5 ms·

Smart TVs are a curse (from a consumer perspective). A separate smart device makes much more sense. People usually replaced their TVs when they broke, which co

Smart TVs are a curse (from a consumer perspective). A separate smart device makes much more sense. People usually replaced their TVs when they broke, which could be 6-8+ years. Nowadays as their already slow hardware becomes even more obsolete, streaming apps are no longer updated and start to break, new ones are not released, etc. they go ahead and buy a new one. You also have to accept all kinds of crappy agreements, so you can be spied on and get served ADS (?!?!). Not to mention even the most expensive TVs come with baffingly slow hardware and software. $2k devices can take 10+ seconds to load the menu with 4 options, where you can modify picture settings. Incredible. A TV should be a display with inputs and nothing more IMO. Smart boxes are cheap and much faster than even the most expensive TVs, and they can be replaced inexpensively when eventually they become obsolete. For a long time I pulled the network cable from my TV after I got tired of getting bombarded with changed ToS agreements, firmware updates and home screen ads. Now I have it on the network again just because I wanted to control the source from my PC, but it's still blocked from the internet on the firewall. Go ahead and make snapshots you stupid little TV.

rob74 2y ago
While a separate smart device makes more sense from an ecological perspective, it won't save you from ads, tracking, screenshots etc., as long as the same OS that would be running on the TV is running on the device. And, if you want to install apps from streaming services, you need one of the supported OSs - AFAIK most smart devices use Android TV?
- flacebo 2y ago
  With smart boxes you have much more options. I'm thinking a stipped down android TV box doesn't make screenshots and track you like most smart TVs do, they also don't serve random ads on the home page.
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    Apple TV is really your best option if you want privacy. Google is primarily an ad company that wants to learn as much about you as possible to target those ads.
    - flacebo 2y ago
      Just because Apple promises? There is actually zero evidence that apple is any better for privacy. Your absolute best option is something like a raspberry pi with an open source OS.
      - water-data-dude 2y ago
        When companies have a privacy policy that says “we will spy on you and sell your information to whoever will pay us for it”, and then they do exactly that, that’s one thing. That’s the Google Experience™. When companies have a privacy policy that says they won’t do that, and then they do, that’s an entirely different thing. They lied, and that puts them in legal jeopardy. It also hurts their bottom line. Is it possible Apple is sneakily spying on you and selling your info to third parties in secret illegal deals? Sure, I guess? But I don’t think it’s super likely.
        mmh0000 2y ago
        I mean... they tell you right on their webpage that track you and and use your private information (such as: location, current app, locale, device ID, ...). Sure, it's a "random" identifier, ... tied to your exact location, soooo random. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertising/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertisin... And also: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-privacy-data-collection/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-privacy-data-collection/
    - bestouff 2y ago
      Nope. A Kodi box is really the best option here.
      - hellisothers 2y ago
        Only if you insist on control over minutia over everything else including ease of use, reliability, and simplicity.
- Hackbraten 2y ago
  At least a separate smart device isn’t going to record everything I’m doing on my gaming console, which is connected to a different HDMI input.
- kitd 2y ago
  One benefit of a separate device, especially a small one like a Roku or Firestick, is you can take it on holiday with you to access all your services while away (assuming your destination has a TV with HDMI).
  - abenga 2y ago
    I would be terrified of leaving such a device every time I go somewhere, considering the ports are invariably behind the screen.
    - xnx 2y ago
      Tether it to something you can't forget like your bag.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  The TV will still spy on you, and may even send frames for upstream classification. The only way to make sure is to never connect it to the network. And even then, I'd try to remove any wifi antennas.
Meniceses 2y ago
A SmartTV is not a problem as long as it has HDMI Input. You don't like your SmartTV? Switch to HDMI Input and use your device. I find it very practical that my LG Smart TV has the normal core apps available and i do not want to have a second remote.
- trckdhsbr 2y ago
  As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, automated content recognition and analysis and advertising will apply to anything on your screen no matter the input source
  - mahkeiro 2y ago
    Ok but if the tv has no internet access what is the smart tv going to do with all these nice screenshots? First rule: never provide Internet access to your smart tv.
    - trckdhsbr 2y ago
      There was some talk lower in the thread about devices being able to form mesh-networks with other devices that do have internet connection (for ex. your neighbour) and share data that way, there hasn't been any links or sources to the claims yet however
      - Grazester 2y ago
        That is all nonsense.
        yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        Given that Amazon’s Sidewalk network is a thing, I think a more extensive counter is needed.
        hellisothers 2y ago
allturtles 2y ago
> Not to mention even the most expensive TVs come with baffingly slow hardware and software. $2k devices can take 10+ seconds to load the menu with 4 options, where you can modify picture settings. Incredible. Yes it's really curious how much worse technology has gotten in some dimensions in recent decades. Analog TVs would respond to inputs effectively instantaneously - if you changed the channel, the very next frame would be drawn from the new channel. My TV now takes multiple seconds to change channels.
- unsnap_biceps 2y ago
  Analog tvs would change in the middle of frames if you swapped channels. Digital tvs are cursed to wait for the next key frame in the video to start displaying and providers are a-okay with very long waits for key frames as it improves their encoding efficiency and thus allows them to squeeze more channels on the lines. It's apples to oranges sadly.
  - garaetjjte 2y ago
    It doesn't need to be that bad if they cared about it. If channel is on the same band as previous one it could keep previous data in the buffer and decode it at once when switching.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    > Analog tvs would change in the middle of frames if you swapped channels. They'd get a little confused, as the next vblank (and hblank) would come at unexpected times, as channels wouldn't synchronize frames. > Digital tvs are cursed to wait for the next key frame in the video to start displaying This is very annoying.
  - xnx 2y ago
    > Digital tvs are cursed to wait for the next key frame in the video to start displaying If they chose too, couldn't TV decoders pretend to have a all-gray keyframe as a starting point and apply the streaming diffs to that until the next true keyframe came? That would at least give some garbled image before snapping in. I'm sure most consumers would consider this "broken" though.
nickburns 2y ago
What makes you think an internet-connected streaming device couldn't and isn't just doing the same thing? I otherwise completely agree with everything else you've said.
- hellojesus 2y ago
  Presumably you could just cut it off from the internet by dns filtering or setting up a vlan to only allow it to communicate to your locally hosted plex/jellyfish instance.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Well, for one, a separate streaming box would only have access to the video it shows. The central multiplexer sees it all.
  - nickburns 2y ago
    Yeah no, that's exactly what I mean (in context of the parent to which I've replied): streaming devices are likely capturing and phoning home screenshots of their own display output, too. But yes, a smart TV programmed to do the same is even more unscrupulous given that it can 'spy' on everything it displays, to presumably include the input of connected devices.

