DAalseth said: "I sure hope they don't get really pushy with the ads."
Don't you understand? YOU are the ad. Roku makes money off of you. What if someone wanted to punish you for viewing a lot of content on CNN? The government can now identify you and come after you. It's what gun-rights advocates feared so much about gun registration. With Roku, you're now registered as a certain type of person, based on your viewing habits.
There is not enough tinfoil in Publix to cover your worries.
I just read a report about insurance companies buying consumer data to 'adjust' rates. No, unfortunately, I don't think it's a tinfoil argument. The big probem with all of this is the insidious nature of it. companies are collecting huge amounts of data in ways we don't expect, in volumes we don't expect, and are able to refine it in ways we don't expect, so suddenly, the privacy we expect no longer exists.
People worry about greykey being able to hack an iPhone, but I worry a lot more about google, facebook, etc.
I worry less about Google and Facebook and more about Experian and Acxiom and TransUnion, and the back-door agreements my financial services like bank/investment house and credit card provider have made with hundreds of smaller data aggregators which leaves so many potential attack vectors for stealing identifiable personal information that directly impacts my finances. No ad put in front of me is going to cost me a potential client, get me denied for an equipment loan, affect my margin rate, or allow theft from my accounts.
Roku may or may not be inserting ads in your stream, but that’s not what the CEO said. What he said was that they are harvesting data about you without your permission or knowledge
Where and when did he say that?
For those using Roku but not wanting any Roku-delivered ads based on your viewing simply checkbox "Limit Ad Tracking" in privacy settings (your iPhone has a similar setting). At the same time, or instead if you wish, reset your Advertising Identifier. If you have a SmartTV with Roku built-in then under those same privacy settings also turn off the Smart TV Experience (if you enabled it during setup).
Only in the universe of a google shill would one suggest that it is obvious to normals that disabling the “Smart TV Experience” means “stop harvesting my data to sell as a monetized ad commodity”. To everyone else it is clear this is designed to hide what they’re doing from non-techie normals.
I guess you can lump into the Google shill category since I think it should be obvious to all that are buying internet-connected TVs that they will be harvesting some sort of data. Whether they abide by them or not they do have legal statements you need to accept to when setting up the TV. But even then, just having any device connected to the internet should give all consumers pause to evaluate the pros and cons of an internet connected TV. If has a microphones… more pause. If it has a camera… even more pause. This isn't about Smart TVs and media appliances. The same can be said for your Fitbit, smart thermostat, digital scale, air purifier, doorbell, and anything else you have connected to the internet. Even the best of them, like Apple, are still collecting data on users to figure out how to better serve users so they can better monetize users.
Yes, in logical discussion over a point of contention
So totally irrelevant to real-world events and consequences, got it. You keep hounding on this point as though your life depends on it. Why is that? You’re already proven wrong.
Take a university logic course, you’ll enjoy it and thank me later. You’ll still be free to assert whatever you want, but at least you’ll know when you’re using a fallacious argument.
Still not an argument. How about you just shut the fuck up at this point? You’re clearly trying to cover up for something horrifying, otherwise you wouldn’t bother to reply every time you see this factual statement of mine. The slippery slope is not a fallacy in day to day operation. Period. The world isn’t a sanitized thought experiment with an infinite, flat plane over which gravity is uniformly distributed, on which rests a spherical chicken. If I leave a barn door open, wild animals will go inside. “WAAAAAAAA YOU CAN’T SAY THAT BECAUSE ANIMALS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DOORS WAAAAAAAAA” is your response. You’re either totally nuts or purposely ignorant.
Yes, in logical discussion over a point of contention
So totally irrelevant to real-world events and consequences, got it. You keep hounding on this point as though your life depends on it. Why is that? You’re already proven wrong.
Take a university logic course, you’ll enjoy it and thank me later. You’ll still be free to assert whatever you want, but at least you’ll know when you’re using a fallacious argument.
