Personally I think that remaining two-thirds comes down to need vs. cost for the most part. Trust has little to do with it.
Sadly, I tend to generally agreed with you on this, even though it's my personal biggest reason for having no interest whatsoever in internet-connected TV. And while you might think of it as need/cost analysis, frankly I just think most people flat out don't care and aren't paying attention to it at all. I'd be really surprised if 1/3 of US households really, truly have actively internet-connected TVs. As others have mentioned, just because the TV is capable of internet connectivity doesn't mean it's actually functioning that way.
That said, the fact that enough people here are expressing lack of trust and spyware/phoning home as their own reasons for not wanting this, well, that gives me hope. Hope that more people are indeed paying attention to this stuff. Folks, you need to spread the word so less-educated people understand.
On the downside, I should also point out to everyone that as soon as you made the change to digital cable, the cable companies are already able to monitor what you're watching. I held out for as long as possible, until they were literally disconnecting anyone still on analog. So now the quality is worse (compressing more data (stations) into the same bandwidth is never good), and there's the technical ability for surveillance.
The streaming devices that matter most to me get wired Ethernet. No reason to float Netflix/MLB.tv/ESPN3/Amazon Prime/Steam game content/etc. over the airwaves when the devices and TV are, for the most part, stationary. YMMV.
But the only -- and seriously annoying -- problem with that is, you cannot use your iPhone or iPad as a remote. You're stuck with the Apple remote.
I never understood why TV makers thought people would actively go out and buy a TV that had these kinds of capabilities, particularly given that set-top boxes, Apple TVs, PS3s and even your computer already give you all these services, and generally do them far better.
As for myself, having one more item of consumer electronics that has to be kept up-to-date, given that an Apple TV or a cheaper Chromecast will do the same job as well, if not better, and can be upgraded or replaced trivially.
I have already switched to leases on cars, given that they have become so integrated with consumer electronics that only their basic "drive from point A to point B" function is going to remain usefully functional in five or ten years. If the technological interaction between my car, its heads-up display, and its entertainment/navigation could be driven by a separate and replaceable device, I would have done that instead. On TVs, you lose nothing. No matter what, it is a dumb display either driven by internal, non-upgradable electronics, or by upgradable and replaceable electronics on the other end of an HDMI cable.
With more and more consumers cord cutting, determined to never, ever have any relationship again whatsoever with any of the robber baron inept predatory cable providers - looking' at you Comcast, one of the finest services Apple could perform for the U.S. is to step outside of its manufacturing device comfort box and just buy Comcast from GE/NBC Universal. Or begin anew with a provider service for the long term that works efficiently, doesn't jack up rates every 3 months and doesn't involve corrupt payoffs to politicians in order to remain a despised monopoly in most markets. The reality is that the internet is the new village square/national newspaper and has become essential to the flow of critical information, employment, and education. i.e., far too important to be left in the hands of the current imperious collection of sociopaths who seek to stand on the neck of customers, with a pistol aimed at their head. There needs to be bona fide regulation and standards in the IP and cable industry. All devices that involve internet connections will be hampered, as well innovation in the U.S., until the delivery model is fixed. The amazing array of workarounds to these current providers by what is a growing number of folk with no tech skills whatsoever - other than a stubborn determined to not be swindled and mistreated by cable industry corporations - ought be a clear sign that the industry crooks are treading water but have lost the war to retain even a moderately satisfied consumer base. That's one reason I've held off buying so-called Smart products and will continue to do so. In the meantime, we receive 40 digital OTA channels and with a jailbroken ATV, almost everything we used to get via cable until several years ago. Just as people no longer need incur the costs of a landline phone, the same can be said of cable tv and, for now, Smart TVs. The privacy and software issues further roil troubled waters.
So, are we saying there are only 42mil internet capable TVs that have been sold, or 42mil in use?
Between the office and home, I've personally purchased 4 such TV sets, and in 0 (zero) cases are they connected to the internet. The ones at the office are used only for meeting room displays, while one at home has an AppleTV, and the other connects only to an antenna.
What I'm saying is, depending upon how these stats are looked at, the field for AppleTV could be far bigger than at first blush.
Personally I think that remaining two-thirds comes down to need vs. cost for the most part. Trust has little to do with it.
I wouldn't call that trust as much as ignorance of the potential privacy issues. How many people who use Facebook and Google have read the terms and conditions before they created an account? How many web surfers use private browsing? How many delete tracking cookies, and understand what they do?. How Google ads and Facebook "Like button" widgets can track every site you visit which includes those? And how many people realize how hackable the cameras and microphones on Smart TVs are? Most people don't know enough to perceive the potential for abuse and/or the privacy issues it creates.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton I wouldn't call that trust as much as ignorance of the potential privacy issues. How many people who use Facebook and Google have read the terms and conditions before they created an account? How many web surfers use private browsing? How many delete tracking cookies, and understand what they do?. How Google ads and Facebook "Like button" widgets can track every site you visit which includes those? And how many people realize how hackable the cameras and microphones on Smart TVs are? Most people don't know enough to perceive the potential for abuse and/or the privacy issues it creates.
