Live data from Hacker News

Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options

arstechnica.com

471–480 of 548 posts

Re: Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options

#471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no ads in the AppleTV operating system itself. The only Apple “ads” I ever see are inside the Apple TV+ app (yeah, their naming is confusing…) and it’s only for TV shows they’re promoting in their streaming service.

I installed an AppleTV recently, so I don't have much experience. But the first thing I saw after the initial setup was one/third of the display advertising a TV-show on a subscription service I had to purchase. Would that count as an ad?

Apps placed in the top row of the app grid get to display content at the top area, when that app is selected. Most apps use it for things like continue watching or show recommendations.

That’s very different from turning on your TV and seeing an ad for Mercedes or whatever taking up the screen.

Re: Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options

#473

A while ago I had a discussion with my friends that it is possible that in the future if 5G is sufficiently cheap, smart tvs come with a 5G SIM so they can force ads and updates even if you refuse to connect it to WiFi. I wonder if this will ever be a real thing. Either 5G, 6G or whatever comes next.

I keep being surprised if why that is not a thing yet. Amazon launched whispernet with ads on the discounted Kindle years ago and I was totally predicting more companies jump on that.

Whispernet was a whole different thing, and it dates to the very first Kindle.

This Kindle did not have things like idle-screen advertising. That wasn't yet a thing yet.

These first edition devices were available with unlimited data access (IIRC in the US via AT&T) on cellular networks without a separate subscription. It was slow (everything was slow back then), but it would let a person download a book or have a look at a web page (with the very limited browsing that was possible with e-ink and a CPU that was meant more to barely sip power than to render megabytes of CSS and JS).

The expense of the data access was built into the one-time purchase price, and the hope was that people having the ability to buy books from "anywhere" would snowball into a thing that was both very popular and profitable.

It was simple and, functionally at least, it worked very neatly: Take new Kindle out of the box, switch it on, and download a book with it. No wifi or PC connection or other tomfoolery needed.

That was back in 2007 -- a time when many people still had landlines at home if they wanted to make a phone call, or a dumb phone in their pocket if they wanted to do that on-the-go. Some folks had Blackberries or connected Palm devices, but those things were rare.

And the Internet, and indeed Amazon itself, was a very different place back then. Having an Internet connection that was very quietly always available on a Whispernet-equipped Kindle was pretty cool at that time.

---

Sidewalk is a different kind of network. It uses consumer devices (like Echo Dot speakers) to act as Sidewalk bridges. This generally works at a low frequency (900MHz-ish), to provide a bit of relatively slow, relatively long-range wireless network access for things that are otherwise lacking it.

The present-day operation works like this: Suppose I've got some Amazon Echo speakers scattered around my house. If a neighbor's Internet connection is on the fritz, then their Ring doorbell can use a tiny slice of my Internet bandwidth using Sidewalk via one of my Echo speakers to keep itself connected to the network and thereby still function as a doorbell.

Or, maybe their Ring doorbell is out on a post by the gate, where their wifi coverage sucks. If it can gather up a little slice of 900MHz Internet access from anyone's near-enough Sidewalk bridge, then they've still got a button for their gate that notifies them on their pocket supercomputer when some visitor is waiting out there. They don't even necessarily need to plan it this way in order for it to Just Work.

Or, what GP was referring to: Your hypothetical new smart TV might use the neighbors' Sidewalk-enabled device(s) to update or patch itself, produce new ads to show you, and/or send telemetry back home to Mother. It might do this even without you ever having deliberately connected it to any network at all.

---

Either thing (some modern equivalent to Whispernet, or the already-loose-in-the-wild Sidewalk system) could potentially be utilized by smart TVs and other devices to get access to the network and simply sidestep the oft-repeated, well-intended, and somewhat naive mantra of "It can't have Internet access if you never connect it!"

Re: Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options

#474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been pretty happy with the smart apps on my LG OLED; it’s got the streaming things I want including jellyfin. Really the only one missing is steam link.

Have you tried moonlight? An alternative to steam link. You can use install it on the lg tv by sideloading the app. Alternatively, you can plug in a Raspberry Pi that runs steam link :)

My LG C2 hardware isn't powerful enough to stream higher than 60hz at 1080p, if I remember correctly. It also needs a LAN cord for consistency since the tv wifi adapter is not good. Instead I put moonlight on my steam deck and plugged that into the tv.

Re: Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options

#475
post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a toaster oven in my kitchen. It's a dumb thing with a bimetallic thermostatic switch, a simple mechanical timer (with a clockspring and a bell), and a switch to select different configurations of heating elements. The power-on indicator is a simple neon lamp. (It also certainly has some thermal fuses buried inside; hopefully, in the right places.) And, you know, it works great. It's simple to operate and (so…

> Why would a toaster oven (or indeed, just a pop-up toaster) that instead used electronic controls need the bar for safety to be placed at a different height? It wouldn't. It's a thought experiment. I even said: > Would the toaster be a better product if you could change the software? Of course. The point is, nobody should be compelling you to make your products hackable. If you don't want to, that's your prerogativ…

You used the thought experiment as the foundation for the anti-anti-tivoization sentiment expressed. If the thought experiment is false, then the sentiment which might rest upon it is without basis.

