I.e., they have a list of TV models that they know how to disable network connectivity without causing any other problems. You order from them, and for some reasonable fee they'll make the change, verify everything is okay, and ship you the unit.
Personally, I'd be willing to pay a $100-200 premium for that, especially for a TV that (pre-lobotomy) sells for over $600.
Is it just that they're low-volume SKUs? Or are the somewhat more ruggedized than consumer models?
(I have no evidence for this but I've seen this comment posted many times before)
Although what's insulting is when the super premium tvs that STILL include all the same tracking junk. A 3k dollar+ tv shouldn't need any subsidizing at all, yet here we are.
It goes into how running content recognizition software against whatever's on the TV display lets them collect and aggregate data to sell, which helps them sell the TV for very low prices without having to worry about being profitable on the initial sale thanks to data and other monetization streams. Sony, Samsung, and the other major TV players all run very similar Automatic Content Recognition systems.
When I looked a larger high end 4K consumer TV was cheaper than a smaller 1080P commercial display.
Many of them have integrated signage software too like MagicInfo and have video wall capabilities etc.
The FBI issuing a warning about this is helpful. It may help create a market for dumb TVs that cost more than smart TVs.
Yeah, this is like how a laptop can be sold cheaper with Windows OS than with Linux: the Windows version is preloaded with a ton of crapware that the mfgr gets paid to preload, so even with the enormous (as a fraction of BOM) price of the Windows license, the laptop comes out cheaper.
Apple TV?
The fact that they're not an advertising company? That their business model doesn't depend on monetizing your personal data? That being privacy-oriented is a distinguishing factor compared with their competition?
Most TVs include speakers. Even the non-smart ones. By adding networking and apps, that TV can be used stand-alone.
For people starting out with their first home theater setup, they can get started with just the TV. With a dumb TV, they'd need the TV, and a receiver/speakers setup or a soundbar, and something to provide content like a Blu-ray player or cable box or Roku.
By making the TV smart, the TV maker has a better chance of having people start out with a higher end stand-alone TV and then adding other components later. I presume that the TV maker would rather have the consumer spend all of their initial budget on the TV, instead of splitting it between TV, receiver, and Blu-ray player.
For people with existing home theater setups, a similar thing goes on with upgrades. For example, I have a Denon AVR-1913 receiver, a Comcast X1 DVR, and a Sony Blu-ray player, and a Samsung TV.
It was a smart TV but I never used it as anything other than a dumb monitor. I used apps, not but on the TV. The Blu-ray player had a full set of streaming apps, and so does the X1. The Denon receiver has an internet radio app, and also supports Spotify Connect, and supports Airplay. So there was never any need to use an app on the TV. (Also, when I tried it once out of curiosity I could not get ARC to work to send sound back to the Denon receiver).
But then the TV died. I ended up getting another Samsung, but this new one is 4K UHD.
None of my other components are 4K. I didn't want to upgrade the rest to 4K at that time, so for things I wanted to watch in 4K I used apps on the TV [1].
With dumb TVs, I probably would not have bought a 4K TV. I would have waited until my other components were 4K, and that could have taken quite a while. I tend to keep receivers until they die.
In summary, with smart TVs, the TV can meet the needs of a wider class of consumer. As long as they don't make it so you have to give the TV network access or use its smart features, it can meet the needs of almost every class of consumer. That's attractive to the manufacturers.
[1] ...which meant that I did need to figure out ARC. As with the old Samsung, it just did not seem to want to work. Then I noticed something in the Denon manual:
> When the ARC function is used, connect a device with a "Standard HDMI cable with Ethernet" or "High Speed HDMI cable with Ethernet" for HDMI.
I made sure to use such a cable...and it worked, which makes no sense. It would make sense if we were talking eARC, but with plain ARC--which is all my 6 or 7 years old Denon supports--it should work with any regular old HDMI cable.