Still not an argument. How about you just shut the fuck up at this point? You’re clearly trying to cover up for something horrifying, otherwise you wouldn’t bother to reply every time you see this factual statement of mine. The slippery slope is not a fallacy in day to day operation. Period. The world isn’t a sanitized thought experiment with an infinite, flat plane over which gravity is uniformly distributed, on which rests a spherical chicken. If I leave a barn door open, wild animals will go inside. “WAAAAAAAA YOU CAN’T SAY THAT BECAUSE ANIMALS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DOORS WAAAAAAAAA” is your response. You’re either totally nuts or purposely ignorant.
Huh?! His comment made perfect sense, but yours seems crazy. Perhaps you should take your own advice at this point.
Good argument for reading a book, maybe go outside and enjoy nature and leave all of this stuff behind.
Where are you getting this book? Library? You need to sign up and your reading habits are recorded. Buy one? You better bring cash, but even then there are cameras so someone could potentially find out what book you've purchased. I'd stick with books from garage sales and used books stores.
Going for a walk? Don't bring your smartphone if you do because you'll be tracked that way the entire time.
My god man, don't you own a book you haven't read or need to re-read?
Yes leave your damned phone home. Just don't go too far in case your worried you need to call someone.
Roku may or may not be inserting ads in your stream, but that’s not what the CEO said. What he said was that they are harvesting data about you without your permission or knowledge
Where and when did he say that?
For those using Roku but not wanting any Roku-delivered ads based on your viewing simply checkbox "Limit Ad Tracking" in privacy settings (your iPhone has a similar setting). At the same time, or instead if you wish, reset your Advertising Identifier. If you have a SmartTV with Roku built-in then under those same privacy settings also turn off the Smart TV Experience (if you enabled it during setup).
Only in the universe of a google shill would one suggest that it is obvious to normals that disabling the “Smart TV Experience” means “stop harvesting my data to sell as a monetized ad commodity”. To everyone else it is clear this is designed to hide what they’re doing from non-techie normals.
Good thing I mentioned it then, huh. I guarantee you had no idea what it was (and likely still don't), and even most Roku TV users have no idea about it.
BTW for those Roku owners here disabling it you will lose "More Ways to Watch", but Roku will no longer be logging your OTA viewing. The setting has zero effect on cable or streaming content so unless you have an antenna too it matters not if it check-boxed.
DAalseth said: "I sure hope they don't get really pushy with the ads."
Don't you understand? YOU are the ad. Roku makes money off of you. What if someone wanted to punish you for viewing a lot of content on CNN? The government can now identify you and come after you. It's what gun-rights advocates feared so much about gun registration. With Roku, you're now registered as a certain type of person, based on your viewing habits.
There is not enough tinfoil in Publix to cover your worries.
I just read a report about insurance companies buying consumer data to 'adjust' rates. No, unfortunately, I don't think it's a tinfoil argument. The big probem with all of this is the insidious nature of it. companies are collecting huge amounts of data in ways we don't expect, in volumes we don't expect, and are able to refine it in ways we don't expect, so suddenly, the privacy we expect no longer exists.
People worry about greykey being able to hack an iPhone, but I worry a lot more about google, facebook, etc.
I worry less about Google and Facebook and more about Experian and Acxiom and TransUnion, and the back-door agreements my financial services like bank/investment house and credit card provider have made with hundreds of smaller data aggregators which leaves so many potential attack vectors for stealing identifiable personal information that directly impacts my finances. No ad put in front of me is going to cost me a potential client, get me denied for an equipment loan, affect my margin rate, or allow theft from my accounts.
Sweet piece of whataboutism. Guess we’ll just let google and facebook off the hook then, since there are other worries in the world.
Errrnnnt!
Sorry sir but the plainly obvious sweet piece of whataboutism is you and others doing the "what about Google" shuffle in a thread about Roku. Double Errrnnt!
Good argument for reading a book, maybe go outside and enjoy nature and leave all of this stuff behind.
