8 ms·
I got a “smart” tv and just don’t let it on the network. Problem solved.
by _alex_ 6y ago
I got a “smart” tv and just don’t let it on the network. Problem solved.
- snazz 6y agoI read about Samsung (?) smart TVs connecting to nearby unsecured Wi-Fi networks and others containing LTE hardware with a data SIM.
- boardwaalk 6y agoSounds like a folk tale, unless you have a source? The second part in particular.
- t0astbread 6y agoIt may sound like a folk tale but to me at least it doesn't seem like a dumb strategy: Lots of people won't connect the TV to their home WiFi either because they're concerned about data collection or just because they don't want to spend time and effort on it. Most would consent to the TV's terms of service though, especially if a considerable amount of features are locked in case you decline. So if the TV manufacturer can sell its customers' viewership data for more than the cost of the LTE connection on average then there's a clear incentive to do it. Apart from that I'd always assume the worst case when it comes to digital self-defense.
- m463 6y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24629155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24629155
- renewiltord 6y agoAre the LTE modem and SIM network-locked like the Amazon Whispernet?
- solarkraft 6y agoThe WiFi rumor is plausible because it's free for them, the LTE story is not because it would be quite expensive in multiple dimensions.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoExpensive how? Maybe not LTE, but Kindle comes with 3G cellular.
- solarkraft 6y ago- An LTE module is significantly expensive (10€?). - A carrier contract costs some money (some m2m contracts for very low bandwidth can go for around 1€/month). - It's extra design and management effort (antennas, contract management and such) - Maybe most importantly: It's rather easy to spot and people would ask uncomfortable questions.
- jMyles 6y ago> Problem solved. I suspect that the 5g era will bring with it many more devices connecting unbeknownst to their owners, and that "smart" appliances will be first on the list. As that approaches, we need solutions that address this as well.
- megablast 6y agoThat suggests that tv manufacturers are going to pay for that extra hardware, and ongoing costs.
- centimeter 6y agoThey can recoup the costs with ads.
- moltar 6y agoThey will. Because they are selling your habit data on the backend.
- dmm 6y agoIf a significant number of people start leaving their tvs offline maybe they would. Everything is so integrated now. Perhaps it would be on the chips as the wifi so not much of an extra cost? Maybe it would be sold as a feature, like "Built in 5g hotspot!" or something like that.
- eximius 6y agoImagine if you could sell to a company an accurate estimate for the number of times your brand is mentioned in a zip code in a month. I would imagine the profits from that dwarf the hardware costs of some antennas (that the consumer pays the power for). The profit incentive from surveillance is already there. We have to be vigilant in rejecting products that include it.
- awalton 6y agoIf $30 of extra hardware makes them able to directly sell $X0+ of ads per TV per year, they're going to be happy to do it.
- tshaddox 6y agoI let mine on the network so it will get updates, but I just don't use any of the smart features. I understand that some TVs (Samsung?) apparently track your activity and show you unsolicited ads, but as far as my LG TV doesn't track me and all the apps and smart features don't do anything unless I choose to open them.
- acwan93 6y agoGenuine question: what kind of updates would a dumb TV possibly need?
- superhuzza 6y agoAntivirus updates of course. Why? Because you connected it to the internet to receive updates!
- t0astbread 6y agoAny digital TV could have a software bug that bricks it.
- choward 6y agoAny piece of equipment can have a malfunction that bricks it. That doesn't mean I want it connected to the mothership.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoI think the chance of this happening is much higher if new updates are being pushed all the time...
- t0astbread 6y agoThat is true although if the product is new (or the assembly line never ups the installed firmware version) day-one patches due to rushed software could be a thing. But you're right, I was just saying everything with software has a reason for updates, though not a good one sometimes.
- kazinator 6y agoThere are other virtues of a dumb TV. Simplicity is probably the best reason for wanting one. If you're getting a dumb TV because it stays off your network, but then get ipTV dongles and boxes for it, then you effectively have a smart TV on the network. I have one and like it a lot. The remote control is beautifully simple. There is no complicated menu structure; it took all of five minutes to go through all the screens, to discover all that can be tweaked. The remote has dedicated buttons for switching among the HDMI inputs: power it on and hit the button for the input that you want. I like the separation: the TV is the TV, and the box or dongle is the box. You can ditch the dongle and get another one, while keeping the TV. You can take the dongle on the road and plug it into another TV wherever you are. The dongle has its own control mechanism (own remote, or smartphone). This simplifies things. You know what is a TV setting and what is an IPTV setting, and talk to the right piece of hardware with the right remote. There is fault isolation. If your IPTV dongle or box fries itself, then it's just the box. If it's integrated into the TV, then the whole TV is toast. You can ditch the dongle/box in a few years and upgrade to different/newer one, while keeping the TV. If you're happy with the size, colors and resolution, and the thing works, there is no need to update it. It will work fine with whatever you're interested in four years from now.
- basch 6y agoThe relationship between the smarts and tv are sometimes underrated. It's one less connection to act up. When adjusting picture settings there aren't two independent layers of settings that don't interact with each other. I was in the dumb tv camp, but I think having all my settings in one menu has converted me a bit. If you're plugging in a roku or fire anyway just get a roku or fire tv and avoid the extra complexity of the interface handshake.
- lostlogin 6y agoCould you clarify as I’ve searched and think I get it. You bought a dumb tv, then plugged in a sort of set top box that does stuff. Then you use that things remote? Have you ended up with two remotes?
- rovr138 6y ago
- chillfox 6y agoFar from it. The problem with smart TVs is that they provide an inferior experience to a dumb TV. They have sluggish menu systems, are slow to switch between inputs and startup times frequently measured in 10s of seconds. Compare that to dumb TVs that switch on in less than 2 seconds and respond immediately. Then there’s of course the ads and spying that you can avoid by not letting it on the network.
- phendrenad2 6y agoI second this. Every smart TV I've used has had an annoying "bootup" time, between 2-5 seconds, just to display the menus. Dumb TVs I've used have all displayed a menu in < 1 second.
- avh02 6y agoI had the pleasure of using one in an airbnb that wouldn't allow you to change volume during the first 5 seconds. It would also not boot up on the previous input, so could be quite noisy with no recourse.
- tigershark 6y agoI never noticed any latency problem with my LG, I think that WebOs is quite nice. Though I really use it only for streaming, I can’t really speak about the normal TV.