Unless you run Netflix in MS Edge (or the netflix windows store app, which wraps MS Edge) and use a Skylake or newer CPU with a secure enclave / AMD PSP, Netflix won't stream you their highest-quality content.
Or they will happily deliver it to whatever Android device or smart TV that you like.
(also, PC support for HDR content is... "lacking", shall we say)
So a smart TV is nothing more than an LCD with Arm SoC. Of course that SoC it's completely locked down and there are no specs outside of NDA's.
It got me thinking, how hard would it be to go to a big manufacturer that makes these smart TV's for chains like best buy and contract them to make the same set without the proprietary garbage hardware board? Instead a board built around an open SoC and software ecosystem is installed so the ethernet and USB ports do what they're supposed to do. That or pick a very common TV model, figure out the LCD interface and build a retrofit board. All of this is easier said than done.
Then imagine how fun it would be to hack your TV to do whatever because it's a regular computer? Of course the big issue that stands in the way is the HDMI and DRM burdens.
(cue someone replying with: just don't connect the smart TV to the internet and hook up a raspberry pi.)
How "modern" was this TV? Don't they all use LED backlights now? Backlight inverters should be obsolete now.
Get a decent set of network hardware so you can monitor everything that’s going on. I can recommended UniFi by Ubiquiti, despite the recent blow back about crash reports being sent to them.
[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/how-to-turn-off-smar...
Then we'll see the manufacturers include SIM cards, at least in countries where it's affordable.
A quick google search doesn’t show any Sony TV with this capability.
Can you give me an example of any consumer TV that supports Ethernet over HDMI?
[1] https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/325215/appletv-eth...
When I asked about data sharing with these dvr boxes and the new streaming stick option, only thing they could tell me is that 'virtually all video decoding and streaming devices are sharing data with multiple third parties'
I returned the dvr box, and have not chosen to use their new streaming stick.
If your neighbor, for example, has a syndicated WIFI like Fios or Xfinity, your TV can try those. Also, it has 24/7 free time to sit there and break passwords, if needed. Even a slow CPU would score some eventually. And finally, the room is probably full of other devices which themselves may have connections; a TV can communicate ultrasonically with those to exfiltrate your data.
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/113502/how-to-p...
https://www.securityweek.com/stealthy-data-exfiltration-poss...
It would be orders of magnitude cheaper and safer to build in 4G connectivity and use it to upload the relatively small payloads.
I wonder how many already have.
Are we going to need a spectrum analyzer to watch this junk?
A big selling point (for better or worse) is not requiring you to buy more boxes or hook up wires. Just as you see with cheap IP cameras which neglect to steer users toward secure setup and only tout the "easy wireless setup! Just point to the picture on your iPhone screen!" It's the flip side of the ubiquitous marketing bullet points: Easy! No wires! Apps!
I fall into this camp - I really like using the physical remote w/physical buttons to play/pause/rewind, change volume, etc. I used to be a heavy chromecast user but switched for these reasons.
Furthermore, if its using 5G then its not tied to the IP address that my other traffic comes from and so they can't use the TV to target me with ads online either. (Provided I don't use any of the same accounts on both the TV and my other devices.)
And, that's before you consider that they can also scan local wifi and bluetooth spectra to glean even more information about their local environments. With participation of vendor applications on phones, they could also use ultrasonics or crazier things like modulated LED lighting.
Finally, if one of those devices is compromised, it can then be used to launch local attacks via wifi and bluetooth, or even potentially those other covert channels if they can exploit sloppy code in those other dark apps...
Taking those things into account as well as the things paulmd pointed out in a sibling comment, I am no longer fine with the idea of 5G in my TV.
Not on your LAN but still harvesting your usage data (a feature!), and still hackable (smile for the camera!).
I don't know of any TVs that come with a camera built into them, and if there are any I certainly wouldn't buy one of those.
https://www.pindrop.com/blog/silently-tracking-users-with-ul...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/your-...
https://thehackernews.com/2017/05/ultrasonic-tracking-signal...