Where are you getting this book? Library? You need to sign up and your reading habits are recorded. Buy one? You better bring cash, but even then there are cameras so someone could potentially find out what book you've purchased. I'd stick with books from garage sales and used books stores.
Going for a walk? Don't bring your smartphone if you do because you'll be tracked that way the entire time.
My god man, don't you own a book you haven't read or need to re-read?
Yes leave your damned phone home. Just don't go too far in case your worried you need to call someone.
How does reading a book I presumably bought but haven't read or re-reading a book I bought or checked out of a library, or going on 'a' walk without my iPhone or Watch increase my privacy? Or, more importantly, positively affect my life from this false notion of increased privacy?
Personally, the further away from society I remove myself the more likely I am to make sure there is a reasonable connection to the inside world. Spending a week at a state park where there is still a cell phone access for most of the park I'll be hiking (like Yosemite Valley) then a cellphone is fine, but you take me into other areas where there's no cell phone towers or people for countless miles in any direction and I'll have a sat phone on me. Maybe Aron Ralston wouldn't have had a signal out of the canyon if he had a emergency satellite beacon with him, but I'd still rather have that as an option before I decide to cut off my arm.
I have Roku someone gave me, I use it to watch Netflix and to stream content from my media NAS, and some times watch TED talks on it. Beyond this it is kind of pain to use, and the person you thought having headphone jack in the remote, really needs to rethink this. Yeah good for playing games in bed while your significant other is asleep next to you. Beyond this why do you need this feature.
Recently I keep getting emails from Roku pleading with me to update my credit card information. First I never gave them my card and why do they need it if they are selling my information to other companies.
As few others pointed out these companies can not target advertise me, since so many people in my house uses our services. Netflix is so confuse since 4 people use the account and we all watch different things, it's funny to look at the suggested shows to watch. Netflix has no clue who is watching, even with individual users accounts we are all lazy and just use the main account.
What are the adverts for on the Roku? Are they TV shows or just general product adverts? I like the Apple TV because there are no ads for any products and the amazon and Netflix apps only show ads for their own programming. Having adverts for anything else would be unacceptable.
You’d think someone would buy Roku (the company)...
Roku gets good reviews, and I’ve heard it’s a superior device.
I wonder what Disney + Roku would look like... Disney has tons of content, and old content that they could throw in for free; while monetizing new movies and shows. They also has ESPN, which they have not transitioned very well to the digital age.
Superior to what? The crappy android tv streamers? It's not a great device and is just another "me too" device following Apple's lead.
I'll admit, even with Fire Sticks and an Apple TV, our 4 y/o Roku is still our go-to device. Simple to navigate, easy to search, great little remote (even though I use a Harmony more often), and the ability to connect headphones to the remote is pure genius.
I am more than happy to be a product so they can be profitable. Any advertising they do on the system isn't intrusive at all.
Not even close. I had to deal with a Roku while house sitting and you'd have to pay ME to use it. I'm used to the futuristic Apple TV Siri Remote and its simplicity so searching on Roku was a PAIN. It would take me about 45 seconds with latency and clicking buttons just to move over a letter where it would take me maybe 5 seconds using voice on Siri or 15 seconds swiping. Roku was such a pain I stopped using search.
Also so many ADS.
This is really interesting, because I've never seen a single ad on my Roku TV. I use it mainly to see my DirecTV STB, YouTube, and Plex. I don't have a recent Apple TV, but it certainly is head and shoulders above my 2nd Gen ATV. My ATV was my first Apple product, and while I continue to use iPhones, iPads, Apple Watch, and Macs, I don't feel the slightest urge to ever buy another one while this option is still available.
ATV 4th gen can is head and shoulders above the Roku player and the older 2nd gen ATV you mention. It also works very nicely with the other Apple products that you have. This of course is just my opinion.
