4 ms·

Walmart buys vizio to use its TVs as a new way to blast you with ads

35 points by rntn 2y ago

black_13 2y ago
How about not watching tv
- saxonww 2y ago
  This comment was flagged and I vouched to reply. This general issue should be of concern to everyone, because we're starting to see 'smart monitors' from the big vendors as well. More people need to be aware of what's going on so they can make an informed choice about if and what to buy. Maybe most people really don't care about this. But I'm personally not interested in a future where the only affordable displays - tv or computer - spy on me to inform advertisers.
  - tw04 2y ago
    Why not just reply top level? Nothing you had to say required responding to a person offering an absurd solution to the problem of our electronic devices spying on us.
    - saxonww 2y ago
      I don't think it was absurd, just unrealistic. I replied here because I felt like it, but thanks for your feedback.
  - olyjohn 2y ago
    My new Samsung monitor has a Lightning dock integrated into it. So on the back of the monitor, there is an Ethernet port. Presumably this is only connected to the dock, but we have really no way of knowing. I won't hook up the Ethernet port on this thing ever, because I no longer trust anybody to not try and spy on me and steal my personal information. Honestly, if this monitor hadn't been given to me, I would not have paid for it.
- microflash 2y ago
  That’s what my family has been doing for past 16 years. There’s no TV in the household and that’s not going to change in foreseeable future. Instead, we have a lovely home library (though we are running out of space).
saxonww 2y ago
What is the up-front price impact of these ad services? Or, what would a representative 'smart tv' cost if the vendor only needed to accommodate apps and upscaling/pq stuff, and did not need ACR on the TV and the backend infrastructure to support it? I think we're told the advertising stuff is really beneficial because it makes the products available at a lower price point, to more people. Is this really true?
- bloppe 2y ago
  My hunch is that price and picture quality make up at least 90% of the purchase criteria for most people, so as a manufacturer you'd better be optimizing primarily for those. Has anybody here ever chosen "smarts" at the expense of either?
  - saxonww 2y ago
    That's not what I was asking, but I think I didn't word my question very well. I think Smart TVs cost more to produce than they could, because they include hardware for automated content recognition and other ad/data-related functions. I was asking what would happen to TV prices if manufacturers did not include this hardware. And I think I can answer my own question. A few years ago Vizio claimed to earn roughly twice as much from ad sales and data collection versus device sales to consumers [0]. So I guess that even if Vizio could build an otherwise-equivalent TV more cheaply than they do now, if they did not do ad sales and data collection then those TVs would have to cost over 3x more than what they sell for now to maintain margins. Which is not going to happen. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/10/22773073/vizio-acr-advertising-inscape-data-privacy-q3-2021 https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/10/22773073/vizio-acr-adver...
    - FiatLuxDave 2y ago
      Your math on that is bad. You can't use the profit ratios, you have to look at the revenue. Making a TV costs more than selling ads on one does. From the earnings report referenced in your linked article (https://investors.vizio.com/news/news-details/2021/VIZIO-HOLDING-CORP.-Reports-Q3-2021-Financial-Results/default.aspx https://investors.vizio.com/news/news-details/2021/VIZIO-HOL...): Overall revenue: 588.3 M$ Overall profit: 82.9 M$ Overall margin: 14.1% Ad Revenue: 85.9 M$ Ad Profits: 57.3 M$ Ad margin: 66.7% and making a simplifying assumption that all non-ad revenue is from making and selling TVs: TV alone revenue: 502.4 M$ TV alone profit: 25.6 M$ TV alone margin: 5.1% So, yeah, the margins on ads are much much higher than on making the TV itself. However, if we were to look at the counterfactual for just making the TV and selling it at the same overall margin without ads (14.1%), the TV would only need to cost (14.1% - 5.1%) = 9% more. Not anywhere close to 3x.
squarefoot 2y ago
Vizio has been already caught and fined for spying on users through their Smart TVs; it might not be just about pushing ads but also buying access to users data. Either way, it stinks. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/02/08/shocking-smart-tv-manufacturer-vizio-spies-on-customers-using-advanced-big-data-analytics/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/02/08/shocking...
jqpabc123 2y ago
Just bought a "smart" TV from Costco after careful research to insure that it could be configured to use as a "dumb" display. I will add my own "smarts" that I can control, thank you very much. The TV is not connected to the internet and has no way to ascertain the source of the info being displayed on it. It's sad and kinda disgusting that you have to go to such lengths just to watch TV and video in private.
- notyourwork 2y ago
  No problem, eventually tvs will come with SIM cards and cellular connectivity to phone home regardless of your choices.
  - m463 2y ago
    Yes, look at 5G and the iot stuff they're adding. It should be better, but I see it as dystopian search for miot or mmtc
  - jqpabc123 2y ago
    Then they'll have to glue it shut to keep me from opening it and disconnecting the cellular antenna.
    - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
      It might refuse to work without a signal
      - notyourwork 2y ago
        Agreed, some sort of activation required by phoning home. Makes me sad capitalism lead to this.
      - jqpabc123 2y ago
        Then I will return it as defective. This is the sort of thing I researched before my recent purchase. The trick was to run the TV in "store" mode --- no internet connection required.
bloppe 2y ago
There's an easy fix to this. Just use a bit of the savings from your ad-subsidized TV to buy a Chromecast. The continuous HDMI input makes it look like the TV is never idle (so it can't show ads), and when the Chromecast itself is idle it just shows you pictures from your photo albums instead of ads, and you still have a smart TV
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  If some party must get my data, Google is not going to be that party.
  - neodymiumphish 2y ago
    Presumably, you could replace Chromecast with Roku or Apple TV and get the same result.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - olyjohn 2y ago
      That's the problem. It's all the same result.
      - neodymiumphish 2y ago
        In this context, I should have probably said "same effect." I'd be curious whether Apple is actually collecting data of nearly the same type or degree as Google or Roku. My guess is they're not. The bigger issue is that it hardly matters, since every app you launch through your TV streamer device is probably tracking your use to a microscopic degree to feed into their analytics and advertising.
    - canadianfella 2y ago
      [dead]
- Marsymars 2y ago

