6 ms·
"Dumb TVs" would cost more. It's hard to market something that costs more and has what most people would perceive to be fewer features. They would cost more be
by danpalmer 6y ago
"Dumb TVs" would cost more. It's hard to market something that costs more and has what most people would perceive to be fewer features.
They would cost more because post-sale content sales and advertising generate revenue for TV manufacturers, which they use to subsidise the device sale price, because it's such a competitive, low-margin, market.
- ashtonkem 6y agoI think you might be underestimating the cost of developing or licensing smart TV software.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fctorial 6y agoIt isn't hard to market something that costs more and lacks a flaw.
- danpalmer 6y agoThis is why I saw "what most people consider". It's easy to market this to HN but most people don't know or care about this sort of control over their devices.
- ulzeraj 6y ago> It's hard to market something that costs more and has what most people would perceive to be fewer features. I'd pay for privacy and control. The other option like I've said is to recycle and mod smart tvs and rewrite their logic so that the user can do wathever he wants. Maybe marketing the modding kits. That would be more akin to those people who install custom open source bios on IBM Thinkpads.
- danpalmer 6y agoRecycling and modding would be great, but I'd also like to be able to buy a new high-end TV without smart features.
- massysett 6y ago> I'd pay for privacy and control. Then buy a monitor. They have HDMI ports so they can get whatever video feed you need. Some even have speakers.
- ulzeraj 6y agoMonitors are designed to be used closer to your eyes. Probably have more pixel density. So I believe there would be a huge price gap between a huge 50"+ monitor and a TV that is more expensive because some extra work on software had to be made.
- notyourday 6y agoMonitors lack remote controls.
- falcolas 6y agoA lot of functions you would use a remote for can be managed by the connected device. HDMI-CDC (Consumer Device Control)
- notyourday 6y agoI, my wife, her parents, as well as the majority of people buying TVs, want a remote.
- falcolas 6y agoIf you're using a dumb TV (monitor), and a device feeding it (Apple TV, Roku, Firestick, Chromecast), they typically come with a remote which will handle those needs. I will admit, OTA TV (that is, via an antenna) will be... harder.
- FroshKiller 6y agoI'd rather be protected by regulation than pay more for what I shouldn't have to pay for in the first place.
- wdn 6y agoWhen was the last time regulation protects anything? The Security Act of 1934 created the SEC and look at the past 20 or so years and see how many scandals has happened under their watch. All big players. Look at Madoff. Whisper blower after whisper blower to the SEC and what did SEC do? They looked the other way.
- FroshKiller 6y agoYou're not engaging in good faith, but I'll offer this: I have not died of botulism thanks to regulation.
- mitchdoogle 6y agoDo you seriously need someone to provide a laundry list of all the ways government protects you and your interests? Or are you just being obtuse?
- spamalot159 6y agoI disagree that it's hard to market. There are plenty of privacy conscious people that would pay extra. I see billboards every day for duckduckgo that advertise their privacy features. I think a privacy focused TV or IOT device would do well.
- danpalmer 6y agoPrivacy is only one angle, a lot of it is about selling you content like TV/Films that can be promoted via the TV. Often goes hand-in-hand with advertising that has privacy issues, but much of the money comes from the consumer not advertisers. That's a more subtle one to market: buy this device that has fewer choices about buying content.
- Cosmin_C 6y agoI may be living in my own small little bubble but I don't know anybody shopping for anything because their smart TV showed an ad. Everything ads seem to do is just piss some people off. Then again I remember that if commercials weren't successful, TV as we know it would not exist. People gobbling up ads and buying stuff because of that is why ads are still being used after all. After all... https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
- SuoDuanDao 6y agoThere's also the factor that whoever owns the platform showing the ads doesn't care whether the ads are effective. So long as your eyeballs are tracking it, they'll get paid anyway.
- dalbasal 6y agoOnly in the sense that restaurateurs don't care if the food is good. If it's selling... sure, they'll keep selling something that sucks. But generally, advertisers aren't quite the fools everyone thinks they are. There are always fools around, but prices tend to be rational enough long term. If ads aren't effective, revenue will dry up eventually. All that effort to track people for ads... these are all attempts at improving effectiveness.
- SuoDuanDao 6y agoI don't entirely agree. A better analogy might be that a restaurant's landlord doesn't care if the food is good. I've run into the problem that sellers of adspace will often prefer to work more with customers who have lower conversion rates. Makes perfect sense when you think about it, people with the crappiest products need advertising the most, while the best products can lean on word-of-mouth. Edit: Come to think of it, the fact a product is advertising at all might come to be seen as a negative signal of value by the public at large.
- 6y ago
- einpoklum 6y agoWell, they might cost more, but TV/monitor prices have dropped so much over the past couple of decades that it can't be that much of a deciding factor.
- tw04 6y agoThat seems extremely unlikely. The "smart" portion is hundreds of dollars in most TVs. A quick search proves that out: https://www.cdw.com/product/Samsung-40-Full-HD-Non-Smart-Hospitality-LED-TV/5243600 https://www.cdw.com/product/Samsung-40-Full-HD-Non-Smart-Hos... https://www.cdw.com/product/samsung-hg40nf690gf-nf690-series-40-with-integrated-pro-idiom-led-tv-f/4781750 https://www.cdw.com/product/samsung-hg40nf690gf-nf690-series...
- vinay_ys 6y agoThe bill of materials for the "smart" parts in a smart tv costs less than $20-$30 US. Nothing more than that.
- nine_k 6y agoI suppose that the smart part's hardware is below $10, it's not much more advanced than a RPi. OK, $20 if it includes a decent camera for video calls. But its presence can be sold for a hundred more, because the consumers apparently... want these features? Things like YouTube, Netflix, video calls, etc. And, of course, voice control.
- tw04 6y ago> I suppose that the smart part's hardware is below $10, it's not much more advanced than a RPi. OK, $20 if it includes a decent camera for video calls. Citation? Because I find that assumption outlandish. I've watched them replace the control board in my 7 year old Vizio TV, the hardware is significantly better than anything but the highest end current RPi. Dual core cpu, quad core gpu, AC wifi, 8gb of memory, and the ability to push 4k HDR video at 120hz. You keep saying they're all selling personal data for hundreds of dollars, citation?
- nine_k 6y agoMy idea is that chips themselves, sold in bulk, are but a fraction of the cost of the complete control board. Assembly and testing easily double the cost. For a consumer device like RPi, also shipping, packaging, and markup add, say, 50% on top. For a TV manufacturer, most of these costs don't appear because they just need to add a few components to an existing PCB, and add more tests for them. The other part of costs is licensing and/or development of software, its ongoing maintenance, extended tech support (online, phone), maybe sometimes content deals (a free month of Netflix, or something).