What are the adverts for on the Roku? Are they TV shows or just general product adverts? I like the Apple TV because there are no ads for any products and the amazon and Netflix apps only show ads for their own programming. Having adverts for anything else would be unacceptable.there's
Fandango has been one static ad on my homescreen (I think) and there's some promoting other channels and PPV movies on the main menu sidebar. Very unobtrusive which is why several posters in the thread said they've never seen ads on Roku. They probably haven't. In general the only traditional video ads coming from Roku are on the Roku Channel where they have their own free content paid for by ads. I've seldom watched that one anyway, more leaning on Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, Sling, and a couple of specific interest channels found on the platform for which there's hundreds. I like that there's also a segment for 4K content.
Anyway Roku isn't rolling ads outside of the home-screen/sidebar or Roku Channel AFAICT. When streaming it's pretty much the same as watching via Apple TV. Roku isn't throwing more ads into the mix tho obviously it has access to more content than AppleTV since the Roku folks are pretty agnostic about what they'll allow. https://channelstore.roku.com/browse ;
Quite obviously those complaining about ads on Roku never used Roku to realize what ads there are.
So to answer your question more directly you'll see no more traditional TV-type ads on Roku than you would on AppleTV. As a rule any rolling ads, the type we think of when discussing TV, are coming from the channel supplier same as with Apple but with Roku adding a few static ads only on main menu pages. IMHO the #1 reason to choose AppleTV is being able to stream your purchased iTunes content. The ad stuff is not one, again IMO.
I personally think the intent of the author was to make Roku sound dangerous and intrusive in order to promote AppleTV which is a perfectly valid reason considering this is an Apple centric site even if other platforms and products are frequently discussed. I'd sooner that no fan writers tried to make competing stuff sound far more onerous than it is (we often complain about FUD but determining what is and what isn't seems to be in the eye of the beholder), but that does draw in readers, some looking for validation and others just appreciating the education and/or finding more reason to stay with the products they already enjoy.
DAalseth said: "I sure hope they don't get really pushy with the ads."
Don't you understand? YOU are the ad. Roku makes money off of you. What if someone wanted to punish you for viewing a lot of content on CNN? The government can now identify you and come after you. It's what gun-rights advocates feared so much about gun registration. With Roku, you're now registered as a certain type of person, based on your viewing habits.
There is a bit of paranoia in this comment and a bit of truth.
Anyone doing careful analysis of my viewing habits would put me in the "Everything is Awesome" (Lego Movie reference) category since my kids steal my phone all the time to watch stuff.
You don't understand the threat, which is what they hope continues. The data they are assembling on you isn't discrete bits of data; it's the amalgamation of all of the data, Google is most powerful at this point, into a single dossier on you. Thus, they don't just know what shows you watch, they link that to every other data that is connected to your "smart" TV and then to where you drive, your photos, your emails, your web searches, your posts, what you buy, etc. Like the story of boiling a frog, giving up more and more privacy, you are slowly being cooked and won't realize it until its too late.
DAalseth said: "I sure hope they don't get really pushy with the ads."
Don't you understand? YOU are the ad. Roku makes money off of you. What if someone wanted to punish you for viewing a lot of content on CNN? The government can now identify you and come after you. It's what gun-rights advocates feared so much about gun registration. With Roku, you're now registered as a certain type of person, based on your viewing habits.
There is a bit of paranoia in this comment and a bit of truth.
Anyone doing careful analysis of my viewing habits would put me in the "Everything is Awesome" (Lego Movie reference) category since my kids steal my phone all the time to watch stuff.
You don't understand the threat, which is what they hope continues. The data they are assembling on you isn't discrete bits of data; it's the amalgamation of all of the data, Google is most powerful at this point, into a single dossier on you. Thus, they don't just know what shows you watch, they link that to every other data that is connected to your "smart" TV and then to where you drive, your photos, your emails, your web searches, your posts, what you buy, etc. Like the story of boiling a frog, giving up more and more privacy, you are slowly being cooked and won't realize it until its too late.
