Just thinking that the elderly population is probably the least likely to use those boxes (though I am not even sure of that), whereas they constitute the (dying) core of traditional TV viewership.
We're in something of a worst of both worlds situation where Nielsen has an increasingly small number of viewers where traditional TV boxes work to get decent samples, has to rely more than ever on surveys, and distrusts all streaming viewership numbers because they are cloak and dagger white lies between competitors, despite in theory being way more accurate than all the previous tools (the surveys and the TV boxes).
It's almost wild. The most forthcoming to shareholders/the general public over the years has been Hulu and Hulu's numbers at times have suggested Nielsen's data is very, very wrong right now, but Nielsen doesn't trust Hulu's data at all because it smells like lies because Netflix does nothing but lie or ghost them.
Following this up with paying for your subscription but pirating all the shows might help remove you from the cycle completely.
I understand the second point is not realistic for the majority of people but I wonder if in the future we might have an easy to use version of Pi-Hole that most people can just flip on and strip a large chunk of tracking from the apps.
That's the deep weird irony that we live in a world where we could have the best possible numbers (directly tracked statistics), and yet TV Producers are still relying (for the most part) on Phone and Snail Mail Survey Results because they don't think they can trust streaming provider numbers. Pi-Holing those numbers just gives those Producers even more reason to feel that they are lies or wrong. At what point do you Pi-Hole too many telemetrics to oblivion and aren't allowed to complain when your favorite TV shows get canceled because "no one" was watching it?
From what I am hearing, traditional forms of media are in decline because people are spending their time on Youtube/Twitch/Social media instead.
1. There is a disparity between age groups and other demographic dividers who have newer TVs. This could significantly skew the results for some advertisers.
2. The data is going to the TV manufacturer, and they will not share that freely between themselves or with anyone else. This will complicate collating the data as there are several entities to negotiate with in order to get an overall picture.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/07...
Essentially the stated purpose is so that it can pick up what music you listen to throughout the day, but in reality it's picking up everything.
You'd also have pets captured, curtains flapping by an open window captured, and any toys kids are playing with (like balls) potentially captured as another viewer too.
Meanwhile pap who likes to sit motionlessly while the kids round around him, isn't detected.
> without invading too much on people's privacy
Motion detection feels like a pretty major privacy violation to me.
> You wouldn't know the age, but you already have ton of information by knowing the address and the subscriber already.
Except when you have friends or family over.
If it's opaque to visible light how does the camera produce an image?
>if you put tape on it your remote wouldn't work anymore.
Not really? You just have to be more careful placing the tape. Besides, nowadays many smart TV have app remote controls, or RF-based remote controls so the IR sensor being blocked is a non-issue
It isn't opaque to infrared light though. The image is still high enough quality to make out people, it looks funny but it is good enough for their purposes.
Yes, which is why I will never own one.
Depends, are the TV networks buying that information? Or just advertisers?