> The point is, nobody should be compelling you to make your products hackable. If you don't want to, that's your prerogative.

I agree.

Nobody is compelled to use GPLv3 code in the appliances that they want locked-down for whatever reasons (whether good or bad) they may wish to do that. There's other routes (including writing it themselves).

They may see a sea of beautiful GPLv3 code and wish they could use it in any way they desire, like a child may walk into a candy store and wish to have all of it for free, but the world isn't like that.

We're all free to wish for whatever we want, but that doesn't mean that we're going to get it.

> But this whole "Or any future version" clause gave FSF carte blanche to just alter the deal and suddenly make it so anyone can fork a project and make it GPLv3.

This "Or any future version" part isn't part of the GPL -- of any version.

Let us review GPL v1: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.en.html

> Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of the license which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the license, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

The GPL itself does not in any way mandate licensing any code under future versions. An author can elect to allow it -- or not.

If they specify GPL 2, then they get GPL 2. Not 3. Not 4. Only 2.

Other versions of the GPL are ~the same in this way. (You know where to find them, right? They're easy reads.)

Re: Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options

#477

For a hacker news article, it misses the crucial option - hacking a smart TV! I have LG OLED jailbroken using rootmy.tv, it was pretty trivial. It's basically a linux computer with a huge screen, you can customize it, SSH into it, map any commands to the remote, etc. Before I only used monitor, simple DP/HDMI input is all I wanted. But being able to take full control of the tv and connect it with other devices in the…

For the real hackers: https://www.panelook.com/ Global Panel Exchange Center

[dead]

Re: Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options

#478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are justifying it. For the record it's not just what you watch with the streaming service, it is everything you watch through their TV program. You still do not get it: you can find a pseudo-justification for _every_ type of tracking they do to you. But none of these are really true justifications. You can do _everything_ without any type of tracking -- even the very basic premise: it shouldn't even be true th…

AppleTV doesn’t record everything you watch on your TV like the smart TVs. A smart TV can track what you watch no matter which input source you are using. How could an AppleTV or any device connected to an HDMI port know what you are watching on other input sources? The AppleTV device doesn’t track what you watch at all. The AppleTV+ service knows what you watch on their service. Their is no justification for the TV…

> AppleTV doesn’t record everything you watch on your TV like the smart TVs.

Obviously it only records what you watch through it.

> A smart TV can track what you watch no matter which input source you are using. How could an AppleTV or any device connected to an HDMI port know what you are watching on other input sources?

I thought the entire point was to _use_ the Apple TV. If you buy the Apple TV, but still use the other HDMI ports for your viewing .... why did you buy the Apple TV in the first place?

> The AppleTV+ service knows what you watch on their service.

And if you use the Apple TV, what you watch through Apple TV's TV program.

> Their is no justification for the TV to know anything.

Of course there is. They will claim this way it remembers your favorite channel, or that then they can send you spam^W updates in the schedule of your favorite programs, or whatever other crap people like you eventually end up thinking as an indispensable feature for which they happily accept tracking for.

> There is obviously a reason for each service to know what you watch on their service. What exactly are you arguing? That you should be able to use the AppleTV+ service anonymously?

That _there is_ a way to do broadcast TV anonymously. You do not need accounts, sync between multiple devices, or anything; and even if you need them, there are alternatives. That you are in error when you think that your pseudo-justifications are worth anything more than the ones Samsung will provide. The fact that that you immediately jump from "I need this" to "Therefore service provider must be able to track everything I do" is telling.

Re: Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options

#479
post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Block what? Which domains? How do you know what the TV will connect to?

Block everything except for what you want. For e.g. block everything but Netflix.

It can be complicated when streaming companies use same cloud vendors and thus share same ip ranges as the traffic you want to protect yourself from.

Re: Sick of smart TVs? Here are your best options

#480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, Torvalds supported tivoization: https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/289

Because anti-tivoization doesn’t make sense in a software license. Imagine you make a smart toaster, and you make it entirely out of open source software. You release all the changes you made too, complying fully with the spirit of open source. People could take your software, buy some parts and make their own OSS toasters, everything’s great. But for safety reasons, since the software controls when the toaster pops,…

> But for safety reasons, since the software controls when the toaster pops, you decide to check at boot time that the software hasn’t been modified.

As arguments go, this is a pretty weak one considering how obvious the solution is: Make the manufacturer not be liable for what happens when you operate the device with unauthorized software.

Post reply on HN