interested in the best panels and display technology, refresh rates for gaming, etc (even removing affordability), it’s very very hard to just boycott if you want to have a modern TV at all.
The best panels for gaming are on computer monitors, not tvs.
Getting the ad-subsidized tech without the ads sounds like a win to me
[Citation needed]
There is zero fucking evidence whatsoever that the alleged “savings” from the ad “subsidy” are getting passed to the consumer.
Automatic litterboxes, fancy toothbrushes, vidya consoles, air purifiers are all examples of physical items often sold at a loss in anticipation of a future revenue stream off the top of my head. Ad specific, lower end smartphones are cheap to free because the money comes from selling your data (by way of tracking apps the manufacturer is paid to include). That their motives aren’t altruistic kinda goes without saying. I would be very surprised if televisions were excluded from this process, and need a new explanation for walmart’s sub-$50 ad-choked tv selection
I wasn’t asking for a citation that their methods aren’t altruistic; I was asking for a citation that they aren’t enshittifying the product with ads or subscriptions or whatever and then gouging you for full price anyway.
Well that’s all you get for free man, hope you’re having a nice day :)
You’re the one trying to sell me your argument; I’m not trying to buy it. Why would I pay to help you prove your own point?
Well, cause I’m here to have fun not think for you! Can you please just have a nice day? Really not looking to fight or argue
You are paying for features you don’t use (such as Internet access). That’s not a win.
They’re saying the company may be selling the device for less than the cost to produce it expecting the low price to draw in consumers while their predatory ads rake in much more money, so buying it and never connecting it means they took a loss. I’m skeptical that companies would do that these days. More likely they overcharge for the physical hardware AND have predatory ad software, you know to maximize shareholder value.
Even if that were true, you’re still paying more than you would be for a “dumb” TV that doesn’t have those features. So everybody loses but the company selling the hardware still sees a sale. They lose a lot more if they pay the cost to produce and then never sell the device.
You are asuming the cost of a network card and a microchip is higher than the profit they expect from the ads. Many smart TVs are cheaper than an equivalent dumb TV
How TF do you know? There aren’t any ‘equivalent dumb TVs’ left to compare to!
that is likely how to lure people into predatory behaviour, with CHEAP upfront.