4 ms·

WHOAH. Was not expecting the level of animosity for this app. The last update in August apparently forced a ton of ads on the interface, even if people had pai

WHOAH. Was not expecting the level of animosity for this app. The last update in August apparently forced a ton of ads on the interface, even if people had paid subscriptions that would remove ads. Absolute trash. In their boundless greed, Google decided to force endlessly cycling ads onto the home screen, and had the temerity to highlight it as a feature. I give two @$#@$# about the content they are highlighting, from a Christmas movie (in July) to the latest teen pablum. Pretty sure I had automatic updates disabled, and that was overwritten without my consent (with no way to roll back to the prior version). I took a chance on the Android ecosystem with this device (NVIDIA shield), and that's the last time I make that mistake. I'll be tossing that out and not looking back... Unbelievable. They added unremovable ads right in the home screen. The "Staff Picks" takes over the top 30% of your screen advertising random videos from apps that I don't ever want to install. No way to turn off. How quickly my $2k TV turned from pleasant to ad infested junk. The only solution I had was was to uninstall updates in App manager. If this is the future of Android TV, I'm certainly not buying another TV with this OS again. I paid a hefty sum for a top-end TV, then again for the most expansive TV box one can find, and what did I get? Ads! Ads that blink and distract. Ads that take more than a third of the screen, pushing what I want to see on the second page. Ads for movies I cannot be less interested in, on services I have absolutely no intention to subscribe to. Ads that have been trying to sell me the exact same three movies in genres I don't care about since they appeared. Evil greedy corporation at its worst.

permo-w 4y ago
IANAL but some of this stuff might be class-action-worthy. if you’ve paid to remove ads and they forced them back upon you, surely that’s an infringement of some variety?
- at-fates-hands 4y ago
  I would think this would fall under the "false advertising" laws in any given state: Minnesota Statue 325F.67 FALSE STATEMENT IN ADVERTISEMENT. Any person, firm, corporation, or association who, with intent to sell or in anywise dispose of merchandise, securities, service, or anything offered by such person, firm, corporation, or association, directly or indirectly, to the public, for sale or distribution, or with intent to increase the consumption thereof, or to induce the public in any manner to enter into any obligation relating thereto, or to acquire title thereto, or any interest therein, makes, publishes, disseminates, circulates, or places before the public, or causes, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, or placed before the public, in this state, in a newspaper or other publication, or in the form of a book, notice, handbill, poster, bill, label, price tag, circular, pamphlet, program, or letter, or over any radio or television station, or in any other way, an advertisement of any sort regarding merchandise, securities, service, or anything so offered to the public, for use, consumption, purchase, or sale, which advertisement contains any material assertion, representation, or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading, shall, whether or not pecuniary or other specific damage to any person occurs as a direct result thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and any such act is declared to be a public nuisance and may be enjoined as such. They advertised there would be no ads, then promptly started serving ads while still collecting monthly subscription revenue I think fall into this area.

permo-w 4y ago

IANAL but some of this stuff might be class-action-worthy. if you’ve paid to remove ads and they forced them back upon you, surely that’s an infringement of some variety?

at-fates-hands 4y ago
I would think this would fall under the "false advertising" laws in any given state: Minnesota Statue 325F.67 FALSE STATEMENT IN ADVERTISEMENT. Any person, firm, corporation, or association who, with intent to sell or in anywise dispose of merchandise, securities, service, or anything offered by such person, firm, corporation, or association, directly or indirectly, to the public, for sale or distribution, or with intent to increase the consumption thereof, or to induce the public in any manner to enter into any obligation relating thereto, or to acquire title thereto, or any interest therein, makes, publishes, disseminates, circulates, or places before the public, or causes, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, or placed before the public, in this state, in a newspaper or other publication, or in the form of a book, notice, handbill, poster, bill, label, price tag, circular, pamphlet, program, or letter, or over any radio or television station, or in any other way, an advertisement of any sort regarding merchandise, securities, service, or anything so offered to the public, for use, consumption, purchase, or sale, which advertisement contains any material assertion, representation, or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading, shall, whether or not pecuniary or other specific damage to any person occurs as a direct result thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and any such act is declared to be a public nuisance and may be enjoined as such. They advertised there would be no ads, then promptly started serving ads while still collecting monthly subscription revenue I think fall into this area.