Roku TV bricked until agreeing to new terms of service
See title - very frustrating. There is no way to continue to use the TV without agreeing to the terms. I couldn't use different inputs, or even go to settings from the home screen and disconnect from the internet to disable their services. If I don't agree to their terms, then I don't get access to their new products. That sucks, but fine - I don't use their services except for the TV itself, and honestly, I'd rather by a dumb TV with a streaming box anyway, but I can't find those anymore.
Anyway, the new terms are about waiving your right to a class action lawsuit. It's weird to me because I'd never considered filing a class action lawsuit against Roku until this. They shouldn't be able to hold my physical device hostage until I agree to new terms that I didn't agree at the time of purchase or initial setup.
I wish Roku TVs weren't cheap walmart brand sh*t. Someone with some actual money might sue them and sort this out...
EDIT: Shout out to @testfactor@lemmy.world for recommending the brand "Sceptre" when buying my next (dumb) TV.
EDIT2: Shout out to @0110010001100010@lemmy.world for recommending LG smart TVs as a dumb-TV stand in. They apparently do require an agreement at startup, which is certainly NOT ideal, but the setup can be completed without an internet connection and it remembers input selection on powerup. So, once you have it setup, you're good to rock and roll.
I reached out to Roku support regarding this. The rep told me “why are you complaining. You are the only one.” He then disconnected the chat. I’ve reached out to my state’s AG to report this. No action so far but waiting. If there are enough complaints, that might help move the needle.
What Roku is doing should be completely illegal - bricking the product after purchasing it for full price if you don’t agree to waiving your rights.
Sounds like a class action lawsuit to me.
Sue them in small claims for the price of the device.
Sounds like a good way to get a new tv and move away from roku. They're really piling on the ads lately and making their os really slow.
If they actually said that to you word for word that's an open and shut case for suing them
Damn, had no idea roku chat could be that useless.
Inb4 it's ChatGPT like Air Canada.
Report Roku to the FBI for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by hacking into and sabotaging your property.
That's a sincere suggestion, by the way. This shit should literally be a crime.
Yeah, that would definitely not go anywhere. Roku isn't hacking into their device. OP probably bought a Roku Smart TV for like $75 (the cost is subsidized by Roku, hence why it's so cheap) and is now complaining about it. It's like buying an Amazon FireTV and then complaining about Amazon having control over the TV.
Edit: am I saying it's right? No, but sometimes it pays to read the EULA. If you're getting something for cheap, there's probably a reason for it.
Non American here, and also not a lawyer, but I’m curious what the correlation is between consumer rights (or lack of) and the relative cost of the product. This is somewhat different to buying a cheaply manufactured product and it unsurprisingly falling to bits - though in many jurisdictions there are even basic rights for that situation, the price is irrelevent. Someone elsewhere in chat has suggested suing in small claims for the cost of the product, due to Roku intentionally bricking their own product unless the rightful owner (is the purchaser even the owner?) agrees to certain terms, even though OP purchased it in good faith. If a straight up refund is not available during a straight forward opt OUT option, we have a very unfair situation for the rightful owner of this product. Needless to say opting out should be as straight forward as opting in. Your suggestions is that if a product is of or below a certain price you must bend over and gratefully accept the corporation you paid money to, then inserting anything they like up your rear end. In my opinion your thesis is not price based as this is a common practice unfortunately in the consumer (and enterprise for that matter) tech industry where we have had shiny brand even expensive products initially sensitively torpedoed up our various orifices, only for brand HQ weeks later to press a button which flicks open hidden blades in the torpedo. No one wants or deserves this. The question is what recourse is there in OP’s jurisdiction.
I may be misunderstanding you if actually you mean that any tech corp can do such a thing at any time that you have paid for. In which case we agree. But it’s far from ideal and shouldn't be accepted.
I'm not saying it's right for them to do this, it's a shitty practice and I'd definitely be pissed off. What I'm saying is there's probably a clause in the EULA/TOS that pretty much says Roku has control over the function of the TV and either you accept those terms or you don't use the TV. The price comparison was just pointing out the difference in experience between getting a $50-75 Amazon Fire tablet vs a $700 Samsung Galaxy tablet. The former is going to have ads all over it and Amazon controls it essentially, they tell you this, meanwhile the Galaxy tablet most likely has no advertising or additional strong-arming since you're paying a lot more for it. The company is always out to get their income one way or another is simply the point I was making.
There is practically zero consumer protection in the US (assuming OP is from the US).
Thanks for clarifying. Yeah none of this is ideal for consumers.
No problem, this is essentially the Human Cent-iPad South Park episode playing out in real life... Obviously without the shit eating and mouth to ass sewing 😂
Don't do this. This just creates more work for the FBI and you know that report is going straight into the rubbish bin. That is just wasting public resources.
In that case, you should additionally complain to your Congressperson that the FBI isn't doing their goddamn job.
No, what's more productive is writing that this should be a crime. It's currently not.
If you think otherwise, let's pretend you're a prosecutor. Which offence do you accuse them of committing (use a legal citation to refer to a specific section), list out each of the elements of that offence and explain why you believe each of them is satisfied.
It's at the very least coercion by ways of property damage, at least in sane legal systems.
Also it's generally not the job of citizens to figure out which paragraph exactly to throw at an accused, that's what police and prosecutors are for.
The parent commenter asserts that it is a crime. What I essentially said is "prove it". I assert there is no law that makes this behaviour a criminal offence. Prove me wrong. Don't say "Well, this is what the law should be", tell me what the law is.
If you want to talk about what the law ought to be, write to your legislators. It's not the FBI's job to write the rules. They only enforce what's already there.
I don't think the behaviour is right, and it may be illegal in other ways, but it isn't a crime, and if it isn't a crime, reporting it to a law enforcement agency is just wasting your time.
And it is the responsibility of law enforcement to figure that out. If I go to the police and say "that guy stole from me" and the actual criminal case ends up not being for theft but embezzlement, did I waste the agency's time?
You don't need to have a law degree to be entitled to file a complaint with the system.
By "illegal in other ways" I mean "creates a civil cause of action". This is not something the police can help with. You don't need a law degree to complain but I think you're just being purposefully obtuse.
Last I checked coercion is a crime over here. Property damage is, too.
You're one of those people who hear a smoke alarm, want to call the fire brigade, but first wonder whether it's actually opportune, whether you shouldn't deal with it yourself, whether the situation is bad enough, aren't you. The answer is yes it is the department rather moves out too often than not often enough and chalks up burnt potatoes at the bottom of a now dry pot under exercise.
You have a reason to believe that a crime could have occurred because your innate sense of justice got offended. You can articulate which action of a particular entity offended it. That's enough, they'll take it from there. Might it go into the bin and you be told "sorry that's a civil matter"? Yes. But that's their job. Just as it's the job of the fire department to deal with you not being able to cook potatoes.
