Hacker News Reader

Comment by sgjohnson | Hacker News Reader

I for one enjoy that my Smart TV is subsidized by all the morons who think that my data is worth anything.

It's not connected to internet. It's connected to Apple TV box. Thanks for the discount.

I recently purchased a Samsung TV that I hooked up to the internet. When I turned on the TV I was prompted to agree to their TOS. When I tried to agree to the terms it just kept erroring. I went away for a bit assuming it was Samsung network issue. It took me another hour once I returned to realize that my network was blocking their tracking domains. I had to connect the TV to my phone to accept the terms and bypass my blockers. The point is, you couldn’t even use this smart tv without first connecting to the web and accepting their terms.

I also haven’t really loved the Samsung TV. The UI is not great and it often forces me into their undeletable live streaming TV app.

I also recently purchased an LG tv, and I love it. The UI is great, there’s no ads, or intrusive apps. I’ll likely only buy LG tvs moving forward.

Yeah LGs are great, no long loading times. Only issue I've found is that it doesn't like antenna signal being too strong (I've got an attenuator to make mine work)

That’s where I am on Roku. I love the Roku setup at this point.

> It's not connected to internet

From the article:

“As a dumb TV fan who has bought several sets in the last decade, I’m usually told something akin to: “well, just don’t connect the TV to the Internet!” But that route locks you out of firmware updates, and some TV makers remove functionality if you refuse to participate in their online ecosystem. Many smart TV GUIs also need to load before you’re even allowed to switch laggy HDMI inputs.”

I don’t get that point. A dumb TV would not need firmware updates. And if you’re already shopping like a madman, you should be able to figure out which TV locks out functionality. And the loading UI for the TV; I guess that’s the only fair point.

But it’s clear there’s a hidden point in the argument; I don’t want functionality I won’t use. I don’t want the risk of connecting my TV. The temptation to see what it looks like.

>And if you’re already shopping like a madman, you should be able to figure out which TV locks out functionality.

I recently spent way too much time trying to pick a new TV - mostly based on using it disconnected.

Someone needs to make dumbtv.com where smart TVs are reviewed based on using them as a dumb tv.

>A dumb TV would not need firmware updates.

Post processing, and other parts of rendering are still occurring. For example, if you game, have an Xbox, and a Sony TV, VRR is a feature that gets added to the TV after you buy it.

Can you point me in the direction of a TV that adds basic features like VRR through firmware?

I'm on my second Roku OS TCL tv, and no new features are ever added to those. The firmware updates strictly deal with the app environment.

A TCL Roku example would be the FALD engine. Firmware updates "enhance" the backlight algorithm. One update added it to Game mode.

VRR being added, as I stated, is something Sony has been doing this year.

There may be a firmware that, say, gets you a better decoding algo, or fixes bugs.

It's not always the ads or apps.

The TV doesn't need firmware updates as long as it's able to show me my sources, and "laggy" doesn't matter when the only input it ever has to deal with is whichever smart stick I choose to stick in HDMI 1.

I got a smart LG and let it go on the Internet to get a feel for the apps and webOS (as a Palm fanboy who was curious of how that story ended), and after trying it for a few weeks, it went back offline. Now the TV is turned on and off by the AppleTV connected to it.

to me the lag is pretty annoying because it takes like 10 seconds and 4 button clicks to select hdmi every time

> some TV makers remove functionality if you refuse to participate in their online ecosystem

The whole idea is to have no functionality on the tv. Just display the images ;-)

I've got a cheap TCL Roku TV that definitely fits the description of a cheap TV being subsidized by Roku's software.

The UI is pretty snappy and fast to load up HDMI inputs, and once you figure out how to block the internet without triggering the flashing light, there's not really any loss. The whole POINT is that I'm not using online functionality, so I don't care if I lose it.

Why would I need a firmware update for my TV that I use as a big monitor? It has no network access, I switched it to "PC mode", it displays pixels, it makes sounds, I very occasionally switch inputs.

