Why companies don't just continue to manufacture screen-only TV's baffles me. I'd love to see some existing privacy-oriented company that already has to deal with screen manufactures start selling "privacy-oriented TVs".
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.