My God. You just used words that you think are criminal offences, and then proclaimed that you think they applied. "Last I checked" my arse, you did not check at all.
And when I tell you to read the statutes and show why you think they apply, you go and say "No, that's not my job" because you're either too lazy to Google search the text of the law or you're afraid of seeing that you wouldn't be able to justify your point.
You claim this is a criminal offence. You can't cite or don't want to cite any criminal statutes substantiating your claim. Instead you just speak out of your ass instead of checking to make sure. The information's there. You just don't want to read it.
You're wrong. Just quit the conversation already. You're not winning this one.
§§ 240, 303 StGB.
Yes I know that's German law. I don't know US law. But I bet if I sold you a fridge and three days later came into your house and said "sign this or I'll destroy the fridge" that's a crime in the US. "Computer sabotage" is the rough equivalent of "trespass" in this example, you still have property damage and coercion even if computer sabotage doesn't apply for some reason.
I ran Google Translate on these:
Firstly, the terms and conditions screen is not "force". Secondly, the television is not damaged by making you accept such conditions. The software doesn't work but you don't own the software, you own the hardware. Even if there is no way to install other software on the system. Thirdly, the terms and conditions originally agreed to allow this (changes to the terms and conditions) to happen. It is not unauthorised. Fourthly, and most importantly, you can just physically click the "agree" button to the terms and conditions to get back the functionality. The remedy is for a court to consider that agreement unenforceable.
It’s not a crime per se, but it does open them up to civil litigation. Because it’s a contract of adhesion, where the consumer gains nothing from the additional terms, cannot negotiate the terms prior to acceptance, and is forced into accepting the terms on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
In order for a contract to be enforceable, both sides need to be able to negotiate the terms, and both sides need to receive something meaningful from said contract.
I think you're likely right, but I think this is also why reporting it to the FBI is a waste of time. The FBI only deals with criminal matters.
If I am a shop owner and sell you a washing machine, and then three days later come into your house with a baseball bat saying "sign this or I'll destroy the machine", did I commit a crime?
The thing they want you to coerce you into is civil, yes, but that doesn't make coercion a civil matter.
Piss off. You're not even an American. Don't tell us what to do with our FBI.
I am American.
Imposter! No Murcan would use "rubbish bin".
"Offence" as opposed to offense, and "behaviour" instead of behavior are also non-standard for American English.
So I looked at his post history, and sure enough, there are multiple instances of "cheque" instead of check, "centralised" instead of centralized, and other obvious uses of British or Asian English.
Maybe NateNate60 is American by citizenship, but doesn't appear to be a native American English speaker.
It's almost as if being American and speaking languages are separate things!
deleted by creator
Way to sleuth!
"We can't solve your case until we solve all the murders first. All of them."
Crime is crime dude.
I also got this on my stand alone roku. And it's forced arbitration. Only way to opt out is by sending a written letter saying you don't agree. If I can be forced into an agreement with a click of the remote, opting out should be just as easy.
Sue in small claims for the cost of the device instead of sending a letter.
I suppose you're in the US so I don't know if my answer fits but if the terms are against the law they are simply void: as in if you have a reason for a class action, no terms or contract can take it away from you
Most likely the terms say that you agree to go through individual binding arbitration rather than a lawsuit which the courts have found to be legal and enforceable. It's really shitty and has become corporations favorite weapon to use against people, particularly because the arbitration companies are usually fairly friendly towards whatever corporation is being challenged. Contractually mandated arbitration really needs to be invalidated. Arbitration is a fine alternative if both parties want to go that route but it should never be forced on someone, particularly because of some bullshit EULA.
afaik even those terms would be unenforcable if you can only see the TOS after buying the product, which would be the case here.
I don't think so. I think in that case you would have to decline the terms and not use the thing. You would be entitled to compensation for the cost of whatever it was, like you can return it to the manufacturer or vendor somehow.
No OP is mostly correct, you cannot enforce the terms of a contract that a side of the party cannot see until after the transaction was completed making arbitration clauses hidden inside products invalid. (Norcia v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC)
However you are also somewhat correct as you are under no obligation to agree to the updated terms and conditions and will be govern by the originally concented contract until you do (Douglas v. Talk America). The company is allowed to stop providing their services to you however you might be entitled to your original purchase price depending on what the original terms and conditions said.
OK how do I go about getting Roku to refund me for my TVs? That sounds like an excellent approach to take.
Contact their support and escalate up the food chain until you get to someone who is in the legal department. If that fails get a lawyer and sue.
I'm really glad to live in the EU
In EU they are unenforcable because they are illegal.
FTFY. It’s way worse than just “being friendly” with corps. They’re on the corps’ payroll (indirectly, because the corp is paying for the arbitration,) and they know that if they continue to rule in the corps’ favor then the corp will continue calling them for future arbitration. There’s a tacit understanding between the arbiter and corporation, where if the arbiter favors the plaintiff then the arbiter won’t get called when the corporation goes to arbitration the next time.
This is an adhesion contract (no counteroffer or ability to negotiate terms, and it was made unilaterally) and probably will not stand up to a challenge in court. Of course, someone would actually have to sue / afford to sue. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion)
Right it's unenforceable however it's plenty enforceable to poor people who can't afford the legal fees.
Also, if outside of America, you probably would have a strong case for getting a full refund on the product if they did this.
It's not (to my knowledge) a type of case that's been specifically tested in court, but I think you could make a strong case that under Australian law, being required to agree to a new TOS that wasn't there when you first purchased the device and which you don't agree with would qualify as a "major problem". The description of a major problem includes:
And when there's a major fault, you as the customer are entitled to a full refund or replacement "of the same type of product".
Unfortunately, if you did this, it would be the shop that sold you it that takes the hit, because you have to go to them to get the refund, not the original manufacturer.
Couldn't you just buy a new tv of a different brand from the same shop to offset the hit from the refund?
Yeah you could. Plus the store would probably try to reclaim the loss from the manufacturer.
One of the reasons so-called "smart" TVs are so much cheaper is because they are data-mining you.
Only if you connect them to the Internet. I've got an LG TV and I have never connected it to a network. But yeah, most of the Roku style TV's are like that from what I can tell. They offer streaming services natively to entice people to connect them. TBH Samsung has been doing this for like decades.
Until they add their own mobile data connection so it transfers their analytics.
No need, just broadcast a local wifi signal and piggy back on your neighbors tv connection!
Time to break out the soldering station.
Anyone else getting radicalized because of this?
Yup. My LG TV has 85% of its features "disabled" until I accept new terms which is an acceptable middleground.
I wanted a high quality OLED display over 50inch, good luck finding one without voice control or adverts lol
Edited the one character typo for you, the internet is saved.
Is this what Tucker Carlson meant by I'm radicalized? Us damn rich Americans and our smart TVs.
Woah, you have money.....? Actual money to spend on wants instead of needs.
