Sadly, it seems like the contingent of people who have a problem with Smart TVs is small but noisy, and has no real market power. If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.

Sort of reminds me how we complain loudly about how shitty airline service is, and then when we buy tickets we reliably pick whichever one is a dollar cheaper.

The problem is that consumers are not savvy. They go to the store, and compare TVs based on features presented. Colors, refresh rate, size, etc.

Its only when they get home (and likely not even right away) that they discover their TV is spying on them and serving ads.

This is a perfect situation where government regulation is required. Ideally, something that protects our privacy. But, minimally something like a required 'nutrition label' on any product that sends our data off device.

The problem is lack of information at time of purchase, in both cases. It's so onerous to figure out what these products are doing that people give up. Same in the airline case. If any of the airlines actually provided better service at a higher price, they'd have a market, but it's impossible to assess that as an end user with all the fake review bullshit that's all over the Internet these days.

The only cases where it's clearcut are a few overseas airlines like Singapore Airline who have such a rock solid reputation for great service that people will book them even if the price is 2x.

I don’t agree with this. The only way this would make sense is if consumers were made aware of spying vs not spying prior to purchase.

But TV manufacturers can change the TV’s behavior long after it is purchased. They can force you to agree to new terms of service which can effectively make the TV a worse product. You cannot conclude the consumer didn’t care.

A situation in which many people care a little,but a few people care a lot in the other direction,is almost exactly what government is for. Ken Paxton has issues, for sure, but good on him in this case.

> If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.

I am not convinced of this. there is more recurring revenue involved in spying on people

> Sadly, it seems like the contingent of people who have a problem with Smart TVs is small but noisy, and has no real market power.

No one cares. Smart TVs are super awesome to non tech people who love them. Plug it in, connect to WiFi - Netflix and chill ready. I have a friend who just bought yet another smart TV so he can watch the Hockey game from his bar.

> If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.

What happened to that Jumbo (dumbo?) TV person who was on here wanting to build these things? My guess is they saw the economics and the demand and gave up. I applaud them for trying though. I still cling to my two dumb 1080 Sony TVs that have Linux PC's hooked to them.

"If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one."

The problem is easily solved and I'm surpised more people don't do it. For years I've just connected a PVR/STB (set top box) to a computer monitor. It's simple and straightforward, just connect the box's HDMI output into a computer monitor.

Moreover, PVR/STBs are very cheap—less than $50 at most, I've three running in my household.

If one wants the internet on the same screen just connect a PC to another input on your monitor. This way you've total isolation, spying just isn't possible.

I think government is the only way to regulate below pain threshold nonsense that weighs down society.

but I think small issues in society might translate to small issues for government action, and regulatory capture has a super-high roi overturning "minor" stuff.

I suspect only showing real harm for something is the only way to get these things high-enough priority for action.

I kind of wonder if the pager attacks, or the phone nonsense in ukraine/russia might make privacy a priority?

isn't a smart TV that's not connected to the internet just a dumb TV?

Hope does spring eternal, doesn't it 8-/

If no one manufactures such a product, how does the "market" express this desire?

Buying one toaster, that would last your lifetime, is easily manufactured today, and yet no company makes such a thing. This is true across hundreds of products.

The fact is, manufacturing something that isn't shit, is less profitable, so what we're gonna get is shit. It doesn't really matter what people "want".

This is true for toasters and TVs...

If there were any significant number of people who would pay for a dumb high end TV, the market would sell them one.

I don't think they would. There are some TV manufacturers that are better about not nagging you (which is one of the reasons why I bought a Sony last year), but as time moves forward, companies have been less likely to leave money on the table. This is just the logical result of capitalism. Regulation will be the only way to protect consumer privacy.

Similarly, air travel gets worse as consumer protection regulations gets rolled back

Dumb TVs are hard to find: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/12/the-ars-technica-gui...

This isn't really an accurate analysis because it assumes the only parties involved are the TV manufacturers and the purchasing consumers. In fact the third party is ad brokers and so the calculus to alienate some users in pursuit of ad dollars is different.

This sounds like victim blaming to me. "What do you mean you don't understand how software and the internet works and thought this was just a TV?!"

If you want to make a free market argument you need to look up what a free market is. In particular, consumers need to have perfect information. Do you really think if manufacturers were obligated to make these "features" clear that most people wouldn't care?