so basically you’re getting a surveillance device shipped straight to your living room.
Someone needs to jailbreak/root this TV!
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s worse than that. If the concept of the book 1984 were a television this would be it.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