Molotovs are easy to make and solve a lot of problems, just sayin
When I have a problem, I just throw a molotov cocktail and BOOM. Now I have a different problem.
To be fair, your original problem has been solved.
(is a Good Place reference)
BOOOOORRTLES
That's probably really cute and fun to think about. Unfortunately we don't live in a comic book universe.
Exactly, no asshole in spandex is gonna stop you!
Sucks this happened to you. If it is still under warranty, you should return it for a replacement or store credit. Complain that it has ceased to function.
A good set of advice is to never connect your TV to the internet. A cheap streaming box or HTPC does the same function, and doesn't open you up to issues like this. Your TV is also almost certainly selling your viewing data if you have it connected to the internet.
While it's good advice to never intentionally connect TV to internet, some devices bypass you if they can. I think it was samsung that would connect to any other samsung product and through them to the internet, even if the other product was in your neighbor's living room.
That’s creepy
This is disturbing. I wanted to know more so I googled it but I found nothing. Where did you hear this?
Not sure of Samsung’s offering but it sounds very similar to Amazon Alexa’s sidewalk “feature”
Sounds like Windows "Delivery Optimization" for Microsoft updates as well.
Somewhere on Lemmy in the last two months. They had a link to a review about it. Sorry, there was a reason I hedged with "I think."
Do you have a source for Samsung connecting to the internet via other Samsung devices?
Almost certainly - but that is what I agreed to when I bought the TV.
Like I said in the post, I'd much prefer dumb TVs, but they I can't really find them anymore. Best I can do is buy a smart TV that'd won't let you do anything (including selecting inputs) until you connect it to the internet, agree to their horrible anti-consumer licensing agreement. Only then to open up a different smart device product that will still steal my data and force me to give up my legal right to a class action? The current system is scam.
Do you have any recommendations for dumb TVs?
As someone in pro AV, here's my recommendation for a dumb TV: A smart TV that you never connect to your wifi.
All that bloatware shit they install is what makes it cheap. At my job I can buy commercial displays (no crapware) at cost and it's still cheaper to buy a consumer one.
Unless IP control is absolutely mandatory for you, it's cheaper and easier to go consumer for displays
I'm pretty sure that you cannot use a roku-enabled device for any purpose until you agree to their terms of service, which just puts me back into the same boat.
Do you have any recommendations for actual dumb TVs?
Sceptre makes modern, affordable dumb TVs.
We found an answer! Thank you!
I've been searching online between comment responses looking for actually useful recommendations. It looks like Sceptre or LG are going to be good starting points. Between the two website, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards the Sceptre. I'm excited to here more from the person posting about the professional/commercial AV displays.
I have a sceptre, I love it. I got it on a black friday sale before covid, and it still works well. Some people have said theirs went crappy within a year or two, so check models and reviews that seem legitimate to figure out which ones are crappy.
Thanks for the heads up - will do!
EDIT: Out of an abundance of curiosity, what model do you have?
I'm not sure if this is right, but it's what's on the back of the tv. It's a sceptre version number QGTV83AC. There is also a UPC sticker on one side that has U650CV-UMRD8QGTV83AC.
Thanks!
I've owned multiple Sceptres and the only thing that ever broke for me was button related (on both the remotes and TV itself). You'd think buttons would be a solved problem, but I've owned three of those TVs because of the price (SmartTVs were not universal then).
That all being said, the displays themselves are mediocre and the speakers are weak and poor quality. The quality is probably right in line with the price, but if you're coming from a higher end TV, it will be noticeable. I always had to use speakers or a soundbar to get acceptable quality sound, the display you get used to pretty quickly.
Assuming Sceptre still makes dumb TVs by then, I'll probably switch back to them when mine either die or LG crosses some red lines.
Any TV that you just don’t connect to the internet at all, ever.
Hmm, yes, I agree! Totally agree on this. No argument. I'm curious though - what TV would that be? What TV can someone buy today that doesn't require an initial setup process that requires an agreement to certain terms and conditions prior to use?
Not trying to be hostile towards you in particular. I'm feeling frustrated with this answer because I am seeing it a lot (both online and in online searches right now), but I'm having some difficulty finding it actually useful advice. Many devices are setup from the factory to not allow use until agreeing to certain terms and conditions that must be agreed to before using the TV. I need to know which TVs - if any - do not require this. It is surprisingly difficult! I feel frustrated with this answer because it feels reductive & dismissive of the actual problem.
Again, nothing against you in particular. I'm just frustrated with this - seemingly reasonable but not actually applicable based on what I have been able to research online so far - answer.
I just bought a Roku smart TV and the first time I powered it on, it asked if I wanted to enable smart features by connecting to the Internet. I said no and it functions like a dumb TV now. There are a couple brands that still make dumb TVs but they are all fairly small and not great quality. Much better off researching which smart TVs can be easily disabled.
This is the point that I've been stuck on. There doesn't seem to be clear, easily available, documentation on which models those are. However, I have been able to find many ramble-ly "old man yells at cloud" forum & social media posts (You know, like this one!) when a model doesn't allow it.
Any of the ones I’ve tried require no additional interaction to change inputs and adjust video settings. If they’re not connected and there isn’t an open network to join, they can’t download updates or anything. They might try to get you to sign in or whatever but you can just back out of those windows and use it like a normal TV. This includes Vizio, Samsung, element, and LG TVs I’ve owned/used
I've yet to run across a smart TV that I couldn't just use as a dumb TV by NEVER CONNECTING IT TO WIFI. Literally NEVER connect it to WiFi. You will never have this issue. You don't need a list of models, because there isn't a TV that won't function as a TV if it's never connected to WiFi.
Do you understand now?
Samsung, Sony, and LG all let you skip connecting to there Internet. I prefer Sony TVs because Samsung has stupid VESA mounting options but they're all good
Show me one piece of technology in your life that didn't come with T&C that put you at a disadvantage against the manufacturer, I'll show you ten fairies, a unicorn, and the herald of darkness.
My grandmother has a Philips dumb TV that doesn't have any network connectivity and it still showed a click-through T&C. If you can't get something like that in your region, ship from the EU, they're still sold here.
My computer was built from pieces of other computers, to which I installed linux and never had to agree to anything. Now show me those ten fairies, the unicorn, and the herald of darkness please...
You agreed to a lot of stuff just by installing Linux and the userspace. Even the MIT license has a limitation of liability clause - if the maintainer published malicious code (like
node-ipcon NPM that would nuke the computer if it had a Russian IP), you'd have a difficult time bringing that to court.We just usually don't care about it because it's not as disruptive as a big corpo's legal goatse, and FOSS maintainers tend to be better people than corporate lawyers.
