If you know about it, and Google talks about it openly, and Google goes further and advises you how to control it, then by definition it certainly is NOT spyware. Perhaps you don't know what spyware actually is? Doubtful.
Sometimes the clarity of your comments re: whether fact or opinion is less than clear, and readers may not understand the difference.
The issue isn’t whether anyone can figure out what’s happening, it’s that Chromecast has a spyware model just like Visio TVs and Amazon Fire sticks. It does.
Typical users don’t realize to what extent Google is doing this behind the scenes. I’m not trying to convince you that you shouldn’t loooove Google. I’m pointing out that affluent buyers are spending money on premium.
I write about what’s actually happening and I work to support what I say factually.
It’s the spin patrol making excuses for shady ad-crap that that are desperately trying to shape favorable opinions about Google and Ad-droid. I just write about the reality of what’s happening in the open market. And that reality is that Apple is making far more money selling good products that are better than the “free” crap that looks cheap and mishandles your data and turns the web into a slow, ugly, and bloated mess where everything you do is public because google and others are collecting so much data and frequently mishandling it.
You're free to keep professing your adoration for ads and marketing-optimized hw and content, but the trend is away from free broadcast TV and toward paying for good hardware. The 90’s sucked.
Also it doesn’t make me factually wrong just because what I say doesn’t align with your fringe opinions.
Yes there is a nexus of Tizen UI and Netflix's app. The combination is pretty awful. Apple's UI can also be criticized, and sometimes it does glaringly irritating things. But there was actual thought put into tvOS and its HIG, and apps generally make sense, even if one can imagine ways that they can be better. Tizen's TV UI looks like Microsoft's Windows 98 designers were rushed into the future and set loose on a TV project. It's just bad IMO. And it seems to go out of the way to invent bad ideas, rather than just being simplistic.
You realize you just keep shifting the goalpost on your argument. Your original statement that I took issue with was that Tizen was "inscrutable". I don't believe that pushing a single button, scrolling horizontally to an app, then pushing a button again is "impossible to understand or interpret". This is why I said you were engaging in hyperbole. The bottom line is its a simple interface. You get a lot of baggage that comes with Samsung, but the UI itself is intuitive.
Since you shifted the argument to how difficult Netflix is in Tizen, it has essentially the same interface in AppleTV. You scroll down through categories, the overall menu/search is hidden. Bad app design does not make a bad UI. One of the worst things in the AppleTV app ecosystem right now is the different behaviors between apps. In YouTube(both the regular and TV app) advancing by 10 seconds requires a tap on the edges(which I prefer). Other Apps(Netflix/Amazon Prime) require a press(touchpad click) on the edges. This isn't bad UI design, this is inconsistent implementations by the individual apps.
If you know about it, and Google talks about it openly, and Google goes further and advises you how to control it, then by definition it certainly is NOT spyware. Perhaps you don't know what spyware actually is? Doubtful.
Sometimes the clarity of your comments re: whether fact or opinion is less than clear, and readers may not understand the difference.
Regardless of that Dan if Apple does not benefit from user tracking for ads, and AppleTV isn't involved anyway, perhaps you could explain in your own words why Apple would make user tracking on by default on your AppleTV?
The issue isn’t whether anyone can figure out what’s happening, it’s that Chromecast has a spyware model just like Visio TVs and Amazon Fire sticks. It does.
Typical users don’t realize to what extent Google is doing this behind the scenes. I’m not trying to convince you that you shouldn’t loooove Google. I’m pointing out that affluent buyers are spending money on premium.
I write about what’s actually happening and I work to support what I say factually.
It’s the spin patrol making excuses for shady ad-crap that that are desperately trying to shape favorable opinions about Google and Ad-droid. I just write about the reality of what’s happening in the open market. And that reality is that Apple is making far more money selling good products that are better than the “free” crap that looks cheap and mishandles your data and turns the web into a slow, ugly, and bloated mess where everything you do is public because google and others are collecting so much data and frequently mishandling it.
