8 ms·

I have come the same conclusion after the YouTube app on my smart tv of 4 years old was bricked. I still don’t know the best way to avoid this issue going forwa

I have come the same conclusion after the YouTube app on my smart tv of 4 years old was bricked. I still don’t know the best way to avoid this issue going forward (chromecast, roku, other).

fabian2k 9y ago
With a smart TV there's at least the option to just switch to an external device and ignore the entire smart part of the TV. You're not really in a worse place than if you had bought a non-smart TV (unless the smart TV software actually breaks in some way that interferes with regular operations, which isn't entirely unrealistic). But in many other cases of smart devices where the core function relies on external services, they'll be entirely useless.
- vanattab 9y ago
  Unless you paid a premium for the "smart" features.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    But you probably didn't since at this point it's difficult to find a high end TV that doesn't have some crappy OS built into it.
  - michaelbuckbee 9y ago
    My understanding is that it costs the manufacturer something like $5 difference to put what's essentially a Roku into a TV to make it "smart" (which kind of makes sense as you can buy a Roku stick for $30 retails and it has to have a case, cable, box, external hdmi connector, power etc.). The manufacturer then sells the smart tv at a $25-50 premium over the dumb version and it's a decent profit for them. FWIW - I was always skeptical of the onboard TV smart features, but the Samsung TV that I use a computer monitor actually is actually surprisingly decent.
    - cpv 9y ago
      Could you please specify what model of Samsung TV?
      - michaelbuckbee 9y ago
        It was the 2016 model of this: https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-UN55MU6500-Curved-55-Inch/dp/B06XGXHVW4 https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-UN55MU6500-Curved... As an aside, I absolutely love using it as a monitor hooked up to a MBP.
- goldenkey 9y ago
  Not exactly. Keep in mind the UEFI debacle with both Intel and AMD. Having an unknown attack vector on an old TV is less than desirable. Aside from privacy, I like to think of it similar to musical keyboards. Back when synths were primitive, it made sense to buy a keyboard that had builtin speakers, synthesizer software/hardware - a smart keyboard if you will. Nowadays, the only thing you would want is a good set of keys. That means a midi controller with a baby grand/grand like keybed. [1] Best of all, it should be a lot cheaper than an all in one. And itll be just as good in 20 years as it is now - youll just run a different synth on your computer. All in ones dont make sense for many things. It may be a trend but its an overzealous and oversold one. Ill stick with my dumb midi instruments and my dumb projector. And hopefully theyll still be with me in 5 or more years. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatar
  - fabian2k 9y ago
    I can just pull the network cable from the TV, which removes pretty much the entire attack surface.
    - goldenkey 9y ago
      Every smart TV has WiFi. Even if you switch WiFi off, its not always off, on many devices.
      - j45 9y ago
        Even if wifi isn't truly off, as long as it's not authenticated to a wifi network before it's turned off it is a measure more safe. If it looks for open networks... that's another thing.
        goldenkey 9y ago
        I hate playing the "idiot, its obvious. downvoted" target. HN can be so vicious at times when you would expect someone else to fill in the junior level details. I guess my lesson is to include even the simple blackhat explanations. HN is probably lacking of that kind of crowd...maybe to a boon. Anyhow, you are all wrong to disagree with me. There were just CVEs for radio chip exploits a couple of days ago! These have been coming out quite often lately. The layer at which these exploits can be done does not require the TV to be on any network. Not even ad-hoc. Just the fact that it has a listening radio chip that has old firmware is enough to make it extremely dangerous [digitally.] That TV can literally became a wifi enabled worm distribution center, infecting everything in your home. Not worth the risk IMO. I would stick with a dumb TV. "targets didn't have to connect to the attacker's Wi-Fi network. Simply having Wi-Fi turned on was sufficient to being hacked." [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/broadcom-chip-bug-opened-1-billion-phones-to-a-wi-fi-hopping-worm-attack/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-tec...
- huehehue 9y ago
  Smart TV software can and will interfere with regular operations. My girlfriend's dad got a shiny new Smart TV for Christmas a few years back. He also lives in the sticks and has satellite internet that works maybe every other day. I volunteered to set it up, and what do you know -- the "OS" was gated by a registration / sign in screen. So, no way to access core functionality (including external inputs, settings menu, etc.) without an internet connection. Even if there was some strange ritual that would let me get through (there wasn't), the average user is fucked.
  - madjam002 9y ago