35 points by rntn 2y ago

black_13 2y ago

How about not watching tv

saxonww 2y ago
This comment was flagged and I vouched to reply. This general issue should be of concern to everyone, because we're starting to see 'smart monitors' from the big vendors as well. More people need to be aware of what's going on so they can make an informed choice about if and what to buy. Maybe most people really don't care about this. But I'm personally not interested in a future where the only affordable displays - tv or computer - spy on me to inform advertisers.
- tw04 2y ago
  Why not just reply top level? Nothing you had to say required responding to a person offering an absurd solution to the problem of our electronic devices spying on us.
  - saxonww 2y ago
    I don't think it was absurd, just unrealistic. I replied here because I felt like it, but thanks for your feedback.
- olyjohn 2y ago
  My new Samsung monitor has a Lightning dock integrated into it. So on the back of the monitor, there is an Ethernet port. Presumably this is only connected to the dock, but we have really no way of knowing. I won't hook up the Ethernet port on this thing ever, because I no longer trust anybody to not try and spy on me and steal my personal information. Honestly, if this monitor hadn't been given to me, I would not have paid for it.
microflash 2y ago
That’s what my family has been doing for past 16 years. There’s no TV in the household and that’s not going to change in foreseeable future. Instead, we have a lovely home library (though we are running out of space).

saxonww 2y ago

What is the up-front price impact of these ad services? Or, what would a representative 'smart tv' cost if the vendor only needed to accommodate apps and upscaling/pq stuff, and did not need ACR on the TV and the backend infrastructure to support it? I think we're told the advertising stuff is really beneficial because it makes the products available at a lower price point, to more people. Is this really true?

