Sadly, it seems like the contingent of people who have a problem with Smart TVs is small but noisy, and has no real market power. If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.
Sort of reminds me how we complain loudly about how shitty airline service is, and then when we buy tickets we reliably pick whichever one is a dollar cheaper.
The problem is that consumers are not savvy. They go to the store, and compare TVs based on features presented. Colors, refresh rate, size, etc.
Its only when they get home (and likely not even right away) that they discover their TV is spying on them and serving ads.
This is a perfect situation where government regulation is required. Ideally, something that protects our privacy. But, minimally something like a required 'nutrition label' on any product that sends our data off device.
As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent Samsung from selling you a TV, then sending out a software update in two years which forces you to accept a new terms of service that allows them to serve you ads. If you do not accept, they brick your TV.
So it’s not a question of being savvy. As a consumer you can’t know what a company will choose to do in the future.
The lawsuit seems to be about using ACR, not the presence of ads.
> As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent Samsung from selling you a TV, then sending out a software update in two years which forces you to accept a new terms of service that allows them to serve you ads. If you do not accept, they brick your TV.
To the parent commenters' point, this is a perfect example of a situation where governments should be stepping in.
The thing that prevents a TV mfg from bricking your device is that they'd be instantly (and successfully) sued. In fact, there have already been many such class actions, ie with printer inks.
The downside is that it's sometimes easier and cheaper to just pay off the class and keep doing it.
> If you do not accept, they brick your TV.
That ought to be a slam dunk win in court. Especially since they probably won't show up to my local small claims court and I'll just send them the judgement.
> The problem is that consumers are not savvy...
> ...This is a perfect situation where government regulation is required.
Isn't this precisely the dynamic which causes governments to have an interest in ensuring that consumers don't become savvy?
I wouldn't say they aren't savvy. Many aren't, but also I don't blame them. Often you can buy a perfectly reasonable device and then they ad spying and adverts after you bought it. Most reviewers also don't talk about this stuff, and there are no standards for any of it (unlike e.g. energy consumption).
I agree more legislation is required.
I went with Philips Hue smart lighting specifically because it could work without an account or any internet access for the bulbs or hub.
Guess what became required this year? At least it seems I can still use them offline if I don't use the official app. But the official app is now just a popup requiring me to create an account. I'm not sure if I could add new lights using third party apps. Not like I'm ever buying a Hue product again though.
Yep, the store TV is in demo mode, then that first firmware update at home it changes it completely.
a required 'nutrition label'
This didn't work for GDPR cookie warnings.
True. But it does work for food safety, and to help curb underage drinking and smoking, to stop lousy restaurants from serving unsafe food and for lots of other stuff we take for granted.
Top down governance isn't a silver bullet, but it has its place in a functioning society.
Hope does spring eternal, doesn't it 8-/
If no one manufactures such a product, how does the "market" express this desire?
Buying one toaster, that would last your lifetime, is easily manufactured today, and yet no company makes such a thing. This is true across hundreds of products.
The fact is, manufacturing something that isn't shit, is less profitable, so what we're gonna get is shit. It doesn't really matter what people "want".
This is true for toasters and TVs...
How often are you replacing toasters?
Not the person you're asking, but about as frequently as I replace washing machines. The fact that I'm doing it at all is the problem, especially since both machines had been "solved" by the late 1970s.
The non-electric office tools I have from that era are perpetual. Eternal.
How often are you replacing washing machines? As we had more kids, we upgraded our toaster from a 2-slice to a 4-slice, somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 years ago. Can't imagine we paid more than ~$20 for it. Still going strong today. If it lasts 10 more years, all my kids will be moved out of the house, and I suppose we could downgrade to a 2-slice model again. Unless the grandkids like toast.
A situation in which many people care a little,but a few people care a lot in the other direction,is almost exactly what government is for. Ken Paxton has issues, for sure, but good on him in this case.
I don’t agree with this. The only way this would make sense is if consumers were made aware of spying vs not spying prior to purchase.
But TV manufacturers can change the TV’s behavior long after it is purchased. They can force you to agree to new terms of service which can effectively make the TV a worse product. You cannot conclude the consumer didn’t care.
This 'Wild West' is easily solved with decent consumer law. Spying could be shut down over night if laws levied fines on TV manufacturers pro rata—ie fines would multiply by the number of TV sets in service.
If each TV attracted a fine two to three times the amount manufacturers received from selling its data the practice would drop stone dead.
All it takes is proper legislation. Consumers just lobby your politicians.
We're past the point when most people can claim ignorance. And surely we have enough protection to at least defend against the "changed the terms and conditions after purchase" situation? They can't force me to do anything, and then stop working if I refuse.
For now maybe? Consumer protections are at an all time low at the moment. Your exact argument about “we all know this just nobody cares and stop whining” is exactly what will be cited if you attempt to take action if they brick your device.
