It doesn't make sense to tie the lifespan of a display to the lifespan of software support when the computing hardware is so ubiquitous outside of the TV anyway.
This is a field that cries out "decent regulation". Terrible IoT security? Please see massive fines, Senators on TV claiming national security at risk, never allow that brand to be sold "on our soil" again.
I know there is no obvious technical framework that can be applied as " best practise", that IoT is a horrible wild west and governments choosing winners will lead down sub optimal paths but it's hard to see a real alternative fix.
>The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) has released what it calls a globally applicable standard for cybersecurity in the Internet of Things (IoT). The new specification, TS 103645, seeks to establish a security baseline for internet-connected consumer products and provide a basis for future IoT certification schemes. https://futureiot.tech/europe-gets-first-global-consumer-iot...
Maybe if that works other places will follow.
This conversation happens on HN every week, and each time, commenters point out the numerous flaws in this plan:
Manufacturer requiring a firmware update or internet connection for the TV to work, quietly connecting to internet over HDMI, connecting automatically to neighbour's unsecured wifi, shipping with an internal cell modem, and many other methods that might be around the corner as privacy norms drift and certain technologies become cheaper.
Bonus: This way, you don't have to worry about open wifi networks.
I live near a BK, my TV could dl some auto auth for the wifi and just upload my habits... if it wasn't specifically chosen to reduce that probability.
How is it possible that your TV could automatically log into your wifi?
Where I live I can see a few dozen networks active. At any one time at least a few are public.
Is that legal where you are, assuming your neighbour has not granted permission to do it?
AFAIK, violating the CFAA would involve actively circumventing a mechanism intended to restrict access.
My understanding is that lots of them aggressively sniff and try to hop on any unsecured network that they can find.
Don't connect your TV to the internet, buy an Apple TV.
Giving google my viewing habits is bad, but giving Hisense + DodgyAdBroker.biz + CCP/PLA is even worse.
While the advertising / data sharing revenue is valuable to them, the vast majority of those are going into homes where they're going to be internet connected already. The cost of a modem + service fees for it wouldn't be worth it for most of them.
Amazon is starting to ship their Sidewalk protocol[1] which will be embedded into a bunch of their devices - but that seems to be mainly for low-power/remote devices to connect back to a Sidewalk access point, rather than to provide an alternative data-path for (say) customer metrics.
I do not agree with any of that, though.
Consider the beancounters at the manufacturer:
We are shipping a SmartTV, we expect our users to therefore have internet access, because the device is mostly non-working without it.
Why would we then include: a cellular radio AND make us pay for a cellular data service on an ongoing basis? Is the data from some small fraction of users who don't already have wifi valuable enough to pay off the hardware and service costs in every other TV? Seems unlikely.
Look at how much an ESP32 can do and what it costs.
At scale, the cost of the additional electronics is negligible, especially if it is being subsidized.
Nobody is making you pay for service. It will simply send back fingerprints of your screen image and usage data, and can probably load ads, as well.
You'll note though that getting a Kindle with 3G nowdays means paying for the more expensive models - Paperwhite or Oasis.
> Nobody is making you pay for service
I think you missed what I said. I was talking from the perspective of a manufacturer.
The cost of buying and integration the new hardware, and also an ongoing monthly sim cost for the benefit of getting analytics and ads from a tiny fraction of your userbase that does NOT already have their TV hooked up to wifi is significant, and I doubt it comes close to the added revenue you might get from that fraction of users.
That also assumes that those who don't have their Smart TV hooked up to wifi are going to be in cellular range.
I think what'll really happen is they'll become always online devices where if you're offline for more than X days they quit working and claim they need an update - please connect to the internet.
Some of the technologies are specifically intended to give "phone home" connectivity to low-power devices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrowband_IoT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE-M