2 ms·

> If consumers are unwilling to shell out for a TV priced high enough that the manufacturer doesn't need to do things like this to earn a (decent) profit, ...

> If consumers are unwilling to shell out for a TV priced high enough that the manufacturer doesn't need to do things like this to earn a (decent) profit, ... The problem is, even if the device is priced at cost plus a reasonable margin, they can make more margin by selling data that they acquire by spying. No matter the margin on the sale, there's still more money to make by selling that data. There is no upper limit that magically prevents the manufacturer from looking for other avenues to increase profit. "Premium" device priced 3x the "reasonable" price? Still more money to be made selling data. Now, factor in the race to the bottom on selling price, and those data sales just look that much more enticing.

dd8601fn 12d ago
I get what you’re saying but the market had a choice on this, and it chose. They wanted the “smart” tvs. Overwhelmingly. “We” chose this hellscape when we had the opportunity to say no. So I think the person you’re replying to is kinda right. We didn’t get forced into this so much as everyone collectively said, “Yeah, that’s what I want.”
- mitxela 12d ago
  Did we actually ever have that choice?
  - dd8601fn 12d ago
    Yeah, and it was a big window.
- chronogamous 10d ago
  Have you ever met people that actually wanted to buy a smart tv? I've only ever met one. Besides being dumb, he proved to be a dick, too. Maybe these qualities are related, maybe they're not. But you're right: obviously there must have been people buying smart tvs in a time when there were still dumb tvs available, but what motivated these "people", where they came from, and where they have been hiding,... it's all a complete mystery to me. Last time I bought a tv, there were still some dumb models available. I may get a new display for whatever computer I'm working on every couple of years, but to me a tv is the sort of appliance you'd replace maybe once every 20 or 30 years at most, so I guess I have only been able to vote with my wallet once. Obviously voting with your wallet is as pointless as voting for certain politicians: so far I have yet to find any evidence that anything people vote for is subsequently reflected in reality in any way.

dd8601fn 12d ago

I get what you’re saying but the market had a choice on this, and it chose. They wanted the “smart” tvs. Overwhelmingly. “We” chose this hellscape when we had the opportunity to say no. So I think the person you’re replying to is kinda right. We didn’t get forced into this so much as everyone collectively said, “Yeah, that’s what I want.”

mitxela 12d ago
Did we actually ever have that choice?
- dd8601fn 12d ago
  Yeah, and it was a big window.
chronogamous 10d ago
Have you ever met people that actually wanted to buy a smart tv? I've only ever met one. Besides being dumb, he proved to be a dick, too. Maybe these qualities are related, maybe they're not. But you're right: obviously there must have been people buying smart tvs in a time when there were still dumb tvs available, but what motivated these "people", where they came from, and where they have been hiding,... it's all a complete mystery to me. Last time I bought a tv, there were still some dumb models available. I may get a new display for whatever computer I'm working on every couple of years, but to me a tv is the sort of appliance you'd replace maybe once every 20 or 30 years at most, so I guess I have only been able to vote with my wallet once. Obviously voting with your wallet is as pointless as voting for certain politicians: so far I have yet to find any evidence that anything people vote for is subsequently reflected in reality in any way.