6 ms·

I am hopeful that now that the FTC has a pro-consumer Chair that some of these anti-consumer acts will be curtailed. I would also argue that some of these bad

I am hopeful that now that the FTC has a pro-consumer Chair that some of these anti-consumer acts will be curtailed. I would also argue that some of these bad acts could be considered to be false / deceptive trade practices under the various state laws (in the U.S. at least). For example, some people would never have bought a FireTV cube for streaming video if Amazon had revealed that they would be adding advertisements to the consumer's video-viewing experience. But: how much incentive is there for individuals to file a small claims suit against Amazon for a $79 device? Generally speaking you might get treble damages but not much more unless you've had actual damages. And although class action suits are frustrating and should be "fixed" so that those harmed get the bulk of the proceeds (i.e. it's not okay that consumers receive discount coupons or $10 checks while plaintiff's counsel receives a disproportionally huge payday) this is one thing we've lost by generally not allowing class actions. David v. Goliath is not as effective as 15,000 Davids v. Goliath. Not to even mention the mandatory arbitration imposed on consumers (which do sometimes carve out the ability to file in small claims court). We have cultivated, or at least allowed, a very anti-consumer bias to take hold in U.S. law.

yellowfish 5y ago
there's nothing wrong with ads on stuff like this; televisions aren't sacred ground.
- simonh 5y ago
  There's nothing wrong with it, if you are told about this up front and it's part of your purchasing calculation. Retroactively adding ads to an ad-free device after the customer has purchased it, sometimes buying it specifically to avoid competing devices with ads, is inexcusable bullshit.
  - shmolf 5y ago
    If you subscribe to cable/satellite television, you expect there to be advertising. I'm not certain, but i suspect the agreement you sign while signing up for cable or streaming services, would include some sort of advertising clause. Ie, u less a service explicitly promotes am ad-free experience, there should be no expectations of such.
    - teekert 5y ago
      I guess I can come to your house tomorrow and paint some ads on the walls, or were you promised an ad free experience?
      - leesalminen 5y ago
        How about their car’s infotainment system? Can we start showing them ads when stopped at a light or were they promised an ad free experience there as well?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        jiofih 5y ago
        You’re late to the game, Ford is working on that already.
        ethbr0 5y ago
        I mean, it's been the new hotness at gas stations for a minute now. Which is something childhood me never would have expected. "Once screens and connectivity costs fall below a threshold, advertising is guaranteed to follow."
    - jyrkesh 5y ago
      This isn't about a service, it's about devices. The Google TV launcher is the de-facto UI for Android TV devices (like my Nexus Player, which is...7 YEARS OLD and now gets ads) and Google/Android TV-powered TVs, which are made by a bunch of different manufacturers. While my Nexus Player is rooted and I could theoretically install a different launcher, many of these TVs can't be modified. So if you purchased a TV thinking that it's smart capabilities were like a dumb OS UI into services like Netflix or Hulu (which may or may not have ads in their service agreement, as you point out), now they're getting pushed Amazon Fire-esque ads that prioritize spending money with Google from the UI over the services that you want to use.
    - 5y ago
- malcolmgreaves 5y ago
  Super wrong. Google sold one product then removed functionality after sale. That's very illegal.
  - rconti 5y ago
    A good parallel is the recent Peloton Treadmill update (as a result of the CPSC suit). You used to be able to use the treadmill without video content, it worked as a treadmill; you only had to pay for a subscription if you wanted Peloton content on the screen. This seems fairly obvious to anyone buying the device, and makes sense. I buy a treadmill, I can use the treadmill forever, but if i want content, I pay a monthly fee. When they push a software update that makes the treadmill unusable without the subscription, now you're tied to not only paying for the service (at whatever price they decide that week), but you're also tied to the company itself continuing to exist and OFFER content. A bunch of lawsuits have been filed, I'm sure it'll be reverted to 'the way it was' soon. (I honestly believe it was a largely clumsy move in trying to quickly tie a PIN code to the software to keep kids/unauthorized users from turning it on). But it's a parallel here. My Google TV device might show ads on the TV network, but you pay for the device to not get ads on the home screen like the awful Fire Stick I have. (every time you hit 'play' to try to unpause a program, you are actually hitting 'play' on the terrible ad they gave you).
    - the_snooze 5y ago
