Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The falling price of a TV set

theoutline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 211 posts

Re: The falling price of a TV set

#201

Post by daveslash »

Avshalom wrote: post #9
ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #2

The one thing I never understood about this is, aren't you just free to not hookup your TV to the WiFi? I've bought SmartTVs and have just used them as "dumb" TVs and they work perfectly fine. Aren't you there capturing the benefit of this supposedly lower price without having to give up any personal data back?

And as long as they don't try to connect to any public wifi they see... https://www.xfinity.com/mobile/network/map?zip=87111

Scroll just west of here (not my zip) ... what's that clump in the ocean? https://www.xfinity.com/mobile/network/map?zip=92008

Re: The falling price of a TV set

#202

Post by mirimir »

saiya-jin wrote: post #187
altacc wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On many smart TVs the content you're watching will still be monitored, as automatic content recognition is based on analysing the images being displayed, regardless of source. Blocking that requires isolation from the internet, by simply not setting up the wifi, or using a network level blocker like pi-hole if you still want to use smart features.

Yes I should have mentioned that one too, no internet connection. In my case TV simply works, there is nothing a software update can bring to improve it but plenty to annoy. Its like an air-gapped notebook with Windows that you only run Notepad. No need to update it with unknown stuff in patches from Microsoft.

OK, but from what I've read, it can still get online if there's an open WiFi AP within range.

You'd need to find the WiFi radio, and physically disable it.

Me, I just buy the largest gaming display that's available. And view videos stored locally. From DVDs or torrents. From a machine that has no internet access. Just ethernet LAN connectivity to an otherwise isolated machine, which is online only via nested VPN chains and Tor.

Re: The falling price of a TV set

#203

Post by WalterBright »

baot wrote: post #172
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biking in a foot of snow, on roads with pot holes large enough to swallow a tire, or that flood, or turn to black ice, is dangerous and sucks. Add the lack of actual bike lanes on all but a few block long stretches and biking becomes a death wish. Sure I can get a studded fat tire bike, and bike down the middle of the lane with dozens of pissed off people behind me honking and screaming at me, but that still doesn't…

You only chose to live that far from work, in a place that gets a foot of snow, because you assumed you could make the journey in a petroleum car. It wouldn't have been possible 100 years in the past and it won't be possible 100 years in the future. Same for your employer choosing not to provide showers.

Unfortunately, zoning laws in American cities segregate residential from commercial areas, resulting in transportation problems.

Re: The falling price of a TV set

#204

Post by glouwbug »

DanBC wrote: post #137
baddox wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that very well may be true, but it definitely doesn’t match my own intuition based on what I’ve seen. I have seen extensive educational videos for free online about math, art (digital, painting, etc.), music (theory, composition, orchestration, specific instruments, production, etc.), writing, electronics, 3D printing, plumbing, construction and home repair, woodworking, language learning, aviation, filmmakin…

The difficulty is sorting out the terrible videos from the good videos. There's plenty of content created by people who don't really know what they're doing, or who only have a rudimentary understanding. I guess that's true of all education, but it feels like a bigger problem with free online content.

I find anything diy on YouTube to be of greater quality the worse quality the production is.

Re: The falling price of a TV set

#205

Post by stedaniels »

mrandish wrote: post #133
gruez wrote: post #62

>With less demand for actual TVs, there’s less reason for manufacturers to price them even more highly. I don't buy this reasoning. Tablets and phones supposedly replaced laptops and desktops (or so I've heard), yet the prices for those hasn't really budged in the past couple of decades. >But the most interesting and telling reason for why TVs are now so cheap is because TV manufacturers have found a new revenue stre…

Yes, I agree. The article's claim about app rev share offsetting big parts of the cost just doesn't make sense. The reason that prices are lower is that manufacturing capacity is much higher, not supporting analog input saves money, vertical integration onto a handful of ICs, container shipping and supply chains are cheaper and Costco, WalMart etc will sell TVs for very low markup to drive traffic.

That and the TV manufacture selling off your viewing habits :-) There are TV's out there that send screengrabs back to their systems.

Re: The falling price of a TV set

#206

Post by baot »

thedaemon wrote: post #191
baot wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only chose to live that far from work, in a place that gets a foot of snow, because you assumed you could make the journey in a petroleum car. It wouldn't have been possible 100 years in the past and it won't be possible 100 years in the future. Same for your employer choosing not to provide showers.

