- "Smart" alarm clock requires micropayment to use snooze.
And they say:
"Why not? We indicated in the TOS (on page 4) our ability to 'modify the program as needed to better support our customers or our services.'
"Also please note that our TOS, which incorporates our Privacy Policy, allows us to sell your wake-up time to third parties in real-time.
"And before you say you never agreed to our TOS, we say you did when you plugged the SuperSmartestAlarm into a power outlet (as clearly indicated on page 22 of the aforementioned TOS, which can be conveniently viewed in a 6" x 2" frame with vertical and horizontal scrollbars)."
[Since this is too close to the truth to be obvious satire: no, this is not happening AFAIK (right now).]
They wouldn't need to bury that in the TOS; they'd make it a feature: "Our innovative pay-to-snooze feature helps you get up earlier by penalizing you for hitting the snooze button"
That's already a feature on some smartphone alarms. However, it requires opt-in and usual payment verification - if I want to spend my money on snooze, and specifically authorize this, there's no problem at all.
It's from 2018, and no progress has been mad on this wonderous world for ad-subsidized fridges that I know of.
Still, it's clear people are thinking along these lines.
And I remain adamant that any appliance I own like this must not have wifi or bluetooth functionality. After my TV started showing ads when I switched inputs, I'm done giving these people an inch.
There has to be a point where so many things are so heavily encumbered with ads that that there isn't actually a product left to sell any more, it's just a material vehicle for delivering more adverts. And things don't work well because all they're designed for is displaying ads. And the ads themselves are just ads for more ads.
And the wealthy will get their peace of mind as they buy out of the system while continuing to preside over and profit from it. It's just going to become another thing that poor people have to live with; subservience to the corporate overlords.
There was one startup that I met a few years ago that focused on enabling IoT on 'dumb' devices. Their first product some sort of plug for ceiling fans that allowed people to turn on & off / control the ceiling fan with their smartphone. The product also required a $5/month subscription service.
I remember asking the CEO why would someone pay $5/month just to control their fan and he basically responded that the idea seems ludicrous and this point in time, but eventually people will catch on, and then he made an allusion to Microsoft Office and how that it's becoming a subscription product despite initially being one-off purchase 15 years ago.
I think you're overestimating the degree to which useless subscriptions are sustainable. I just moved and am about to purchase something identical to what you're describing[1], and it's a one-time purchase, as expected.
If it has a cloud dependency, you can be confident that the system it controls will probably outlive the service's free lifetime.
If you're willing to do some technical work, there is fantastic open source tooling in this space. Then you'll have a setup that isn't affected by the business desires or financial problems of others. As a bonus, you get better latency over lan.
Oh agreed, I haven't yet purchased the unit because it's on my todo list to look into options that don't have external deps. Historically, I have a strong preference for removing unnecessary servers in favor of using dynamic DNS with a device on my home network.
My only point was that even this server-based system is already selling without a subscription, and as you point out, the off-ramp to a system with no cloud dependency is pretty clear for those who want to avoid subscriptions (or dependencies in general).
Are you sure it will stay a one-time purchase?
Given the post topic, your confidence seems ironic.
In a few years' time, you might start seeing ads in the associated app...
I think you've misunderstood both my comment and the one I was responding to. Neither of us mentioned ads?
I was pointing out that even the parent comment's very example of a slow slide towards universal subscriptions that add no value didn't hold. It was framed as "I have inside knowledge of this nascent product category and its capture by useless subscriptions", while in reality this is already a market category that exists without any such issues.
This bizarre wild-eyed fearmongering about insane, lose-lose, somehow-inescapable business models is HN's version of QAnon.
Isn't the answer to just buy a product explicitly marketed as ad-free? I used to watch enough YouTube that it was worth it for me to pay $10/mo to disable ads (and stream music). It never occurred to me that I was owed as a human right limitless free content with no implicit or explicit cost.
Similarly, if ads partially fund a toaster, just....pay more for the toaster without ads? The expansion of ads to every product category doesn't warrant the assumption that it will _consume_ every product category, leaving no ad-free alternatives.
Except no ad-free service remains ad-free forever. Sooner or later, subscriber growth slows down, and the standard playbook to continue to grow revenue is:
(a) introduce new products that require additional subscriptions (but eventually the company runs out of new products to introduce),
(b) raise subscription fees a tiny little bit every year (but there's a limit to how much any company can do that without angering customers too much), and
(c) break existing ad-free plans into new tiers of service, some or all of which have... ads.
> Except no ad-free service remains ad-free forever.
None of the examples you gave (toasters, windows, paint, and shower-heads) are services. I used YouTube (a service) as an example, because we're not in a world where products are overrun with ads the way services are, but my point was that even the service market has started to offer alternatives to ads.
The idea that the market will bear every product getting service-ized but somehow not offer any ad-free versions is nonsensical, at least in the steady state.
Aside from not being true in general (none of the videos I watch have product placement/sponsorships), this is completely irrelevant. We're discussing the YouTube content delivery service, not the manner in which the content is funded, in exactly the same way that "the movies you're watching already have product placement" would be completely irrelevant to the discussion on this thread about ads in the interface through which you watch the movie.
Tangential, but you reminded me of it: it's truly fascinating how incredibly brain-damaging discussion of ads seem to be. Every single thread I've ever read on the topic is full of non sequiturs, nonsensical analogues, glaring logical inconsistencies, etc. The only other topic I can think of that makes people similarly insane is airlines (cf my "why should I pay taxes" uncle complaining about airlines no longer requiring other passengers to pay for transporting his suitcases).
Interesting, I did some quick Googling and was able to find a good handful of 2020 models with no ads, but none for 2021. I'll take your word for it that they don't exist, but the fact that this is the first year where that appears to be the case is not strong evidence to me that this is the steady-state of the TV market.
You make a good point that it might not be the steady state of the display market, but I think it is for the majority of TVs today.
As alternatives, you can buy commercial displays that are effectively TVs (with HDMI in), however they lag in specs and lack some features. You can also buy hospitality versions of TVs as 'dumb' TVs for a similar price, but these also tend to have lower specs. You can buy large format computer monitors (55" is about the highest I've seen) but they are substantially more expensive (roughly 3x more expensive) and typically use DisplayPort instead of HDMI.
I only learned about the options because I'm looking to replace my 2013 Plasma TV that has a power supply problem.
Good to know, thanks. I was actually going to buy a TV a couple of weeks ago, but ended up deciding to make my large monitor do double-duty instead of stuffing another screen into my "cozy" new place in Manhattan. It's good to know that I dodged a bullet: it's easy enough for me to avoid ads that when I do come across them, I find them pretty jarring.
Adverts specifically, or just being able to scorch any design into your toast? The later sure would be neat and novel, my nephew gets a kick out of pancakes that look like his favorite cartoon characters.
Smart toasters that force you to watch ads before getting your toast in the morning?
Smart windows that display ads that block your view of your backyard?
Smart paints that display ads on your bedroom walls?
Smart shower-heads that play jingles as you wash yourself?
Smart brain implants that directly induce subconscious desire to buy certain products and services?
Is there some kind of limit at which we value the right to personal privacy and the right to peace-of-mind over the right to advertise?