Just what we all wanted, even more ads to deal with in our everyday life
  •  thingsiplay   ( @thingsiplay@beehaw.org ) 
    85•3 months ago

    the time in which the TV is on but users aren’t doing anything is valuable

    Ads are making everything worse. Yes and ads are disturbing the doing nothing. Doing nothing is very valuable to me. It’s the time when I have some time for myself.

    •  tal   ( @tal@lemmy.today ) English
      5•3 months ago

      Ads have funded a lot of content in the past. I don’t mean just in the Internet era, but in the TV era and the radio era and the newspaper era. We’re talking centuries.

      Unless you’re gonna get people to pay for your content, which can create difficulties, attaching it to ads can be a way to pay for that content.

      Now, all that being said, that isn’t to say that one needs to want to choose ads or needs to want to choose ads in all contexts or can want unlimited ads. I’d generally rather pay for something up front. Let’s say that it takes $10 to produce a piece of content. For ads to make sense, it has to make the average user ultimately spend at least $10 more on some advertised product than they otherwise would have, or it wouldn’t make sense for the advertiser to give the content creator $10. I’d just as soon spend $10 on the content directly instead and not watch the ads. Ultimately, the average user has to pay at least as much under an ad regime as if they just paid for the content up front, and doesn’t have to deal with the overhead of me staring at ads.

      But for that to work, the content provider has to be able to actually get people to pay for whatever content they’re putting out. If it gets pirated, or people disproportionately weight the cost of that up-front payment, or people are worried about the security of their transaction, or what-have-you, then the content provider is gonna fall back to being paid in ads.

      •  helenslunch   ( @helenslunch@feddit.nl ) 
        3•3 months ago

        I don’t necessarily have a problem with advertising in general. I kinda hate that too. What I have a problem with is super invasive advertising where it collects a monumental amount of personal information, maliciously and often without your consent, to target ads for specific products.

        And anyone who says they’re not doing it, I don’t believe them anymore.

        Roku is capturing everything that’s on your TV and processing it as personal data.

    •  tal   ( @tal@lemmy.today ) English
      30•3 months ago

      Cars have cell radios now and transfer data about you using those.

      I would imagine that as long as it can generate enough of a return for it to make financial sense, manufacturers of other devices might start doing so at some point.

      •  Yer Ma   ( @JoMomma@lemm.ee ) 
        2•3 months ago

        Did you reply to the correct comment? I’m not sure what that has to do with mine?

        Edit: oh, you mean we might not have a choice about it connecting soon? I hadn’t thought about that because that is not a current reality. But, that is a terrifyingly possible future

  •  Domiku   ( @Domiku@beehaw.org ) English
    36•3 months ago

    There was a really interesting interview on The Verge with the CEO of Telly. Basically, TVs are so cheap now because they make all of their profit selling your data. His pitch is “why pay for a TV and then also have your data mined. They should at least give you the TV for free.”

    It’s frustrating because even if we buy a “premium” devices like an LG C3 or one of the nice Samsung TVs, they’re still going to spy on us. (PiHole FTW).

    •  Rentlar   ( @Rentlar@lemmy.ca ) 
      13•3 months ago

      He’s right, but I don’t like the framing of TV companies are going to spy on you anyway so we’re the best option since you get a free TV. I would like the option to not be spied on. In fact I’m choosing that by not having a TV to begin with.

      •  Vodulas [they/them]   ( @Vodulas@beehaw.org ) 
        4•3 months ago

        You can still do that and get a TV (for now), you just have to not connect it to the internet. Mine has never seen Ethernet cable nor my wifi password and gives me zero problems. I don’t even use the TV interface since I have an HDMI switcher that auto switches to the most recently powered device.

    •  Dudewitbow   ( @Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip ) 
      5•3 months ago

      isnt that why if you value privacy (or customization) youre supposed to not plug the tv to the internet and use your prefered streaming setup connected over hdmi. its ultimately a self inflicted problem of people using the built in stuff rather than take the time and setup an actual setup (that would stay the same between tvs as long as said device doesnt die on you)

      then convenience is sold, especially if its free, then your data is going to be sold with it.

        •  Dudewitbow   ( @Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip ) 
          2•3 months ago

          which is why ones better off with a modified Nvidia Shield or Apple TV to minimize data collection, if you arent using an HTPC for a streaming server. Not a binary system, its a game of whose doing it the least, and the TV companies have a huge incentive to collect money off the integrated stuff vs companies whose cost is moreso on the hardware, and make money off their intended subscription services (Apple One for Apple TV, Nvidia Geforce Now for gaming on the Shield)

    •  ConstableJelly   ( @ConstableJelly@midwest.social ) OP
      31•3 months ago

      Home entertainment is such a closed system that all these companies are just beta testing shitty ideas for each other. Eventually they all do the same thing as long as any backlash was neither too destructive to revenue nor sustained. See endless streaming services price hikes, account sharing lockdowns, or the fact that you just can’t buy dumb TVs anymore.

      •  tal   ( @tal@lemmy.today ) English
        6•3 months ago

        This particular idea probbaly has technical limitations.

        A device can only monitor and analyze and modify what a user is viewing if it’s being used as a pass-through device in a daisy chain of devices.

        As long as there is any device out there that can take multiple video signals from different inputs, let the user choose which they want to use, they can just not daisy-chain them, have them connected in parallel to different inputs. And even if one could try to get manufacturers colluding on creating a world where daisy-chaining is the only option, they have no incentive to do so on this point – in doing this, they’re trying to steal eyeball time from each other.

        Now, that being said, I suppose that device manufacturers may not care, if 95% of users are going to just daisy-chain their devices. If it’s only a few privacy nuts out there who are constantly keeping on top of the latest shennanigans and figuring out how to avoid them, if the Roku manual says “daisy chain” and most users just follow the pictures there…shrugs

  •  voxel   ( @vox@sopuli.xyz ) 
    6•3 months ago

    note: this is just a patent
    patents usually don’t mean shit, sony (?iirc) has a patent for an ad system that requires users to say the name of the brand to continue, but we’re not seeing it around yet eh?

    •  lud   ( @lud@lemm.ee ) 
      1•3 months ago

      Could it not be turned off when it’s not needed (I.E. The game is unpaused.)

      And what specifically do you mean by overlay?

      Monitors and TVs have been able to overlay some interface elements over the HDMI input since forever. I have never heard of an overlay degrading quality but maybe there are some poor implementations.