You are making wild general assumptions about this person's life. Most people in the USA can't really choose where to live, they are forced into a particular zone based on income or some other factor. You are also suggesting that they move from the place that gets snow. This is a ludicrous suggestion and very rude. We can't all live on the beach front property.

Let's be honest, people on HN aren't limited in where they live by poverty.

As I said, it was possible 100 years ago. We -as a society- have brought this rut on ourselves.

Re: The falling price of a TV set

#207

Post by thedaemon »

baot wrote: post #206
thedaemon wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making wild general assumptions about this person's life. Most people in the USA can't really choose where to live, they are forced into a particular zone based on income or some other factor. You are also suggesting that they move from the place that gets snow. This is a ludicrous suggestion and very rude. We can't all live on the beach front property.

Let's be honest, people on HN aren't limited in where they live by poverty. As I said, it was possible 100 years ago. We -as a society- have brought this rut on ourselves.

I certainly am. I don't understand why everyone here thinks this is a private club for rich investors in silicon valley.

Re: The falling price of a TV set

#208

Post by scarface74 »

mrandish wrote: post #198
scarface74 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roku is built into many of the lower end TVs. I’m sure they get a cut of the revenue that Roku receives. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-11/streaming... Nearly every inch of real estate on Roku is for rent. For $1 million, a streaming service can take over the home screen to advertise a show. When Hulu got the rights to stream Seinfeld, it paid Roku to transform a portion of the screen into an image o…

I'm not claiming that TV manufacturers don't get some money from rev shares. My point is that it's not money the manufacturer can count on because subscribing or buying extra services is optional for customers on every set that I've seen. The CPM from just displaying ads in a program guide has to be tiny as CPMs for display only is crap everywhere. In my view, that's why some of these UIs have every pixel for sale, i…

And that’s all anecdotal. I posted a citation where Roku is getting literally millions from advertising. If the TV manufacturer gets $25 from Roku that’s 5% of the total cost of $500 65 inch TV.

You don’t have to subscribe to anything for the TV manufacture to make money. When you buy the Roku TV with 4 hardcoded buttons to streaming services that’s $4 by itself. Not to mention that half the home screen on a Roku has advertising and unlike computers they aren’t easily blocked.

CE manufacturers invariably assigned zero net present value to any theoretical

Of course that’s not how it works for any investment. You compare the risk/reward and calculate the expected return and compare it to your risk free rate of return. In the US that is typically the return on government bonds.

Re: The falling price of a TV set

#209

Post by eikenberry »

wmf wrote: post #43
eikenberry wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get a smart TV and just not connect it to the internet. Even lobotomized like this, they still work fine as normal TVs. You can also get a smart device (Roku, Amazon Fire, etc.) and hook that up to any TV to stream things (including Disney+). You can also just hook that computer up and it would work as well (a TV is just a big monitor with sound). So there is no need to ever "cave", even if you want streaming…

You can also get a smart device (Roku, Amazon Fire, etc.) and hook that up to any TV Why should that device have any less spying or ads?

I was pointed out that they had options. Not what they should do to avoid spying.

Re: The falling price of a TV set

#210

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

baot wrote: post #172
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biking in a foot of snow, on roads with pot holes large enough to swallow a tire, or that flood, or turn to black ice, is dangerous and sucks. Add the lack of actual bike lanes on all but a few block long stretches and biking becomes a death wish. Sure I can get a studded fat tire bike, and bike down the middle of the lane with dozens of pissed off people behind me honking and screaming at me, but that still doesn't…

You only chose to live that far from work, in a place that gets a foot of snow, because you assumed you could make the journey in a petroleum car. It wouldn't have been possible 100 years in the past and it won't be possible 100 years in the future. Same for your employer choosing not to provide showers.

The choice is between living in a decrepit shoebox an hours bike from my job, or living in someone's closet to be within walking distance. I'm a contractor though. I could be sent an hours drive in any direction. How do you suggest I plan for this? Do I buy a house with my nonexistent wealth everywhere I could be asked to work? Do I quit my job and take a massive pay cut to flip burgers so I can bike to my job from the closet said burger flipping affords me?.

Your attribution of choice in this matter is absurd. Maybe you're so lucky and wealthy that you can choose for whom you will work, where/when that work occurs, and how you'll get to work. That's an exceptionally privileged position and you should check your privilege before making such inane assumptive, and accusatory comments as this one.

Post reply on HN