Great post.
I should point out though, that even deleting tracking cookies is almost pointless now, at least as far as the big guns are concerned. Google is considering whether to stop bothering to use cookies because they can already track people well enough without them. If they follow through with this it will (sadly) continue pushing this fake perception that Google is protecting people's privacy, when the reality is they are just using a standard magician's trick: misdirection.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/179702/npd-only-one-third-of-us-households-have-internet-connected-televisions#post_2534571" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Suddenly Newton</strong> <a href="/t/179702/npd-only-one-third-of-us-households-have-internet-connected-televisions#post_2534571"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a>
I wouldn't call that trust as much as ignorance of the potential privacy issues. How many people who use Facebook and Google have read the terms and conditions before they created an account? How many web surfers use private browsing? How many delete tracking cookies, and understand what they do?. How Google ads and Facebook "Like button" widgets can track every site you visit which includes those? And how many people realize how hackable the cameras and microphones on Smart TVs are? Most people don't know enough to perceive the potential for abuse and/or the privacy issues it creates.</div></div>
Great post.
I should point out though, that even deleting tracking cookies is almost pointless now, at least as far as the big guns are concerned. Google is considering whether to stop bothering to use cookies because they can already track people well enough without them. If they follow through with this it will (sadly) continue pushing this <i>fake</i> perception that Google is protecting people's privacy, when the reality is they are just using a standard magician's trick: misdirection.
Lots of companies, blog sites and advertisers are pushing cookies aside in favor of web beacons, web bugs, pixel tags and other tracking tech. Even Apple, generally considered as privacy-friendly, mentions in the Privacy Policy they are using several of these, Cookies are old school which is why it's popular for websites to say "we don't use 'em". They don't need to.
Some of the most invasive and impossible to avoid tracking is provided by companies like Kissmetrics. If you're not familiar with them you should be.Highly identifiable data collection and sharing. Quantcast (used by AI I believe) is yet another, made famous by their zombie cookies (Flash cookies) that raised themselves from the dead. Want more? How about AddThis, flying under the radar while fine-tracking 1.5B uniquely identified social site members as they search and wander across the net, without using cookies.
So who needs to rely on old tech cookies anymore? Like you've mentioned it's false comfort if you think blocking them makes much of a difference...
and will knowing any of this change the way most users interact with the sites they visit like CNET, Yahoo, Hulu, Netflix or even AI? Almost certainly not IMHO.
That's a good warning, I wish more people were paying attention.
I'm well aware of these (and other) vile companies, and I use multi-layered precautions, including hand-tuned hosts files. If you don't allow your computer(s) to talk with tracking domains then you greatly restrict their ability to track you. It's more effort than most people are likely willing to expend, and pages often render without proper formatting (and no/few ads, which is a plus!), but personally I feel it's worth it.
Comments
Personally I think that remaining two-thirds comes down to need vs. cost for the most part. Trust has little to do with it.
Sadly, I tend to generally agreed with you on this, even though it's my personal biggest reason for having no interest whatsoever in internet-connected TV. And while you might think of it as need/cost analysis, frankly I just think most people flat out don't care and aren't paying attention to it at all. I'd be really surprised if 1/3 of US households really, truly have actively internet-connected TVs. As others have mentioned, just because the TV is capable of internet connectivity doesn't mean it's actually functioning that way.
That said, the fact that enough people here are expressing lack of trust and spyware/phoning home as their own reasons for not wanting this, well, that gives me hope. Hope that more people are indeed paying attention to this stuff. Folks, you need to spread the word so less-educated people understand.
On the downside, I should also point out to everyone that as soon as you made the change to digital cable, the cable companies are already able to monitor what you're watching. I held out for as long as possible, until they were literally disconnecting anyone still on analog. So now the quality is worse (compressing more data (stations) into the same bandwidth is never good), and there's the technical ability for surveillance.
Why is anyone okay with this?
The streaming devices that matter most to me get wired Ethernet. No reason to float Netflix/MLB.tv/ESPN3/Amazon Prime/Steam game content/etc. over the airwaves when the devices and TV are, for the most part, stationary. YMMV.
But the only -- and seriously annoying -- problem with that is, you cannot use your iPhone or iPad as a remote. You're stuck with the Apple remote.
As for myself, having one more item of consumer electronics that has to be kept up-to-date, given that an Apple TV or a cheaper Chromecast will do the same job as well, if not better, and can be upgraded or replaced trivially.
I have already switched to leases on cars, given that they have become so integrated with consumer electronics that only their basic "drive from point A to point B" function is going to remain usefully functional in five or ten years. If the technological interaction between my car, its heads-up display, and its entertainment/navigation could be driven by a separate and replaceable device, I would have done that instead. On TVs, you lose nothing. No matter what, it is a dumb display either driven by internal, non-upgradable electronics, or by upgradable and replaceable electronics on the other end of an HDMI cable.
