4 ms·

> Maybe it'll be popular with bottom-tier junk TV makers I think the bottom-tier brands offer much better value for money, if you ignore the spyware, and proba

> Maybe it'll be popular with bottom-tier junk TV makers I think the bottom-tier brands offer much better value for money, if you ignore the spyware, and probably represent a large percentage of sales. In New Zealand I am sure one or more of these off-brand TVs were running Roku, but a quick google suggests they are now all Android.

shiroiushi 2y ago
Android is fine; it's what I use, and unlike the highest-end brands, it's a more open OS that allows you to load apps of your choice, including open-source YouTube clients like SmartTube. But I'm thinking the bottom-tier brands might switch to this AdwareOS because they'll get more money from users by having it. And even though it's supposed to be based on Android, I wouldn't be confident that it'll actually run Android apps.
- teruakohatu 2y ago
  I could be wrong but I have always assumed the budget android tv distributions are crammed with spyware.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    Vizio at least lets you skip everything entirely - if you don’t accept the agreement it just becomes a dumb TV. Perfection.
RF_Savage 2y ago
At one point in time some TCL TV's were sold below or at the cost of manufacture. All the profit came from advertising and selling user behavioral data.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Sounds like Windows computers: if you check the prices of a laptop that has a Linux or no-OS option, it'll be more expensive than the same laptop pre-loaded with Windows, because the factory Windows install is loaded with pre-installed 3rd-party crapware. The crapware companies pay MS to include their crapware (which is usually just teaser software to get users to buy the real thing) in the base OS image, and MS pays the PC makers (or gives them a big discount) to include Windows by default. And of course, Windows itself now has built-in ads and spyware too, so MS gets money from users using it.
compsciphd 2y ago
I'm not convinced that the bottom tier brands provide good value for the money. Their picture quality is generally very poor relative to the more expensive TVs. (i.e. a bottom tier brand tv vs a bottom tier samsung/LG TV might be competitive in terms of price/quality, but the jump in quality to the higher level TVs they make is huge relative. Also the bottom tier models are not well supported at all (i.e. security updates and the like). In the US the mid tier (i.e. upper end models from TCL/Hisense and the like) are where the real question of bang for the buck can be applied.

shiroiushi 2y ago

Android is fine; it's what I use, and unlike the highest-end brands, it's a more open OS that allows you to load apps of your choice, including open-source YouTube clients like SmartTube. But I'm thinking the bottom-tier brands might switch to this AdwareOS because they'll get more money from users by having it. And even though it's supposed to be based on Android, I wouldn't be confident that it'll actually run Android apps.

teruakohatu 2y ago
I could be wrong but I have always assumed the budget android tv distributions are crammed with spyware.
- bombcar 2y ago
  Vizio at least lets you skip everything entirely - if you don’t accept the agreement it just becomes a dumb TV. Perfection.

RF_Savage 2y ago

At one point in time some TCL TV's were sold below or at the cost of manufacture. All the profit came from advertising and selling user behavioral data.

shiroiushi 2y ago
Sounds like Windows computers: if you check the prices of a laptop that has a Linux or no-OS option, it'll be more expensive than the same laptop pre-loaded with Windows, because the factory Windows install is loaded with pre-installed 3rd-party crapware. The crapware companies pay MS to include their crapware (which is usually just teaser software to get users to buy the real thing) in the base OS image, and MS pays the PC makers (or gives them a big discount) to include Windows by default. And of course, Windows itself now has built-in ads and spyware too, so MS gets money from users using it.

compsciphd 2y ago

I'm not convinced that the bottom tier brands provide good value for the money. Their picture quality is generally very poor relative to the more expensive TVs. (i.e. a bottom tier brand tv vs a bottom tier samsung/LG TV might be competitive in terms of price/quality, but the jump in quality to the higher level TVs they make is huge relative. Also the bottom tier models are not well supported at all (i.e. security updates and the like). In the US the mid tier (i.e. upper end models from TCL/Hisense and the like) are where the real question of bang for the buck can be applied.