Honest question. Why do you need a selfie camera on a laptop that's more than 2MP? I don't even think Teams/Zoom/Jitsi/etc can stream that much anyway.
It's been around, and is ready for some implementations, but it's not ready for prime time, and, IMO, a $3400 laptop is prime time.
Seems like a cool idea, but those screens aren't really ready for this type of prime time.
Permalocked bootloader is a hard pass for me. If I buy a device, that device is mine. If I want to install something on it, I will. If they prevent me from doing that, I will simply not buy the device.
Cool concept. Very, very poorly implemented.
Holy crap that's awesome
Your friend needs to read Good to Great by Jim Collins, and reassess.
Not an April fools, but it might have been a plan they (whoever it was) chose to later not follow through with.
I vaguely remember the Sony fiasco.
Both of these were in the USA. The first was with a friend's purchase, the latter was an article he sent me. It's been a little while, but I know one was Samsung, but can't remember the other brand or which was which.
Not all tvs allow you to do that. Some require you to be online. Some took it a step further and are equipped with 4/5G modems to bypass your network restrictions.
The smart ones are sold at cost or at a loss, and your privacy is then sold to subsidize the profits. A dumb tv costs more money up front (since it's not subsidized by your privacy), but it costs far less in overall value. It's a tradeoff that the consumer needs to make. The lovely thing, is that (for now, at least) it is still a choice we can make.
The built-in cameras use cases are video conferences, so they use the "afterthought" cameras (cheapest they can). I understand your use case, and I agree that the camera quality is shite, never mind the MP count. My 2005 phone shouldn't have had a camera better than my 2024 laptop. Period.