You do understand the threat. You just don't understand where it lives and how it eats. Don't buy into the FUD. Google ain't selling 'ya, not even making "you" and your data available to anyone else unless request it or under legal orders to do so (like Apple is).
While you're watching Google and thinking you've got it nailed the real beast is getting ever larger in the shadow of them. Serving up ads is the least of your privacy worries. Want a taste of what I'm talking about? Take a gander at FamilyTreeNow.com, an innocuous-sounding free genealogy site. Type in your name and then pay particular attention to the "living people" segment. None of those connections to you came from Google. If you find that at all unsettling then pay a visit here and start scrubbing, 'cause there's far more dangerous and intrusive companies out there putting together dossiers for sale or view by anyone who wishes. : http://www.crashoverridenetwork.com/preventingdoxing.html
Sadly it only deals with the ones you can actually do something about. There's dozens of massive data-aggregation entities that you have little or no ability to control, from Verisk and Oracle Insurance Data to MX, Kontomatik, Quovo. to name only a few. That you've not heard of any of them is a credit to their ability to fly under the radar while you're watching an ad placement company .
Google is far from the top dog. Unlike everyone I listed above they don't "sell you". They sell ads. Now you might worry about Google simply possessing so much data to more accurately target those ads, and for that you have a valid concern. Worry about Google selling it is not one of them. All the huge techs have massive collections of our data that they have accepted the task of protecting, and we all hope they do. In the meantime let your eyes wander away from them and look at the forest rather than two or three trees.
DAalseth said: "I sure hope they don't get really pushy with the ads."
Don't you understand? YOU are the ad. Roku makes money off of you. What if someone wanted to punish you for viewing a lot of content on CNN? The government can now identify you and come after you. It's what gun-rights advocates feared so much about gun registration. With Roku, you're now registered as a certain type of person, based on your viewing habits.
There is a bit of paranoia in this comment and a bit of truth.
Anyone doing careful analysis of my viewing habits would put me in the "Everything is Awesome" (Lego Movie reference) category since my kids steal my phone all the time to watch stuff.
You don't understand the threat, which is what they hope continues. The data they are assembling on you isn't discrete bits of data; it's the amalgamation of all of the data, Google is most powerful at this point, into a single dossier on you. Thus, they don't just know what shows you watch, they link that to every other data that is connected to your "smart" TV and then to where you drive, your photos, your emails, your web searches, your posts, what you buy, etc. Like the story of boiling a frog, giving up more and more privacy, you are slowly being cooked and won't realize it until its too late.
You do understand the threat. You just don't understand where it lives and how it eats. Don't buy into the FUD. Google ain't selling 'ya, not even making "you" and your data available to anyone else unless request it or under legal orders to do so (like Apple is).
While you're watching Google and thinking you've got it nailed the real beast is getting ever larger in the shadow of them. Serving up ads is the least of your privacy worries. Want a taste of what I'm talking about? Take a gander at FamilyTreeNow.com, an innocuous-sounding free genealogy site. Type in your name and then pay particular attention to the "living people" segment. None of those connections to you came from Google. If you find that at all unsettling then pay a visit here and start scrubbing, 'cause there's far more dangerous and intrusive companies out there putting together dossiers for sale or view by anyone who wishes. : http://www.crashoverridenetwork.com/preventingdoxing.html
I've studied it in depth and the mistake you are making is again the amalgamation of data into dossiers. Of course Google isn't reselling that data, as then it would lose it''s value. They currently sell access to the dossiers. Google would like to have a dossier on every person in the world. Hyperbole? No, it is their business model. Advertisers, and they currently make well over 90% of their income from advertisers, pay more the more targeted/granular the audience. Google's advantage is that they assign what they call "universal identifier" numbers to what they believe to be individuals. They then try to link every possible piece of information to that identifier. Thus, every email sent or received is scanned and linked, every photo sent or received, every thing ever said in front of the Google Assistant, everywhere you've ever driven, every web search, every document uploaded, alll your contacts, web sites visited, etc. No one has their resources, but those virtual dossiers are available not only to Google (and per their terms of service, can be sold to successor companies) but to governments via subpoena, hackers, intel agencies, and governments. If you can't imagine the potential abuses and harms that can result from Google amassing this information into a virtual dossier you are exactly what Google hopes for.
