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

491–500 of 727 posts

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#491

Post by pcurve »

mattmcknight wrote: post #290
lostlogin wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t a larger sample size reduce the noise?

I think the issue is that both companies make very cheap and very expensive products in various places around the globe. So, we could be reading series of negative comments from people that got an inexpensive model made in Mexico versus people that got an expensive one made in Korea, or something like that.

that's a good point regarding price points... but I didn't realize the price went up to $8000 for a fridge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEDxRY4xcCI

Life is Good indeed.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#492

Post by rodgerd »

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.

For a long time Subaru held the unenviable position of being the most stolen car in the country that I live in. They started spraying microdots in the undercoat of their cars, which meant that every single part of the car was traceable.

Models from that point on were almost never stolen; earlier ones stayed at the top of the charts. Wrecker's yards were no longer prepared to take the risk of parting out stolen vehicles, and garages weren't prepared to use second-hand parts from stolen vehicles, when it could be traced easily, so criminals stopped stealing those model years.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#493

Post by MomoXenosaga »

alacritas0 wrote: post #458
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Color TVs superseded black and white because it was objectively an improvement for the customer. There wasn't any benefit to the manufacturer besides selling a new unit. the "Smart" TVs of today are riddled with spyware and telemetry that provides a second revenue stream to the manufacture since 95% of the population is too lazy or uninformed or doesn't have the time to turn it off. Yes, there benefits to the consume…

The average customer doesn't even know what spyware or telemetry is. I'd even argue that broadcast TV is dying making some form of video streaming service necessary which the smart TV accomplishes in a nice form factor.

Yes TV channels are being replaced by apps.

I think smart TVs are great, the chips that they put in the €1000 models are good enough for 4k streaming now. No more cheap mediatek crap. The only remaining problem that needs to be solved is long term support.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#494

Post by lotsofpulp »

chmod775 wrote: post #476
lotsofpulp wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

If that's supposed to be a rhetorical question, you are missing the point. I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm saying they wouldn't. If this process was properly implemented they would not help you unlock your TV if you complain. Instead they would be calling the cops because you just gave them a lead on where those TVs went. Which in some universe where typical warehouse management keeps track of serial numbers may a…

It was not rhetorical. I assumed they might have planned for a situation where the warehouse or Samsung made a mistake.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#495

Post by Aspos »

beebeepka wrote: post #405
Aspos wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once moved across the ocean and newly purchased LG TV refused to work because I am now in the wrong region. Off it went to a landfill, this perfect piece of hardware :-(

Refused to work on what way?

There was a dialog window with a error message and a [Continue] button which did nothing.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#496

Post by kelnos »

powerslacker wrote: post #388
coconut08 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the next logical question is why are they the only tv's available? the reason is the same reason that phones are getting bigger and laptops are getting thinner. (hint it's not some grand conspiracy to ruin your life or to fuck the consumer) the answer is because that's what people buy.

Wait a minute now. TV manufacturers are mining the frames from video played on them in order to detect which shows people are watching. They then sell that data to 3rd parties (typically advertisers and data brokers). It's maybe not some "grand conspiracy", but there is a definite profit motive to push smart TVs and only smart TVs. It is far more profitable than a one time sale since you can sell data over and over.…

Sure, but I think the point is that it's more likely that the idea of an internet-connected TV originally came from the perceived usefulness of having a TV that could come preloaded with various apps (Netflix, etc.). Certainly I think that's a valuable feature to have.

But of course now that the TVs have an always-on internet connection, the manufacturers have realized they can extract more revenue (recurring revenue, at that) by spying on their customers and selling the data. So of course, they do it, and most people don't even know they're doing it, so there's little outrage from the mainstream.

> there is a definite profit motive to push smart TVs and only smart TVs

I would imagine that most customers would prefer a TV with Netflix (or whatever) than a TV without Netflix. At that point it becomes a decision of whether it's worth it to incur the cost of having a separate SKU without the "smart" bits, and it may not be.

Yes, the "smartness" benefits the manufacturer (to the detriment of customer privacy), but I would bet that even if all the sketchy bits were banned tomorrow, manufacturers would still make and sell about the same number of smart TVs.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#497

Post by lotsofpulp »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #248
Santosh83 wrote: post #56

The larger question for society is do we even want smart everything? I rarely see this issue debated. Undoubtedly, software enables complex/rich functionality for what were hitherto relatively "dumb" devices, but the same flexibility can also lead to exploits, backdoors, bugs and place too much control in the hands of the manufacturers and many other nameless parties. The most important aspect here is remote connecti…

It sucks. The smartest capability I want is the ability to mount network storage, play video from USB, etc. Give me options for playing my media. Unfortunately nobody owns media, they stream everything, hence TVs with "smart" features.

That is because the root problem is excessive copyright terms lasting 100+ years. Bump that down to 10 or even 20 years and you will see a market emerge for the abilities you are looking for.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#498

Post by oxfeed65261 »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #437
tshaddox wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It stretches credulity to suggest that the lack of non-smart TVs on the market causes the popularity of smart TVs. Would you also suggest that the lack of black and white TVs on the market causes the popularity of color TVs?

Color TVs superseded black and white because it was objectively an improvement for the customer. There wasn't any benefit to the manufacturer besides selling a new unit. the "Smart" TVs of today are riddled with spyware and telemetry that provides a second revenue stream to the manufacture since 95% of the population is too lazy or uninformed or doesn't have the time to turn it off. Yes, there benefits to the consume…

If I had to choose between a color TV that could only show live broadcasts or a B&W TV that could stream Netflix, etc., I would certainly choose B&W streaming. This obviously doesn’t require a smart TV—I personally use a Roku and rejected all of my Smart TV’s EULAs—but I consider streaming to be a much bigger objective improvement than color.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#499

Post by RulerOf »

Johnny555 wrote: post #475
Teever wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why weren't TVs with built in VCRs and DVD players more popular?

I never wanted one because I was afraid that one or the other would break, then it would be half-useless. My parents had one where the TV part stopped working, but the VCR still worked. It had video/audio out jacks so dad plugged it into their other TV, so they had a dead TV sitting next to their working TV for use as a VCR.

Smart TVs from at least the last 5 years have a similar problem. You update the software and they become excruciatingly slow, or you can't update the software and they gradually become useless.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But I can replace an old Roku for $39.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#500

Post by KingMachiavelli »

speeder wrote: post #288
ren_engineer wrote: post #50

forget smart TVs, I want somebody to just make a decent dumb TV. Same thing goes for cars, I feel like there is a huge market for "dumb" products. Manufacturers feel the need to keep adding features for some reason

For cars stuff is even harder now. EU for example has regulations that make mandatory for all new cars to come with tracking devices and logging of what you do with the car. EDIT: just remembered the name of one of such things. It is "eCall", now mandatory on EU. It mandates all cars must have GPS, Galileo, microphone, logging, cellphone transmitter, and be able to detect a serious emergency happened and call the pol…

> The SIM-card used to transmit the eCall data is dormant, i.e. it is only activated in case the vehicle has a serious accident (e.g. the airbag is activated).

At least the EU cares about the privacy implications of some of the stuff it does. If/when this happens in the US, they'll just let the auto companies offset the cost by selling the data it collects. For them it's a win-win-win, the government looks good by improving safety to 90% of people, companies can make more money by selling data, and the government can buy that data to circumvent the legal restrictions on tracking citzens directly.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road/action_plan/e...

Post reply on HN