    What make is this? Just for future reference so I know to never buy a TV from this manufacturer!
fredley 9y ago
My approach is to compartmentalise functionality. I have a dumb screen with a Chromecast plugged into it. The screen is the much more expensive part of this setup, but should last for a long time. It supports inputs which will almost certainly be usable, perhaps with dongles towards the end of its service, for at least a decade, if past tech is anything to go by. The Chromecast could be discontinued tomorrow, but it only cost £30, so I'll just replace it with whatever. Relying on your expensive TV's probably terrible and badly supported software is madness, but it's what most people seem happy to do. It's getting harder and harder to buy TVs that are not smart, and I find it maddening. I take the same approach with Speakers.
- eumenides1 9y ago
  I bought a Visio specifically because it could be dumb relatively recently (1-2 years). I think a dumb screen option will always be available because it's always going to be a value player in a world of Sony and Samsungs. The question is will the screen be a nice enough panel.
  - cnr 9y ago
    Do you mean - "Vizio"?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Even the budget Vizios now have smart features.
  - dwyerm 9y ago
    My experience has been that you have to pay extra for a dumb TV right now, likely because of issues of scale. My last TV was an NEC E-series Commercial Display. Aside from not being encumbered by any smart-features, it has a serial port on it, to make automation even easier. But I could have saved a lot of money by going with a conventional Smart TV, and it would have been easier to shop for it. Commercial displays aren't hanging on the wall at your local Best Buy, although they might be hanging on the wall at your local bar, restaurant, bank, etc.
- 9y ago
billysielu 9y ago
HTPC
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
Chromecast will work, it's relatively cheap so if it stops working after an X amount of years it's less of a financial pain than having to buy a new TV for the same functionality. The other side of the throw-away society and/or planned obsolescence is that replacing things becomes cheaper. I mean there's probably even cheaper alternatives than the Chromecast if you're on a budget.
nerdponx 9y ago
What's wrong with using your computer and an HDMI cable? I really don't understand this whole smart TV thing
- fabian2k 9y ago
  A dedicated computer for this is quite expensive, and using your regular desktop is somewhat annoying in various aspects like switching screen configurations and often not possible if you don't have the PC near the TV. Then there are the complications DRM adds, e.g. it's often not possible to get the best quality from Netflix on your PC in the browser, you only get that with the native Windows 10 app (and then not 4K unless you have some very specific GPU and drivers). The Apps on a smart TV or a FireTV/whatever don't have these restrictions.
  - dahauns 9y ago
    It's not even the cost, but using a HTPC with the common streaming providers has become quite a chore nowadays, with horrible UX. With Netflix you at least get an app and the possibility to stream with highest quality (4K, HDR, multichannel sound), but the app is extremely basic and clearly only optimized for touch - it doesn't even offer basic keyboard shortcuts beyond start/stop. You can get a somewhat near-HTPC using Chrome (at least shortcuts work there) and some customizing, but you're stuck with stereo (I'm not sure about 4K/HDR, but the latter is no-go enough for me to not have tried). The same goes for Amazon Video, except that they don't even have an app outside Android/iOS, so you're stuck with stereo anyway. And so on. It would be downright embarassing, if it weren't so obvious this is intentional...
  - dawnbreez 9y ago
    Raspberry Pi + surf = Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, Etc. fullscreen with desktop interface.
- epicide 9y ago
  3 C's: cost, convenience, and complexity. First, price. I think this is the biggest factor. You need a computer (for each TV). I don't think there are too many computers (if any) in the $35-$150 range that can handle smoothly playing HD video and pushing it to an external display. Assuming the machine isn't dedicated and you already own it, it breaks point 2 below. Second, I haven't seen a good setup for controlling a computer connected to a TV. Granted, I stopped looking a few years ago. For me (and I'd assume most people), "good setup" means ability to turn system on and control it remotely, at a minimum. I'm sure one exists, but it would definitely require even more hardware (cuts into price) and more custom setup. Third, some people might not have the technical know-how to set up something that meets the above two things. Sure, plenty of us technical people can do it, but it's not hard to understand that we are the minority. tl;dr there's nothing "wrong" with using a computer and an HDMI cable, but there are plenty of compelling reasons these days to use one of the ultra cheap boxes. They are basically cheap purpose-specific computers, anyway. Ultimately, different people have different needs and priorities.
jackmott 9y ago
books, on paper?

