• sibannac@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      28
      Aquileo | arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nearly all tvs are smart tvs that make money with showing ads and selling data. Any loss on the hardware is made up on selling customer data and ad space. The tvs would be amazing if they didn’t come with smart features.

        • Gormadt@slrpnk.net
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 months ago

          Never connect them to the internet

          You want your favorite streaming service on there? Get an older (used office) PC, load it up with (your prefered flavor of) Linux, get a bluetooth keyboard mouse combo, hook it up to your HDMI port, and go ham.

          Some TVs even let you turn them on directly to a specific HDMI port for a bonus fun time of never having to see the TVs menu.

        • toddestan@lemmy.world
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not really, the smarts are integrated into the control circuitry. You can’t bypass them and turn them into simple, dumb displays.

          Depending on the model, you can block the TV from the internet and leave it on set to one of the inputs and the smarts bits won’t bother you again. Other ones are more intrusive and pushy about it.

        • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          2018 is about when it started but it was a very small number of tvs. By 2020 it was a common thing but it was a dedicated line of tvs from each brand. By 2024 it was all cheaper tvs basically. And now it’s basically every TV and even some monitors.

          The non smart TVs are almost as hard to find now as finding a smart one was in 2018. And monitors are starting to have smart features and ads even among the highest end offerings. But unlike tvs they arnt any cheaper for it. Its stupid.

    • timochka@lemmy.zip
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      9
      Aquileo | arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      TVs were always cheap compared to cost to make the things - it’s not just the “oh, they have advertising now” thing.

      Source: I worked in electronics retail in the late 80s/early 90s, and in one of the world’s largest consumer electronics firms when my career proper started.

      The TVs in the window of the local electronics chain store (or in Walmart) were sold at practically zero margin, or more often than not at a loss. The retail chains would basically hold a gun to the CE companies heads and tell them if you’re not willing to sell at a loss, nothing you make is going in the window display, or worst case we’re not selling you at all.

      The retail chains didn’t care because all their profit was in selling accessories and unnecessary extended warranties. The CE companies hoped that they could make it up by selling you the more expensive model they actually made a profit on once you were in the door, or by selling you a VCR or whatever as well.

      This is why the TV companies were always looking for a “next big thing” (flat-screen, ultraflat, widescreen, HD, 3D, 4k, 8k…) to differentiate the “next model up”, which is to say the model the store would actually allow them to make a profit on.

      This particular race-to-the-bottom mutually assured destruction business model is also the reason there is practically no consumer electronics manufacturing left in the West, of course. And why manufacturers grasp at stuff like advertising.

      • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        TVs were always cheap compared to cost to make the things - it’s not just the “oh, they have advertising now” thing.

        Yes, and the cost of making them keeps dropping. When you were selling TVs in 1991, a 30 inch TV cost about $500 in 1991 dollars. The technology back then just basically made it complex and labor intensive to manufacture, and they were so heavy that it actually took significant number of human labor hours just to get it from factory to store to the specific store’s display. Merely putting a 30 inch TV in the window of a store was probably a 2-man lift.

        Whereas today it’s a bunch of robots in cleanrooms automating production of high volumes of solid state LCD components to where full color displays can be put in cheap appliances, and finished 30 inch TVs being thin and light enough to be moved with one hand while sipping a coffee with the other.

        I’m not surprised it’s much cheaper today, even a tiny fraction of the time period you’re talking about, even when back then they were selling at a loss.

        • timochka@lemmy.zip
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I try to always be nice to retail staff, because I remember well the sheer misery of having to stand sandwiched in a too-small window display cabinet, scraper in one hand and bottle of weak vinegar in the other, scraping the bloody advertising stickers off the glass (that were stuck on with a glue stronger than cement) with a roasting hot halogen floodlamp about 1" from your head, just because a new range has come in… Particularly soul-destroying if it’s that time of year when the same 5 royalty-free Christmas songs are on permanent loop in the background.

          And yeah, you make a very good point. Sheer size/weight and cost of shipping would have been a huge chunk of the price of those old TVs! Not to mention the cost of healthcare for all the staff who put their back out dragging the damned things to and from The Cage… ;)

    • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      TVs are made from components that are made through almost entirely automated processes at such large scales that the underlying raw material and cost of shipping become the main driver of cost. Paradoxically, that means that TVs that have gotten thinner and lighter use less material and therefore have a lower floor of how little it can cost.

      Once a production line is set up to make the components, each additional one produced costs very little, so making high volume runs is the key: lots of shared parts between brands and models, very long production runs to minimize the cost of redesign or retooling or downtime.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      9
      Aquileo | arrow-down
      1
      ·
      Aquileo | edit-2
      2 months ago

      The fuck? Milk is 2x to 4x cheaper ($0.50-$1.00) than the most common gasoline, Natural 95 ($2.10) here. I thought you’d get something from those crazy “Got milk?” dairy subsidies…

      (Multiply by 4.5 to get US units rather than liters)

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          English
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          5
          Aquileo | arrow-down
          4
          ·
          Aquileo | edit-2
          2 months ago

          It’s fewer syllables, what’s the problem? And yes, milk is cheaper here than the same quality in the US (despite our 12% VAT) so I don’t see why “cheaper” next to it would feel wrong… And don’t forget that we don’t get the crap “regular” gasoline with as low as 87 octane rating, the lowest widely available one is 95. Similarly, 75 % of milk drunk here is UHT-treated, as opposed to 10 % in the US.