With more and more consumers cord cutting, determined to never, ever have any relationship again whatsoever with any of the robber baron inept predatory cable providers - looking' at you Comcast, one of the finest services Apple could perform for the U.S. is to step outside of its manufacturing device comfort box and just buy Comcast from GE/NBC Universal. Or begin anew with a provider service for the long term that works efficiently, doesn't jack up rates every 3 months and doesn't involve corrupt payoffs to politicians in order to remain a despised monopoly in most markets. The reality is that the internet is the new village square/national newspaper and has become essential to the flow of critical information, employment, and education. i.e., far too important to be left in the hands of the current imperious collection of sociopaths who seek to stand on the neck of customers, with a pistol aimed at their head. There needs to be bona fide regulation and standards in the IP and cable industry. All devices that involve internet connections will be hampered, as well innovation in the U.S., until the delivery model is fixed. The amazing array of workarounds to these current providers by what is a growing number of folk with no tech skills whatsoever - other than a stubborn determined to not be swindled and mistreated by cable industry corporations - ought be a clear sign that the industry crooks are treading water but have lost the war to retain even a moderately satisfied consumer base. That's one reason I've held off buying so-called Smart products and will continue to do so. In the meantime, we receive 40 digital OTA channels and with a jailbroken ATV, almost everything we used to get via cable until several years ago. Just as people no longer need incur the costs of a landline phone, the same can be said of cable tv and, for now, Smart TVs. The privacy and software issues further roil troubled waters.
He could probably achieve what he wanted for less than $200, with just two bridged Airport Express devices.
But the only -- and seriously annoying -- problem with that is, you cannot use your iPhone or iPad as a remote. You're stuck with the Apple remote.
An AppleTV can be controlled by just about any IR remote, so you're not stuck with the Apple remote:
Apple TV: Using a third-party remote control
Also, there's at least one remote that has an iOS app for controlling all the devices it handles, via your (local) wireless network:
Logitech Harmony Smart Control
So, are we saying there are only 42mil internet capable TVs that have been sold, or 42mil in use?
Between the office and home, I've personally purchased 4 such TV sets, and in 0 (zero) cases are they connected to the internet. The ones at the office are used only for meeting room displays, while one at home has an AppleTV, and the other connects only to an antenna.
What I'm saying is, depending upon how these stats are looked at, the field for AppleTV could be far bigger than at first blush.
I wouldn't call that trust as much as ignorance of the potential privacy issues. How many people who use Facebook and Google have read the terms and conditions before they created an account? How many web surfers use private browsing? How many delete tracking cookies, and understand what they do?. How Google ads and Facebook "Like button" widgets can track every site you visit which includes those? And how many people realize how hackable the cameras and microphones on Smart TVs are? Most people don't know enough to perceive the potential for abuse and/or the privacy issues it creates.
Interesting that the concerns highlighted look like an ATV+Airport+Modem would be the path for AppleTV. Highly feasible.
I wouldn't call that trust as much as ignorance of the potential privacy issues. How many people who use Facebook and Google have read the terms and conditions before they created an account? How many web surfers use private browsing? How many delete tracking cookies, and understand what they do?. How Google ads and Facebook "Like button" widgets can track every site you visit which includes those? And how many people realize how hackable the cameras and microphones on Smart TVs are? Most people don't know enough to perceive the potential for abuse and/or the privacy issues it creates.
Great post.
I should point out though, that even deleting tracking cookies is almost pointless now, at least as far as the big guns are concerned. Google is considering whether to stop bothering to use cookies because they can already track people well enough without them. If they follow through with this it will (sadly) continue pushing this fake perception that Google is protecting people's privacy, when the reality is they are just using a standard magician's trick: misdirection.
Lots of companies, blog sites and advertisers are pushing cookies aside in favor of web beacons, web bugs, pixel tags and other tracking tech. Even Apple, generally considered as privacy-friendly, mentions in the Privacy Policy they are using several of these, Cookies are old school which is why it's popular for websites to say "we don't use 'em". They don't need to.
Some of the most invasive and impossible to avoid tracking is provided by companies like Kissmetrics. If you're not familiar with them you should be.Highly identifiable data collection and sharing. Quantcast (used by AI I believe) is yet another, made famous by their zombie cookies (Flash cookies) that raised themselves from the dead. Want more? How about AddThis, flying under the radar while fine-tracking 1.5B uniquely identified social site members as they search and wander across the net, without using cookies.
https://www.kissmetrics.com/features
http://www.wired.com/2010/07/zombie-cookies-lawsuit/
http://www.addthis.com/technology
So who needs to rely on old tech cookies anymore? Like you've mentioned it's false comfort if you think blocking them makes much of a difference...
and will knowing any of this change the way most users interact with the sites they visit like CNET, Yahoo, Hulu, Netflix or even AI? Almost certainly not IMHO.
I'm well aware of these (and other) vile companies, and I use multi-layered precautions, including hand-tuned hosts files. If you don't allow your computer(s) to talk with tracking domains then you greatly restrict their ability to track you. It's more effort than most people are likely willing to expend, and pages often render without proper formatting (and no/few ads, which is a plus!), but personally I feel it's worth it.