Of course others are trying to collect as much info on you as possible, it's just that no one comes close to Google's resources and access to data--they masterfully made all their services "free" to get people to voluntarily give them every private detail of their lives. They count on people like you telling people that your data is everywhere so give up, when 1-800 Flowers knowing I sent flowers to person X for Easter is very different than Google having that data and amassing under a universal identifier with every other detail of my life.
DAalseth said: "I sure hope they don't get really pushy with the ads."
Don't you understand? YOU are the ad. Roku makes money off of you. What if someone wanted to punish you for viewing a lot of content on CNN? The government can now identify you and come after you. It's what gun-rights advocates feared so much about gun registration. With Roku, you're now registered as a certain type of person, based on your viewing habits.
There is a bit of paranoia in this comment and a bit of truth.
Anyone doing careful analysis of my viewing habits would put me in the "Everything is Awesome" (Lego Movie reference) category since my kids steal my phone all the time to watch stuff.
You don't understand the threat, which is what they hope continues. The data they are assembling on you isn't discrete bits of data; it's the amalgamation of all of the data, Google is most powerful at this point, into a single dossier on you. Thus, they don't just know what shows you watch, they link that to every other data that is connected to your "smart" TV and then to where you drive, your photos, your emails, your web searches, your posts, what you buy, etc. Like the story of boiling a frog, giving up more and more privacy, you are slowly being cooked and won't realize it until its too late.
You do understand the threat. You just don't understand where it lives and how it eats. Don't buy into the FUD. Google ain't selling 'ya, not even making "you" and your data available to anyone else unless request it or under legal orders to do so (like Apple is).
While you're watching Google and thinking you've got it nailed the real beast is getting ever larger in the shadow of them. Serving up ads is the least of your privacy worries. Want a taste of what I'm talking about? Take a gander at FamilyTreeNow.com, an innocuous-sounding free genealogy site. Type in your name and then pay particular attention to the "living people" segment. None of those connections to you came from Google. If you find that at all unsettling then pay a visit here and start scrubbing, 'cause there's far more dangerous and intrusive companies out there putting together dossiers for sale or view by anyone who wishes. : http://www.crashoverridenetwork.com/preventingdoxing.html
I've studied it in depth and the mistake you are making is again the amalgamation of data into dossiers...
...and you might truly think you HAVE "studied it in depth". Based on your reply I suggest you haven't studied it nearly enough. Follow a few of the links from my edit grasshopper.
...and you might truly think you HAVE "studied it in depth". Based on your reply I suggest you haven't studied it nearly enough. Follow a few of the links from my edit grasshopper.
You're not getting it. It isn't that there aren't others harvesting data, such as credit reporting agencies. That's not some deep secret as you suggest. Those companies don't draw much attention because they don't have don't have consumer facing businesses. But those companies are well known and that data is repackaged and access to those databases is given to the government, law enforcement, intel groups, and many in the private sector such as insurance companies, investigators, etc.
What you don't seem to understand is that not one of them has access to the all data that Google has collected Tell us who has the contents of every email sent and received, everywhere you go, who you visit, every photo taken or received, everything said in front of a smart speaker, everywhere you've ever visited on the web, all of your contacts, what you post, what you watch, read and listen to, what you search for, etc? Of course, no one but Google. And something else you should read up on is your TOS. Google has the right to sell all of that data to any successor companies or give access to any of it's corporate entities.
Google ain't selling 'ya, not even making "you" and your data available to anyone else unless request it or under legal orders to do so (like Apple is). Google is far from the top dog. Unlike everyone I listed above they don't "sell you". They sell ads. Worry about Google selling it is not one of them.