You're free to keep professing your adoration for ads and marketing-optimized hw and content, but the trend is away from free broadcast TV and toward paying for good hardware. The 90’s sucked.
Also it doesn’t make me factually wrong just because what I say doesn’t align with your fringe opinions.
I agree with you that "affluent buyers are spending money on premium". They always have, long before Apple or Google even existed. If anyone here disagrees with that, and I can't see where anyone did, they aren't paying attention to what goes on around them.
As for "fringe opinions" and such that some people espouse here and there... Oh nevermind you know exactly where I'm going with that. No it doesn't make anyone else necessarily wrong either just because a majority (or 2%'ers, or voters, or bloggers, or...) don't share the same viewpoint.
As an aside can I assume based on the tone of your response that you have no intent on commenting on the last part of my post, or are you just taking the time trying to rationalize something that might otherwise seem irrational?
That's a really dumb comment when the first picture is IHS's claim that Android is "winning" and has the most "market share" in smart TVs. The context of its report:
Dumb comment? Stay classy. Is it any dumber than stating IHS claimed that Android is "winning" when that's clearly the author's slanted narrative? These editorials would be much more informative if the author spent less time trying to be derogatory and more time clarifying his points; some of which are actually salient. The editorials read as if a reasoned and rational adult is fighting with a teenage fanboy for time on the keyboard. Far too often, the teen wins. It's kind of fascinating in a watching a trainwreck sort of way.
As the author points out in a round about way, Samsung has the largest and most lucrative share of the smart TV market. That's why Apple chose Samsung. They didn't choose Android because Google's flavor has a smaller share (10% vs 23%) of the smart TV market... even smaller than WebOS' 13%. The various forks of Android also had smaller shares, so they weren't worth it either. Apple chose the company that had the largest market share... just like @MAU47 correctly stated. So not so dumb after all.
TL;DR is absolutely a dumb comment.
As is offering advice on "class" when you make the types of comments you're making.
"stating IHS claimed that Android is "winning" when that's clearly the author's slanted narrative"
I highlighted the text in a photo: there was no misrepresentation of IHS statement: "Android is currently the most popular smart TV operating system platform."
And please check out the article again. Apple didn't select Samsung for "unit market share." If Apple were trying to cast a broad net by sheer volume, it could write an Android app and target not only most of 2018's smart TVs but millions of Android tablets used as TVs. Apple was not in any way seeking to target volume. That's the entire point of the article. You could get that from standing across the room and just reading the subheadings.
It's not a dumb comment. It strips away all the extraneous content and boils it down to the purest element; hence the tl;dr. Samsung's market share absolutely played a large part in Apple's decision.
I'm a rando on the internet bud. You're supposed to be some type of professional writer. That usually comes with a sense of decorum. Usually. I simply addressed you in the same crass manner you often employ when addressing forum members.
Your own words: "That's a really dumb comment when the first picture is IHS's claim that Android is "winning" and has the most "market share" in smart TVs." IHS reporting that Android in totality has the most market share is not a claim of "winning". That's 100% DED conflating. IHS says Android has most market share therefore IHS claims Android is winning.? That's preposterous. You parsed the text, ignored the original context, and supplanted it with your Android is winning narrative. The full report is actually about the global increase in smart TV adoption and how the digital assistants (Alexa and GA) will drive consumer decisions. Anyone reading it will see that to be the case. 'Cept you it seems.
Why would I need to check out your article again? It's not going to change my opinion of what's in it. I think it has some good points but the overall narrative is wrong. You spent too much time trying to disparage anything not Apple and not enough time making sensible connections. All the information was there for you to do it. You just chose to go a different direction. So there's no need for me to read the editorial again. I get the point you're trying to make. It's just a bad point that's all. Whether I'm point blank close or standing across the room, the point's bad.
I am surprised at the SmartTV market, and how popular it is.