The terms of linux don't come into play unless I try to re-use some other licensed code to make a profit, and that would still fall under copyright law rather than any kind of terms&services clause. Installing a piece of software doesn't constitute an agreement unless there are clear terms given at the beginning of the installation (and even then it has been pretty questionable in court cases). There was nothing presented to me to agree to during the installation and I've never once been asked to agree to anything during the installation of any software on my computer. There's no need for something like this in most linux software other than the standard disclaimer that it comes with no warranty. Still not anything I had to click to agree to, it just happens to be on the websites for the distributions.
Even if you want to try and pretend that I somehow agreed so some nonsense conditions by installing linux, it still doesn't meet your conditions of putting myself at a disadvantage to the manufacturer. Surely you're not trying to suggest that my "disadvantage" is that I can't take a group to court for my own failure to use software which was freely given and distributed, and of which very little was even written by the distribution maintainers? That would be as absurd as claiming that I had to agree to an EULA before installing my operating system. Hell I don't even agree to collecting data about package management on my system.
I did a factory reset on my Roku several months ago and it works more or less like it would normally. Can’t set themes, which is the only big lack, but most of the important settings are still available. I know I can change the inputs and settings and stuff on it, though, because the hdmi1 is classed to PlayStation and 4 to computer.
I just did a factory reset and never connected to the internet. You can’t disconnect it from the internet without a reset, tho, or you’ll get “not connected” messages frequently, which I assume is what you are talking about.
You can try the display screens for menus and signs. They’re basically TVs without smart functions, aka dumb TVs.
Those often don't have a very good picture quality though.
Also without remote controls.
A non Roku Smart TV that you just don't connect to the internet at all, ever
I've had LGs for years (just got a new C3 OLED) and they don't require internet access to function. My current OLED isn't connected and works perfectly fine. I use a standalone Roku for streaming.
I think that I'm about to sold on LG TVs. Do you need to agree to any terms of service for initial setup? Additionally, do you have to navigate menus on startup to get to the streaming device? If so, that is ok, but very annoying if I can't set it up to start on a particular input on power up.
I did have to agree to the terms during setup. You do NOT have to navigate menus on startup. It remembers the last input and defaults there. You can then easily change the input via the remote if needed.
It never occurred to me that TVs might not do that.
This is really good/useful info - thank you!
They also have a list of items you can and cannot agree to, instead of just 1. So agree to 1, and say no to the rest sort of deal. You can also set the TV to non-US and get a little less bullshit.
LG have started sending some bullshit major updates to both of my TVs recently. The whole "home" interface is now sluggish and full of video heavy garbage I don't want to see. They are still better than some smart platforms (looking at you Vizio, Samsung, and Roku), but I am far less pleased with them than I used to be.
Not for a dumb tv but I own a newer Vizio. I actually use it as a huge desktop monitor through HDMI. The actual tv itself has never been connected to the internet. You could connect a streaming stick (roku, amazon, google) if you wanted to. I stream everything from the net. Vizio has a horrible "free" streaming tv service that tracks you. But you can still use the actual tv in other ways if you don't connect it to the net. It will act as a dumb tv.
Until we have a federal privacy law that allows us to opt out of being tracked on every device, you have to "work around" the problems.
Tracking needs to be opt-in, not opt-out. Privacy needs to be the default on all products.
Agreed!
Buy a really large computer monitor
That would be a good idea if there wasn't a 100x difference in price for something actually tv size big.
Look for computer monitors instead of a TV.
None of this is cutting edge technology, so my setup isn’t for tech enthusiasts. I have an old 1080p TV and an HTPC. The computer has fairly silent parts to begin with, and I’ve further tweaked it to be even more silent. It’s also running Fedora, and Gnome seems to be surprisingly good for this purpose. A Logitech keyboard/touchpad serves as my remote.
This way, I can watch YouTube on my TV with ublock origin and spinsor block enabled.
Hi, I just bought a Roku streaming box. What should I do next?
Yep. I got hit with this this morning when I turned on my TV before heading work.
I thought to myself ''Well... I hadn't planned on suing you but now I'm not so sure. Lol''
Yeah. This is complete BS and has me looking at computer monitors for a suitable replacement. I went ahead and agreed to their terms and my TV still works great but when it comes time to replace it, I'll be damned if I get another Smart TV.
Send this to leuis rossmann.
I don't see how this could be legal at all and how any of those terms could be applicable. My 2 year old found the remote today and he loves buttons, so naturally he pushed every button on there. I thought nothing of it but saw something pop up and then disappear, I assumed it was an error or something from the button mashing, but I guess my 2 year old agreed to rokus new TOS.
IANAL, and not that it really makes this bullshit any better but...
It's unlikely that agreeing to terms of service that claim you waive rights to any class action lawsuit would actually hold up as legally binding in court. Many of these agreements aren't reply binding are already legally gray... Plus, universally vaguely signing your legal rights away in any contract doesn't hold any water either.
I highly doubt you'd actually lose any rights to a check box that's bound to "you can't ever sue us".
IANAL either, but I'm pretty sure you are correct. I put it in another comment somewhere, but I'm more upset about not being given a choice to refuse the change rather than the actual change itself. I don't mind signing the waiver at amusement parks, or to buy a car with no warranty. I just want to know what I'm agreeing to, and I don't like folks pulling the rug out from under me or changing the deal.
The situation feels like if I were to drop out of college, I would be given electroshocks until I'd forgotten anything learned in class.
IANAL either, but from my understanding of contract law, not only are terms waiving your rights not legal, a contract necessarily entails mutual agreement followed by an exchange of a thing of value. In this case, they are holding a thing that you own (which they made and designed to work in this manner no less) hostage until you agree.
I don't think that counts as an "exchange of a thing of value". There's no exchange there, so it doesn't even qualify as a contract. Even if they're supposedly adding features along with the update, if you didn't agree to the features being added then that can't be considered forming a contract either. Also it's not free agreement on your part, so it fails on a number of levels.
In fact this behaviour sounds like it's arguably illegal to me. It could even be the subject of a class action lawsuit. I imagine the courts would be especially unfavourable to the idea that they were doing this specifically to ask you to waive your right to do so.
The legal term is "consideration". To form a contract you must have three elements: Offer, consideration, and acceptance.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure it would help here. They would argue their consideration is whatever online services are tied to the product, but even without that, the contract isn't being formed at this point (unless someone is going through first setup, at which point they can still return it). The contract was already formed and this is an amendment to those terms that the original wording likely has weasel words to permit.
That's not to say the consumer has no recourse, consumer rights are probably the best bet. If the previous terms don't expressly grant them the right to take away access to all features in circumstances like this, it may be possible to find them in breach, but unfortunately EULAs are usually pretty toothless when it comes to penalising the vendor.
I would like to know how much of this has been tested in court, and how much has just been insinuated by the sheer volume of corporate lawyers insisting that they're allowed to pull this crap. Because you can just write any old junk down, but lawyers don't make the law.
Like, on the basic level of what a contract is, how can one party reserve the right to unilaterally change the terms? How can an EULA be binding when the exchange has already happened and no agreement was made except the delivery of a product? How can consideration be forced on one party while their property is held ransom? And esepcially how can a fundamental legal right be waived in such a manner?