Summary:What if we stop treating you like a human being and start treating you as only the sum total of the data that comprises you? What if, when we’re missing parts of this data, we use computers to suggest that you buy things from us that will help us complete this data? What if, when you don’t like anything we offer you that exists, we use what data we DO have on you to create something entirely new, designed for the express and sole purpose of psychologically manipulating you–and you alone–to purchase it so that we may get that missing data? What if, once we have enough of those data holes filled, we continue to psychologically manipulate you so that your social, political, and economic behavior itself is modified in a way that we desire?
And this is from 2016, which means they started doing this at least 5 years before the pretty video presentation was made. There aren’t words to describe this. They don’t exist. Perfidy isn’t sufficient. Neither is treason, since they’re doing it to everyone.
And isn’t it funny that DARPA shut down their LifeLog protocol (where the sum total of a person’s beliefs, possessions, places visited, thoughts, associations, affiliations, and everything else was aggregated) at the same time that FaceBook was founded? But that’s a topic for another thread. Sort of. You ARE FaceBook’s product, after all.
Comments
Errrnnnt!
Still not an argument. How about you just shut the fuck up at this point? You’re clearly trying to cover up for something horrifying, otherwise you wouldn’t bother to reply every time you see this factual statement of mine. The slippery slope is not a fallacy in day to day operation. Period. The world isn’t a sanitized thought experiment with an infinite, flat plane over which gravity is uniformly distributed, on which rests a spherical chicken. If I leave a barn door open, wild animals will go inside. “WAAAAAAAA YOU CAN’T SAY THAT BECAUSE ANIMALS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DOORS WAAAAAAAAA” is your response. You’re either totally nuts or purposely ignorant.
Off Topic: I withdraw the comment.
Yes leave your damned phone home. Just don't go too far in case your worried you need to call someone.
BTW for those Roku owners here disabling it you will lose "More Ways to Watch", but Roku will no longer be logging your OTA viewing. The setting has zero effect on cable or streaming content so unless you have an antenna too it matters not if it check-boxed.
Personally, the further away from society I remove myself the more likely I am to make sure there is a reasonable connection to the inside world. Spending a week at a state park where there is still a cell phone access for most of the park I'll be hiking (like Yosemite Valley) then a cellphone is fine, but you take me into other areas where there's no cell phone towers or people for countless miles in any direction and I'll have a sat phone on me. Maybe Aron Ralston wouldn't have had a signal out of the canyon if he had a emergency satellite beacon with him, but I'd still rather have that as an option before I decide to cut off my arm.
Recently I keep getting emails from Roku pleading with me to update my credit card information. First I never gave them my card and why do they need it if they are selling my information to other companies.
As few others pointed out these companies can not target advertise me, since so many people in my house uses our services. Netflix is so confuse since 4 people use the account and we all watch different things, it's funny to look at the suggested shows to watch. Netflix has no clue who is watching, even with individual users accounts we are all lazy and just use the main account.
Anyway Roku isn't rolling ads outside of the home-screen/sidebar or Roku Channel AFAICT. When streaming it's pretty much the same as watching via Apple TV. Roku isn't throwing more ads into the mix tho obviously it has access to more content than AppleTV since the Roku folks are pretty agnostic about what they'll allow.
https://channelstore.roku.com/browse ;
Quite obviously those complaining about ads on Roku never used Roku to realize what ads there are.
So to answer your question more directly you'll see no more traditional TV-type ads on Roku than you would on AppleTV. As a rule any rolling ads, the type we think of when discussing TV, are coming from the channel supplier same as with Apple but with Roku adding a few static ads only on main menu pages. IMHO the #1 reason to choose AppleTV is being able to stream your purchased iTunes content. The ad stuff is not one, again IMO.
I personally think the intent of the author was to make Roku sound dangerous and intrusive in order to promote AppleTV which is a perfectly valid reason considering this is an Apple centric site even if other platforms and products are frequently discussed. I'd sooner that no fan writers tried to make competing stuff sound far more onerous than it is (we often complain about FUD but determining what is and what isn't seems to be in the eye of the beholder), but that does draw in readers, some looking for validation and others just appreciating the education and/or finding more reason to stay with the products they already enjoy.
