5 ms·
That's like saying that inspecting your meat would drive up the price. It is an absolute nonsense argument brought up by people who would prefer to have no resp
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
That's like saying that inspecting your meat would drive up the price. It is an absolute nonsense argument brought up by people who would prefer to have no responsibility for anything they do, ever.
- supernovae 8y agonah, inspecting meat is a one-off deal. What is being suggested is that the meat inspector has to certify your fridge/freezer is holding right temperature and is liable if the system fails and spoils the meat. With tv's you're looking at a one-off purchase with a long-tail support contract for years to certify and patch against any/all liabilities. The only way that would be profitable was if every smart tv required a service contract to support such demands, otherwise the model is flawed.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago> The only way that would be profitable was if every smart tv required a service contract to support such demands, otherwise the model is flawed. That's the point I'm trying to make. Support your shit properly, or keep the devices dumb. I prefer dumb, so I can add my own smarts without being tied to some shitty proprietary IoT.
- supernovae 8y agothats not the consumer pattern though, and to be honest, you can get dumb tvs :)
- s73v3r_ 8y agoIf the dumb tv is poorly engineered and sets my house on fire, then I would be able to sue them for liability. I see no reason whatsoever why I should not be able to do the same thing if their software causes issues.