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

251–260 of 727 posts

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#251

Post by smoldesu »

akira2501 wrote: post #196
josephcsible wrote: post #3

This technology was used for good this time, but there's nothing stopping it from being used for evil next time. The fact that Samsung is even capable of doing this means you don't have control over your Samsung TV even if you do own it legally.

What good was served here? The products are still stolen and are still going on the books as a loss. Since they can't be used, they're likely going in a dumpster. And none of this apparently led the arrest of any perpetrators. Hard to imagine what purpose was served here, other than Samsung broadcasting what kind of power they have over devices you own.

Apple has done this fairly successfully for years. The simple answer is, they'd rather deprive someone else of a good than have it themselves. Same goes for Samsung, and pretty much any other company that weighs their bottom line over general benevolence.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#252

Post by Spivak »

jandrese wrote: post #168
rangerelf wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never again will I buy anything Samsung. They have steadfastly refused to fix my fridge's ice maker even though they have admitted it's a design fault, and retailers will not take it back as faulty because the ice maker is not considered vital to the functioning of the refrigerator in general.

Ice makers are notoriously flimsy. Serious race to the bottom by the manufacturers. The good news is that they're easy to replace (undo a couple of bolts and unplug a cable and they usually come right out), bad news is the replacements are ridiculously expensive, like $100 each and come with all of the same design flaws the original had. There is also surprisingly little standardization which makes the replacements e…

The thing that gets me is that for commercial operations it seems to be a solved problem. They break and require maintenance like anything else but if they’re not outright broken they are super reliable where fridge ice dispensers even when they’re working suck.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#253

Post by swayvil »

ezconnect wrote: post #123
ok123456 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung's appliances have a pretty bad reputation in general, especially the refrigerators and side loading washing machines.

I had a Samsung front loader and it's a great washer.

Was it the one that sings a Schubert tune every time the wash is done?

That cracks me up.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#254

Post by lostlogin »

rangerelf wrote: post #143
ok123456 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung's appliances have a pretty bad reputation in general, especially the refrigerators and side loading washing machines.

Never again will I buy anything Samsung. They have steadfastly refused to fix my fridge's ice maker even though they have admitted it's a design fault, and retailers will not take it back as faulty because the ice maker is not considered vital to the functioning of the refrigerator in general.

New Zealand has a bit of legislation called the Consumer Guarantees Act, and it specifies something to the effect of ‘the thing should have a lifespan commensurate with the price, free of defects or faults’. It’s really great - the downside is that we pay more for things than people overseas do. I vastly prefer that we have it.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#255

Post by amelius »

dthul wrote: post #48
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.

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.

You can shop for bare display panels at https://panelook.com

Building the TV receiver part shouldn't be too difficult. Perhaps someone could write a blog about it.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#256

Post by gruez »

scns wrote: post #156
plussed_reader wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gigabyte does not do business in good faith. I am extremely leery of anything related to them now; they are not a safe brand. https://www.windowscentral.com/gigabyte-allows-returns-or-ex...

Hm, don't want to side with with Gigabyte here, but drawing a conclusion from a test of a PSU enduring 120% load for an extended period of time failing would not make me dismiss all their products.

>from a test of a PSU enduring 120% load for an extended period of time failing

That's from gigabyte's response, not the accusations levied against them. In GN's testing, they found that the PSU failed at 60% load after 72 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aACtT_rzToI&t=1427s

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#257

Post by lostlogin »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #250
pcurve wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like LG makes better appliance than Samsung in general... but I guess mileage varies between model and customer.

Samsung and LG are so big that I would not expect to be able to make an objective statement on either's quality relative to another, not even for a specific product line, much less company wide.

Doesn’t a larger sample size reduce the noise?

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#258

Post by hellbannedguy »

rangerelf wrote: post #143
ok123456 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung's appliances have a pretty bad reputation in general, especially the refrigerators and side loading washing machines.

Never again will I buy anything Samsung. They have steadfastly refused to fix my fridge's ice maker even though they have admitted it's a design fault, and retailers will not take it back as faulty because the ice maker is not considered vital to the functioning of the refrigerator in general.

What country do you live in?

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#259

Post by lotsofpulp »

chmod775 wrote: post #229
mminer237 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've all been reported stolen. That already satisfies the burden of proof in Samsung's view. What more proof do you want Samsung to have? They can't prove customers don't have a receipt. It's up to the potential legitimate customer to overcome Samsung's evidence.

Then having that avenue would not be necessary, would it? It's likely Samsung only has a rough idea which serial numbers were stolen, or there is at least considerable room for mistakes. As a company you don't set up a process for a few outliers.

What? All the big tech companies on HN get lambasted all the time for excessive automation and not having a process for a few outliers.

Why would you NOT want to setup a process for outliers (other than to save money like the big tech companies)?

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#260

Post by Ensorceled »

rad_gruchalski wrote: post #155
Ensorceled wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the parent: > "Should a customer’s TV be incorrectly blocked, the functionality can be reinstated once proof of purchase and a valid TV license is shared to serv.manager@samsung.com or click here for more information" I don't know why they would block me, but apparently it is something they've created a process for, a process I wouldn't be able to participate in.

But they wouldn't. You have a 10 year old Sony TV. This is Samsung.

My point is that, I don't have proof of purchase for my 10 year old Sony. I would presume this also applies to Samsung customers.
Post reply on HN