      A lot of "innovation" in consumer tech is really just turning previously-standalone devices into subscription platforms and/or billboards. I'm sure the engineers who build these are proud of their contributions to society.
    - thereddevil 5y ago
      This is a bad take on Peloton. Peloton made it subscription only because the default user experience had bad design in that treadmills can be pin locked only if the customer is subscribed. In order to compensate for the bad design peloton has offered 3 months of subscription for free and has promised to add the pin lock feature to non subscribers soon. Not that I agree with anything Peloton has done in this situation, but you make it sound much worse than it already is.
- Retric 5y ago
  There is a huge problem with selling something and then making it worse after people buy it.
- jbluepolarbear 5y ago
  Nothing wrong. But I and many others have migrated away from google products because of actions like this.
  - sli 5y ago
    The constant bombardment of expectations that you'll spend more money is normalized, but it is not ok.
- hulitu 5y ago
  Of course it is not. We shall have ads, microfones and cameras everywhere.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  If I know about it, then yes. Like Amazon putting ads on their Kindle lock screens unless you pay an extra $20. I bought my Shield as a premium device, not expecting the launcher to change substantially - much less to put ads on the screen.
gpt5 5y ago
The worst part is that google is abusing its power to limit people choices. They are enforcing terms on their phone partners that if they want Android (their only choice), they have to not use Fire OS or other Android forks on any device they make. You can read more here - https://www.protocol.com/google-android-amazon-fire-tv https://www.protocol.com/google-android-amazon-fire-tv The fact that they use the monopoly power on the phone to force Manufacturers to use Android TV is insane to me. The fact that they then quickly made the experience extremely anti consumer is a playbook monopoly play.
- tdy_err 5y ago
  Don’t be evil?
  - Piskvorrr 5y ago
    ... evil is what we say is evil. That's the context - they can't do evil, by definition! (By circular definition, sure.)
Rapzid 5y ago
I bought a FireStick 4k to connect to my monitor since most services won't steam 4k to the PC. Have been very disappointed that the whole experience seems to be geared around promoting content instead of allowing me to interact with the content I HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR.
radley 5y ago
> mandatory arbitration Actually, mandatory arbitration can massively backfire, and the ad change seems like a compelling case. Example: https://www.vox.com/2020/2/12/21133486/doordash-workers-10-million-forced-arbitration-class-action-supreme-court-backfired https://www.vox.com/2020/2/12/21133486/doordash-workers-10-m...
- techlaw 5y ago
  Yes -- thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately I have seen recently some arbitration clauses now include language saying, for example, that arbitration costs will be shared equally(!) or otherwise limiting their use by consumers. However, the more that these mandatory arbitration clauses limit consumer rights the more likely that they will be found to be unenforceable. This is one reason that you'll often find that contracts with mandatory arbitration will have a clause specifying that in the event the arbitration clause is unenforceable that the rest of the agreement still stands. The MegaCorps add this clause because they know that they are pushing the boundaries of what will be allowed by the courts. Historically arbitration was intended to be a solution for parties of comparable bargaining power (e.g. MegaCorpABC vs MegaCorpXYZ) but instead are increasingly used by MegaCorp vs LittleConsumer. Does anybody in the U.S. have a credit card that doesn't impose mandatory arbitration? Not that I've seen. This is a topic that deserves much more news coverage. Most consumers have no clue how mandatory arbitration is being used against them. And that's before we even consider their more egregious use in, for example, employment agreements as was the case in the article you've shared.
donmcronald 5y ago
> And although class action suits are frustrating and should be "fixed" so that those harmed get the bulk of the proceeds (i.e. it's not okay that consumers receive discount coupons or $10 checks while plaintiff's counsel receives a disproportionally huge payday) I don't understand why most people have a problem with this. It's the company that sold you the $79 product that cheated you. Be upset with them. Personally, I don't care if I get $0 out of a class action lawsuit. I've already been cheated out of my money, so my main concern is punishing the company that ripped me off so they don't do it again. Class action lawyers get a lot of hate, but those firms are fronting a ton of money and taking a ton of (monetary) risk by litigating on behalf of the class. They deserve a big reward when they win. If you want to change the system, impose MASSIVE penalties on the companies that are cheating consumers. Make them pay 3-5x the going rate for the plaintiff's lawyers PLUS 100% refunds to all the customers that got ripped off. Then the shenanigans will stop.

