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

Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 204 posts

Re: Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

#181

Post by asavadatti »

verytrivial wrote: post #87
lultimouomo wrote: post #35

> By either selecting that I agree or by not selecting that I disagree, I agree to the Yahoo Connected TV Terms of Service Written under the deselected "I Agree" checkbox, with no "I disagree" option visible. This has to be some kind of record. And on a TV that you paid hundreds if not thousands of dollars, not in some spooky shareware download.

This reminds me of Android's terrible UI for opting in to GPS snoop recording^H^H^HGoogle Location Services: You can either (disagree) OR (agree and not answer again). It is not possible to to disagree once and for all! It's like they're trying to catch you off guard.

Also the Google Now app constantly asks you to enable Google search history with no option to permanently ignore the question.

Re: Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

#182

Post by asavadatti »

cauterized wrote: post #17
ourmandave wrote: post #3

They're not unwanted ads until you tell Samsung and Yahoo they're unwanted. And that convenient opt out is only 5,000 clicks through a maze of twisty passages away. I'd bet the pop-up confirmation box on the opt-out has a Pepsi ad on it.

Is there such a things as a wanted ad?

I actually watch some of the ads on YouTube Channels that I like (Provided the ads are moderately interesting). It is a small sacrifice to pay to get content that I like for free.

Re: Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

#183

Post by danudey »

RIMR wrote: post #168

Smart TVs are completely unnessary. I don't want apps on my TV. Sure, apps on something connected to my TV can be nice, but even the most basic TVs have too many features. Built-in speakers? They sound awful and I have an amp. Get rid of them. Oh, you cropped my 1080P HDTV signal? Well, I've plugged in a computer, so I need you to display the whole frame. Oh, less than half of TVs even let you turn that feature off?…

I love my AppleTV, and I would buy an Apple TV if one came out, for a few reasons. I actually only use my ATV to watch Netflix and buy Doctor Who and Archer off iTunes, but I'd buy a TV made by Apple because I feel like they would do a good job.

My TV, when I hit the power button on the remote, takes about 5 seconds to give me any indication that it heard me; I then get another 5 seconds of the LG logo before I get dumped onto whatever input I was last on.

In comparison, when I move my mouse on my computer, my Apple cinema display wakes up almost instantaneously (display), and my AppleTV goes from sleep mode to showing me the last menu I was on in less than a second (processing).

Thus, I expect an Apple television to be on and available to use within moments of my requesting it, and off as soon as I tell it I'm done.

The AppleTV 3rd Gen also maxes out at about 1W of power used[1], which means that there's no reason why the brains of a smart TV shouldn't be able to be on 100% of the time, ready at any moment to power on for incoming content, rather than having my television add 30s to the simple act of showing someone a YouTube video.

That said, Apple make their money by making high-quality, high-margin devices, and not by racing to the bottom of the price structure and selling out customers to make ends meet.

[1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/6834/apple-tv-2013-a1469-short...

Re: Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

#184

Post by danudey »

dragonwriter wrote: post #151
andybak wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart TVs are a terrible idea for the same reason that combined printer and scanners are a bad idea but with the negative aspect magnified many times. The cost and life expectancy of each part is very different and you don't want their replacement/upgrade to be tied together. A display panel should last you more than a decade and probably costs many 100s or 1000s. The 'smart' bit is probably worth less than $200 and…

> Smart TVs are a terrible idea for the same reason that combined printer and scanners are a bad idea but with the negative aspect magnified many times. The cost and life expectancy of each part is very different and you don't want their replacement/upgrade to be tied together. I think combined printers and scanners are a much better idea than Smart TVs because (1) you get more benefit (footprint savings) from the co…

I had a friend whose printer wouldn't scan because it was out of ink. Needless to say she threw it in the bin and bought one that was slightly less worse.

Re: Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

#185

Post by Evolved »

comex wrote: post #173
Evolved wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardware combinations are mostly a terrible idea unlike software combinations that can be patched with updates. If your music player on your phone malfunctioned it shouldn't be a difficult remedy to push out an OTA update. Try that when your printer won't align thus relegating it to a bulky and expensive scanner (if that part still works). There isn't a solution to devices becoming obsolete because manufacturers woul…

That's why I suggested making the brains of the smart TV separable - in other words, somewhat similar to the current situation, but with tighter integration between the TV display, speakers, and ports and the box. Samsung seems to be doing something like that: http://www.samsung.com/us/2013-smart-evolution/ It being Samsung, the hardware upgrade was apparently offered after a single year and completely redid the UI,…

If you're the real Comex of iOS JB lore then I very much appreciate your work and you have my utmost respect.

So from what I understand about the Evolution Kit, it attaches to TVs 2012 and later and provides them with a boost to put them almost on par with 2013/2014+ TVs? Doesn't this cannibalize sales of new Smart TVs?

Re: Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

#186

Post by anonymfus »

Sami_Lehtinen wrote: post #127
Sharlin wrote: post #16

So... do smart TVs actually have a single feature that's actually useful to the consumer?

