this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2024
531 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
59312 readers
5184 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think there's a difference between smartwatches and TVs in terms of being able to monetize the operating system. On the tiny screen of a watch you can't really put any advertisement (at least not without destroying the usability completely) and most of the things you can analyse are happening on the smartphone.
A TV on the other hand gives you a huge surface in the living room of a families home and if you have control of the OS there are plenty of ways to monetize it (and companies willing to pay for it). You can preinstall certain streaming apps (and get payed for it), promote newly released movies and give links to rent them (either your own shop or again for commission), you can collect userdata and sell that to other companies, and much more.
I think it's telling that monetizing the operating system is the immediate place one jumps to with this, rather than earning more profit by selling more products which are better for the consumer.
Yeah, sadly from a economic perspective it is kind of obvious how a continuous source of revenue might be more appealing compared to a one time purchase. Especially with a product like TVs that usually have a pretty long lifetime before being replaced.
Although i would point out that (at least in our current society) privacy and an ad-free experience in many ways is treated as a luxury good. Persumably a TV with a better OS would be sold at a higher price, and confronted with this choice many consumers would likely choose the cheaper one.
Sounds like what Apple is trying to do...
Sadly wanting privacy is kind of a niche thing, not a large # of people buying iPhones to avoid surveillance. And most TV buyers DGAF... If a large # of them opted out of content recognition we'd still have dumb TVs on the market.
Unfortunately I think without some kind of regulation that makes personal info a liability / hot potato, it will still be treated as an asset to be collected:(
Yeah, although sadly Apple isn't quite the good guy either. I feel like in a way instead of ads they use their walled garden approach to achieve a similar result.
They'll make it really annoying or even impossible to use alternatives and mix things. This way they you are by design drawn to use their desired solutions.
Does make for a better user experience as long as you pay the price and play by their rules. And probably also better for privacy, because with the closed system approach they don't need the data as much to target you.
But imo still problematic and Apple doesn't want to just sell good Hardware, but also services.
Agreed, this is one of those problems where it is much easier to legislate from the top down, rather than trying to get each individual consumer to make fully conscious decisions.