Also, virtually any device with cell connectivity includes a GPS on the same chipset so it's pretty trivial to connect that with google location data. So if it has 5G it has your location it has your identity.
Edit: I guess I was mistaken. They were not caught doing that yet.
Zeek (or wireshark) can revel what domains and ip addresses are being accessed. Pihole and iptables can block those addresses. Pihole needs to be the only DNS allowed and iptables needs to be running in between the TV and its path to the internet.
>Perhaps the best April Fools’ joke of the (Youth) Journal [a Dutch news program] came in 1969. Special cars would drive around with scanners to track down television owners who hadn’t paid the license fee [it’s like in the UK, where you have to pay a fee to the BBC]. But if you wrapped the TV in aluminum foil, you could fool the scanners. Before long there was no foil to be found in stores. http://business.time.com/2007/08/21/why_dutch_people_wrapped...
Also, side benefit of no large black rectangle :)
I'm looking to add a TV, large computer monitor, or similar to our living room for PC gaming, XBox gaming, and movies.
I assumed that a projector would be washed out whenever the room's lights were on. Which would be a hassle for people who wanted to be in the living room at the time but were doing other activities.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Pioneer-Elite-Kuro-PRO-150FD-60-108...
That thing used to be 7000+ CAD. Even more when they first came out. In between legs at school I sold them in Calgary.
I’ve had to replace the bulb once in about 4 years. Or rather the timer went off to warn me and I replaced it — bulb was still working though. New lamp was fairly cheap too IIRC, $40, maybe less?
And I can take it with me, or outside in my backyard for a movie night. I probably won’t ever go back to smart or dumb tvs
I went with an Epson 1060 (which is a fairly budget option) and it's freaking awesome. I was afraid it would be dim in full sunlight, but it's not a problem at all. My screen is next to two windows and even in full daylight with the lights on it is super bright and visible even while in eco mode (which is dimmer than regular mode). Fully replaced my TV and at a much much lower price point than the biggest possible LCD. Also, replacement bulbs are ~$60 bucks and I have yet to replace one after ~2 years.
Added bonus is the option to install a powered retractable screen, which make the TV all but disappear from the room when not in use.
When the room is dark it's absolutely amazing, like being at the movies. When lights are on it is quite washed out. Still usable but not as enjoyable. Since the projector sits in my bedroom it's not much of an issue to always have the lights off but in a living room I can see that being a hassle.
Once you get the projector and screen (they do make a difference) I could have gotten several (cheaper) modern TV's but the experience of the projector is what I love. One thing as a new buyer I wish I knew was how much heat projectors can generate. My bedroom is fairly small and this thing can really heat the room up to sometimes an uncomfortable level after long viewing sessions.
It is fun having a >100” screen with a laser projector. I haven’t seen any of the new ones in person, but plan to get one some day.
I throw cult movie nights and recently ditched the projector for a 42” screen - by the time there were 15-20 people in my living room, the heat of the projector made us keep windows open in Canadian winter.
Not to mention the usability issues during daylight, which make a projector (there’s a lot of light in my living room) mostly useless 50% of the time.
The large black rectangle has its own use - it clearly defines where the screen is occupying space, something you’ve gotta configure for a projector.
Unless you are privileged af enough to have a room you can dedicate to a home theatre setup - (in which case, good for you, housing/rent prices here in Toronto make that out of reach for me even as a low triple digit salary individual, four times higher than most of my similarly aged friends) - a projector’s disadvantages far outweigh its benefits.
Even if visibility wasn’t a glaring issue, the heat is practically unbearable. Worst idea I’d had was to try it in my bedroom as a TV replacement. :P
I went through several models of projectors in an attempt to see if any of them would be tolerable, but no.
Large TV’s emit heat as it is; but it’s really like a small heater in a room on low, instead of an industrial scale heater.