this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
810 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37830 readers
284 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At only double the price of an equivalently priced smart one! Bargain ~/s~
The smart ones are sold at cost or at a loss, and your privacy is then sold to subsidize the profits. A dumb tv costs more money up front (since it's not subsidized by your privacy), but it costs far less in overall value. It's a tradeoff that the consumer needs to make. The lovely thing, is that (for now, at least) it is still a choice we can make.
Or you could just block the Spyware TV from accessing the internet.
Not all tvs allow you to do that. Some require you to be online. Some took it a step further and are equipped with 4/5G modems to bypass your network restrictions.
A set of torx screwdrivers and an exacto knife will take care of that. Pretty hard for a cellular modem to transmit data when the traces to the antenna are cut.
I’d take it back to the store as broken. Never heard of that though.
Never heard of this either and it would raise a massive stink in the EU. Can you share an example?
Both of these were in the USA. The first was with a friend's purchase, the latter was an article he sent me. It's been a little while, but I know one was Samsung, but can't remember the other brand or which was which.
I wouldn’t put it past Samsung to try and force you to have internet access enabled so they can spy on you.
However having additional hardware to directly access the internet via cellular is a bit much. That might have been an Aprils fools article by some IT site.
When Sony tried to install root kits on PCs of folks just trying to watch a movie on a legit purchased DVD there was a quite large shitstorm.
Not an April fools, but it might have been a plan they (whoever it was) chose to later not follow through with.
I vaguely remember the Sony fiasco.
Which is an entirely fair compromise for people who use Lemmy, but means precisely nothing to the majority.
Well that’s not true. They have been in business for 40 years. They sell TVs for people who don’t want anything except video in. Mainly commercial places like offices, stadiums, etc.
Yes because the majority own/buy TV's commercial places like offices and stadiums.
I’m not understanding what the point is that you’re trying to make? I’m sorry.
I said that the privacy concerns being worth the cost of a "smart"-free TV means nothing to the majority of people.
You said that this isn't true, and that their main customer is commercial places.
I suggested, in response to this, that the majority of people don't own such commercial places.
What part are you not understanding?
Ah ok…
I was disputing the implication that this type of dumb tv only matters to Lemmy users. I felt as if that was an implication you were making in your first message. You left that out of your summary here.
Agree that the majority of people don’t want to pay for a dumb tv, and in fact I’d think that the majority of people would not even like a dumb tv. A tv with built in apps to access services is far more desired by the vast majority.