I have come the same conclusion after the YouTube app on my smart tv of 4 years old was bricked. I still don’t know the best way to avoid this issue going forward (chromecast, roku, other).

fabian2k 9y ago

With a smart TV there's at least the option to just switch to an external device and ignore the entire smart part of the TV. You're not really in a worse place than if you had bought a non-smart TV (unless the smart TV software actually breaks in some way that interferes with regular operations, which isn't entirely unrealistic). But in many other cases of smart devices where the core function relies on external services, they'll be entirely useless.

vanattab 9y ago
Unless you paid a premium for the "smart" features.
- Spivak 9y ago
  But you probably didn't since at this point it's difficult to find a high end TV that doesn't have some crappy OS built into it.
- michaelbuckbee 9y ago
  My understanding is that it costs the manufacturer something like $5 difference to put what's essentially a Roku into a TV to make it "smart" (which kind of makes sense as you can buy a Roku stick for $30 retails and it has to have a case, cable, box, external hdmi connector, power etc.). The manufacturer then sells the smart tv at a $25-50 premium over the dumb version and it's a decent profit for them. FWIW - I was always skeptical of the onboard TV smart features, but the Samsung TV that I use a computer monitor actually is actually surprisingly decent.
  - cpv 9y ago
    Could you please specify what model of Samsung TV?
    - michaelbuckbee 9y ago
      It was the 2016 model of this: https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-UN55MU6500-Curved-55-Inch/dp/B06XGXHVW4 https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-UN55MU6500-Curved... As an aside, I absolutely love using it as a monitor hooked up to a MBP.
goldenkey 9y ago
Not exactly. Keep in mind the UEFI debacle with both Intel and AMD. Having an unknown attack vector on an old TV is less than desirable. Aside from privacy, I like to think of it similar to musical keyboards. Back when synths were primitive, it made sense to buy a keyboard that had builtin speakers, synthesizer software/hardware - a smart keyboard if you will. Nowadays, the only thing you would want is a good set of keys. That means a midi controller with a baby grand/grand like keybed. [1] Best of all, it should be a lot cheaper than an all in one. And itll be just as good in 20 years as it is now - youll just run a different synth on your computer. All in ones dont make sense for many things. It may be a trend but its an overzealous and oversold one. Ill stick with my dumb midi instruments and my dumb projector. And hopefully theyll still be with me in 5 or more years. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatar
- fabian2k 9y ago
  I can just pull the network cable from the TV, which removes pretty much the entire attack surface.
  - goldenkey 9y ago
    Every smart TV has WiFi. Even if you switch WiFi off, its not always off, on many devices.
    - j45 9y ago
      Even if wifi isn't truly off, as long as it's not authenticated to a wifi network before it's turned off it is a measure more safe. If it looks for open networks... that's another thing.
      - goldenkey 9y ago
        I hate playing the "idiot, its obvious. downvoted" target. HN can be so vicious at times when you would expect someone else to fill in the junior level details. I guess my lesson is to include even the simple blackhat explanations. HN is probably lacking of that kind of crowd...maybe to a boon. Anyhow, you are all wrong to disagree with me. There were just CVEs for radio chip exploits a couple of days ago! These have been coming out quite often lately. The layer at which these exploits can be done does not require the TV to be on any network. Not even ad-hoc. Just the fact that it has a listening radio chip that has old firmware is enough to make it extremely dangerous [digitally.] That TV can literally became a wifi enabled worm distribution center, infecting everything in your home. Not worth the risk IMO. I would stick with a dumb TV. "targets didn't have to connect to the attacker's Wi-Fi network. Simply having Wi-Fi turned on was sufficient to being hacked." [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/broadcom-chip-bug-opened-1-billion-phones-to-a-wi-fi-hopping-worm-attack/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/information-tec...
huehehue 9y ago
Smart TV software can and will interfere with regular operations. My girlfriend's dad got a shiny new Smart TV for Christmas a few years back. He also lives in the sticks and has satellite internet that works maybe every other day. I volunteered to set it up, and what do you know -- the "OS" was gated by a registration / sign in screen. So, no way to access core functionality (including external inputs, settings menu, etc.) without an internet connection. Even if there was some strange ritual that would let me get through (there wasn't), the average user is fucked.
- madjam002 9y ago
  What make is this? Just for future reference so I know to never buy a TV from this manufacturer!

