Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

news.samsung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 727 posts

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#71

Post by rightbyte »

prepend wrote: post #49
h2odragon wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's several. I'm fond of https://libreelec.tv/

This is not to firmware though. Is there an OSS firmware that can be used to replace whatever crap Samsung has on these devices?

It is quite pointless to fight hardware vendors for FOSS support if they don't want to and you don't have to.

Why spend effort to crack their platform when you can buy from competitors, which you do a disservice for fixing Samsungs TVs.

Then again I don't know if there are any 'dumb' or open software competitor TVs left on the market ...

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#72

Post by bluGill »

ballenf wrote: post #25

The ecological impact of this shouldn't be ignored. Imagine the number of iPhones that are activation locked due to oversight of owners before disposal. They are much more likely to become e-waste. Possession as the primary indicator of ownership isn't such a bad option after all. At the very least, there should be a well-known process to remove these locks.

> The ecological impact of this shouldn't be ignored.

Pretty low so long as they only use it for theft. Thieves will soon learn not to steal TVs as there is no value in it. As such it is only a small number of bricked TVs that are landfilled early - nothing compared to all the TVs already landfilled.

Now if this is used for something other than theft cases it can get bad, but in this case at least it is a good thing that helps all honest people.

> At the very least, there should be a well-known process to remove these locks.

There is. Or so they claim, I don't know if it works or not, but supposedly you can just send proof of legal purchase.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#73

Post by Jaepa »

How different is this from IMEI blacklisting of stolen phones? The secondary market for stolen phones has kind of disappeared despite cost of phones increasing.

EDIT: I think there is plenty of reason to want an open source tv os. They are terrible, ad ridden, bloated commodities. But this seems to be only valid use of DRM I can think of.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#74

Post by JohnWhigham »

post_break wrote: post #8
anshumankmr wrote: post #4

I am quite ambivalent to this feature. On one hand, if someone steals your TV, you can deactivate it. But now there is also a benefit to having a dumb TV. Imagine if you have too old of a model, so Samsung decides to remotely disable your TV.

My samsung TV was never connected to the internet. I didnt even accept the user agreement, it still works just fine.

I loathe the day where manufacturers start requiring Internet access because you know that most people won't think twice about it. And they'll also all do it within a couple years of each other.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#75

Post by dthul »

drewg123 wrote: post #65
dthul wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that it's hard to find any not-too-smart TVs with up to date technology (4k, OLED, HDR etc). Unless you spend a fortune on a luxury brand like Bang and Olufsen.

One alternative is the Gigabyte AORUS FO48U 48" 4K OLED. This essentially an LG OLED, minus the smart TV stuff, plus better inputs. It seems to have a ~15% price premium over the TV.

That could be a nice alternative! In that case you do need a separate tuner though and something like a Chromecast if you want to watch Netflix. And you might not have easy access to extended channel offerings such as watching older episodes on demand etc.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#77

Post by dthul »

ollien wrote: post #44
wait_a_minute wrote: post #36

I bought one of Samsung's smart televisions a couple years ago. I think I paid $1500 for it. Anyway, it started showing me ads and the TV eventually became sluggish less than a month after owning it. Returned it as defective. Ever since that experience, I swore of all smart televisions and will never buy another Samsung television or smartphone again if I can help it.

I recently bought a TCL TV specifically because I trust Roku to maintain their software more than someone like Samsung. The ads drive me insane, even if they're relatively unobtrusive. At least in that case the TV was much cheaper (~$500 for a 55" TV)

I read some other thread on here some time ago that talked about the option of using a Pi-hole (or so?) to block smart TV ads.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#78

Post by [deleted] »

hhsbz wrote: post #66
drewg123 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought a high-end Samsung 4K tv in 2015 or so for about $3000. I picked it after a week of research that showed it had the highest quality panel. After taking delivery of the TV, we noticed it had bright lower left and right corners that we later found out were due to new packaging that pinched the TV and caused most of the TVs in that batch to be ruined. Samsung claimed that the corners were "in spec" and refused…

What do you expect Samsung to do, throw away a $3000 product for a defect most consumers wouldn't notice?

[deleted]

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#79

Post by pojzon »

hhsbz wrote: post #66
drewg123 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought a high-end Samsung 4K tv in 2015 or so for about $3000. I picked it after a week of research that showed it had the highest quality panel. After taking delivery of the TV, we noticed it had bright lower left and right corners that we later found out were due to new packaging that pinched the TV and caused most of the TVs in that batch to be ruined. Samsung claimed that the corners were "in spec" and refused…

What do you expect Samsung to do, throw away a $3000 product for a defect most consumers wouldn't notice?

Probably not throw away, but replace if customer that sees the defect reports it.

Thats what a decent company would do.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#80

Post by anonuser123456 »

zimbatm wrote: post #69
anonuser123456 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh the tyranny of having to pay…

You might have paid the TV second hand, and not be aware of the theft. What recourse do you have then? You're out of pocket, the seller might not be reachable anymore, and you have no proof of purchase.

Supply chains matter and that has always been true. You have never had recourse for buying stolen goods under law. If you buy stolen goods, the police can seize them and you are out the money.
Post reply on HN