yellowfish 5y ago

there's nothing wrong with ads on stuff like this; televisions aren't sacred ground.

simonh 5y ago
There's nothing wrong with it, if you are told about this up front and it's part of your purchasing calculation. Retroactively adding ads to an ad-free device after the customer has purchased it, sometimes buying it specifically to avoid competing devices with ads, is inexcusable bullshit.
- shmolf 5y ago
  If you subscribe to cable/satellite television, you expect there to be advertising. I'm not certain, but i suspect the agreement you sign while signing up for cable or streaming services, would include some sort of advertising clause. Ie, u less a service explicitly promotes am ad-free experience, there should be no expectations of such.
  - teekert 5y ago
    I guess I can come to your house tomorrow and paint some ads on the walls, or were you promised an ad free experience?
    - leesalminen 5y ago
      How about their car’s infotainment system? Can we start showing them ads when stopped at a light or were they promised an ad free experience there as well?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - jiofih 5y ago
        You’re late to the game, Ford is working on that already.
        ethbr0 5y ago
        I mean, it's been the new hotness at gas stations for a minute now. Which is something childhood me never would have expected. "Once screens and connectivity costs fall below a threshold, advertising is guaranteed to follow."
  - jyrkesh 5y ago
    This isn't about a service, it's about devices. The Google TV launcher is the de-facto UI for Android TV devices (like my Nexus Player, which is...7 YEARS OLD and now gets ads) and Google/Android TV-powered TVs, which are made by a bunch of different manufacturers. While my Nexus Player is rooted and I could theoretically install a different launcher, many of these TVs can't be modified. So if you purchased a TV thinking that it's smart capabilities were like a dumb OS UI into services like Netflix or Hulu (which may or may not have ads in their service agreement, as you point out), now they're getting pushed Amazon Fire-esque ads that prioritize spending money with Google from the UI over the services that you want to use.
  - 5y ago
malcolmgreaves 5y ago
Super wrong. Google sold one product then removed functionality after sale. That's very illegal.
- rconti 5y ago
  A good parallel is the recent Peloton Treadmill update (as a result of the CPSC suit). You used to be able to use the treadmill without video content, it worked as a treadmill; you only had to pay for a subscription if you wanted Peloton content on the screen. This seems fairly obvious to anyone buying the device, and makes sense. I buy a treadmill, I can use the treadmill forever, but if i want content, I pay a monthly fee. When they push a software update that makes the treadmill unusable without the subscription, now you're tied to not only paying for the service (at whatever price they decide that week), but you're also tied to the company itself continuing to exist and OFFER content. A bunch of lawsuits have been filed, I'm sure it'll be reverted to 'the way it was' soon. (I honestly believe it was a largely clumsy move in trying to quickly tie a PIN code to the software to keep kids/unauthorized users from turning it on). But it's a parallel here. My Google TV device might show ads on the TV network, but you pay for the device to not get ads on the home screen like the awful Fire Stick I have. (every time you hit 'play' to try to unpause a program, you are actually hitting 'play' on the terrible ad they gave you).
  - the_snooze 5y ago
    A lot of "innovation" in consumer tech is really just turning previously-standalone devices into subscription platforms and/or billboards. I'm sure the engineers who build these are proud of their contributions to society.
  - thereddevil 5y ago
    This is a bad take on Peloton. Peloton made it subscription only because the default user experience had bad design in that treadmills can be pin locked only if the customer is subscribed. In order to compensate for the bad design peloton has offered 3 months of subscription for free and has promised to add the pin lock feature to non subscribers soon. Not that I agree with anything Peloton has done in this situation, but you make it sound much worse than it already is.
Retric 5y ago
There is a huge problem with selling something and then making it worse after people buy it.
jbluepolarbear 5y ago
Nothing wrong. But I and many others have migrated away from google products because of actions like this.
- sli 5y ago
  The constant bombardment of expectations that you'll spend more money is normalized, but it is not ok.
hulitu 5y ago
Of course it is not. We shall have ads, microfones and cameras everywhere.
unethical_ban 5y ago
If I know about it, then yes. Like Amazon putting ads on their Kindle lock screens unless you pay an extra $20. I bought my Shield as a premium device, not expecting the launcher to change substantially - much less to put ads on the screen.

