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

    • ultratiem @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      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
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
      7
      ·
      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

      • LillyPip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is. It also needs to be the primary television (it checks for that, probably by spying on your other devices), only allows ‘approved’ devices to be connected, and looks at your room to see how many people are watching (you’re not allowed to block it). It tattles on any attempt to alter or subvert it. If you break the TOS for whatever reason, they’ll automatically charge your credit card $1000. You have to give them your credit card info before they’ll ship.

        I suppose it’s an okay device if you don’t care about privacy at all, or if you’re willing to pay $1k to jailbreak it.

  • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    5 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.

    • ramjambamalam
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • krzysd@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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 😄

  • GARlactic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    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.

  • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    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
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
      6
      ·
      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

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

      Honestly, if I was broke, I’d consider it. If you can afford anything else, then yeah, take that something else. But not everybody can afford stuff.

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

        You can buy good quality TVs that are maybe 2-3 years old in sales or secondhand which would be much better than this, and no need for ads.

        I’ve seen people get an LG C1 for like $100 secondhand and there’s nothing wrong with it. You don’t have to spend close to or upwards of 1,000 on a TV.

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

          Somebody posted another comment with the exact same idea, and I think y’all are under-estimating the amount of people who live under the poverty line (11%/~4M people in the US for instance), and the even larger amount of people who live below a living wage, and therefore all have zero buying power for consumer discretionary items, let alone having $100 to spend.

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

      I tried to sign up just now but it’s US only. I don’t have a TV at all, I can’t afford one. I’d love this.

  • jantin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    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
      16
      ·
      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
      6
      ·
      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.

      • LillyPip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Literally this (sans can). It has a camera that monitors the number of people who can see it. Blocking it violates the TOS and incurs a $1k charge to your credit card.

    • Zima@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would expect them to include cameras that would check that you are looking at the tv and see the ads reflected in your eyes before it lets you play non-ad content.

    • tentphone@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The settings menus (input switcher, etc) will be on it. Also it will collect data on anything you view using the main screen (HDMI input, etc) regardless.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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
      33
      ·
      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
          9
          arrow-down
          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
      5
      ·
      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

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    It feels like increasingly ads are used to sell ad supported products so you can watch ads for things with ads. And at the end of the road it’s scams and subscriptions. Like it’s a good thing I don’t like capitalism because it feels like it’s looking bloated and a concerning shade of yellow

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You don’t like capitalism because you’re the mark. Capitalism is for capitalists. Capitalists own capital. The vast, vast majority of the world, even in wealthy countries don’t own any capital. They own possessions, which is different. Capitalists have just spent capital confusing people into thinking they should like it.

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

        I also dislike capitalism because I’m justice oriented. Capital doesn’t want justice it wants constant mindless accumulation. But yeah it’s also a shell game with counterfeit money, at some point even the winners are gonna be caught holding the bag and everyone still around is fucked. Well we’ve been hearing police sirens for a while now, and now we can see cops heading over. But the con artists insist we keep playing instead of breaking down the table and making a run for it.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    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
        2
        ·
        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
      4
      ·
      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