rob74 2y ago

While a separate smart device makes more sense from an ecological perspective, it won't save you from ads, tracking, screenshots etc., as long as the same OS that would be running on the TV is running on the device. And, if you want to install apps from streaming services, you need one of the supported OSs - AFAIK most smart devices use Android TV?

flacebo 2y ago
With smart boxes you have much more options. I'm thinking a stipped down android TV box doesn't make screenshots and track you like most smart TVs do, they also don't serve random ads on the home page.
- _mlbt 2y ago
  Apple TV is really your best option if you want privacy. Google is primarily an ad company that wants to learn as much about you as possible to target those ads.
  - flacebo 2y ago
    Just because Apple promises? There is actually zero evidence that apple is any better for privacy. Your absolute best option is something like a raspberry pi with an open source OS.
    - water-data-dude 2y ago
      When companies have a privacy policy that says “we will spy on you and sell your information to whoever will pay us for it”, and then they do exactly that, that’s one thing. That’s the Google Experience™. When companies have a privacy policy that says they won’t do that, and then they do, that’s an entirely different thing. They lied, and that puts them in legal jeopardy. It also hurts their bottom line. Is it possible Apple is sneakily spying on you and selling your info to third parties in secret illegal deals? Sure, I guess? But I don’t think it’s super likely.
      - mmh0000 2y ago
        I mean... they tell you right on their webpage that track you and and use your private information (such as: location, current app, locale, device ID, ...). Sure, it's a "random" identifier, ... tied to your exact location, soooo random. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertising/ https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertisin... And also: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-privacy-data-collection/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-privacy-data-collection/
  - bestouff 2y ago
    Nope. A Kodi box is really the best option here.
    - hellisothers 2y ago
      Only if you insist on control over minutia over everything else including ease of use, reliability, and simplicity.
Hackbraten 2y ago
At least a separate smart device isn’t going to record everything I’m doing on my gaming console, which is connected to a different HDMI input.
kitd 2y ago
One benefit of a separate device, especially a small one like a Roku or Firestick, is you can take it on holiday with you to access all your services while away (assuming your destination has a TV with HDMI).
- abenga 2y ago
  I would be terrified of leaving such a device every time I go somewhere, considering the ports are invariably behind the screen.
  - xnx 2y ago
    Tether it to something you can't forget like your bag.
rbanffy 2y ago
The TV will still spy on you, and may even send frames for upstream classification. The only way to make sure is to never connect it to the network. And even then, I'd try to remove any wifi antennas.