gpt5 5y ago

The worst part is that google is abusing its power to limit people choices. They are enforcing terms on their phone partners that if they want Android (their only choice), they have to not use Fire OS or other Android forks on any device they make. You can read more here - https://www.protocol.com/google-android-amazon-fire-tv https://www.protocol.com/google-android-amazon-fire-tv The fact that they use the monopoly power on the phone to force Manufacturers to use Android TV is insane to me. The fact that they then quickly made the experience extremely anti consumer is a playbook monopoly play.

tdy_err 5y ago
Don’t be evil?
- Piskvorrr 5y ago
  ... evil is what we say is evil. That's the context - they can't do evil, by definition! (By circular definition, sure.)

Rapzid 5y ago

I bought a FireStick 4k to connect to my monitor since most services won't steam 4k to the PC. Have been very disappointed that the whole experience seems to be geared around promoting content instead of allowing me to interact with the content I HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR.

radley 5y ago

> mandatory arbitration Actually, mandatory arbitration can massively backfire, and the ad change seems like a compelling case. Example: https://www.vox.com/2020/2/12/21133486/doordash-workers-10-million-forced-arbitration-class-action-supreme-court-backfired https://www.vox.com/2020/2/12/21133486/doordash-workers-10-m...

techlaw 5y ago
Yes -- thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately I have seen recently some arbitration clauses now include language saying, for example, that arbitration costs will be shared equally(!) or otherwise limiting their use by consumers. However, the more that these mandatory arbitration clauses limit consumer rights the more likely that they will be found to be unenforceable. This is one reason that you'll often find that contracts with mandatory arbitration will have a clause specifying that in the event the arbitration clause is unenforceable that the rest of the agreement still stands. The MegaCorps add this clause because they know that they are pushing the boundaries of what will be allowed by the courts. Historically arbitration was intended to be a solution for parties of comparable bargaining power (e.g. MegaCorpABC vs MegaCorpXYZ) but instead are increasingly used by MegaCorp vs LittleConsumer. Does anybody in the U.S. have a credit card that doesn't impose mandatory arbitration? Not that I've seen. This is a topic that deserves much more news coverage. Most consumers have no clue how mandatory arbitration is being used against them. And that's before we even consider their more egregious use in, for example, employment agreements as was the case in the article you've shared.

donmcronald 5y ago

> And although class action suits are frustrating and should be "fixed" so that those harmed get the bulk of the proceeds (i.e. it's not okay that consumers receive discount coupons or $10 checks while plaintiff's counsel receives a disproportionally huge payday) I don't understand why most people have a problem with this. It's the company that sold you the $79 product that cheated you. Be upset with them. Personally, I don't care if I get $0 out of a class action lawsuit. I've already been cheated out of my money, so my main concern is punishing the company that ripped me off so they don't do it again. Class action lawyers get a lot of hate, but those firms are fronting a ton of money and taking a ton of (monetary) risk by litigating on behalf of the class. They deserve a big reward when they win. If you want to change the system, impose MASSIVE penalties on the companies that are cheating consumers. Make them pay 3-5x the going rate for the plaintiff's lawyers PLUS 100% refunds to all the customers that got ripped off. Then the shenanigans will stop.