While you're watching Google and thinking you've got it nailed the real beast is getting ever larger in the shadow of them. Serving up ads is the least of your privacy worries. Want a taste of what I'm talking about? Take a gander at FamilyTreeNow.com, an innocuous-sounding free genealogy site. Type in your name and then pay particular attention to the "living people" segment. None of those connections to you came from Google. If you find that at all unsettling then pay a visit here and start scrubbing, 'cause there's far more dangerous and intrusive companies out there putting together dossiers for sale or view by anyone who wishes. :
http://www.crashoverridenetwork.com/preventingdoxing.html
Sadly it only deals with the ones you can actually do something about. There's dozens of massive data-aggregation entities that you have little or no ability to control, from Verisk and Oracle Insurance Data to MX, Kontomatik, Quovo. to name only a few. That you've not heard of any of them is a credit to their ability to fly under the radar while you're watching an ad placement company .
https://www.verisk.com/insurance/capabilities/actuarial/data-and-statistical-services/
https://www.oracle.com/industries/financial-services/insurance/products/data-exchange/index.html
https://data.mx.com/products/aggregation
https://developer.kontomatik.com/
https://www.quovo.com/
And all that ignores the massive databases maintained by the big three credit bureaus who deal in more than just a list of your credit obligations and it's all for sale. Here's a sample of what one of them offers, and it's not close to everything that have available for sale.
https://www.experian.com/marketing-services/targeting/data-driven-marketing/consumer-view-data.html
Google is far from the top dog. Unlike everyone I listed above they don't "sell you". They sell ads. Now you might worry about Google simply possessing so much data to more accurately target those ads, and for that you have a valid concern. Worry about Google selling it is not one of them.
All the huge techs have massive collections of our data that they have accepted the task of protecting, and we all hope they do. In the meantime let your eyes wander away from them and look at the forest rather than two or three trees.
Of course others are trying to collect as much info on you as possible, it's just that no one comes close to Google's resources and access to data--they masterfully made all their services "free" to get people to voluntarily give them every private detail of their lives. They count on people like you telling people that your data is everywhere so give up, when 1-800 Flowers knowing I sent flowers to person X for Easter is very different than Google having that data and amassing under a universal identifier with every other detail of my life.
What you don't seem to understand is that not one of them has access to the all data that Google has collected Tell us who has the contents of every email sent and received, everywhere you go, who you visit, every photo taken or received, everything said in front of a smart speaker, everywhere you've ever visited on the web, all of your contacts, what you post, what you watch, read and listen to, what you search for, etc? Of course, no one but Google. And something else you should read up on is your TOS. Google has the right to sell all of that data to any successor companies or give access to any of it's corporate entities.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacy
Summary: What if we stop treating you like a human being and start treating you as only the sum total of the data that comprises you? What if, when we’re missing parts of this data, we use computers to suggest that you buy things from us that will help us complete this data? What if, when you don’t like anything we offer you that exists, we use what data we DO have on you to create something entirely new, designed for the express and sole purpose of psychologically manipulating you–and you alone–to purchase it so that we may get that missing data? What if, once we have enough of those data holes filled, we continue to psychologically manipulate you so that your social, political, and economic behavior itself is modified in a way that we desire?
And this is from 2016, which means they started doing this at least 5 years before the pretty video presentation was made. There aren’t words to describe this. They don’t exist. Perfidy isn’t sufficient. Neither is treason, since they’re doing it to everyone.
And isn’t it funny that DARPA shut down their LifeLog protocol (where the sum total of a person’s beliefs, possessions, places visited, thoughts, associations, affiliations, and everything else was aggregated) at the same time that FaceBook was founded? But that’s a topic for another thread. Sort of. You ARE FaceBook’s product, after all.