Telly TV - free 55” paid for by ads (1 Viewer)

[DaveF]

“Telly dual-screen TV first look: it’s free and may be the future - The Verge”

Telly dual-screen TV first look: it’s free and may be the future

No, you can’t just cover the smaller screen that shows ads.

www.theverge.com

You know what you’re signing up for from the word go. That’s the main gist behind Telly, a free-to-own 4K television that’s “free” because of a secondary bottom display that will constantly rotate through advertising while also, in theory, providing unique second-screen functionality. Think widgets, news tickers, sports scores, and more. You answer some surveys and let Telly share your viewing habits with advertisers, and in exchange, you pay nothing for a 55-inch 4K TV.

 

[Edwin-S]

Not even for a free TV would I want to be subjected to a ticker tape of targeted ads constantly scrolling below something I was trying to watch.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Let’s put a second screen in there so you can see stats in your fantasy sports and do sports betting.

Jesus.

 

[Edwin-S]

This stuff is starting to remind me of that part in Fahrenheit 451 where you stop watching the TV and the TV starts watching you.

There is really nothing free about this except that they get free direct access into your life. You don't even own the thing. They demand that it be the primary display and that you sit in front of it for a specified time, otherwise they can deactivate and demand the return of it.

I was figuring one way of getting around the second screen would be to devise some sort of cover, but that screen is probably where the presence sensor is.

 

[DaveF]

If Telly TV can do what they say it’s going to do, it’s going to be vastly successful. People love $0 products. FAST services are becoming super popular now and getting prestige content, like WestWorld from HBO. Ad-supported 1080p streaming plans from Netflix and Hulu are more profitable than premium-priced no-ad streaming plans.

 

[John Dirk]

If Telly TV can do what they say it’s going to do, it’s going to be vastly successful. People love $0 products. FAST services are becoming super popular now and getting prestige content, like WestWored from HBO. Ad-supported 1080p streaming plans from Netflix and Hulu are more profitable than premium-priced no-ad streaming plans.

While certainly nothing I'd ever consider, I tend to agree. In time I can even see this sort of real-time interaction with screens being preferred over over the current "buck shot" approach to advertising.

 

[JohnRice]

Yeah, I can see this being fairly successful. It’s just not a product an HTF member is likely to be interested in.

 

[DaveF]

Yeah, I can see this being fairly successful. It’s just not a product an HTF member is likely to be interested in.

I’m not sure. There’s a solid low-cost contingent, looking to save money and sometimes aggressively so.

 

[John Dirk]

I’m not sure. There’s a solid low-cost contingent, looking to save money and sometimes aggressively so.

From what I saw in the article the savings would be mostly in the initial hardware. I'm sure there will be plenty of ad-supported content but established services such as Netflix, Apple TV, etc. would still require subscriptions, right? I've used Pluto TV here and there for older content but the new stuff isn't going to be there. I'd assume this is the same.

 

[DaveF]

From what I saw in the article the savings would be mostly in the initial hardware. I'm sure there will be plenty of ad-supported content but established services such as Netflix, Apple TV, etc. would still require subscriptions, right? I've used Pluto TV here and there for older content but the new stuff isn't going to be there. I'd assume this is the same.

Yes. Free hardware subsidized by the advertising. The owner could then subscribe to free (ad supported) streaming services like Pluto and FreeVee, for a completely zero-out-of-pocket cost TV experience.

 

[DaveF]

FAST are no longer just for ancient reruns. Recent “premiere” content is becoming available on them.

Westworld and other axed HBO Max shows will return on free streaming services

They haven’t vanished forever

www.polygon.com

 

[John Dirk]

Yes. Free hardware subsidized by the advertising. The owner could then subscribe to free (ad supported) streaming services like Pluto and FreeVee, for a completely zero-out-of-pocket cost TV experience.

While (as stated previously) this is of absolutely no interest to me as a consumer, I must admit I am very intrigued by it conceptually for a few reasons.

• Low end TV's are more or less commodity items at this point. How much value is there really in a free one when you can just pay $200.00 and have one (ostensibly) untethered.
• What might the terms of use be? Will customers be required to clock a minimum number of hours to prevent men in suits from coming to their homes to repossess their sets?
• Who is responsible for physical damage to the product? How will EOL be handled?

These are just a few things off the top of my head. I'm sure they'll all be worked out but it will be interesting to learn how.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Low end TV's are more or less commodity items at this point. How much value is there really in a free one when you can just pay $200.00 and have one (ostensibly) untethered.

I think a lot of people fail to calculate the value of their time when they opt for free or discounted ad-supported options vs full price subscriptions.