My new 65" Sony has never been connected to the internet. We can't get 4K resolution, presumably because it's never been updated. Sony tells me they don't have a USB update available "yet." Had I known this would happen I wouldn't have bought it - my old plasma is still working. I didn't wish to connect just for the update and then disconnect over concerns that they would use that connection to download ads onto the firmware at the same time.

That sucks. My Samsung did not have that issue (although it has other weird issues, such as having a button to turn it on without the remote, but not one to turn it off lol)

1 connect to internet

2 update firmware

3 disconnect from internet

Besides, most TVs have an option to update firmware from USB stick.

Sony TVs run near-stock Android TV and can have their firmware updated with a thumb drive. If you elect to use the smarts (I haven’t, I use an Apple TV), you can hook it up to ADB on a laptop and remove the singular bit of dodgy content tracking stuff.

They’re a bit more pricey than a Vizio or something like that, but the quality is great so I think the premium is worthwhile.

As long as I'm able to switch inputs and use HDMI-CEC, I don't care about firmware upgrades. I also don't care that the updates might cause the GUI to load a second or two faster when powering on.

Until your neighbor enables an open, unprotected wifi, your smart TV connects to it and auto-updates to start showing you ads.

Are there any TV models that are proven/documented to do this? I hear this claim all the time but I can't find a single demo of it happening. A previous HN thread [0] couldn't come up with any examples either.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25275350

There is ONE comment by ONE random dude on the Samsung forums. That's it.

The standards for evidence that tech people will accept continue to amaze me. (https://kiwiziti.com/~matt/timberlake/)

Amazon Sidewalk shares signals in a blatant misuse of my WiFi password.

Samsung TVs do show an interface called 'p2p0' along 'eth0' - I think this is visible in the Netflix diagnostic screen. Dunno really what it means or does.

Every HN discussion about smart TVs have the same points repeated again and again... "Just wait until built-in 5G modems!".

A device automatically connecting to unprotected wifi is a major security issue waiting to happen.

When has that issue stopped any of these companies?

It has; we have no proof of any TV doing that. Unless we see proof, it doesn’t happen.

Not sure if you're serious or if this is sarcasm.

I'm serious. No TV has been proven to automatically connect to open Wi-Fi. Not one.

> It's not connected to internet.

Just wait until one of your neighbors gets a DSL or cable contract with a deal like "share your electricity with us to run a public hotspot and get free access to our nationwide hotspot network in turn". There have been complaints about smart TVs automatically connecting to open WiFi networks [1], it's not that far fetched to assume some manufacturer will sooner or later cut a deal with Comcast or other providers.

Or that your smart TV gets its own embedded DOCSIS modem - one would not even be able to spot that except by dissecting the firmware! - or LTE modems. All it takes is the smell of enough profits.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25276291

I'm skeptical about that report. Maybe the user's roommate set up wifi? Or maybe the TV was refurbished and happened to be configured to connect to a common network name like "AT&T WIFI". It's foolish to just accept one random report on the internet as truth.

What makes you think the price was discounted just because they found another way to monetize their users?

Last time I saw a TV vendor's margin breakout they were selling the hardware at basically cost.

So in that particular case it appears to be what happened.

(this was a year plus back so I've completely forgotten which vendor, sorry)

Worth looking at this:

https://www.engadget.com/vizio-q1-earnings-inscape-013937337...

Note that Visio is still making profit on the TVs itself, in addition to the ad revenue. Pretty standard operating procedure in most markets these days. Charge for the product, sell either additional features for the product (which used to come included in the price) or the metrics the product provides.

And then Apple getting a "monopoly" on your personal data and metadata is better, somehow...?

Nevermind that this data is then shared between them. And anyone and anything else getting in through the doors in the back.

Apple does far less with your data than others, to the extent that there are things they cannot do that others can, e.g., in the line of recommendations: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/apples-privacy-rules...

Apple also does a pretty good job of securing devices against “back access”.

Feel free to replace “Apple TV” with whatver is your preferred input source, be it a Raspberry Pi or whatever.

It doesn’t change the fact that the people doing the subsidizing aren’t getting the intended value from me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com