so basically you’re getting a surveillance device shipped straight to your living room.

  • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I mentioned it on the other thread, but free-pc tried this twenty four years ago and it was a dumb idea then.

    There was also NetZero, alladvantage, and probably others that I’m forgetting that gave people money and crap for watching ads. It turns out people don’t like ads.

    • krzysd@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      NetZero was the best for me, I was in middle school and this was the only way I could get Internet since my parents wouldn’t pay for a respectable ISP, anyway I searched for ways to get rid of the banner and finally found one where it would just be a small black square 😄

    • ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember having free dial-up Internet in the 90s in exchange for an adware banner while connected.

  • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why would anyone want this? It’s free, so it’s obviously not even going to be a good quality TV.

    There are no upsides to this.

    • db2@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s worse than that. If the concept of the book 1984 were a television this would be it.

      • nymwit@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        “What Orwell failed to predict is that we’d buy the cameras ourselves, and that our biggest fear would be that nobody was watching.”

    • Huxston@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re just not poor enough yet. They’ll keep inflating us into poverty until this becomes everybody’s best option

  • jantin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    How does this work as a business? Are ad companies so desperate they will buy ad space on machines destined for people with zero disponible income and zero loan capability? Are the data from stalking people who can’t afford anything that valuable?

    At the end of the food chain surveillance capitalism works thanks to profit from conversion from ads to purchases. How do they expect conversion by targeting people who can hardly afford rent and necessities?

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because there are people out there that make FUCKING TERRIBLE decisions. You ever see someone at a big box store trying to load a $3000 tv into a car that has plastic bags taped over missing windows? Or someone parking a brand new car next to their dilapidated doublewide? Those people.

      And you will get people taking them up on this to put it in the man cave or the rumpus room thinking they are being slick and gaming the system “lol, its not even my main tv!” not even realising the sheer volume of data they are handing over that way and that wether you like it or not advertisers spend bilions on getting into your head without you thinking its working.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re siphoning up those people’s data too though. And you can definitely still advertise basic goods and fast food to those people. If it’s all Unilever, Pepsico and McDonalds, they’ve got an audience for those ads.

    • ultratiem @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that would be priceless. Send out a million TVs thinking man we are gonna make bank. Literally 990k jailbreak and use it as a dumb TV lol

      (I have so much venom for this idea in general.)

    • tentphone@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They have stated they have measures in place to detect anyone trying to do that and will require them to return the TV or pay for it.

    • *Tagger*@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think that would be against the contract signed when reviewing the telly so they’d charge them.

      For example I think it is mandatory to connect there TVs to the internet

  • GARlactic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nah you couldn’t pay me to put this TV in my home.

    Also LOL at “smartest” TV. If you can’t install your own apps, then it isn’t exactly very smart.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kinda want to get one and rip it apart to extract the screens, strip the copper, etc. Turn it into a monitor with my own screen driver silicon.

    • work is slow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just looked it up and they charge up to $1000 if you block ads or tamper with it. They have all sorts of crazy requirements too.

        • Neato@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the point. If you can afford even a $400 tv, you won’t buy this. It’s for people for whom $1000 is unobtainable. So they’ll watch the ads rather than risk a lawsuit and penalty.

    • Tookys@fosstodon.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      @Draegur

      @StarLuigi

      Same, I wonder if it’ll still function without internet, I’d just get a chromecast key or something on the HDMI. And just not connect the TV itself to the internet.

      Granted it probably has some kind of contract that you get charged if you don’t play the ad’s

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    People keep saying that no one will hack it because it will cost them $1000. Plenty of people will pay that so that they can hack it anyway. And those people will come up with the countermeasures for the rest.

      • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Article I read says it’ll have sensors that can detech how many people are in the room; didn’t get to read the full T&Cs but you’d imagine the team behind this product has gameplanned for how people will try and circumvent whatever protections they added MacGyver style with what’s around the house.

        Someone absolutely will figure out a way to hack it… it’ll be patched, people will be fined (or attempt to fine), the cat & mouse game will continue.

    • Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not about the money if you’re trying to remove ads at that point. It’s about proving that you can remove them

  • Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is such a bad idea that I suspect this is some form of viral advertising.

  • Nuuskis9@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    How I could get a 55" 4K Monitor without internet, microphones cameras and with blazing fast boot time?

  • ritswd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not too surprised; but to take the example of one country, in the USA where I live, 11% of the people (that’s about 40M people) live below the poverty line, and that is even much less money than a livable wage where you can afford rent, food and nothing else. I’m speaking of the US as an example, but I’m sure it’s not an uncommon situation in other countries either.

    My point is: a massive amount of people can’t afford to spend $100 on entertainment, ever. I spent some time with such families, and I can tell you it is not at all an uncommon thing. If they have a TV today, they probably got it for free from somewhere (possibly a dumpster), and it looks exactly like they did. That’s a massive amount of people who would desire this kind of upgrade.

    Now is it the right population to serve ads to, that’s a different question.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now is it the right population to serve ads to, that’s a different question.

      Absolutely!

      People under the poverty line are more likely to go for get-rich-quick schemes, for an example.

      Now whether it’s MORAL to serve those ads to that population is also a different question.

  • NickwithaC@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I genuinely don’t know who would ever sign up for this. If you’re too broke to afford a TV, just watch on your phone or laptop. Nobody needs a huge screen anymore. Then there’s the number of people with ad blockers or paying a small amount per month just to get rid of ads. This just looks like a bad idea all the way from a bad VC investment to a bad job for the devs to a bad choice for the consumer. And at no point did anyone ever say “wait what are we doing again?”

    • ritswd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’re too broke to afford a TV, just watch on your phone or laptop.

      Tell me you’ve never lived in poverty without telling me you’ve never lived in poverty.

        • ritswd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s exactly it. When I was dirt poor, basically half of the people around me had a phone with a cracked screen, and a good amount of that also had batteries that didn’t last much at all. Not only was it a constant game of finding a public power outlet whenever you’d be out for a while, but even staying home, you couldn’t do much of anything that would drain your battery too hard. There was a thing at the time where some phones had batteries that kept turning off unless you hit them on the side until they worked again, but it was a while ago so maybe that was solved by manufacturers since.

          It’s incredible now that I live in a middle class neighborhood, how literally every single phone is perfectly functional. It really does change everything.

          Anyway, that kind of population would happily get a free TV with ads. Now whether it is the kind of population that those ads would be most effective on is another question, since they basically have zero spending power.

    • fuzzzerd@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sad thing is, plenty of people will lap this up as a good thing and see it as a benefit. At least at first, until they realize they have to watch some TV based ads before they watch the ad roll on their YouTube video, followed by the second screen showing some banner ad the whole time. Yick.

      • Eggyhead@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As if a person who can’t afford a normal TV can just buy all the things from all those ads that advertisers think they’re selling.