Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 579 posts

Re: The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

#471

Post by mlichvar »

ajross wrote: post #369
xoa wrote: post #87

FWIW, it is still possible to get TVs without this stuff, albeit at a premium. TVs are still made for business usage in areas like conference rooms, wall displays etc. They're often found under labeling like "commercial digital signage" or "business display" or the like, they seem to often try to avoid using "TV" (if being cynical maybe to make them harder for normal people to discover and confuse them if they do). B…

If you want a TV-priced display for use as a dumb monitor, just buy a TV and don't give it a wifi password. My main desktop monitor is a 43" Roku/TCL thing that is still running the factory firmware. Works great.

One issue with TV displays I didn't see mentioned here is glossiness. TVs are mostly glossy and monitors are usually matte. I strongly prefer the latter.

Re: The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

#472

Post by skyyler »

jordanpg wrote: post #281
kadoban wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of society either is paying or is willing to pay. Note that even in places that we _do_ pay, for example cable TV, we still get ads.

There is also a class component to ads. I find ads intolerable, but I am privileged enough to be able to afford to make them go away in almost all cases. For those on a very tight budget, Disney+ with ads, Kindle with ads, podcasts with ads, etc. are the only thing that is affordable. I suspect for many in the lowest income brackets, traditional cable TV with good old fashioned commercials is a primary source of ente…

This might seem crass but if I was in a situation where I couldn't afford the ad-free version of a streaming service, I would simply abstain from the service entirely.

I understand many don't care, but I hate ads with an intensity I cannot describe with words.

Re: The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

#473

Post by dylan604 »

filoleg wrote: post #465
dylan604 wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really a specific chip or just their Alexa devices creating a shared WiFi network?

I assume it is the latter, because that's what Alexa Sidewalk is. But that's a speculation, because neither of those currently exist in TVs, and I don't see LG or Samsung go along with it. EDIT: I stand corrected, Sidewalk isn't a wifi network, it is it's own LoRa network that's limited to barely 1Kbps (which, imo, only strengthens my original point). Thanks for pointing out that technical detail in the replies.

What's to go along with? Samsung and/or LG are not required to participate in Sidewalk. They just need to be given the ability to scan for open WiFi networks and join when found. They really don't even need to know the SSID, but of course they'll track that info as well.

Re: The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

#474

Post by ViViDboarder »

nsgi wrote: post #340
xoa wrote: post #87

FWIW, it is still possible to get TVs without this stuff, albeit at a premium. TVs are still made for business usage in areas like conference rooms, wall displays etc. They're often found under labeling like "commercial digital signage" or "business display" or the like, they seem to often try to avoid using "TV" (if being cynical maybe to make them harder for normal people to discover and confuse them if they do). B…

Which brands of smart TV show ads? I live in the UK and I've had three different brands of smart TV (Philips, Samsung and Toshiba) and my experience with all of them has been pretty good. Netflix, YouTube, etc. have worked pretty well and I haven't seen any ads that weren't linked to the apps themselves. Perhaps they're tracking me in ways I don't know about, though?

Samsung displays them in the main menu unless blocked. I run a network ad blocker that takes care of it for me though.

Re: The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

#475

Post by SayMyName »

cma wrote: post #459
insightcheck wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was curious and looked up reviews for Sceptre, but according to some discussions on Reddit, they have build quality issues. One of the threads [0] had a discussion on picture quality and build quality issues. Another subreddit [1] even has an automoderator comment that says getting a smart TV and not hooking it up to the internet is the best option. The automoderator also writes that if one is certain about going n…

Not hooking it up to the internet soon won't be enough with Amazon Sidewalk and other related efforts.

Imagine when you have to "activate" your tv to use it.

Re: The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

#476

Post by matheusmoreira »

whimsicalism wrote: post #231
AlexandrB wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, maybe not. The mental effects of products optimized for delivering advertising don't seem to be great for people or society (see: Meta's products, Twitter, TikTok).

Cigarettes cause cancer. Some people (not me) actually get value from ads and AFAIK they don't cause cancer.

> Cigarettes cause cancer.

So did the ads that told people to smoke. They were banned precisely because they were driving behavior that causes harm.

Re: The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

#477

Post by lots2learn »

wilsonnb3 wrote: post #408
spywaregorilla wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah these threads pop up on HN all the time and everyone starts talking about apple tv and roku whatever and I think they're all... pretty dumb. HDMI + Computer is just the best answer. Works in hotels just fine. I'm not aware of any smart TVs that push ads over your connected devices feed even if you do let them update for no good reason. Keyboard and mouse is better than remotes. Web search is the best search. You…

PC's are intentionally gimped to prevent trivial copyright infringement. Netflix forces you to use Edge on Windows or Safari on Firefox to stream in 4k because they integrate with the OS's DRM. HBO Max doesn't allow 4k at all on PC's but I think will at least do 1080p if you use an approved browser. I don't think Hulu will stream anything higher than 720p regardless of which browser you use. Disney+ is the same. Good…

You can get the native windows apps of the streaming services to get 4k without using Edge

Re: The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

#478

Post by rightbyte »

cma wrote: post #468
rightbyte wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I could definitely see a point where everything comes with its own 4G module just for advertising usage I guess those Google Maps cars can hook up to everything they can while driving around your block without the need for sim cards.

Before long a loose dog can run by with a smart tag and pick it up (Amazon Sidewalk).

I mean that is not even that far fetched. What would imply clinical paranoia 20 years ago is now everyday occurances.

Re: The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

#479

Post by falcolas »

cheschire wrote: post #414
falcolas wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my expectation of the market, based on at least the following two points: 1) Video games are sold at full price and still include ads and microtransactions 2) Cable TV was originally ad free (and marketed as such), until they realized they could include ads and make even more money. I hold the opinion that executives at many of these companies hold the view, "Why only get some of our customer's money when we…

Video games are not sold at full price. 20 years ago the average game price was $50. The price point was universally increased to $60. In Europe the price point has scaled beyond that but in the USA the price has stayed $60. 20 years of inflation has not be accounted for in that price. 20 years of technology improvements leading to increased art team demands, etc. And to top that off, the frequent mass sale events on…

> 20 years of inflation has not be accounted for in that price

With all due respect, the inflation argument sounds good but is not based in the reality of the market. Other folks have gone into a lot more detail on why this argument is badly flawed.

But to pick a single argument: if the inflation argument was valid, companies - both AAA and indy - would be unable to make a profit without selling microtransactions. But those games and companies they are turning profits. Even companies selling games with microtransactions are getting record profits when you discount recurring revenue - microtransactions.

See Digital Devolver. See God of War.

Re: The downfall of smart TVs: From promises of seamless viewing to ad tool

#480

Post by ThatPlayer »

filoleg wrote: post #465
dylan604 wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really a specific chip or just their Alexa devices creating a shared WiFi network?

I assume it is the latter, because that's what Alexa Sidewalk is. But that's a speculation, because neither of those currently exist in TVs, and I don't see LG or Samsung go along with it. EDIT: I stand corrected, Sidewalk isn't a wifi network, it is it's own LoRa network that's limited to barely 1Kbps (which, imo, only strengthens my original point). Thanks for pointing out that technical detail in the replies.

Sidewalk is not wifi, it's their own networking based using LoRa, which has its own wireless spectrum and its own limits. For example bandwidth is limited to single digit kilobyte/s in best case. Of course real world usage is going to be worse.
Post reply on HN