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

641–650 of 727 posts

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#641

Post by [deleted] »

wwn_se wrote: post #611
hilbert42 wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#642

Post by TeMPOraL »

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.

This is why ad-subsidizing is anticompetitive and in my honest opinion, should be banned as a business practice.

Take two competitors selling exact same stuff for the same price. If one adds ads to their product, they can lower the price. If they can ad data collection, the price drops further.

You just can't ethically compete on such market.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#643

Post by iso1210 »

rock_artist wrote: post #351
iso1210 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google are an advertising company, it would be like complaining about McDonalds selling fast food. Samsung are an electronics company

So should Android start showing ads on your lock screen is that acceptable practice? Or is it acceptable only for Pixel as it’s McDonald’s and evil if it’s a Samsung Galaxy?

I don't care as I don't use an android as I don't trust google and actively dislike the entire advertising industry and its drain on society. It wouldn't surprise me if google did that. It should surprise me if my oven or fridge did. Sadly it becomes less and less surprising as time goes on.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#644

Post by philjohn »

glitcher wrote: post #360
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This thread feels very...Hacker News Bubble? Smart TVs is one of those recurring HN topics where it’s clear that people made up their minds years ago, likely from a single bad experience. Now they can’t imagine that any progress has been made since then. There’s not much reason to buy a new TV these days if your old one still works (with an external TV box) You can still find terrible smart TVs out there, of course…

I think you may be oversimplifying the concerns some have about smart tv's. There is quite a broad range of opinions between different HN commenters, and lumping us all into one group isn't very conducive to discussion. For me personally, I have basic privacy concerns with how smart tv companies are selling my viewing habits without any transparency. This issue has nothing to do with the "quality" of the tv and its f…

The simple solution therefore is just don't connect it to the internet, which is still viable (even though Amazon wants to co-opt everyone's devices for their IoT network).

Don't plug an ethernet cable into it, don't give it your wifi network passcode.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#646

Post by gamesbrainiac »

I also swore to never buy Samsung, after they messed up the Samsung Galaxy Tab S3. But then, I bought the S7, because they made a lot of improvements.

In the end, I'm happy with the purchase, because I got it at a massive discount. However, I am still weary of Samsung devices in general.

Also, the iPad just didn't do it for me. I prefer the S-Pen to the Apple Pencil.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#647

Post by kuschku »

kazinator wrote: post #456
kuschku wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming monitors come up to 48" size. That's TV enough IMO

How bright are these large monitors for viewing from a distance?

They’ve got the same hardware as regular TVs, the Gigabyte Aorus FO48U is the exact same as the LG CX series, but without all the smarts.

Obviously, they cost quite a bit more (almost double), because modern TVs are ~40-60% subsidized by ads and tracking.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#648

Post by [deleted] »

MichaelGroves wrote: post #603
wombatmobile wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

Smart TVs, Smart watches, Smart phones, Smart houses.. how did things become smart? As far as I can determine, the 'smart [thing]' linguistic construct started with 'smart bomb' , a propaganda euphemism for guided bombs that emerged in the 70s. Does anybody have an earlier example? https://www.nytimes.com/1972/06/26/archives/smart-bombs-and-...

[deleted]

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#649

Post by iso1210 »

crackercrews wrote: post #572
iso1210 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Convert HDMI to SDI and back, but you'll need a HDMI-to-SDI converter that ignores HDCP (i.e. either pages of forms explaining how you've got a legitimate reason for doing it and an expensive converter, or a cheap Chinese one)

If it ignores HDCP, doesn't that prevent you from using it to play Netflix and Amazon Prime content?

These devices pretend to pay attention to HDCP, tell the tranmitting device "oh yes I'm good", but then ignore it.

Re: Samsung remotely disables TVs looted from South African warehouse

#650

Post by Y_Y »

MichaelGroves wrote: post #633
Y_Y wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a quick look through this page for examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/smart There were "smart cards" in 1974, "smart casual" dress codes in 1924, and "Smart Set" magazine in 1900. A more careful look will surely find older and more relevant examples. Amusingly "smart money" and "smart tickets" existed in the 18th century, referring to the results of injuries ("ow, that smarts!"). See: h…

I don't think any of these are examples of it. Smart cards in 1974 postdate smart bombs. "Smart casual" fashion is smart in the "Good-looking; well dressed; fine; fashionable" sense, while smart bomb/phone are being used in this sense: "(often in combination) Equipped with intelligent behaviour (digital/computer technology)." Smart bombs weren't called smart for being fashionably well dressed. The term was applied to…

"Smartass" was attested as early as 1960.
Post reply on HN