3 ms·

What's never mentioned in this brand of article is that $1,500 is probably quite low for the caliber of screen you get in a brand new TV. The state of the art h

What's never mentioned in this brand of article is that $1,500 is probably quite low for the caliber of screen you get in a brand new TV. The state of the art has progressed significantly, while the cost of manufacturing hasn't dropped all that much; and yet the price of a new TV has held more or less constant, because it is subsidized by the income from ads. The problem isn't that the TVs show ads, it's that there is no option on the market for a non-homebrand TV that is fully functional but doesn't show ads. My guess is that manufacturers are afraid to sell this option because it then becomes trivial to flash the firmware from an adless TV onto an adful TV. (FWIW I hate nothing more than seeing ads on my TV outside broadcast)

megablast 6y ago
How much do you imagine ads pay?? Because it is a tiny amount. Cents. Not dollars.
- arthur_sav 6y ago
  It's not just ads, they gather and sell data to other advertisers. This has a compounding effect over time, so i'd say it's very much lucrative.
  - novok 6y ago
    It also has little overhead compared to physical TVs.
jng 6y ago
My take is that ad revenue for TV manufacturers is next to nothing today, and it has zero impact on the cost of a TV set. But they're trying in case they can have access to a potentially huge revenue stream in the future. And my take is also that they won't do it well and they won't gain access to a revenue stream that only the likes of Google or Facebook are able to command and manage, but they will certainly annoy a huge amount of users along the way. Only convenient option here seems to be to not give connectivity to your TV set, or not have a TV set at all.
simonh 6y ago
It is actually mentioned, and discussed in the article, e.g.: “This stuff can come off as invasive, but it’s also partially what’s steadily brought the prices down on even high-end TVs....”
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 6y ago
> $1,500 is probably quite low for the caliber of screen you get in a brand new TV. I am suspicious of that claim. How much, in real dollars, is your exposure to ads worth over the lifetime of the TV? I bet it doesn't move the needle that much. This is just manufacturers getting greedy, they're not selling TVs at a loss.
stainforth 6y ago
> then becomes trivial to flash the firmware from an adless TV onto an adful TV Just occurred to me that we need some young hackers to start working on "opening" up tv firmware like they have for consoles and phones.
dstaley 6y ago
> it's that there is no option on the market for a non-homebrand TV that is fully functional but doesn't show ads Actually, Vizio tried this with their SmartCast TVs. They didn't have any built-in apps, and relied on Google Cast to work. The TVs shipped with an Android tablet so you didn't technically need a smartphone to use it. They only lasted one year before reverting and putting apps on the TV.

megablast 6y ago

How much do you imagine ads pay?? Because it is a tiny amount. Cents. Not dollars.

arthur_sav 6y ago
It's not just ads, they gather and sell data to other advertisers. This has a compounding effect over time, so i'd say it's very much lucrative.
- novok 6y ago
  It also has little overhead compared to physical TVs.

jng 6y ago

My take is that ad revenue for TV manufacturers is next to nothing today, and it has zero impact on the cost of a TV set. But they're trying in case they can have access to a potentially huge revenue stream in the future. And my take is also that they won't do it well and they won't gain access to a revenue stream that only the likes of Google or Facebook are able to command and manage, but they will certainly annoy a huge amount of users along the way. Only convenient option here seems to be to not give connectivity to your TV set, or not have a TV set at all.

simonh 6y ago

It is actually mentioned, and discussed in the article, e.g.: “This stuff can come off as invasive, but it’s also partially what’s steadily brought the prices down on even high-end TVs....”

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rootusrootus 6y ago

> $1,500 is probably quite low for the caliber of screen you get in a brand new TV. I am suspicious of that claim. How much, in real dollars, is your exposure to ads worth over the lifetime of the TV? I bet it doesn't move the needle that much. This is just manufacturers getting greedy, they're not selling TVs at a loss.

stainforth 6y ago

> then becomes trivial to flash the firmware from an adless TV onto an adful TV Just occurred to me that we need some young hackers to start working on "opening" up tv firmware like they have for consoles and phones.

dstaley 6y ago

> it's that there is no option on the market for a non-homebrand TV that is fully functional but doesn't show ads Actually, Vizio tried this with their SmartCast TVs. They didn't have any built-in apps, and relied on Google Cast to work. The TVs shipped with an Android tablet so you didn't technically need a smartphone to use it. They only lasted one year before reverting and putting apps on the TV.