You could already turn these off in Firefox with about:config entries, but this is a welcome addition to have the settings in an easier place for people (in "settings").

Indeed that is just for TV (CATV).
I never watch live TV, that has no value to me at all.

>"Mercedes and Tesla use Google data"

That doesn't mean it is without cost to Mercedes and Tesla, though.

>>but there is certainly a one-time cost involved for them so c*t=infinity worth

>see subject

How about NOT corrupting a quote, without indication, to make it look like I wrote something I didn't. It is NOT a one-time cost to the manufacturer to licenses and maintain the needed data or transmit it in real-time to/from the vehicle.

>"And what makes you believe BMW ConnectedDrive doesn't track and sell you?"

What makes you believe I don't think that? In fact, I am pretty sure they, too sell such data. (If they don't, others do). Not sure that would be enough to pay for the services, however. But that is a good point :)

>"I assume they get the traffic and maps from Google, or whoever Google gets it from."

Not in my vehicle. Regardless, the manufacturer typically has to pay for all the data on mapping, geo, traffic, weather, conditions, etc data. That is probably also true even for Google's data. Corporate use like that for resale isn't the same as just using it on a personal phone. Plus they are paying for the wireless mobile data connection to get some of that into your vehicle in real-time.

>"Why wouldn't I just get it for free from them?"

Because it doesn't work that way :) Examples- you can search Google for "free", or look at weather data online from Wunderground for "free"... they get paid by selling YOU. But if you want to use their stuff in your products, then you have pay Google or Wunderground for API access and resale licenses fees.

>"If network connectivity is totally absent from the vehicle, I might even buy one."

That is pretty much what it comes down to at this point. But even lower-end vehicles are starting to get all this connected stuff. It is also a privacy nightmare.

>"This is just "rent-seeking". The only way to win is not to play."

Don't buy any modern vehicle with advanced tech, then. They pretty much all do this now with advanced connected services. My vehicle came with 3 years included of the most advanced services (like ProPilot 2, traffic data, weather feeds, etc), and 5 years of basic services (like map updates, nav data, remote app unlock/find/climate start, stats on charging/tire pressures/etc). After that period, one must purchase a plan or those particular services will go dead. I think their PRICING on the plans is ridiculous, but there is certainly a cost involved for them and effort and liability. So it is worth something. Thankfully I don't have to worry about it for quite a while yet.

>"Features requiring data connectivity will likely carry recurring fees."

Duh. That is not controversial. ALL the manufacturers do that. Map updates, cellular data service, road condition and construction overlays, semi-autonomous driving liability, etc, are legit continuous costs and effort by the manufacturer, and that is understandable.

That is COMPLETELY different for charging for heated seats, in which the owner already has the hardware, and there is no software updating, no services provided, and no expense to BWM.

>"Let me see, do I want to pay for a service that shows me stuff I don't want to see filled with ads that I want to see even less"

You are not describing all cable TV that way. Millions use DVR's and TiVo and have it record and have ready hundreds of programs the user DOES want to see and CAN skip or zoom through commercials.

If you are watching "live" TV, you are doing it wrong. (And there is no way I would ever do that). The main issue with CATV is the cost of cable TV is absurd. For my ONE PERSON household with ONE TV, on BASIC cable, it has now climbed to $162 per month! And that "super low rate" is only because of bundling Internet (an additional $50/mo) AND calling every year for my "super loyalty discount." And because I use a cable card, all the channels are only 720P.

>"The Android version of Firefox is vastly different."

You are correct, but there was no mention in the posting to which I replied that it was about Android. Of course, I did somehow miss the title of the thread "..... Mobile Browsers". Ooops.

I do sometimes watch Youtube on my Android tablet, also in Firefox + UBO. Never had problems with that. I just tried it and it worked just fine as a small window with another app running. Same if I choose "miniplayer". Same if I open another tab and browse somewhere else, it continues to play in the non-visible tab. It also continues to play when the screen times out and goes black. But if I go "home" it does stop playing, yet that is normal for any suspended app.

>"Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have more in common with cigarettes than with fruit or vegetables"

Well, I, for one, don't plan to smoke my Cheez-Its. (But, they have to be the "extra toasty" ones, those are really good).

>"Those browers likely have been able to block the YouTube ads consistently. Firefox has been iffy at best - it usually works, but sometimes YouTube ads breaks through."

I watch hours of YouTube videos under Linux + Firefox + UBO every single day, for many years (including right now while typing this). Not once has an ad "broken through". And I have no problem with minimizing the browser while it is playing. Note- I am not logged into "google services" or anything like that, perhaps that changes things, I don't know (or care).

>"No private browser would allow the detection of user activity--got that Firefox?"

Not sure what you are talking about. I have no problem with minimizing Firefox while playing YouTube videos anonymously (I don't ever "log into" Google services). Linux, Firefox, UBO.

At the time, all 3D blueray releases included both a 3D disc and a 2D disc. Theoretically they can co-exist on the same disc, unless the movie was extremely long. I was, indeed, willing to pay a LITTLE more for the 3D. But often they greatly overcharged, so I would wait for it to go on sale.

>"3d works in theaters. You can make it work by spending big piles of money. Do you want to spend big piles of money to watch TV at home? Maybe you do, but not enough other people do."

What are you even talking about? My 3D TV gives me almost the same visual experience as in a theater. The apparent screen is the same size from my typical theater-sitting perspective, and it is the same exact content. The only thing that is different is that the theater uses static polarized glasses and my TV uses active shutters. The driving frequencies of the active shutters is high and not noticeable, so it looks about the same as the static glasses in the theater.

There wasn't any huge cost for my 3D TV, it was a few hundred more than the same quality non-3D TV at the time and included 3 pair of glasses. It was maybe a 10% upcharge. Other than software changes and the glasses, there is nothing else needed to make any LCD TV into a 3D TV (it requires a bluetooth receiver, but that is already present to support the RF remote). If you don't include the glasses, which are simple/cheap devices, there is zero actual additional production cost to have 3D as an option on higher-end LCD TV's and only a tiny cost on lower-end ones.