On 8/2/2023 3:17 PM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:
> Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>> On 8/2/2023 6:34 AM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:
>>>> But, there's no real need for that in devices that you *don't* have
>>>> to address (e.g., a TV resolving a URL through a proxy instead of
>>>> directly)
>>>
>>> Now you delve back into the area where the manufacturer sees an
>>> after-sale revenue stream from the sale of "usage/monitoring" data
>>> to advertisers. A TV that directly resolved a URL would not give
>>> the manufacturer "usage/monitoring" data that they could monetize by
>>> selling it to advertisers. Having the TV resolve all URL's via a
>>> proxy does give the manufacturer that data stream they can then
>>> monetize.
>>
>> How often do folks *really* use their TV to surf the web?
>
> For the non-technical crowd (i.e., the 98 percentile of users, the
> answer is likely 'surprisingly often'. Granted, the use very well may
> be: 1) youtube 2) porn 3) latest cat video from FB/instagram/etc vs. TI
> chip datasheets.

I know of exactly one "average joe" who gets content over the internet.
All others use cable. (but, most of the folks I know are older and
have stable viewing habits -- not fad driven)

>> You DL *content* through the various services installed on the TV
>> (and they can directly monitor your consumption of each,
>> individually; the TV manufacture could conceivably monitor which of
>> them you use/avoid.)
>
> They (the manufacturer) could know everything about your usage of the
> "TV", as they provide the OS, and can add whatever additional
> monitoring hooks they want.

My point was that "Netflix" has no way of knowing what you are consuming
on "Amazon" ... or VUDU or ... Unless the manufacturer has agreed to
share this information with them, they don't even know if you've been
*watching* TV!

And, a TV displaying content sourced via cable tells the manufacturer
*nothing* of your viewing habits.

>>> As well, going through a proxy also provides some "plug and play"
>>> ability when the TV is installed on a local network that does not
>>> have any local nameservice setup due to lack of knowledge on the
>>> part of the owner, or lack of doing so on the part of the ISP
>>> installer who installed the network access point for the customer.
>>> So the TV maker
>>
>> The TV is a "pull" device wrt network addressing. Even screencasting
>> is handled through the UI provided *in* the TV. And, because it is
>> on 24/7 (even if "sleeping"), it never needs to surrender a lease.
>
> DHCP lease vs. 'nameserver IP' are two different things. If it uses a

Of course. But, a numeric IP that "rarely changes" is as good as a
static IP. And, a static IP is as good as a name.

Given that most homes have few IP devices competing for addresses
and that DHCP servers will tend to reoffer the same IP to a "repeat
customer" (assuming the TV gets shut off for many lease times),
a dynamic address can be as good as a static one.

[My NASs each take leases. Yet, I can find them reliably because
their IPs don't really change.]

> proxy for all network coms. (and has the proxy's IP addresses already
> stored) it can operate in a network that has only DHCP providing only
> an IP for the device and a gateway IP. It won't care, nor need, the
> DHCP server to also indicate a nameserver to utilize. Thereby making
> it slightly more "plug-and-play" as I said.
>
>>> can attempt to 'explain away' the monitoring as seemingly necessary for
>>> it to work in a wider array of missconfigured network situations (and
>>> sadly, the non-technical user would buy such an explanation).
>>
>> I would more buy the idea that the TV itself would be vulnerable to
>> changes in web technology, exploits and other things that could make
>> it misbehave or fail to render a site properly.
>
> Yes, this will happen, and from the manufacturer's perspective simply
> means the device is likely to be replaced sooner rather than later,
> keeping the new sales treadmill running.

That's a gamble on the manufacturer's part. MS thought they could move
past XP just by declaring that a new OS was available. Yet, folks
clung to XP. (Ditto W7)

Granted, XP continued to work so they weren't forced to make a choice.
But, if they had been, do you think it wouldn't have prompted folks to
look into alternatives -- Linux, OSX, android ("let's get rid of this
big, klunky laptop")

Why not issue a new product annually and "train" folks to replace
even more often? Ans: because each time they have to replace something
is an opportunity for them to decide NOT to replace with YOUR product.

