Technology

59495 readers

3114 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

278

Vizio settles for $3M after saying 60 Hz TVs had 120 Hz “effective refresh rate” | Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high. (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Vizio settles for $3M after saying 60 Hz TVs had 120 Hz “effective refresh rate” | Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.::Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MetricIsRight@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not sure where you live but around here Sony isn't an option for TV's not financially anyway, 30-40% more than the competition for no damned reason.

[–] Vqhm@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

There is a reason it's slightly more expensive tho. They don't even bother to force or nag you to connect to Wi-Fi / Internet so the manufacturer can start selling data on what you watch... Sony charges a little more because the TV is for profit, instead of your data being the profit product.

They aren't all that much more expensive at Costco anyway. Also it's not like I'm buying a TV ever few years.

Shit my Sony Trinitron CRT still works. That really is buy it for life. Less can be said about Walmart specials.

[–] Fishytricks@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I’ve always thought they were slightly more expensive because they used LG/Samsung panels for their TV.

I avoided Samsung and it was a no brainer for me to get LG. My LG has been treating me well and doesn’t prompt me to get on the internet. And I got them for discounted prices as well, a 65”GX and 42?” C3.

[–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

Sony has always been more expensive compared to the competition. Even way back before data collection was a thing. It's why I don't really buy their products.