If this happened in any other sphere it would be understood as some kind of vandalism, theft extortion, or something. Like your builder just shows up one day, "Hey, I installed a new sink in your kitchen! You can't use your house until you agree I'm not liable for anything that happens to your house from this point forward. No, you can't read it, just sign it. This is a real contract because I gave you something of value." I suspect this isn't happening because it's perfectly legal, but because the internet of things hasn't matured enough to have strong legal precedents established and there hasn't yet been a big public backlash against it.
I think the more they try to pull this garbage the more people will start to realise that this is bullshit and do something about it.
"How can one party reserve the right to unilaterally change the terms?"
When it comes to business to consumer contracts, often they can't, due to "unfair terms" clauses in a lot of consumer protection laws.
In this specific case, the fact you can opt-out retrospectively (and inconveniently of course) is certainly due to those laws.
But like you say, it needs to be tested.
Yeah, I totally agree with you, don't get me wrong. I think it's bullshit to switch terms. And also bullshit to write terms that just say "if we fuck you over, you can't do anything about it".
I just wanted to point out that the legality of it probably wouldn't hold any actual water so don't be totally paranoid about it and take it with a grain of salt. For anyone who's a little more torn.
But yeah, Idk that I'd keep the device at that point either.
Oh, I am definitely getting more paranoid as I get older, but that's a different issue altogether. :D
It's like the waivers at skihills etc. Lots of stuff not legal, but it gives then deleting to waste your time and money on and the can afford the lawyers better than you can
Could the agreement not force OP to use arbitration if they wanted to sue, making it economically infeasible to do so themselves?
Pretty much all arbitration clauses require the manufacturer to pay for the arbitration. That's the consideration offered by the manufacturer to get the customer to waive their rights to sue.
It's actuaoworked out well for me I the past, because once you start going down the arbitration path, they're more likely to just give you what you want since that'll be cheaper than the arbiter in the end win or lose.
And as Elon found out, mandatory arbitration clauses can come back to bite you, like when a large number of claims have to be paid for separately all at once and can't be consolidated to save costs.
I would like to see legislation that forces optional recalls or refunds whenever TOS updates modify the usability and viability of a product.
Honestly I feel like the real reason they are working everyone down to the bone is so they don't have time to go to small claims court. If everyone did that individually these companies would die so quickly.
You can try to Root your TV. https://www.xda-developers.com/rootmyroku-jailbreak-roku-tv-set-top-boxes/
Dang... mine is on 12.5.5 and the newest they support is 9.4.0
Mine as well. :/
I like everyone saying “but this is surely illegal!” as if these corporations actually care. At least in the US, it really doesn’t matter what the law says at this point.
Corporations will do what they want and the law will be modified to reflect that, this is the current status quo and it is going to take significant political action (specifically making rich people afraid again to piss the rest of us off too much) to make it change.
It's just an exhausting uphill battle that never ends. I don't have the time or resources to combat monied corporations.
At this point, it's like they're trying to get everyone to pirate everything.
Call your House of Representative member and tell them that.
Take a brick to Roku until it agrees to your terms.
Search for monitors, not televisions. For example, you can get an 48in and 55in OLEDs dumb monitors with multiple HDMI inputs.
This is a really good advice. I will be looking for a new TV soon and it seems like there are no more dumb TVs.
Commercial display TVs are dumb. They are TVs meant for store displays and lack "smart" functionality.
Another good idea. Will keep that in mind when looking for a TV.
Be careful with this as monitors are usually a different aspect ratio to a TV so a you may get a distorted/cropped picture or black bars (depending what you connect to it) which will be noticeable at larger sizes.
What? Aren't like 90% of monitors and 99% of TVs 16:9? There are a few monitors that are 16:10, some extremely rare 5:4 and 4:3 and then there are the ultrawide monitors which are obviously a different aspect ratio but saying that monitors are "usually" a different aspect ratio is factually incorrect. If you're deciding between a 4K TV and 4K monitor, then there's no danger of accidentally buying something of different format.
Nah there are more
5:4, 8:5, 21:9, 64:27. And more.
And these aren't exact. There's fault tolerance, so to speak. You can have slightly different sizes rectangles between several different 16:9 monitors.
I already mentioned 5:4 and 8:5 equals 16:10.
21:9 and 64:27 are just ultrawide formats which I also mentioned and you can't really mistake those for 16:9, can you? Same goes for 5:4 and 4:3 which are rather square-ish (4:3 was typical for old CRT monitors and TVs).
Are you telling me that there are monitors that don't have square pixels? Or that the number of (square) pixels doesn't give an exact 16:9 ratio?
Anyway, yes, there are more aspect ratios out there but the important thing is how common they are. I just looked at the biggest local e-shop and if I try to filter parameters by resolution, I get this:
The number in the parenthesis next to the resolution is the number of products. (Note that this is only showing 1609 out of the total 1629 items - if I scroll down, there are 20 other options which all have 1 product each so I took the liberty to ignore those as those are ultra rare items (and some of them aren't even regular monitors but just some specialized displays. Even here, for example the 2200×1024px is an e-ink touch screen)).
I simplified each ratio to the simplest form, so those are exact ratios (but for some added a ratio with X:9 or X:10 in the denominator in parenthesis for easier comparison to those more standard formats). Turns out that 1379 out of 1609 monitors are exactly 16:9, so that's 85.7%. The biggest variety are among the ultrawides which I colored in purple but again, those are pretty much unmistakable. Just like the 5:4 and 4:3 in blue.
So realistically you have to watch out for the red ratios where 1379 out of 1426 are 16:9, that's 96.7%.
So I really wonder how you came to the conclusion that "monitors are usually a different aspect ratio to a TV".
Now of course one e-shop isn't a completely representative sample but I hope we can agree that the numbers will be in the right ballpark. Feel free to make your own statistics from a different source.
1280 x 800 is 16:10
1280 x 768 is also 16:10.
1280 x 720 is 16:9
No, it is not exact. Yes there is a "fault tolerance" built into how we describe aspect ratios, unless you want to get way more specific.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
Dude, what the hell you're onto?
That's exact.
Also exact.
In the link you provided, it literally says it's 5:3. It even has its own line in the infographics. And while the article is titled "List of common resolutions", it looks more like an exhaustive list of almost any resolution that has been ever used in any kind of consumer device. It's definitely not limited just to standard computer monitors so that table isn't really that relevant to the topic of the discussion.
Also show me a monitor with the 1280 x 768 resolution that's currently available on sale.
You're picking up some extremely rare cases to make an argument that your initial statement about "usually different aspect ratio" was correct but that's not how it works. That's just moving goalposts.
No I'm looking at the most common cases but you do you.
