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

611–620 of 727 posts

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#611

Post by wwn_se »

hilbert42 wrote: post #564
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.

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 go…

I usually just connect the "smart tv" to the internet once a year and update the firmware (after checking the change log for useful fixes). Then I disconnect it again and use my chromecast to stream.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#612

Post by wwn_se »

capitainenemo wrote: post #457
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.

The last TV I purchased I had to spend a $10-$20 premium over the smart model with similar specs (from a slightly more reputable manufacturer at that) just to get a non-smart model. The data mining definitely plays a huge part.

If you don't give it your wifi password it will not be smart? Its not like they come with a sim card...

I would however love a smart tv with an open stack where I can control the software.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#613

Post by wwn_se »

savant_penguin wrote: post #381
throw03172019 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disconnect from WiFi. It makes my “smart” tv a normal one that doesn’t serve my shitty ads, lag or turn on some random SamsungTV channel.

Just because you disconnected it from wifi does not mean they cannot connect it through lte without your knowledge

Well that's illegal in almost all (western) countries. A device need to have an declaration of all radio equipment inside in some form (depending on locale).

It also would be a lot harder to profit from ads when you have to pay for lte bandwidth especially with the prices in the US.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#614

Post by the_biot »

zucker42 wrote: post #393
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.

Few people feel strongly that a chip running Linux makes a TV worse. What they object to is when the manufacturer controls the TV rather than the owner of the TV. Modern smart TVs override the users' desired by, for example, showing ads. It's even possible these chips will eventually be responsible for copyright verification. This would be fixed if it was possible to modify the chip's software and easy to install alt…

There's a very real opportunity here for an open source project that takes on the task of doing an alternate kernel/distribution/applications for smart TVs. Big job, and likely to take a while before getting caught up with newer SoCs etc.

But it's totally doable -- it worked for e.g. OpenWRT on SOHO routers, sat receivers, etc.

(what is an OS bulb?)

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#615

Post by donmcronald »

vages wrote: post #602
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you are using an external video source and the tv as a dumb display via hdmi, what is that cellular modem going to transmit? Screenshots?

The TVs track the content you’re watching by sampling a subset of the pixels. So yes.

Wow. I never knew about that. It’s called ACR (automatic content recognition).

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#617

Post by zinekeller »

wwn_se wrote: post #613
savant_penguin wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you disconnected it from wifi does not mean they cannot connect it through lte without your knowledge

Well that's illegal in almost all (western) countries. A device need to have an declaration of all radio equipment inside in some form (depending on locale). It also would be a lot harder to profit from ads when you have to pay for lte bandwidth especially with the prices in the US.

(not op)

> Well that's illegal in almost all (western) countries. A device need to have an declaration of all radio equipment inside in some form (depending on locale).

I agree, but I'm pretty sure that it will be buried on the declarations page.

> It also would be a lot harder to profit from ads when you have to pay for lte bandwidth especially with the prices in the US.

You vastly overestimated the costs of wholesale network access, which is surprisingly cheap, that's why Kindles (for the most part) do have Amazon-provided SIM cards. Bad news is that you can't get it: basically you need commit to a minimum bandwidth (in hundreds of terabytes range) with a minimum subscription count (in hundreds of thousands range) to get these cheap prices, which would be more expensive than individual plans.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#618

Post by rrrhys »

p2t2p wrote: post #560
rrrhys wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> capable of Apple CarPlay. E.g. you care plenty.

I wouldn't call a glorified screen mirroring an "infotainment system".

I've got a pre-CarPlay OEM infotainment and can confirm, they are pretty shit.

The screen is hard to get it to register a tap, the corners are dead, and the UI is very 2013 (It's a 2013 toyota, so I guess more like 2009 UI).

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#619

Post by lostlogin »

andrewon wrote: post #470
lostlogin wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

" the downside is that we pay more for things than people overseas do" Isn't that they just force you to buy extended warranty on everything?

A practical example is the an Apple extended warranty is basically in effect on every Apple product in New Zealand. There are some things you don’t get, but if you notify them after 3 years that your phone is not not working (no drop damage or water damage though), they will replace it.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#620

Post by Dylan16807 »

coconut08 wrote: post #374
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.

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.

> because that's what people buy.

Not quite. In a world where consumers don't care at all, smart TVs will take over because they're more profitable.

It would take a notable consumer preference against smart TVs just for manufacturers to be neutral.

Post reply on HN