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

561–570 of 727 posts

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#561

Post by GekkePrutser »

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Color TVs superseded black and white because it was objectively an improvement for the customer.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…

In addition to the spyware and telemetry, Samsung's smart TVs also show ads in their interface. Yes that $1000s TV you just bought. Sigh...

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#562

Post by [deleted] »

amiga wrote: post #558
pessimizer wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is everyone so confused that smart TVs are popular? Also the real reason that they're popular: there are no non-smart TVs available.

Anecdotal, the last "unsmart" TV I found was hobbled to the point of not even having a power indicator LED. It wasn't used much until putting a "good smart" device behind it...in this case a Roku. Orwellian prophecy in real life, the Roku sends data back to the company about anything you watch using that device. The only difference between this setup and a "plus good smart" TV is that anything else displayed on the T…

[deleted]

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#563

Post by oblio »

jen20 wrote: post #509
nmstoker wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe your comment was tongue in cheek but if the product did not reveal it contained a radio transmitter, this would undoubtedly be illegal in the US, EU & UK.

And what will you do when there are no TVs to buy that do not contain LTE transmitters to force more spying upon you?

Do most of them contain LTE transmitters? Is their share increasing?

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#564

Post by hilbert42 »

pessimizer wrote: post #325
arduinomancer wrote: post #287

This thread feels very...Hacker News Bubble? Why is everyone so confused that smart TVs are popular? Being able to just turn on your TV and open Netflix without messing around with inputs/other devices is a huge benefit for non-technological people. And it probably costs <$50 for the manufacturer to include whatever chip is running linux in the TV, its a no-brainer.

> Why is everyone so confused that smart TVs are popular? Also the real reason that they're popular: there are no non-smart TVs available.

My solution to get a new dumb TV is simple. I don't want and would never own a smart TV so I use a standard monitor with a PVR/STB (Set Top Box). It works perfectly - I've used that solution for years.

The real problem is that governments have allowed the free-to-air (dumb) TV service to be bastardized, there's no regulation to protect it.

A very simple solution that would end the practice immediately would be for governments to put say 20% tax/duty on all smart TVs made by manufacturers who don't ALSO market dumb TVs.

Blame your governments for the lack of dumb TVs!

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#565

Post by nicce »

tshaddox wrote: post #522
MereInterest wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it similarly stretch credulity to suggest that the lack of commercial-free cable channels on the market causes the popularity of cable channels with commercials. Something may be "popular" because it's the only game in town.

I challenge the premise. At least in the United States, the number of subscribers to commercial-free cable channels has decreased significantly in the last 10 years, during which time the number of subscribers to streaming services which show fewer or no ads has increased significantly.

I think it was more of example as using term ”popular” in different context, regardless of it is true or not. Arguing if it is not true, does not take this example away.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#566

Post by caf »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #283
nicolas_t wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotal but I've had very good experience with Samsung front loading washing machine, might depend on regions of the world though, I've had one in Asia and one in Europe.

Try to stay away from pricy Bosh washers, and dishwashers. I can offer this with a Bosh. If you get a E13 error it's the pump. It's a pretty easy fix. You can get a generic pump for $50. Most disguarded Bosh washers are due to a pump. The computer is second on the list. It's not worth fixing if it's the board. I've been meaning to put a fan on my washer's computer board. There us definitely room in there for a comput…

Frequently with an E13 it's just an item stuck in the pump outlet plumbing.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#567

Post by gruez »

kodah wrote: post #530
gruez wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Who initiates it matters because if a TV vendor can arbitrarily brick your TV for something after you've paid cash for it, then that smells of theft. The same thing if a TelCo could or would arbitrarily brick a device I paid for. The distinction is that I'm telling them to do this to my phone. What happened in south africa: * TVs are sitting inside a factory * TVs are owned by samsung * factory gets robbed * the own…

> 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 This statement is from the source: https://news.samsung.com/za/samsung-supports-retailers-affec... That means the Samsung TV's call home. How do they know when to stop calling home? The answer is they don't. That's o…

>The second layer being that they can "incorrectly" brick someone's TV.

What gave you that impression? The statement put out by samsung? It's reasonable to think that they keep very good records of where a given TV should be and whether it was at a looted factory. If the TV was blacklisted, it's almost certain to have been looted. The statement is just a CYA to prevent a PR nightmare on the off chance that some TVs make it back into the retail supply chain and into the hands of an unsuspecting buyer. Legally speaking, it's still stolen property and the customer can't keep it, but Samsung doesn't think exercising that right is worth the hassle/negative press.

>The third layer, as mentioned in other threads, is that most people don't keep receipts.

People don't keep receipts for a $1000+ purchase? On the off chance they don't, they can get the retailer to make a copy, with supporting documentation.

>You don't need to dig up a receipt from months or years ago.

This is for devices that were looted weeks before. I see no indications that they're going to use this to do random ownership checks.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#568

Post by hilbert42 »

wombatmobile wrote: post #540
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why is everyone confused that smart TVs are popular?" TBH, Im more confused by the parent comment. (Although this is a very typical type of HN comment, passive-aggressive denigration of anything "not popular".) These type of comments make me wonder why would anyone, other than the companies benefitting, care if some HN commenters do not love so-called smart TVs. This is not a mainstream audience. Moreover, I see no…

> "Why is everyone confused that smart TVs are popular?" In his Appendix, Orwell explains the syntactical arrangement and the etymology of the Newspeak. A living language, such as English, one that has the capability of diverse expression, has the tendency to gain words and therefore broaden the awareness and knowledge of its speakers. Newspeak, on the other hand, loses words, by removing words that represent opposin…

Right, true. Hovever, the matter of goodness/ethics, etc. is probably best summed up by G.E. Moore in his 1903 work Principia Ethica:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Ethica

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#569

Post by Silhouette »

kelnos wrote: post #514
Silhouette wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market has spoken. Markets only speak when meaningful competition exists. Are you really suggesting that people actively prefer to buy TVs that, for example, suddenly start showing them ads months or years after purchase?

An ad-free experience would almost certainly cost more (consider Amazon's cheaper Kindle that shows ads when the screen goes to sleep). If we're talking about adding even $50 to a $1000 TV, I'd bet most consumers would rather endure the ads and keep the $50.

If I were a gambler I would probably take that bet, but the real problem here is that we currently have no way to tell who won because one of the options is not widely available to buyers.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#570

Post by MisterBastahrd »

tshaddox wrote: post #422
pessimizer wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is everyone so confused that smart TVs are popular? Also the real reason that they're popular: there are no non-smart TVs available.

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?

Would I care do compare apples to 15th century Venetian artwork? No, so I won't do it here either.

The reason that companies were so hellbent on getting "smart tvs" into our households is because of the ad revenue that come with them.

They aren't simply TVs, they're paid marketing platforms with captive audiences.

Post reply on HN