There are so many streaming boxes on the market (RoKu, AppleTV, FireTV, etc) and they pretty much ALL outperform the SmartTV, no only in outright performance, but in the number of Apps available. Also, when you drop $1-5K USD on a good television, why would you hamstring your streaming capabilities by not buying a $25-$250 streaming box?
It's like buying an expensive sports car, and putting cheap, stale gas in the tank. I have yet to find a SmartTV with the selection or performance of the cheapest FireTV stick, let alone the AppleTV.
It's a misleading market metric. People aren't buying Smart TV's, they're just buying TV's that happen to be "smart". most people don't care about all those extra "features".
I am surprised at the SmartTV market, and how popular it is.
There are so many streaming boxes on the market (RoKu, AppleTV, FireTV, etc) and they pretty much ALL outperform the SmartTV, no only in outright performance, but in the number of Apps available. Also, when you drop $1-5K USD on a good television, why would you hamstring your streaming capabilities by not buying a $25-$250 streaming box?
It's like buying an expensive sports car, and putting cheap, stale gas in the tank. I have yet to find a SmartTV with the selection or performance of the cheapest FireTV stick, let alone the AppleTV.
It's a misleading market metric. People aren't buying Smart TV's, they're just buying TV's that happen to be "smart". most people don't care about all those extra "features".
I am surprised at the SmartTV market, and how popular it is.
There are so many streaming boxes on the market (RoKu, AppleTV, FireTV, etc) and they pretty much ALL outperform the SmartTV, no only in outright performance, but in the number of Apps available. Also, when you drop $1-5K USD on a good television, why would you hamstring your streaming capabilities by not buying a $25-$250 streaming box?
It's like buying an expensive sports car, and putting cheap, stale gas in the tank. I have yet to find a SmartTV with the selection or performance of the cheapest FireTV stick, let alone the AppleTV.
It's a misleading market metric. People aren't buying Smart TV's, they're just buying TV's that happen to be "smart". most people don't care about all those extra "features".
I agree. I'd personally prefer a dumb panel with a quality picture that lets me add the components I want. Nobody's really making them anymore. Even the cheapest panels are smart now. Your pretty much going to get one whether or not that was your intention.
As is offering advice on "class" when you make the types of comments you're making.
"stating IHS claimed that Android is "winning" when that's clearly the author's slanted narrative"
I highlighted the text in a photo: there was no misrepresentation of IHS statement: "Android is currently the most popular smart TV operating system platform."
And please check out the article again. Apple didn't select Samsung for "unit market share." If Apple were trying to cast a broad net by sheer volume, it could write an Android app and target not only most of 2018's smart TVs but millions of Android tablets used as TVs. Apple was not in any way seeking to target volume. That's the entire point of the article. You could get that from standing across the room and just reading the subheadings.
If they wanted to reach the most users, then instead of working with Samsung to release a Tizen app, they could have worked with Google, and with Sony, and with dozens of also-rans, to get decent coverage on a majority of Android TV devices that would cover more installed base (maybe) than Tizen. Part of the article's point was that although Android has a larger installed base, it's fragmented, as well as generally being a lower-rent district.
Samsung/Tizen is the low-hanging fruit for getting Apple TV in front of the largest audience of people who might be willing to pay for Apple services, and thus a good choice for increasing their Services market share. That is the tL;DR.
As is offering advice on "class" when you make the types of comments you're making.
"stating IHS claimed that Android is "winning" when that's clearly the author's slanted narrative"
I highlighted the text in a photo: there was no misrepresentation of IHS statement: "Android is currently the most popular smart TV operating system platform."
And please check out the article again. Apple didn't select Samsung for "unit market share." If Apple were trying to cast a broad net by sheer volume, it could write an Android app and target not only most of 2018's smart TVs but millions of Android tablets used as TVs. Apple was not in any way seeking to target volume. That's the entire point of the article. You could get that from standing across the room and just reading the subheadings.