> If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.
I am not convinced of this. there is more recurring revenue involved in spying on people
There is a market and people pay for it. However they are mostly not TVs, but monitors and those paying for it have the budget to pay far more. However this market will always exist because some of those are showing safety messages in a factory and if the monitor in any way messes those up there will be large lawsuits.
Dumb TVs are hard to find: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/12/the-ars-technica-gui...
The problem is lack of information at time of purchase, in both cases. It's so onerous to figure out what these products are doing that people give up. Same in the airline case. If any of the airlines actually provided better service at a higher price, they'd have a market, but it's impossible to assess that as an end user with all the fake review bullshit that's all over the Internet these days.
The only cases where it's clearcut are a few overseas airlines like Singapore Airline who have such a rock solid reputation for great service that people will book them even if the price is 2x.
I've been shopping around specifically for this type of thing. There's two options: one is to buy a monitor display similar to what's in restaurants and retail stores and the other is to switch to a projector without smart features. The monitor displays, like your computer monitor, is even more expensive than regular TV's because they have special features that make them better to have on all the time at retail stores. They don't even have sound systems. The other option is projector displays which are generally the more sane option but they are not as easily installed. I suspect that privacy conscious consumers will go for projector displays as they aren't bundled with spyware. There's still risks like with the Roku TV box but it's much easier to replace the streaming unit. Apple TV claims that it doesn't utilize ACR so that's a solid choice but I would personally go for a Linux box with an HDMI out.
> Sadly, it seems like the contingent of people who have a problem with Smart TVs is small but noisy, and has no real market power.
No one cares. Smart TVs are super awesome to non tech people who love them. Plug it in, connect to WiFi - Netflix and chill ready. I have a friend who just bought yet another smart TV so he can watch the Hockey game from his bar.
> If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.
What happened to that Jumbo (dumbo?) TV person who was on here wanting to build these things? My guess is they saw the economics and the demand and gave up. I applaud them for trying though. I still cling to my two dumb 1080 Sony TVs that have Linux PC's hooked to them.
Wouldn’t smart TVs that didn’t spy on you also be awesome? Seems like a knowledge gap to me. This gets solved as soon as people realize what’s happening. Right now they don’t realize TVs are cheap because of the ad subsidy.
"If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one."
The problem is easily solved and I'm surpised more people don't do it. For years I've just connected a PVR/STB (set top box) to a computer monitor. It's simple and straightforward, just connect the box's HDMI output into a computer monitor.
Moreover, PVR/STBs are very cheap—less than $50 at most, I've three running in my household.
If one wants the internet on the same screen just connect a PC to another input on your monitor. This way you've total isolation, spying just isn't possible.
Do you have a nice 65” OLED monitor option with solid display settings supporting Dolby modes, etc I can examine? I tried to find one and nobody is selling.
Not 65" but for a really large picture I just use the HDMI input on the smart TV sans internet and it's fine (also the TV makes a good large monitor). Works well on the projection monitor too.
This is okay if you want a small TV, and/or are willing to forgo the picture quality of a modern big TV.
Just put the HDMI into the TV set input and forget connecting the internet. That's the situation with one of my TVs and it gives a great picture. Also it works fine with my projection monitor.
..and constant notifications that the network is not connected, that there are wifi APs nearby, do you want to configure one(?), and that it's been 157 days since the last software update, and that you should connect your tv to the internet to get newest bestest firmware with 'new features'.
I simply don't experience that problem.
I think government is the only way to regulate below pain threshold nonsense that weighs down society.
but I think small issues in society might translate to small issues for government action, and regulatory capture has a super-high roi overturning "minor" stuff.
I suspect only showing real harm for something is the only way to get these things high-enough priority for action.
I kind of wonder if the pager attacks, or the phone nonsense in ukraine/russia might make privacy a priority?
isn't a smart TV that's not connected to the internet just a dumb TV?
wait until your TV has it's 5g modem to bypass your wifi
This isn't really an accurate analysis because it assumes the only parties involved are the TV manufacturers and the purchasing consumers. In fact the third party is ad brokers and so the calculus to alienate some users in pursuit of ad dollars is different.
If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.
I don't think they would. There are some TV manufacturers that are better about not nagging you (which is one of the reasons why I bought a Sony last year), but as time moves forward, companies have been less likely to leave money on the table. This is just the logical result of capitalism. Regulation will be the only way to protect consumer privacy.
Similarly, air travel gets worse as consumer protection regulations gets rolled back
This sounds like victim blaming to me. "What do you mean you don't understand how software and the internet works and thought this was just a TV?!"
If you want to make a free market argument you need to look up what a free market is. In particular, consumers need to have perfect information. Do you really think if manufacturers were obligated to make these "features" clear that most people wouldn't care?