Just make sure they have audio out too (unless your source can drive a soundbar directly). I just got a new monitor that had built in speakers. They're dog shit, and I didn't plan on using them anyway, but I hadn't appreciated how useful it was having a device that can decode the audio stream from HDMI or DP.
I still have my old usb soundbar for the times I want a loudspeaker, but I can just leave my headphones plugged into the monitors jack and switch the output device on the computer.
Mac address ban the TV from your network and it should work but will no longer have Internet access. I just did this locally and it worked for the one, have to go out but will do it on the other one as well.
In order to prevent it from blinking, factory reset the TV once it's unconnected to the network, and then make sure to not reconnect it to the Internet during the setup process. Afterwards, you'll be stuck trying to find ways to replicate all of the built-in functionality of the TV like I now am. I had no idea the Chromecast w/ google TV's apps had such shitty surround support....anyone know a good replacement device? The ONN streamers are similar in that they basically only put out PCM stereo for Hulu.
I have a dumb 4k tv. It’s cheap, it won’t meet everyone’s needs, but I really really really don’t want a smart tv.
It’s a Sceptre. Cheap enough that if it breaks it won’t break your heart to replace it.
Funny, I got a large Toshiba with fire TV because it was the cheapest option when I was looking, loaded with surveillance capitalism from Amazon.
Regretted it immediately, I would pay double for a dumb tv next time.
My tv is wonky as hell sometimes. I have to spray the volume button with contact cleaner from time to time or it turns itself up or down.
It’s fine other than that though haha.
Sceptre seems to be a popular brand mentioned in this thread. Thanks for the input!
Ive got a TOS for them:
SECTION I
a. This contract expressly and to the fullest extent of the law binds that I did not read, nor am I bound to the terms and agreement laid out in any agreement that I agreed to. Any financial gains are automatically won by me in arbitration and any losses acrued are paid for by the Company to me with interest. Here is a vague copy/paste of about 9 more incoherent paragraphs full of "legal jargon" that never really state any clear purpose or definition of services rendered.
....
SECTION IX.
a. BY READING OR NOT READING THIS NOTICE COMPANY ASSUMES AND ACCEPTS ANY AND ALL FINANCIAL LIABILITY THEREIN. COMPANY AGREES TO PAY ME $75,000 FOR EDITING THIS CONTRACT (STANDARD GOING RATE PER DAY) PER DAY EFFECTIVE FOR 3 DAYS MAXIMUM TOTALING $225,000 PLUS TAXES AND INTEREST PAID.
b. COMPANY HAS UP TO 5 DAYS TO RESPOND TO AND DISPUTE THIS CONTRACT(They can't. It is legally and eternally binding). THANKS FOR THE MONEY NERDS
Did the old device agreement allow them to brick it until you agreed to the new agreement? If not, I say file that class action.
The good thing about class action lawsuits is that you don't need money. The law firms are just about the only ones that get paid. If you pay attention to class action settlements it's often something like $3m in attorneys fees, $5,000 to the named plaintiffs, and then a 3 month subscription to the companies own service or a refund of out of pocket expenses, during a specified period, not to exceed $150 per person.
Long story short, firms are more than happy to take on a class action that can be won, but you won't get much.
Shit like this is why my LG C1 is restricted to LAN access only in my router (local network for automation purposes) and can't communicate with the internet.
I think the purpose of roku is to stream though, so it needs Internet. Unless it can serve local stuff, that I uave no idea about.
This is referring to the Roku built into many TVs. So you have no choice but to deal with it at least a little bit for switching between your HDMI/PC inputs. The reason this case is so bad is that it literally prevents you from using any input or device until you find the Roku remote that came with the TV and click accept. The TV is a "brick" until you do this.
Buy a computer monitor and attach a streaming box to it
For example
https://www.currys.co.uk/products/gigabyte-aorus-fo48u-4k-ultra-hd-47.53-oled-gaming-monitor-black-10234612.html?istCompanyId=bec25c7e-cbcd-460d-81d5-a25372d2e3d7&istFeedId=4d7eb93e-055f-499d-8ee5-1cdcc50d67d1&istItemId=plpattxmp&istBid=t&srcid=198&cmpid=ppc~gg~2053+(PLA)+SBRE+PC+GAMING+HW+SBRE~2053+(PLA)+SBRE+PC+GAMING+HW+SBRE+v2+ad+group~Exact~71700000069775194~&mctag=gg_goog_7904&kwid=GOOGLE&device=m&ds_kids=92700074464906704&tgtid=2053+(PLA)+SBRE+PC+GAMING+HW+SBRE&&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA3JCvBhA8EiwA4kujZrPOffw7f01RZKN0Xzpo9SXzuTT-bjGDwyM2i1wpULw5wBgAjE9_NRoCJ5MQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Those who want the link without the trackers
https://www.currys.co.uk/products/gigabyte-aorus-fo48u-4k-ultra-hd-47.53-oled-gaming-monitor-black-10234612.html
My man!
👍
That's a lot of money for a little baby TV.
Can't 360 noscope my movies without 120 FPS.
Well, i spent 30 seconds on google and found that. Shop around. The point is that monitors are essentially dumb tvs and solve the issue of manufacturers no longer selling dumb tvs as tvs.
Monitors tend to not have remotes.
HDMI CEC will let your other devices turn on the monitor and switch inputs as appropriate. You'll need some kind of AVR to play audio. Plenty of low cost, highly capable solutions out there like the WIIM Amp that lets you use multiple sources such as your PC or a dedicated streaming set top box.
Shopping around doesn't help.
Calling it a monitor massively increases the price tag, more or less independent of features. There is no acceptably priced 40" monitor. There's a small number of "monitors" that even approach the bare minimum for a TV, and the cheapest they go is a grand. For still small TVs.
Yeah, computer monitors are manufactured to a different spec than television displays at the pixel level. This is usually called chroma subsampling.
Computer monitors typically are 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 which gives nice crisp and legible fonts. Anything less than 4:4:2 gives me a headache (also Windows....).
Television displays are usually 4:2:0. That's fine for rendering large text that is visible across the room. But trying to edit a word document would be a terrible experience.
I believe they manufacture the television panels with fewer pixel address lines and that reduces the cost. Also, smart TVs sell ads and your usage patterns which are used to subsidize the cost of the tv.
That's why computer monitors are so much more expensive than televisions.
There are plenty of cheap TVs that don't do chroma subsampling. You can't just ignore it, but you can absolutely get a 4K 40" TV that works perfectly fine as a monitor significantly cheaper than one branded a monitor. If you pay attention and use PC mode or game mode with all the processing turned off, you're going to be fine. I do exactly that.
The price difference is way more about economies of scale allowing lower margins and the fact that they subsidize TVs with the bloat. Most people aren't buying 40 inch monitors.
It's also OLED
This. I used a large-screen, dumb tv as a computer monitor for streaming for several years. My kid got his first real job and bought us a smart TV. It is so much worse...
Smart TVs are only bad if you do the dumb thing of connecting them to the internet.