If they wanted to reach the most users, then instead of working with Samsung to release a Tizen app, they could have worked with Google, and with Sony, and with dozens of also-rans, to get decent coverage on a majority of Android TV devices that would cover more installed base (maybe) than Tizen. Part of the article's point was that although Android has a larger installed base, it's fragmented, as well as generally being a lower-rent district.
Samsung/Tizen is the low-hanging fruit for getting Apple TV in front of the largest audience of people who might be willing to pay for Apple services, and thus a good choice for increasing their Services market share. That is the tL;DR.
Is it possible that included in negotiations between Sammy and Apple that as a condition of Samsung rolling out an expeditious update to their smart TV's enabling it that Samsung also asked for and rec'd an initial grant period of Tizen being the exclusive platform for it? I think absolutely.
So this could have zippity to do with "all the rich people buy Samsung smart tv's and all the poor people buy the other stuff" and more to do with partnerships. It would make as much sense as the editor's guess as to the reasoning IMHO, especially considering that there popular and more expensive smartTV lines, ex, LG OLED's, that wealthy people might be even more likely to purchase.
Yes there is a nexus of Tizen UI and Netflix's app. The combination is pretty awful. Apple's UI can also be criticized, and sometimes it does glaringly irritating things. But there was actual thought put into tvOS and its HIG, and apps generally make sense, even if one can imagine ways that they can be better. Tizen's TV UI looks like Microsoft's Windows 98 designers were rushed into the future and set loose on a TV project. It's just bad IMO. And it seems to go out of the way to invent bad ideas, rather than just being simplistic.
You realize you just keep shifting the goalpost on your argument. Your original statement that I took issue with was that Tizen was "inscrutable". I don't believe that pushing a single button, scrolling horizontally to an app, then pushing a button again is "impossible to understand or interpret". This is why I said you were engaging in hyperbole. The bottom line is its a simple interface. You get a lot of baggage that comes with Samsung, but the UI itself is intuitive.
Since you shifted the argument to how difficult Netflix is in Tizen, it has essentially the same interface in AppleTV. You scroll down through categories, the overall menu/search is hidden. Bad app design does not make a bad UI. One of the worst things in the AppleTV app ecosystem right now is the different behaviors between apps. In YouTube(both the regular and TV app) advancing by 10 seconds requires a tap on the edges(which I prefer). Other Apps(Netflix/Amazon Prime) require a press(touchpad click) on the edges. This isn't bad UI design, this is inconsistent implementations by the individual apps.
It's inscrutable. In my experience, as you're trying to figure out what's going on, the UI disappears and relaunches. And no, it's not "essentially the same" as tvOS.
I've used a lot of consumer gear. Pretty much everyone agrees, in general (and here in the comments) that smart TVs are pretty awful.
It's a misleading market metric. People aren't buying Smart TV's, they're just buying TV's that happen to be "smart". most people don't care about all those extra "features".
I agree. I'd personally prefer a dumb panel with a quality picture that lets me add the components I want. Nobody's really making them anymore. Even the cheapest panels are smart now. Your pretty much going to get one whether or not that was your intention.
A subpar experience will reduce interest in apples ‘services’ instead of expanding it. carPlay for example has bad rendering and a really inferior user experience compared to apples ios devices. This makes people want to ditch carPlay instead adopt it. A much better move for apple, would be to have tvOS exclusively on its own tv’s and that of others.
Comments
Typical users don’t realize to what extent Google is doing this behind the scenes. I’m not trying to convince you that you shouldn’t loooove Google. I’m pointing out that affluent buyers are spending money on premium.
I write about what’s actually happening and I work to support what I say factually.
It’s the spin patrol making excuses for shady ad-crap that that are desperately trying to shape favorable opinions about Google and Ad-droid. I just write about the reality of what’s happening in the open market. And that reality is that Apple is making far more money selling good products that are better than the “free” crap that looks cheap and mishandles your data and turns the web into a slow, ugly, and bloated mess where everything you do is public because google and others are collecting so much data and frequently mishandling it.
