6 ms·
Why companies don't just continue to manufacture screen-only TV's baffles me. I'd love to see some existing privacy-oriented company that already has to deal wi
by kgwxd 7y ago
Why companies don't just continue to manufacture screen-only TV's baffles me. I'd love to see some existing privacy-oriented company that already has to deal with screen manufactures start selling "privacy-oriented TVs".
- some-guy 7y agoThey exist, they're called "commercial displays", and they're quite expensive.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y agoWhat explains the large price premium of commercial displays? Is it just that they're low-volume SKUs? Or are the somewhat more ruggedized than consumer models?
- chipperyman573 7y agoThe fact that the cost isn't subsidized by the tracking and advertising provided by the smart tv (I have no evidence for this but I've seen this comment posted many times before)
- dawnerd 7y agoBingo! Those Roku / FireTV / Netflix / Amazon/ Etc logos on the boxes don't pay for themselves. Although what's insulting is when the super premium tvs that STILL include all the same tracking junk. A 3k dollar+ tv shouldn't need any subsidizing at all, yet here we are.
- msbarnett 7y agoHere's the evidence for it, by the way. Straight from an interview with the CTO of Vizio: https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/7/18172397/airplay-2-homekit-vizio-tv-bill-baxter-interview-vergecast-ces-2019 https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/7/18172397/airplay-2-homekit... It goes into how running content recognizition software against whatever's on the TV display lets them collect and aggregate data to sell, which helps them sell the TV for very low prices without having to worry about being profitable on the initial sale thanks to data and other monetization streams. Sony, Samsung, and the other major TV players all run very similar Automatic Content Recognition systems.
- msbarnett 7y agoPartly construction, partly that the target market simply is willing to pay more, and partly that the cost of consumer sets are subsidized by some of the third-part analytics software that comes preinstalled in order to collect and sell information on what people are watching.
- justwalt 7y agoI imagine part of it would be that the displays are assumed to be run almost nonstop.
- meristem 7y agoCommercial displays are the first class airplane tickets of the display/TV market.
- jankiehodgpodge 7y agoBecause they're designed for 24 hour, 7 days a week use. Components like power supplies will be far higher quality. Many of them have integrated signage software too like MagicInfo and have video wall capabilities etc.
- cameldrv 7y agoUltimately, few people understand that this is a problem or that they should want a dumb TV. The manufacturers make money from the smart features by selling the data and by getting a cut of subscription revenue, so smart TVs can be sold cheaper than dumb TVs. The FBI issuing a warning about this is helpful. It may help create a market for dumb TVs that cost more than smart TVs.
- miej 7y agoso is the fbi just reporting on the cia now? I mean, Project Weeping Angel is pretty well-known by now, right? ref: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_12353643.html https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_12353643.html
- markstos 7y agoI understand, but recall seeing literally zero "dumb" TV options at Best Buy at the size I was looking for.
- infinite8s 7y agoBecause who is going to buy a more expensive dumb TV? I just buy the smart TV and don't connect it to wifi.
- magduf 7y agoThat works if your TV allows that. I'm pretty sure I've read that some models simply won't work if they don't have internet access.
- magduf 7y ago>The manufacturers make money from the smart features by selling the data and by getting a cut of subscription revenue, so smart TVs can be sold cheaper than dumb TVs. Yeah, this is like how a laptop can be sold cheaper with Windows OS than with Linux: the Windows version is preloaded with a ton of crapware that the mfgr gets paid to preload, so even with the enormous (as a fraction of BOM) price of the Windows license, the laptop comes out cheaper.
- thrownblown 7y agoThey can make more money off smart tvs by selling advertising profile info from things like the TV shows watched. Thats why.
- loa_in_ 7y agoAnd that makes TVs cheaper a little bit than lobotomized not monetised alternatives. Users don't see the hidden cost when looking at two TVs with same specs but slightly different prices.
- smolder 7y agoI bought a cheap 42" 4k dumb tv made by an off brand which is no longer available anywhere, one of the only ones that I could find without network connectivity, but it's by no means a great TV in other respects. I think if I used it heavily it'd have burnt out a capacitor by now or something. Reviews indicate they are not too reliable.
- guelo 7y agoI suspect that the advertising industry is offering the TV manufacturers incentives to add tracking "smarts". The dream of tracking TV ad views and even personalized TV ads is worth billions.
- amelius 7y ago> I'd love to see some existing privacy-oriented company that already has to deal with screen manufactures start selling "privacy-oriented TVs". Apple TV?
- paulie_a 7y agoApple doesn't make TV's the previous post was referring to dumb TV's
- choward 7y agoNot a TV. And what makes Apple privacy oriented? Because their marketing department says they are? Unless a company's business model is actually privacy, I won't believe for a second they value privacy. Even then I would still be skeptical. Companies can always increase profit by secretly getting rid of privacy.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- bashinator 7y ago> And what makes Apple privacy oriented? The fact that they're not an advertising company? That their business model doesn't depend on monetizing your personal data? That being privacy-oriented is a distinguishing factor compared with their competition?