>> A *smart* proxy could conceivably address these issues (or, at least,
>> protect the device/network)
>
> Possibly -- but given the crap quality of most of the software on most
> smart tv's, I very much doubt the maker is concerned with 'fixing'
> broken renderings or with 'protecting' the device.
>
>>>>>> Clearly this has value if the user wants to access the device
>>>>>> while OFF his "local subnet".  E.g., check your Ring doorbell
>>>>>> while you are away at work or adjust the temperature in your
>>>>>> house before you return to it (isn't the thermostat supposed to
>>>>>> KNOW how to do that??).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, this embeds much of the devices' value in the proxy.  E.g.,
>>>>>> a ring doorbell that can't get out to The Internet is just an
>>>>>> overpriced buzzer.  (A thermostat can, at least, fall back to
>>>>>> being a $20 thermostat)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not saying its desirable, just that from the point of view of
>>>>> the manufacturer, it's simple, and avoids the cost of providing
>>>>> support to help people get things running, and also avoids comment
>>>>> in social media about how it "doesn't work."
>>>>>
>>>>> If the manufacturer goes out of business and no longer pays for
>>>>> the proxy, then everyone's devices are more or less bricked, but
>>>>> the manufacture has gone, and doesn't care.
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine manufacturers make such decisions *thinking* they
>>>> may go out of business (and washing their hands of the
>>>> consequences, therefore). Rather, it would seem that a
>>>> manufacturer would be concerned that they would have ongoing costs
>>>> even after the product was no longer generating revenue.
>>>
>>> More likely the decision is made for a combination of several reasons:
>>>
>>> 1) more likely to "just work" in a plug-and-play mode given a
>>> non-technical user and in a wider array of miss-configured
>>> network situations
>>
>> Yet damn near every user has a (wireless) router that suffers from
>> the same configuration issues, lack of intuitive UI, etc. And, folks
>> all rely on them for *all* their access...
>
> And for a huge segment of that population, that wireless router was
> installed and configured by "the cable guy" and was never touched by
> the end user again for any configuration.
>
> You are viewing the world from a "I know how it works, and I can
> change/reconfigure it" viewpoint. 98% of the general public can just
> barely handle plugging the power brick into the wall outlet and into
> the box, and pressing the "on" button. They operate in a very
> different world from the one you inhabit.

I think you underestimate the resources that folks have
available to them. EVERYONE knows some neighborhood kid
who's "a whiz with computers" (it may even be their
own kid!). Or, can quiz the IT-guy at work for advice.
Or...

>>> 2) less support calls from non-technical users (translation: less
>>> cost to in providing any after-sales support)
>>
>> Except when the proxy is not available or fails (or is discontinued).
>> As it is an integral part of the service, at those times, the user
>> MUST contact support.
>
> No, because for a large segment, they will presume the device has
> failed and proceed to go buy another. Esp. if their cellphone/tablet
> still works while the TV has quit.

I see TVs replaced because someone wanted bigger/better.
This is especially true around the holidays and Superbowl.
If 40 inches was good, 50 will be better. And 60 is better
than 50. And...

Most people, here, have multiple TVs in their homes and
an "overflow" TV out in the garage. "Wow! 4K! The picture
is *so* much better!!" "Gee, a CURVED screen! No more
head swiveling to see both sides of the screen!"

People spend (a lot) on "entertainment" (of which the
phone is a big part) and rationalize those "costs" as
essential. Canvas your friends and neighbors (including
that "98 percent)) and see what they spend on phone, cable,
internet each month. How many TVs they have.

Clearly, they can economize on those things -- yet choose not
to. How many have the latest iPhone -- despite the fact
that the previous *8* models all still work!

>>> 3) the datastream provides "side-channel" monetization to the
>>> manufacturer via sales to advertising companies in some way
>>>
>>> 4) the "forced obsolescence" factor when the manufactuer decides to
>>> remove the "proxy" is seen as providing future sales that might
>>> not otherwise happen as users replace their now non-functioning
>>> devices. (This one may or may not often factor in, numbers 1-3
>>> above would likely be sufficient to convince most of there being
>>> value in the "go through a proxy always" operation method). Esp.
>>> #3 where the manufacturer gets some level of revenue stream even
>>> after the initial device sale.
>>
>> Do you really think people are happy with "forced obsolescence"?
>
> Those of us technical enough to understand it, no, we are not happy

Those of us who understand it can usually work around it. TV
can't handle MKVs... but, the little media player I've connected
to it can.

> with it. For the 98% non-technical "plug-and-play" users, they don't
> see it as "forced obsolescence" but as "the dang TV's quit working".

The dang TV doesn't quit working because the content is delivered
by the cable box -- and the cable company has an incentive to
keep that hardware running. The TV gets replaced out of vanity.

The phone gets replaced for similar reasons.

We've not updated the maps in the car's GPS in ~10 years.
Why? Because there's no need to spend $100/yr to cover the
two or three *new* roads that may have been paved in that
time (and businesses go out of business often enough that
even an annual update wouldn't guarantee accuracy).

The GPS isn't "entertainment" so isn't high on folks' priority
list.