bloppe 2y ago
My hunch is that price and picture quality make up at least 90% of the purchase criteria for most people, so as a manufacturer you'd better be optimizing primarily for those. Has anybody here ever chosen "smarts" at the expense of either?
- saxonww 2y ago
  That's not what I was asking, but I think I didn't word my question very well. I think Smart TVs cost more to produce than they could, because they include hardware for automated content recognition and other ad/data-related functions. I was asking what would happen to TV prices if manufacturers did not include this hardware. And I think I can answer my own question. A few years ago Vizio claimed to earn roughly twice as much from ad sales and data collection versus device sales to consumers [0]. So I guess that even if Vizio could build an otherwise-equivalent TV more cheaply than they do now, if they did not do ad sales and data collection then those TVs would have to cost over 3x more than what they sell for now to maintain margins. Which is not going to happen. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/10/22773073/vizio-acr-advertising-inscape-data-privacy-q3-2021 https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/10/22773073/vizio-acr-adver...
  - FiatLuxDave 2y ago
    Your math on that is bad. You can't use the profit ratios, you have to look at the revenue. Making a TV costs more than selling ads on one does. From the earnings report referenced in your linked article (https://investors.vizio.com/news/news-details/2021/VIZIO-HOLDING-CORP.-Reports-Q3-2021-Financial-Results/default.aspx https://investors.vizio.com/news/news-details/2021/VIZIO-HOL...): Overall revenue: 588.3 M$ Overall profit: 82.9 M$ Overall margin: 14.1% Ad Revenue: 85.9 M$ Ad Profits: 57.3 M$ Ad margin: 66.7% and making a simplifying assumption that all non-ad revenue is from making and selling TVs: TV alone revenue: 502.4 M$ TV alone profit: 25.6 M$ TV alone margin: 5.1% So, yeah, the margins on ads are much much higher than on making the TV itself. However, if we were to look at the counterfactual for just making the TV and selling it at the same overall margin without ads (14.1%), the TV would only need to cost (14.1% - 5.1%) = 9% more. Not anywhere close to 3x.

squarefoot 2y ago

Vizio has been already caught and fined for spying on users through their Smart TVs; it might not be just about pushing ads but also buying access to users data. Either way, it stinks. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/02/08/shocking-smart-tv-manufacturer-vizio-spies-on-customers-using-advanced-big-data-analytics/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/02/08/shocking...

jqpabc123 2y ago

Just bought a "smart" TV from Costco after careful research to insure that it could be configured to use as a "dumb" display. I will add my own "smarts" that I can control, thank you very much. The TV is not connected to the internet and has no way to ascertain the source of the info being displayed on it. It's sad and kinda disgusting that you have to go to such lengths just to watch TV and video in private.

notyourwork 2y ago
No problem, eventually tvs will come with SIM cards and cellular connectivity to phone home regardless of your choices.
- m463 2y ago
  Yes, look at 5G and the iot stuff they're adding. It should be better, but I see it as dystopian search for miot or mmtc
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  Then they'll have to glue it shut to keep me from opening it and disconnecting the cellular antenna.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
    It might refuse to work without a signal
    - notyourwork 2y ago
      Agreed, some sort of activation required by phoning home. Makes me sad capitalism lead to this.
    - jqpabc123 2y ago
      Then I will return it as defective. This is the sort of thing I researched before my recent purchase. The trick was to run the TV in "store" mode --- no internet connection required.

bloppe 2y ago

There's an easy fix to this. Just use a bit of the savings from your ad-subsidized TV to buy a Chromecast. The continuous HDMI input makes it look like the TV is never idle (so it can't show ads), and when the Chromecast itself is idle it just shows you pictures from your photo albums instead of ads, and you still have a smart TV

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
If some party must get my data, Google is not going to be that party.
- neodymiumphish 2y ago
  Presumably, you could replace Chromecast with Roku or Apple TV and get the same result.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - olyjohn 2y ago
    That's the problem. It's all the same result.
    - neodymiumphish 2y ago
      In this context, I should have probably said "same effect." I'd be curious whether Apple is actually collecting data of nearly the same type or degree as Google or Roku. My guess is they're not. The bigger issue is that it hardly matters, since every app you launch through your TV streamer device is probably tracking your use to a microscopic degree to feed into their analytics and advertising.
  - canadianfella 2y ago
    [dead]
Marsymars 2y ago