- blihp 7y agoIf you're a manufacturer are you going to go after the 95-99% of the market that wants a set that's cheaper due to the bundled spyware or the 1-5% that are willing to pay a premium not to include it? Granted, I'm guessing as to the percentages... but I doubt I'm that far off.
- tzs 7y agoBesides the nefarious reasons they might not want to make dumb TVs, there are some decent reasons. Most TVs include speakers. Even the non-smart ones. By adding networking and apps, that TV can be used stand-alone. For people starting out with their first home theater setup, they can get started with just the TV. With a dumb TV, they'd need the TV, and a receiver/speakers setup or a soundbar, and something to provide content like a Blu-ray player or cable box or Roku. By making the TV smart, the TV maker has a better chance of having people start out with a higher end stand-alone TV and then adding other components later. I presume that the TV maker would rather have the consumer spend all of their initial budget on the TV, instead of splitting it between TV, receiver, and Blu-ray player. For people with existing home theater setups, a similar thing goes on with upgrades. For example, I have a Denon AVR-1913 receiver, a Comcast X1 DVR, and a Sony Blu-ray player, and a Samsung TV. It was a smart TV but I never used it as anything other than a dumb monitor. I used apps, not but on the TV. The Blu-ray player had a full set of streaming apps, and so does the X1. The Denon receiver has an internet radio app, and also supports Spotify Connect, and supports Airplay. So there was never any need to use an app on the TV. (Also, when I tried it once out of curiosity I could not get ARC to work to send sound back to the Denon receiver). But then the TV died. I ended up getting another Samsung, but this new one is 4K UHD. None of my other components are 4K. I didn't want to upgrade the rest to 4K at that time, so for things I wanted to watch in 4K I used apps on the TV [1]. With dumb TVs, I probably would not have bought a 4K TV. I would have waited until my other components were 4K, and that could have taken quite a while. I tend to keep receivers until they die. In summary, with smart TVs, the TV can meet the needs of a wider class of consumer. As long as they don't make it so you have to give the TV network access or use its smart features, it can meet the needs of almost every class of consumer. That's attractive to the manufacturers. [1] ...which meant that I did need to figure out ARC. As with the old Samsung, it just did not seem to want to work. Then I noticed something in the Denon manual: > When the ARC function is used, connect a device with a "Standard HDMI cable with Ethernet" or "High Speed HDMI cable with Ethernet" for HDMI. I made sure to use such a cable...and it worked, which makes no sense. It would make sense if we were talking eARC, but with plain ARC--which is all my 6 or 7 years old Denon supports--it should work with any regular old HDMI cable.
- wmf 7y ago
- egdod 7y agoTVs are only as cheap as they are because the cost is subsidized by the data they collect. A dumb TV would be more expensive to buy, and most people would balk at that.
- paulmd 7y agoscreen-only TVs are undesirable because content providers like Netflix gate their content to locked-down devices that present a lower risk of piracy. Unless you run Netflix in MS Edge (or the netflix windows store app, which wraps MS Edge) and use a Skylake or newer CPU with a secure enclave / AMD PSP, Netflix won't stream you their highest-quality content. Or they will happily deliver it to whatever Android device or smart TV that you like. (also, PC support for HDR content is... "lacking", shall we say)
- MisterTea 7y agoI opened a more modern cheap smart TV. Inside were three boards: Power supply & backlight inverter, LCD/LVDS(?) interface board, CPU & video IO board. I'm not sure if the screen interface was actual LVDS but it sure looked like it. So a smart TV is nothing more than an LCD with Arm SoC. Of course that SoC it's completely locked down and there are no specs outside of NDA's. It got me thinking, how hard would it be to go to a big manufacturer that makes these smart TV's for chains like best buy and contract them to make the same set without the proprietary garbage hardware board? Instead a board built around an open SoC and software ecosystem is installed so the ethernet and USB ports do what they're supposed to do. That or pick a very common TV model, figure out the LCD interface and build a retrofit board. All of this is easier said than done. Then imagine how fun it would be to hack your TV to do whatever because it's a regular computer? Of course the big issue that stands in the way is the HDMI and DRM burdens. (cue someone replying with: just don't connect the smart TV to the internet and hook up a raspberry pi.)
- magduf 7y ago>I opened a more modern cheap smart TV. Inside were three boards: Power supply & backlight inverter, How "modern" was this TV? Don't they all use LED backlights now? Backlight inverters should be obsolete now.
- MisterTea 7y agoIt was about 3 years old at the time. And I believe it was an LED backlight so I should have said regulator or perhaps driver instead of inverter but close enough.
- notyourday 7y agoCut the Wifi antennas and shield connection points in the module.
- hart_russell 7y agoMy dad just bought a cheap "Sceptre" brand TV that's 4k and as dumb as can be
- rchaud 7y agoBecause TVs are commodity hardware that makes exactly $0 the second after it's sold. We now live in a business hellscape where "recurring revenue" is everything. Since TVs still last for 5 years or more, they might as well start selling off your viewing data to make the quarterly numbers look better.