It was the Vizio CTO, while trying to spin it positively it came out a bit too honest. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190114/08084341384/vizio...

This is kind of spot on to Succession's "ATN News: We're listening"

"We hear... for you."

That assumes that developing the smart system (and supporting the infrastructure) does cost the same as for the dumb one, which seems wrong to me.

Or maybe at high volume it becomes negligible anyway.

As long as I can keep the TV offline to operate it I'm fine with it. The day it needs to be online to work is where I'll be seriously pissed enough that I'll return it without hesitation.

How can you be sure it's offline? Possibly it has wireless capabilities that work without your consent..

How? By putting in cellular or sat connections in secret? Because the FCC would be very interested in someone selling unlabeled and unlicensed radio containing equipment.

By connecting to open wi-fi, supposedly, maybe with the help of some kind of dark pattern: https://www.reddit.com/r/security/comments/bpjky4/worried_ab...

Would it need to be labeled if they were plugging in a 5G pci-e/USB WAN module?

Yes

You wrap it in tin foil

It's a TV, wrapped in tinfoil you won't be able to see anything anymore.

You could, but you need Star Trek materials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_materials#Tr...

We have a house without any Internet connection - that would require at least a mobile link.

Don't worry, in a few years they will have their own sim card and network.

This behavior is despicable and we must not accept it just because "I wouldn't connect the network cable/wifi anyway". Because one day that isn't an option and by then it is already too late.

They are missing a trick with peer to peer piggy backs.

You can see what devices are connected to your router for one. Also not if you: factory reset or change the password.

No open wifi networks nearby.

Which could be impossible in a dense city with Xfinity access points.

Aren’t Xfinity APs only for Xfinity subscribers? I doubt they’re just wide open. Now if a TV manufacturer struck a deal with an ISP and gave it its own access point to join...

Like Sonos did. And I did what you said. Into the trash can.

Sonos needs to be called out for the dramatic disparity between how they present their products and what those products actually do.

Their userbase is almost universally clueless as to what it is these devices are doing and what the goals of Sonos, as a company, must be.

They should have been one of the good ones - and I had such enthusiasm for their products - but they have proven to be very, very antagonistic towards their users.

Wait, what is Sonos doing that am I missing?

Force you to register and login or they brick your device. Stuff a recording device connecting to amazon in what should otherwise be a speaker.

How much do they make per user? I would have have thought it was in the $10-$20 range and not enough to trigger any price sensitivity. I'm a tightass with an aldi TV but wouldn't have cared if it cost $10 more.

Not entirely related, but I remember thinking when Hulu was talking about an ad-free version of their streaming library that “this will clearly cost a lot more per month because my eyeballs are worth A LOT!!”

Imagine my surprise when it turned out only being $4 a month to remove commercials. It almost hurts my feelings knowing how little I’m worth to advertisers...

Paying to have commercials removed may not imply that your activity is not spied on, then the corresponding data not sold to third parties. You "locally" (on the site you paid) escape from advertising, indeed, but for the rest...

It's not only about allowing customers to pay for their share of ad revenue in order to remove it the ads. But to also enter new markets of customers.

For example I would never subscribe to a service with ads, regardless of price. The Hulu tier that includes ads would have to pay me about $30/mo before I would consider switching from the ad free tier.

The number might be unrelated to ad revenue at all and they figured that was the perfect threshold between capturing the highest number of "cheaper" subscribers while also maximizing new ad-free subscribers.

But it was 50% higher... that’s indeed a lot.

But "a lot" can still be insignificant. Imagine an ant falling from 1 meter, it would live, but would have fallen thousands of times its own height.

The data of one user is worthless AFAIK, only aggregation gives any usable stats.

Then why do ad networks spend so much time, energy, and money to track individuals?

How is this even a question? One persons data is useless. They don’t care what you’re watching specifically, they care what everybody in a region is watching. They have to track individuals to get the profile data to categorize them in the first place.

Nowhere does it mention "usage data".

Services revenue in general is where all devices are going. If you subscribe to Netflix on your smart TV, the TV maker gets comms. Again, this referral/conversion model is pretty dated. Otherwise TV maker has no incentive to pre-bundle your app (same as Windows, some Android phones, Lenovo laptops, etc).

> Otherwise TV maker has no incentive to pre-bundle your app

The big one is "supports popular services out of the box" is a selling point to consumers.

Even if it boots up to a store page where you can download them all, a whingy answer for "Does it do Netflix" will drive buyers to the next TV.