For #1 I’ve actually found it practically impossible to buy an equivalent consumer tv without “smart” features like this at any price. The only “dumb television” screens I have found are either large computer monitors or commercial panels with entirely different material tolerances and prices.
I'd have a lot of brand loyalty to a company whose business it was to manufacture very well built but ultimately "dumb" devices. I want a TV that's literally just a dumb panel that can accurately display what I send to it, I want a car that's purely analogue even down to the radio and doesn't try and do things for me unexpectedly, and I want a thermostat that makes a satisfying "clunk" when I turn a mechanical knob and has no way for my smartphone (and every ne'er-do-well on the internet) to connect to it.
Surely there's a market outside of grumpy HN readers who know how the sausage is made for this kind of thing? Older people spring to mind, but also people living in areas of poor internet connectivity, people who value DIY repairability, and of course the ecological angle of avoiding the inevitable e-waste of the modern throwaway approach to consumer goods.
i start caring when ads are blocking vital portions of video , example:
" here we, are opening the tomb of the lost king for the first time, what do you see howard?" " i see wonderfull things!"
except i instead see a big banner, and a logo and a popup from the side, and they have zero to do with archeology or science and the whole point of the program has been obliterated.
I would argue those who read HN are not 'most people', and if we subset those who read HN by those who comment on HN, I would believe my statement is even more true.
> 1. Because ad-supported hardware makes for low prices and people prefer to pay less.
Is this actually true though? I'd love to see an analysis of pricing in relation to the amount of adware a TV has. My gut instinct is that you would not see a significant price decrease for more adware-laden models.
365 days in a year, 5 year lifetime -> 1825 days, our consumer watches TV 16 hours a day -> 29200 hours watched, 6 commercials/hour -> 175200 commercials watched. Youtube pays ~4$ per 1000 views, giving us 700.8$ lifetime ad revenue for a very exaggerated viewer.
A more normal viewer that watches say 4 hours/day, 6 days a week will give us a more modest ad revenue of 187.71$.
Assuming the "normal viewer" is actually representative, the statement that ad-supported hardware is cheaper on the scale of 2000$ TVs is bullshit.
The vast majority of people. Because that’s what’s promoted, discounted and sold to them. It’s getting more and more difficult to find a smart TV that isn’t packed with shit like this.
I purchased a similar product from TCL, and for me cost was the main factor. It got a decent 4k TV for $500 because it is supported by ads and data collection. I don't keep it connected to the internet, and all of the content comes from my AppleTV. I am ok with it in my house even knowing the business model since I keep it offline. If they added a cellular modem I would reconsider.