Meniceses 2y ago

A SmartTV is not a problem as long as it has HDMI Input. You don't like your SmartTV? Switch to HDMI Input and use your device. I find it very practical that my LG Smart TV has the normal core apps available and i do not want to have a second remote.

trckdhsbr 2y ago
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, automated content recognition and analysis and advertising will apply to anything on your screen no matter the input source
- mahkeiro 2y ago
  Ok but if the tv has no internet access what is the smart tv going to do with all these nice screenshots? First rule: never provide Internet access to your smart tv.
  - trckdhsbr 2y ago
    There was some talk lower in the thread about devices being able to form mesh-networks with other devices that do have internet connection (for ex. your neighbour) and share data that way, there hasn't been any links or sources to the claims yet however
    - Grazester 2y ago
      That is all nonsense.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        Given that Amazon’s Sidewalk network is a thing, I think a more extensive counter is needed.
        hellisothers 2y ago

allturtles 2y ago

> Not to mention even the most expensive TVs come with baffingly slow hardware and software. $2k devices can take 10+ seconds to load the menu with 4 options, where you can modify picture settings. Incredible. Yes it's really curious how much worse technology has gotten in some dimensions in recent decades. Analog TVs would respond to inputs effectively instantaneously - if you changed the channel, the very next frame would be drawn from the new channel. My TV now takes multiple seconds to change channels.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
Analog tvs would change in the middle of frames if you swapped channels. Digital tvs are cursed to wait for the next key frame in the video to start displaying and providers are a-okay with very long waits for key frames as it improves their encoding efficiency and thus allows them to squeeze more channels on the lines. It's apples to oranges sadly.
- garaetjjte 2y ago
  It doesn't need to be that bad if they cared about it. If channel is on the same band as previous one it could keep previous data in the buffer and decode it at once when switching.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > Analog tvs would change in the middle of frames if you swapped channels. They'd get a little confused, as the next vblank (and hblank) would come at unexpected times, as channels wouldn't synchronize frames. > Digital tvs are cursed to wait for the next key frame in the video to start displaying This is very annoying.
- xnx 2y ago
  > Digital tvs are cursed to wait for the next key frame in the video to start displaying If they chose too, couldn't TV decoders pretend to have a all-gray keyframe as a starting point and apply the streaming diffs to that until the next true keyframe came? That would at least give some garbled image before snapping in. I'm sure most consumers would consider this "broken" though.

nickburns 2y ago

What makes you think an internet-connected streaming device couldn't and isn't just doing the same thing? I otherwise completely agree with everything else you've said.

hellojesus 2y ago
Presumably you could just cut it off from the internet by dns filtering or setting up a vlan to only allow it to communicate to your locally hosted plex/jellyfish instance.
yencabulator 2y ago
Well, for one, a separate streaming box would only have access to the video it shows. The central multiplexer sees it all.
- nickburns 2y ago
  Yeah no, that's exactly what I mean (in context of the parent to which I've replied): streaming devices are likely capturing and phoning home screenshots of their own display output, too. But yes, a smart TV programmed to do the same is even more unscrupulous given that it can 'spy' on everything it displays, to presumably include the input of connected devices.