fredley 9y ago

My approach is to compartmentalise functionality. I have a dumb screen with a Chromecast plugged into it. The screen is the much more expensive part of this setup, but should last for a long time. It supports inputs which will almost certainly be usable, perhaps with dongles towards the end of its service, for at least a decade, if past tech is anything to go by. The Chromecast could be discontinued tomorrow, but it only cost £30, so I'll just replace it with whatever. Relying on your expensive TV's probably terrible and badly supported software is madness, but it's what most people seem happy to do. It's getting harder and harder to buy TVs that are not smart, and I find it maddening. I take the same approach with Speakers.

eumenides1 9y ago
I bought a Visio specifically because it could be dumb relatively recently (1-2 years). I think a dumb screen option will always be available because it's always going to be a value player in a world of Sony and Samsungs. The question is will the screen be a nice enough panel.
- cnr 9y ago
  Do you mean - "Vizio"?
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Even the budget Vizios now have smart features.
- dwyerm 9y ago
  My experience has been that you have to pay extra for a dumb TV right now, likely because of issues of scale. My last TV was an NEC E-series Commercial Display. Aside from not being encumbered by any smart-features, it has a serial port on it, to make automation even easier. But I could have saved a lot of money by going with a conventional Smart TV, and it would have been easier to shop for it. Commercial displays aren't hanging on the wall at your local Best Buy, although they might be hanging on the wall at your local bar, restaurant, bank, etc.
9y ago

billysielu 9y ago

HTPC

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

Chromecast will work, it's relatively cheap so if it stops working after an X amount of years it's less of a financial pain than having to buy a new TV for the same functionality. The other side of the throw-away society and/or planned obsolescence is that replacing things becomes cheaper. I mean there's probably even cheaper alternatives than the Chromecast if you're on a budget.

nerdponx 9y ago

What's wrong with using your computer and an HDMI cable? I really don't understand this whole smart TV thing

fabian2k 9y ago
A dedicated computer for this is quite expensive, and using your regular desktop is somewhat annoying in various aspects like switching screen configurations and often not possible if you don't have the PC near the TV. Then there are the complications DRM adds, e.g. it's often not possible to get the best quality from Netflix on your PC in the browser, you only get that with the native Windows 10 app (and then not 4K unless you have some very specific GPU and drivers). The Apps on a smart TV or a FireTV/whatever don't have these restrictions.
- dahauns 9y ago
  It's not even the cost, but using a HTPC with the common streaming providers has become quite a chore nowadays, with horrible UX. With Netflix you at least get an app and the possibility to stream with highest quality (4K, HDR, multichannel sound), but the app is extremely basic and clearly only optimized for touch - it doesn't even offer basic keyboard shortcuts beyond start/stop. You can get a somewhat near-HTPC using Chrome (at least shortcuts work there) and some customizing, but you're stuck with stereo (I'm not sure about 4K/HDR, but the latter is no-go enough for me to not have tried). The same goes for Amazon Video, except that they don't even have an app outside Android/iOS, so you're stuck with stereo anyway. And so on. It would be downright embarassing, if it weren't so obvious this is intentional...
- dawnbreez 9y ago
  Raspberry Pi + surf = Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, Etc. fullscreen with desktop interface.
epicide 9y ago
3 C's: cost, convenience, and complexity. First, price. I think this is the biggest factor. You need a computer (for each TV). I don't think there are too many computers (if any) in the $35-$150 range that can handle smoothly playing HD video and pushing it to an external display. Assuming the machine isn't dedicated and you already own it, it breaks point 2 below. Second, I haven't seen a good setup for controlling a computer connected to a TV. Granted, I stopped looking a few years ago. For me (and I'd assume most people), "good setup" means ability to turn system on and control it remotely, at a minimum. I'm sure one exists, but it would definitely require even more hardware (cuts into price) and more custom setup. Third, some people might not have the technical know-how to set up something that meets the above two things. Sure, plenty of us technical people can do it, but it's not hard to understand that we are the minority. tl;dr there's nothing "wrong" with using a computer and an HDMI cable, but there are plenty of compelling reasons these days to use one of the ultra cheap boxes. They are basically cheap purpose-specific computers, anyway. Ultimately, different people have different needs and priorities.

jackmott 9y ago

books, on paper?