▲ 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 2 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world [M, B] 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.
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (3 children) Why would you ever? They don't make quality products. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m sticking to LG for TVs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GingeyBook@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Had nothing with bad "luck" with LG. Sony is the way permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] MetricIsRight@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vqhm@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fishytricks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Psythik@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Aren't Sony TVs using LG panels? At least their OLEDs are (or were). I have an LG C2 in the gaming room and a SONY A80J in the living room. They both have the exact same panel, but the LG has more/better features for PC gaming and the SONY is better as a smart TV cause it runs on Android. But the picture quality is identical. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gamoc@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago We have a 60" oled LG that is absolutely the best TV I've ever looked at. We only have it because my uncle, the previous owner, upgraded to a 65". It also plays basically every single video file I throw at it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] huquad@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago Bought a Vizio cause it was cheap. Ended up seeing vertical lines just outside of the warranty window. You get what you pay for. Now I have a Sony, and no looking back permalink fedilink source parent [–] keyez@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) They have some snuck in there, I am still rocking a M55 from 2017 and with a lot of calibrating I don't see too much difference in 4K HDR to new under 1k TCLs and cheaper samsungs. Though next year I want an LG OLED. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago I'll never go LG for OLED, they are suspectible to massive burn in. We had an OLED display at work, it had a moving picture that had a mostly static bottom bar, after awhile when you turned it off you could see the burn in spot and it was basically junk when the source was changed to not have the bar cause the burn in was still there. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I’m sticking to LG for TVs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GingeyBook@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Had nothing with bad "luck" with LG. Sony is the way permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] MetricIsRight@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vqhm@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fishytricks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Psythik@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Aren't Sony TVs using LG panels? At least their OLEDs are (or were). I have an LG C2 in the gaming room and a SONY A80J in the living room. They both have the exact same panel, but the LG has more/better features for PC gaming and the SONY is better as a smart TV cause it runs on Android. But the picture quality is identical. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gamoc@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago We have a 60" oled LG that is absolutely the best TV I've ever looked at. We only have it because my uncle, the previous owner, upgraded to a 65". It also plays basically every single video file I throw at it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GingeyBook@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Had nothing with bad "luck" with LG. Sony is the way permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] MetricIsRight@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vqhm@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fishytricks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Psythik@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Aren't Sony TVs using LG panels? At least their OLEDs are (or were). I have an LG C2 in the gaming room and a SONY A80J in the living room. They both have the exact same panel, but the LG has more/better features for PC gaming and the SONY is better as a smart TV cause it runs on Android. But the picture quality is identical. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Gamoc@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago We have a 60" oled LG that is absolutely the best TV I've ever looked at. We only have it because my uncle, the previous owner, upgraded to a 65". It also plays basically every single video file I throw at it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MetricIsRight@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vqhm@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fishytricks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vqhm@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Fishytricks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fishytricks@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Aren't Sony TVs using LG panels? At least their OLEDs are (or were). I have an LG C2 in the gaming room and a SONY A80J in the living room. They both have the exact same panel, but the LG has more/better features for PC gaming and the SONY is better as a smart TV cause it runs on Android. But the picture quality is identical. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gamoc@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago We have a 60" oled LG that is absolutely the best TV I've ever looked at. We only have it because my uncle, the previous owner, upgraded to a 65". It also plays basically every single video file I throw at it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago Bought a Vizio cause it was cheap. Ended up seeing vertical lines just outside of the warranty window. You get what you pay for. Now I have a Sony, and no looking back permalink fedilink source parent
[–] keyez@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) They have some snuck in there, I am still rocking a M55 from 2017 and with a lot of calibrating I don't see too much difference in 4K HDR to new under 1k TCLs and cheaper samsungs. Though next year I want an LG OLED. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago I'll never go LG for OLED, they are suspectible to massive burn in. We had an OLED display at work, it had a moving picture that had a mostly static bottom bar, after awhile when you turned it off you could see the burn in spot and it was basically junk when the source was changed to not have the bar cause the burn in was still there. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago I'll never go LG for OLED, they are suspectible to massive burn in. We had an OLED display at work, it had a moving picture that had a mostly static bottom bar, after awhile when you turned it off you could see the burn in spot and it was basically junk when the source was changed to not have the bar cause the burn in was still there. permalink fedilink source parent