          • Stez@sh.itjust.works
            Aquileo | link
            Aquileo | fedilink
            English
            Aquileo | arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            You don’t have much better gasoline there it’s just that you use a different unit for measuring the octane. They aren’t actually much different

            • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
              Aquileo | link
              Aquileo | fedilink
              Aquileo | arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Well it’s partially true.

              87 AKI is widely available in the US as the minimum octane rating. That translates to 91 RON. I’ve never seen anything under 95 here in Estonia, or at least not this century. 95 and 98 are the only commonly found numbers. 98 is available in the US too, as 93 AKI, but not everywhere as I understand.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            Aquileo | link
            Aquileo | fedilink
            Aquileo | arrow-up
            4
            Aquileo | arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            because expensiveness is a scale that starts from 0 so you always know how expensive everything is. cheapness works the other way, so there’s no starting point. that means there’s no way to quantify how cheap the first thing is, in order to double that. in your example gasoline would have to be the least cheap thing possible, which means nothing can be more expensive.

            it’s like saying someone’s twice as short as someone else. half as tall makes sense, twice as short is a weird way to say it because how short is the first person?

            • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
              Aquileo | link
              Aquileo | fedilink
              English
              Aquileo | arrow-up
              3
              Aquileo | arrow-down
              2
              ·
              Aquileo | edit-2
              2 months ago

              “Cheaper” means “less expensive”. 2x cheaper means 2x less expensive, or less expensive by a factor of 2, or 0.5x as expensive. I can say 2x shorter, 2x slower etc. and I don’t see a problem. The adjectives “cheap” and “expensive” don’t relate to a number quantity called “expensiveness” or “cheapness” but “price” or “cost”, which is what the factor applies to, and the word specifies if it’s an increase or decrease. Everyone I know would understand that it’s the reciprocal of the original price, although I get that in a country whose president can say he slashed proces by 500 % without instantly having to resign, fractions and percentages might have to be specified but that’s longer to say for the same number of significant figures.

              Yes, I can find people debating “two times cheaper” (English) but not “zweimal billiger” (German) or “dvakrát levnější” (Czech), in fact the phrase is often used in promotional material. The only results suggesting it’s wrong are English Reddit discussions’ automatic translations to German or Czech, and Google’s AI summary that cotes them.

              I won’t stop using it just because people with inferior education sometimes don’t get it. Similarly, I provided the metric value and conversion rate, it’s Americans who need to practice mental math.

              • CriticalThought@lemmy.world
                Aquileo | link
                Aquileo | fedilink
                Aquileo | arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                I won’t stop using it just because people with inferior education sometimes don’t get it.

                I doubt anyone doesn’t get it, it just sounds twice as unnatural to a native English speaker.

                • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
                  Aquileo | link
                  Aquileo | fedilink
                  English
                  Aquileo | arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Whatever, I’m not convincing anyone with my use of metric and username. I’m avoiding some other weird phrases though, for example you won’t usually see me type “14 days” in English although Czech speakers prefer it to “2 weeks” (idk why, it’s the same number of syllables).

  • HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 months ago

    TV is cheap because you are the product. CEOs want you to see their ads, their propaganda.

    Gas is expensive because they have not yet found a way to stop car-owner from leaving the sofa in front of TV

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    Visit Japan or the EU and their fuels prices make the USA cheap. It is odd in the USA, most people are concerned about fuel prices, but healthcare costs are far worse.

  • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Gas is a cheat code to decades of stored solar energy. It won’t be cheap for ever. Once you mine up all that shit it’s gone.

    Look at WV and their coal. Use to have 12 ft coal seams. Now all that’s left are hard to reach low quality 1-2ft seams. At some point it’s not even worth the energy to extract.

    • Karmanopoly@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      6
      Aquileo | arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      There are people who believe the earth regenerates and creates more petroleum… In essence it will never run out

      There’s probably a step g correlation to flat earthers

      • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        It will! Just not within human life spans that’s my answer usually. Alot of their thoughts are grounded in something real. Its easier then telling them they are flat out wrong usually.

        Unless it’s the flat earthers

        • The Stoned Hacker@lemmy.world
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It probably won’t to my understanding. Most fossil fuels are from large organic material deposits (usually from plants) underwater or in low oxygen environments where they aren’t disturbed/don’t decompose. Basically the conditions for fossil fuels to be remade don’t exist anymore so we really aren’t getting any more

          • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
            Aquileo | link
            Aquileo | fedilink
            Aquileo | arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            There’s definitely location on earth where they will get generate again. Plus climate change only really means the extinction of all human life as we know it. Everything else will carry on, it’s not the first large level extinction event.

            The conditions that created it are likely to arise again. Most oil deposits are actually from innumerable numbers of planktonic life that built up on the ocean floor. Coal is from plant matter though.

            Point is its generally easier to redirect then reprogram people, with enough nudges they’ll start to see they are being lied to, or at least will know not to bother you with that specific subject anymore

  • protist@retrofed.com
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    The price of the TVs hadn’t caught up to the price of energy and other commodities that are used to manufacture and transport them. We will be seeing that inflation hit over the next 6 months

  • XLE@piefed.socialBanned from community
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    8
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Vizio TVs won’t fully function until you sign in with a Walmart account. They sell your data and shove ads in your face.