If we had to replace the audio head in the car to continue to
receive radio broadcasts, play CDs and MP3s, we'd not consider
it -- the cost would be outrageous (labor alone) so we'd find
a way of playing whatever the latest audio encoding was (by
recoding the files)

> If it is outside the warranty period they then go looking to replace
> it.
>
>> To the extent that they would re-up with the same supplier to reward
>> him for treating them thusly?
>
> When all the suppliers are treating you the same way, who you gonna
> call? They might swap to a different brand, but then a customer of
> that other brand swaps to this brand for the same reason, and both
> brands see "an additonal sale" and see the sales treadmill keep on
> spinning.

People get off treadmills when they get tired/bored of them.
Broadcast media used to have a monopoly hold on their audience
and could squeeze as many "adverts" into a show as they wanted.
Then, viewers moved to cable. Cable engages in similar behavior
and people move to other media sources (we watch almost *0*
TV weekly -- but the TV is on for many hours as we watch DVDs
and other "local content")

Soon, we'll be purchasing "commercial detector AIs" that will
accurately screen content to our liking. What will the content
providers do when folks stop watching commercials?

There's always an alternative. If the alternative is easily
embraced, then the previous patterns are at risk (watching
a VHS tape was considerably harder than watching a broadcast
movie; watching a DVD a bit less so; a DVR? an integrated
media tank??)

>> It's one thing to have a "free trial" period expire and be faced with
>> the question of "do I want to PAY for that service that I'd
>> previously had for free". It's another to have something that you
>> feel you *have* paid for taken away, "arbitrarily".
>
> For the non-technical user base, they don't understand that the TV quit
> because the manufacturer decided they wanted to turn off the proxy
> server supporting the TV. They just see that the TV quit. Not "quit"

The only folks who will "see" this are folks who are using the
services made available via that proxy. If you are served via
cable and the "TV quit", then you'll call the cable company,
not buy a new TV. If you were surfing the web via your
TV, you'll switch to another device -- even if only temporarily.
If this proves NOT to be inconvenient, you won't worry about
finding a replacement TV that has that capability.

You don't want to put customers into positions where they have
to make decisions. People are lazy. They will keep doing what
they HAVE been doing because they are "too busy" to deal with
researching/deciding alternatives.

This is why changes in service terms, pricing, obsolescence,
etc. are downside risks.

Do you really want to buy another home security system?
Thermostat? Microwave oven (or other major appliance)?

Buying a new phone is like a trip to the toy store.
Buying a new thermostat is like a trip to the stationer's
(something visited so infrequently that each visit comes with
apprehension as to what you "don't know")

> as in the push button screen remains dark type, but as in "won't play
> youtube" or "won't play pornhub" or whatever they were going to watch.
> So they will chalk things up to "it's broke" and toss it out to the
> curb to be replaced by another one.
>
>> "What's to keep them from doing this, again, NEXT year?
>
> Nothing.
>
>> How much time do I want to spend repurchasing something that I
>> already *owned*?"
>
> Me, zero. But you and I understand how this stuff works. Most
> purchasers don't and simply see it as "it broke".
>
>> Are you going to "rent" your software tools -- after having become
>> accustomed to *owning* them (under license)?
>
> Me, no. I don't buy software anymore either -- there's enough
> GPL/OpenSource that I have not purchased anything for a couple decades
> now.
>
> But, given the number of folks signing up for Adobe studio or all the
> other "rent your software forever" offerings, a huge number of folks
> have no problem with renting their software forever.

Adobe offers value for money. And, targets a different segment of the
population. Does MSOffice (compared to some older version thereof)
any moreso than Open/LibreOffice?

The dwindling number of "home users" of computers have turned them
into "WWW browsers" and "Notepad/Wordpad" appliances. SWMBOs
artist friends use some piece of software that (only!) runs on iPads.
(who the hell would want to deal with a 10 inch screen??)

The software market is now the business market. "How much will
it cost me to purchase licenses for 3000 seats? And, how much
will it cost me to support those licenses?"

>> Are you going to rent your music after having purchased a collection
>> of titles?
>
> Again, no. All mine is mp3/aac's on a local filesystem, without any
> DRM.
>
> But, given the number of folks subscribing to music streaming services,
> a huge number of people have no problem renting music as well, even
> after they likely purchased a CD, and before than a Cassette, and
> before that a vinyl record, of the same music.

Young people likely "chase the latest" and haven't yet learned to
collect music (in anticipation of that day when their tastes
will "stagnate" and they'll frown on whatever is contemporary).

[Young people chase the latest in MANY things -- clothing, fashion,
social trends, etc. -- so are poor examples of durable behaviors...
witness how having a phone in their hands changed behaviors that
were the norm just prior!]

They also are less likely to have other places to spend their
monies (homes, families, retirement savings, etc.) and can easily
indulge the present without worrying about making long term
choices. (Do I want THIS refrigerator or THAT -- given that
I will likely be living with it and RELYING on it for many years?)