No? I use my TV purely as monitor from a few HDMI video sources. Of course the TV malware could still scan for open wifi's and leak my information even if I haven't connected it to any of the other networks. Btw. Does HDMI standard allow data relay, so they could use connected devices to relay the data to 3rd parties over alternate network connections?

HDMI Ethernet Channel (HDMI HEC): http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/hec.aspx

Re: Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

#187

Post by JohnTHaller »

winslow wrote: post #150
JohnTHaller wrote: post #147

Smart TVs' apps generally lag FAR behind the equivalent apps on a Playstation, Xbox, Roku box or similar anyway, so it's generally a better option to go with a regular TV. The money you save can more than pay for a Roku box. Or even an Xbox 360 depending on brand. A TV without the annoying apps, added commercials, and privacy issues is a smarter choice. Stop calling them dumb TVs. They're "Smarter TVs".

Are non smart TVs even available (once you get into the big 55in and above range)? I suppose you could always buy the smart version and just don't enable/use it

I bought a 50" RCA in October for a really good deal. No smart features at all. Don't need em, don't want em.

Re: Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

#188

Post by fps »

comex wrote: post #143
andybak wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart TVs are a terrible idea for the same reason that combined printer and scanners are a bad idea but with the negative aspect magnified many times. The cost and life expectancy of each part is very different and you don't want their replacement/upgrade to be tied together. A display panel should last you more than a decade and probably costs many 100s or 1000s. The 'smart' bit is probably worth less than $200 and…

That's true to some extent, but I think that in part, smart TVs are a terrible idea for the same reason that combined music player and phones are a terrible idea. Er, that is, were widely considered a terrible idea, thanks to ubiquitous clunky software, until 2007 when Apple did it right. And ever since then it's been considered obviously beneficial that you don't have to deal with two separate physical devices. With…

I have a 2014 non-smart LG TV and a FireTV at home and have been fighting the "I only want a single remote" fight for quite a while. The FireTV is able to switch on the TV using HDMI CEC (and shut it off after 30 minutes of inactivity) but I'm still using the TV remote to control the speaker volume.

Funny enough, I had a single remote setup for one brief shining moment in 2008 with the second generation Apple TV; the AppleTV would switch on and off my HDMI TV using some precursor to CEC - the same sleep/wake function that modern PC monitors use - and could also control the volume using the up/down buttons on the remote by modulating the sound going over the HDMI connection. Unfortunately, Apple ripped this audio control functionality out with a software update a few months after the product was released and I was forced to break out the second remote again and eventually replaced the AppleTV. But the point is it is possible to have only one remote with an HDMI connected set top box, but that feature isn't a priority in the world of cable boxes and audio receivers.

Anyway, my experience with smart TVs is that they're a waste of money and incredibly frustrating compared to set top boxes like Roku/Chromecast/FireTV/AppleTV. On top of that, my experience with TV remotes is that I don't want manufacturers like LG, Samsung or Sony making my primary remote control. They invariably feel cheap, slow and clunky whereas Amazon/Apple and even Roku do a very good job.

Re: Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

#189

Post by jessaustin »

tbirdz wrote: post #138
jessaustin wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't used one of these TVs, but if they're using linux and you can't patch it, why haven't they been sued? That is the point of the GPL.

You're thinking of the GPLv3's anti "tivoization" clause. Linux is released under the GPLv2 only, and that license does not include that clause.

You're right; thanks. There is a difference between "providing source code" and "providing source code that may be built and run by the user". RMS was right, about tivoization.

Re: Samsung's smart TVs are inserting unwanted ads into users' own movies

#190

Post by omega_rythm »

potatolicious wrote: post #116
omega_rythm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No user would opt-in to commercials, ever. I don't believe for a second this system was designed with opt-in in mind. The occidental mindset is heavily geared against advertising. If you got free rebate coupons, gifts, etc. as rewards for opting in, would you still refuse it? I'm trying to say that we don't necessarily see the whole picture, and the article doesn't give hints about the purpose of that "feature".

> "The occidental mindset is heavily geared against advertising." As opposed to the oriental mindset? Speaking as one, I'll still take no ads, thanks. IMO it's a mistake to look at East Asian cities (and the assault of advertising it presents) as some kind of preference for advertising - in the same way you can't look at LA and come away with the conclusion "wow, people really love being stuck in traffic!".

Well, I don't know.

I think that people from the west tend to see the negative aspect of advertising: people over here think "annoyance" (all the answers to my provocative post were like that — yeah, small sample, not significative), whereas in Asia it seems to me (but I may be wrong) that people see the positive side: the image I have is of people thinking "opportunity of bargain". Maybe I don't understand it. Websites filled with tiny ads, streets covered with neons and shop signs, they might very well pretend. And indeed, they don't have a choice, Like LA people stuck in traffic because there are no other ways, websites are just like that and consumers have to do with it.

Post reply on HN