Since Dave mentioned Westworld was now on an ad-supported service, I’ll use that as an example - it’s approximately 40 one-hour-long episodes. Let’s say it takes a month to watch them all, that’s probably a reasonable amount of time for most viewers. Figure once they add commercials, you’re probably getting anywhere from 5-10 minutes of ads per episode on the low end, adding up to maybe four to ten hours of commercials by the time someone has watched every episode. One month of HBO Max, where the show used to be, was $15. Is it worth watching four to ten hours of commercials to save $15? That’s valuing your time at far below minimum wage. That’s hours of your time you could have spent watching something else or doing something else that you’ve just given away for almost nothing.

But most viewers don’t think that way.

So I’d guess that people getting this kind of TV deal aren’t going to think about the value of their own time either.

 

[JohnRice]

...plus, let's not forget, FAST services have terrible video and audio quality. I've watched ONE movie on Freevee, and could barely make it through due to all the streaming hiccups, commercials inserted at random in the middle of sentences, and awful video and audio. I know I was already poo-pooed for saying this, but in general, people who come here to HTF typically are looking for something better than that.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

FWIW, I’ve watched two series on Freevee and had no technical issue - frustrating that there’s such a wide variety of experiences in 2023.

 

[DaveF]

I think a lot of people fail to calculate the value of their time when they opt for free or discounted ad-supported options vs full price subscriptions.

Most people’s time isn’t fungible, So their calculus may be simple: Do I care enough about TV to spend $$ or have that money for other things I care more about. Because 15 minutes of time saved doesn’t pay for the $20/mo HBO subscription.

 

[John Dirk]

Most people’s time isn’t fungible, So their calculus may be simple: Do I care enough about TV to spend $$ or have that money for other things I care more about. Because 15 minutes of time saved doesn’t pay for the $20/mo HBO subscription.

I think we're all saying basically the same thing. "There will be a market for this product but probably not many takers from the enthusiast community."

 

[DaveF]

I have scattered and likely inconsistent opinions on all this

I think Telly TV idea is so obvious and awesome and so ridiculous I wanted to share and talk about it.

TV hardware is already ad subsidized: we know this and have discussed it. The TCL and Vizio which are monitoring everything displayed and watched and selling the data to advertisers. That’s how their TVs are so cheap.

The difference is it’s invisible. The TV owner is (largely unwittingly) selling their personal info to get a cheap TV. TellyTV is making it in your face: here’s a ad bar you must look at. It’s like the garbage web you’re used to with pop ups but now in your living room while you watch Manifest..

But I now think this is going to be a hard sell. I can buy a 55” TCL Roku for $280 today. Why would I would deal with all the TOS garbage for this “free” TV they’re going to charge me $500 for if I don’t watch enough ads? I believe “free” is a motivator not to be underestimated. But “cheap and easy” usually trumps “free and uncertain” for most.

Spoiler: Rabbit Hole on piracy

(There’s a rabbit-hole topic here on the supposed threat the entertainment industry faces from pirated content, which I think has been overblown for decades to enact gate-keeping legislation. When the real threat is easier and better technology threatens them, until Big Entertainment is forced to make it easier for consumers. See also Apple iTunes store where dollar singles for download met the threat of Napster.)

As for enthusiasts: Most enthusiasts choose to spend money to buy the best they can afford. This kind of worsened viewing experience will not appeal to the super-majority. And as noted, even the frugal choose a sub-$300 TV over this weirdo.

And yet, as another discursive topic: enthusiasm doesn’t mean affluence. I was strongly part of the “how cheap and even free can I go” crowd 20 years ago in my HTF enthusiasm. The “more interest than budget” members continue to be part of the community. No doubt They would prefer to get the $25,000 NZ9 or the $6500 LG G3 83” OLED, but their budget might press them to take a $0 TellyTV 55” so they have $280 available to buy a few more discs.

As for time-value of ads: I understand and apply what @Josh Steinberg is saying in that analysis. But I’m not sure he’s right in asserting others don’t examine this. I think they do implicitly, as I described previously. Or put another way: I might have argued people who don’t simply subscribe to all services but instead waste time managing and juggling all their subscriptions for the best deal aren’t considering the value of their time. Just subscribe to everything, watch what you want when you want, and don’t bother turning them on and off and chasing temp deals and free offers. But again, that’s not fair. Because, time isn’t fungible. And even for me, at $20/mo for HBO and etc, we all just get tired and spending money on subscriptions and want to dial it back if only to feel like we’re not wasting money.

 

[DaveF]

Finally: on The Verge podcast, Nilay Patel observed that TellyTV rhymes with CueCat and expects people to do weird and strange things with it. I like and subscribe and can’t wait for that to play out. We’ll all be asking for our free TellyTV so we follow a YouTube tutorial on how to convert the second screen to show our personal calendars and text messages and no show any ads!

 

[bmasters9]

Somehow, I get the implication that this newfangled "Telly TV" expects you to watch and enjoy the latest and greatest of today (a.k.a. the most popular), and will not count it if you don't watch anything made today, or don't watch enough-- is that true?