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

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.

  • draughtcyclist@programming.devEnglish
    55·
    11 months ago

    Hell, I bought a 4k 60 hz TV from them and inputs are limited to 30 hz. I’ll never buy a Vizio anything again, sounds like this is their business as usual.

          • MetricIsRight@lemmy.caEnglish
            7·
            11 months ago

            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.worldEnglish
              81·
              11 months ago

              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.worldEnglish
                1·
                11 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.worksEnglish
                1·
                11 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.

          • Psythik@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            11 months 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.

          • Gamoc@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            11 months 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.

      • huquad@lemmy.mlEnglish
        7·
        11 months 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

      • keyez@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • Pika@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          11 months 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.