I miss Dumb TVs, and Sceptre quality is too hit or miss to rely on them.
I had the same on my 3 yr old Vizio TV earlier this week. TV was useless until I agreed. I don’t know whether it operates without an internet connection, because it has a couple Apps I use that are not supported on my Fire Stick
I have a Vizio as well. It’s been disconnected from the internet for at least 2 years now and functions fine. I guess I miss out on updates, and if I press the Vizio “home” button it freezes up as it’s trying to connect for 20-30 secs before I can do anything, but works fine with an external Android or Apple box. You obviously won’t be able to use any of their apps if you disconnect from the internet, but it’s 100% worth it.
Why would a TV need an update? What's changed that would require updating to continue to display the signal it's getting?
I have a Vizio that isn't connected to the Internet and it's essentially a computer monitor for my htpc that I control.
If it ever forces me to update I'm getting rid of it.
My real concern is that in 10 years, my htpc loophole will be closed and they'll datamine me anyway and force me into subscriptions regardless.
Well that’s just it, mostly unnecessary if you’re using it as essentially a monitor (like both of us are doing). Most of the updates would have to do with their smartcast OS or additional features or apps. The updates could also have additional support for devices as new hardware comes out, bug fixes (or additional bugs), speed improvements, etc.
They could definitely implement hardware that automatically connects to wifi without your permission. I guess a solution to that would be to connect to your own internet at home, maybe on a separate subnet that is blocked from accessing the internet.
Are you able to use the built-in airPlay/Chromecast, if it’s on your local network but not the internet and assuming you have a model with that?
Not sure about chromecast, but for AirPlay you don’t need internet connection. It’s probably the same for both, but I use an AppleTV and used a Xiaomi Mibox 3 before that, and would just cast to those if I need.
I’m pretty committed to trying Apple TV like this, as everything else gets shittier faster.
Currently the only thing stopping me is rumors of a new release: If that’s going to happen, I at least want to see what it is before deciding what to buy.
For example, the practical part of the big AI push: Apple has been using more “Neural Engines” in recent processors and that directly translates to better on-device voice processing
I wonder if they are planning some serious invasive activities.
Probably. We’re in the middle of a wave of “increased monetization” of streaming. We mostly see more ads, but more tracking helps justify a higher price for ads.
Maybe it’s all Google’s fault 😉. Now that Chrome finally implemented features to block tracking cookies, there’s a potential shift in where advertising dollars are spent. What soulless greedy corporate huckster wouldn’t be salivating at that opportunity?
Sections 1(F) and 1(L) seem like the only ways out/around of this. (IANAL; the bolding emphasis was done by me.)
You need your original purchase receipt to opt out? I hope that's not legal. I wonder if roku could be subject to a lawsuit over this...
IANAL, but the answer to your question would depend on the bolded part of the clause ('if applicable')...
Who decides what is applicable or not, and if the applicable scenarios are not listed in the terms, then are any applicable?
How does someone who is not a lawyer determine this so they can make an informed decision before they can agree to it?
It also depends on whether that clause is enforceable.
True, but enforceable or not is different from what I was asking about though.
For the sake of argument let's say that it is enforceable. How then does a regular person, a non-lawyer, understand what they're agreeing to, when verbiage is used like what I've quoted above.
IMO opting out is meaningless.
Despite the fact that attorneys are the primary beneficiaries of class action suits, the settlement dollar amounts are often high enough to give companies like Roku pause before they make consumer hostile changes. Not enough people will jump through Roku's absurd opt-out hoops to make a class action suit worthwhile for attorneys, and thus those lawsuits won't be filed in the first place, removing any risk to Roku no matter what BS they pull. They simply don't give a fuck and don't want that to end up costing them.
Of course the few people who opt-out can sue on their own, but the settlement dollars will be insignificant to a company the size of Roku.
Years ago being beneficial to the community was part of the mission statement of many corporations. That slowly disappeared and companies moved to customer service theater. Now even the pretense of being of benefit to communities and customers is being dropped and companies are regularly openly hostile outside their PR departments. And they wonder why people hate them.
Imagine the paperwork though (processing, tracking, etc.) that they would have to go through if everyone did send in a letter, option out.
I mean, we can stay cynical, stay beaten down, or we can push back. If enough people push back, you'll definitely see change.
The problem is there's always someone convincing people not to push back online, for some strange reason.
Lol! So you're going to punish Roku about their consumer hostile stance with some extra paperwork? That's the ticket!
Very, very few people will even take 10 minutes to open an online AG complaint about a company that is directly harming them by openly breaking the law. You think a comment on Lemmy (or anywhere) is going to make a damn bit of difference to a legal corporate practice that started long before social media existed?
I know a guy who has deal on a really great bridge...
Funny you should accuse me of that. You might want to take a look at this post I just made on the same day I replied to you...
https://lemmy.world/comment/8140817
The only point I'm trying to make is don't be cynical and just sit on your ass, and do nothing about it. Even if the only things you can do are small things, they're still things that you're doing.
At the very least you can look at yourself in the mirror, and if you're lucky, you may help affect real change.
Sending opt-out letters to Roku, no matter how many the receive won't make the slightest bit of difference and you know it. The points I made in my post are perfectly valid, both in respect to Roku and corporations in general. Affecting real change has nothing to do with Roku or a thousand opt-out letters.
Real, lasting change at this point can only be accomplished politically. Corporations will only change because they're forced to and that doesn't have a damn thing to do with my comment, or with yours.
So get off your high-horse, quit with the straw-man arguments and look at your own fucking self in the mirror.
NO U!
LOL! Did you learn that in nursery school?
You're a 'having the last word' type of person, aren't ya?
when did you get this, have a roku tv box and haven't got this yet
Is there a factory reset button on it? Maybe you might be able to reset the TV and never connect it to the WiFi?
Potentially - but I'd prefer not to do a factory reset. I was/am happy to use the services that I was already using and paying for that were not affiliated with Roku. A factory reset would remove access to those 3rd party services.
Besides that, I'm pretty sure that you cannot use a roku-enabled device for any purpose until you agree to their terms of service, which just puts me back into the same boat.
Do you have any recommendations for dumb TVs?
My friend, I'm trying to offer you a solution so you can still use your current TV at the very least. Your tv if useless right now, correct? Resetting it and not connecting it to the internet might allow that. And you could then hook up a separate streaming device to it.
I thought that was you goal?
There is no hardware reset switch and in order to perform a software reset you need to get to the menu and to do that, you have to agree to the terms.
Alright then. That's too bad. I guess you don't have a choice but to either accept the terms or sell it and buy a new one.
I have an old 720p 32in Sony Bravia TV from 2010 with both analog and digital signal reception with all the old inputs that allow me to plug my old consoles on it. None of that smart tv bullshit. The day it dies on me, I think I will cry.
I just stick with computer monitors these days.