You're free to keep professing your adoration for ads and marketing-optimized hw and content, but the trend is away from free broadcast TV and toward paying for good hardware. The 90’s sucked.
Also it doesn’t make me factually wrong just because what I say doesn’t align with your fringe opinions.
You realize you just keep shifting the goalpost on your argument. Your original statement that I took issue with was that Tizen was "inscrutable". I don't believe that pushing a single button, scrolling horizontally to an app, then pushing a button again is "impossible to understand or interpret". This is why I said you were engaging in hyperbole. The bottom line is its a simple interface. You get a lot of baggage that comes with Samsung, but the UI itself is intuitive.
Since you shifted the argument to how difficult Netflix is in Tizen, it has essentially the same interface in AppleTV. You scroll down through categories, the overall menu/search is hidden. Bad app design does not make a bad UI. One of the worst things in the AppleTV app ecosystem right now is the different behaviors between apps. In YouTube(both the regular and TV app) advancing by 10 seconds requires a tap on the edges(which I prefer). Other Apps(Netflix/Amazon Prime) require a press(touchpad click) on the edges. This isn't bad UI design, this is inconsistent implementations by the individual apps.
As for "fringe opinions" and such that some people espouse here and there...
Oh nevermind you know exactly where I'm going with that. No it doesn't make anyone else necessarily wrong either just because a majority (or 2%'ers, or voters, or bloggers, or...) don't share the same viewpoint.
As an aside can I assume based on the tone of your response that you have no intent on commenting on the last part of my post, or are you just taking the time trying to rationalize something that might otherwise seem irrational?
I'm a rando on the internet bud. You're supposed to be some type of professional writer. That usually comes with a sense of decorum. Usually. I simply addressed you in the same crass manner you often employ when addressing forum members.
Your own words: "That's a really dumb comment when the first picture is IHS's claim that Android is "winning" and has the most "market share" in smart TVs." IHS reporting that Android in totality has the most market share is not a claim of "winning". That's 100% DED conflating. IHS says Android has most market share therefore IHS claims Android is winning.? That's preposterous. You parsed the text, ignored the original context, and supplanted it with your Android is winning narrative. The full report is actually about the global increase in smart TV adoption and how the digital assistants (Alexa and GA) will drive consumer decisions. Anyone reading it will see that to be the case. 'Cept you it seems.
Why would I need to check out your article again? It's not going to change my opinion of what's in it. I think it has some good points but the overall narrative is wrong. You spent too much time trying to disparage anything not Apple and not enough time making sensible connections. All the information was there for you to do it. You just chose to go a different direction. So there's no need for me to read the editorial again. I get the point you're trying to make. It's just a bad point that's all. Whether I'm point blank close or standing across the room, the point's bad.
It's a misleading market metric. People aren't buying Smart TV's, they're just buying TV's that happen to be "smart". most people don't care about all those extra "features".
Samsung/Tizen is the low-hanging fruit for getting Apple TV in front of the largest audience of people who might be willing to pay for Apple services, and thus a good choice for increasing their Services market share. That is the tL;DR.
So this could have zippity to do with "all the rich people buy Samsung smart tv's and all the poor people buy the other stuff" and more to do with partnerships. It would make as much sense as the editor's guess as to the reasoning IMHO, especially considering that there popular and more expensive smartTV lines, ex, LG OLED's, that wealthy people might be even more likely to purchase.
I've used a lot of consumer gear. Pretty much everyone agrees, in general (and here in the comments) that smart TVs are pretty awful.
carPlay for example has bad rendering and a really inferior user experience compared to apples ios devices. This makes people want to ditch carPlay instead adopt it.
A much better move for apple, would be to have tvOS exclusively on its own tv’s and that of others.