Vizio settles for $3M after saying 60 Hz TVs had 120 Hz “effective refresh rate”
arstechnica.com
Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.

Vizio settles for $3M after saying 60 Hz TVs had 120 Hz “effective refresh rate” | Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.::Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.

  • MetricIsRightEnglish
    7·
    10 months ago

    Not sure where you live but around here Sony isn’t an option for TV’s not financially anyway, 30-40% more than the competition for no damned reason.

    • Vqhm@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      10 months ago

      There is a reason it’s slightly more expensive tho. They don’t even bother to force or nag you to connect to Wi-Fi / Internet so the manufacturer can start selling data on what you watch… Sony charges a little more because the TV is for profit, instead of your data being the profit product.

      They aren’t all that much more expensive at Costco anyway. Also it’s not like I’m buying a TV ever few years.

      Shit my Sony Trinitron CRT still works. That really is buy it for life. Less can be said about Walmart specials.

      • Fishytricks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        I’ve always thought they were slightly more expensive because they used LG/Samsung panels for their TV.

        I avoided Samsung and it was a no brainer for me to get LG. My LG has been treating me well and doesn’t prompt me to get on the internet. And I got them for discounted prices as well, a 65”GX and 42?” C3.

      • Nommer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        Sony has always been more expensive compared to the competition. Even way back before data collection was a thing. It’s why I don’t really buy their products.