"Smart" TVs are f****** ridiculous now.
Problem with monitors is they're not practical as a TV replacement for a livingroom environment. The 16/9 ones pretty much top out in the 40s inch wise unless you're going for something outrageously expensive like the Samsung Arc. Then you're investing a lot into features that don't necessarily benefit the livingroom entertainment uses like GSync if all you're using it for is watching movies and TV.
There's a lot of smart TVs that work great as dumb displays (my LG never shows anything from it's OS, just my inputs) as long as you don't connect them to the internet
I didn't know there were any smart TVs that weren't pieces of s*** anymore, so that's good to hear.
Personally, I've never had a problem finding a large monitor that fit my living room well.
I buy a separate Chromebook or similar $30 used laptop and run everything off of that through HDMI to the monitor.
Cheap and easy.
Ditto for my Samsung QLED. It’s fine as a dumb monitor. Don’t connect it to the internet, throw the remote in a drawer, and use CEC streaming boxes and game consoles to control it.
There's plenty available in larger sizes if you look for 'commercial display' instead, e.g.
Also you need to move on from 'as long as you don’t connect them to the internet'. It may have been true once, it isn't true anymore- see comments here about Roku TV including from OP and discussion on a recent Hacker news thread
These are digital signage displays. They're meant to sell the McRib at McDonald's. If you care about any of the features that make modern TVs look great, black levels, contrast ratio, HDR these won't cut it.
And yes the bottom of the barrel brands like Roku and Viso will give you the bottom of the barrel experience. This is not the same if you go with something like LG, Samsung or Sony
2024: the year of the raspberry pi tv
You still need a TV though. OP cannot switch inputs.
That is some grade A bullshit right there (not op, the Roku tv)
Why do you call it "your" physical device?
Lol, point well stated...
People might not like this suggestion but I got an AppleTV when my Roku TV started showing ads. Like everything with Apple, it cost money but at least there’s no fucking ads. (I have a Raspberry Pi running Kodi for my “DVD rips” but for streaming services, the Apple TV is great. It’s got HDR and Dolby support and they don’t fuck up the user experience on purpose. I know it’s making a deal with the devil but it does just work. I usually am a DIY person but when I sit down to watch TV, I just want to relax.)
How could I get it to show my 4K HDR files?
By the Apple TV 4K version..
And then...
Your Apple TV will connect to your computer's iTunes Library via Home Sharing if you want it to, and then you can add whatever you like to your own iTunes Library, if that's what you were wondering.
Why can't we ever have anything nice?
I don't even know what's worse, really. Is it that they're making a shit product on purpose, or that their EULA says you cannot sue them for making a shit product
You can still class action lawsuit them. No matter what, you can't sign your rights away. Also, they can't prove that YOU confirmed their agreement. -"oh my nephew must've clicked it."
Smart TV would be great, in theory: watch normal TV, connect your console, watch multiple streaming server, even stuff from your own LAN. But no, they have to go and do this kind of shit.
That’s a very utopian scenario. Any time a “smart” tv is released, they do anything in their power to force you into their ecosystem. Like streaming services? Well how convenient. The one they partnered with is on the front page. Other ones? Sucks to suck
IKR? I've been pretty happy with their service up until now. Sure, the home menu ads were certainly annoying, but were easily ignoreable and didn't interfere with normal use of the TV.
It's weird, I don't mind waiving rights when I know what I'm in for. (I'll sign the release form when I do something inherently dangerous.) However, I don't like having the deal changed out from under me, and I certainly don't like not being given a choice. I should have had the ability to hit decline, then forfeit my right to access roku on-demand services and maybe even firmware updates. But, whatever I had installed and working with 3rd party services shouldn't be affected. They shouldn't be allowed to disable the hardware. Honestly, and I mean speaking from the heart here, I probably would have just clicked OK without much thought about it if they'd at least included the disagree button.
Yeah that's where consumer protection laws come into play...
use the search terms "commercial display" to find dumb tvs
Except if you care about anything having to do with picture quality, brightness, contrast ratio or features such as HDR etc, then it's going to be a really shitty TV. They're made for the menus at McDonald's, not a device for modern media.
not quite. here's one for ya
Nice find!
I'd be curious to see RTINGS do a review of the panel on it.
And be careful, a lot don't have built in speakers either. Don't just expect to get a TV out of a commercial display.
Eh, the built-in speakers on most TVs these days are all pretty trash across the board. You pretty much need a sound bar at the very least, these days.
Roku is the worst thing to happen to television since motion smoothing.
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit
I just use a dumb hdtv with a laptop and wireless mouse. From there you have a lot of options
Starting it up without an internet connection will prevent the pop-up from locking you out of your own device
You have 30 days to opt out by sending a letter to:
General Counsel, Roku Inc.
1701 Junction Court, Suite 100
San Jose, CA 95112
Letter must include:
This "smart" tv shite is getting so goddamn out of hand.
In the past 3 months, my dads TV had to be replaced because the module that runs Google TV shite broke, causing the TV to get stuck with an error message on screen, this was more of an annoyance than a big issue, as you could still watch TV, just with the error message displaying.
Then a few weeks after that it had to be replaced because at first I thought the backlight was dead (nothing but a feint glow on screen while having audio) as this happened even from a cold boot, but turned out that the Bravia module would run into a hung/frozen state right after it booted.
So, ya think that would be it right?
Nope, a good month after that, the TV would constantly log my parents out of Bravia, Google TV and any apps they had installed (indicating to me there was as storage issue).
The store they got the thing from were sure they must be doing something wrong, so sent someone out who spent a good 4 hours repeatedly factory resetting the TV, relogging them in to then be surprised the issue was exactly as we described.
So, 3 months, TV replaced 3 times, all due to issues with the goddamn Smart TV shite they shove into everything.
And you have to know, here there's nothing on cable or air you don't have on digital, your internet provider gives you a decoder for digital TV and all your TV really needs to do is accept a HDMI signal and you should be set to watch whatever you want, as Netflix and some other streaming services are integrated into their decoder to begin with.
But it's almost impossible to find any TVs without several layers of this smart tv shite integrated into them.
Are you a wealthy lawyer at a huge firm? If so do not sign it! If not, your participation in a class action suit would net you about $7.50
If you are simply a man of principle, I feel you but this world is no longer meant for you. Either become a recluse monk or click the button like the sheep we have become and just let a little bit of extra bitterment enter your soul.
Sucks... Here's your solution going forward, they're called LFDs or Commercial TVs. You're welcome. Downside is they may or may not have HDTV tuners, but there are options to get OTA channels that don't involve them.
The downside is those are meant to be ultrabright for viewing in a highly lit restaurant counter with a really slow refresh rate and they tend to cost thousands of dollars. They are simply not meant for use as a display for movies and games.
Not all. We employ these at my work for various applications such as movie playback and they have various brightness levels too. Look at LG Professional series or Dell LFDs.