I am seriously considering creating a dropship company focused exclusively on buying and selling electronic components that are sold for parts and people can assemble them at home, Ikea-style.
I would start with selling 50" and 65" inch "dumb" TVs. Just the panel, a nice enclosure and a board with an IR receiver, TV tuner and HDMI outputs. BYO top box and Soundbar. I wonder how fast it would take to get 10000 orders.
The Framework folks hit an unexpected snag with a similar idea: turns out the US tax on a laptop assembled in Taiwan is much lower than on a box of parts made in Taiwan that you can assemble into a laptop yourself. (Why? Because.) Thus the strange not-really-DIY “DIY edition”.
What is a laptop anyway? Can somebody sell 60 2-in-1 convertible laptops where the top bit comes off and also has an HDMI in port? The computer could be a raspberry pi or something…
Probably. This is a thing with guns, too. In CA, for example, owning an AR15 with certain features is illegal. But separate the upper from the lower, and you no longer have an AR15; now you have parts, none of which are semiautomatic and center-fire on their own. That’s no longer illegal (though if they can prove intent everything changes, of course).
IANAL, but I always found that kind of loophole fascinating.
No, the lower is still legally considered a firearm. It can't fire anything, and it's not a gun in practical purposes, but for purposes of regulation it is still a firearm.
The reason it's probably still legal to have in California is that California bans a lot of largely cosmetic or non-functional items. For example, many states ban threaded barrels which by itself doesn't change any characteristics of the barrel other than the fact that it has a thread on the end of it.
Specifically in the case of ar-15 pattern firearms, having the lower be "the firearm" is hilarious. the lower is a low precision, low pressure part. it is actually one of the easiest parts of the firearm to make. and because the lower is the controlled part, every other part, the ones that are hard to make, are readily available.
It's particularly stupid when you realize a sufficiently motivated person can in fact just fire an upper. I have no idea where the bolt is going to wind up in this, but it will in fact shoot a bullet out the other end of the barrel
I believe California has some laws that specifically apply to semiautomatic firearms, which an AR15 lower is not. The lower is incapable of semiautomatic fire (as in the gas blowback/piston system is in the upper).
They sell single-shot .50 BMG uppers, non-semiautomatic AR15 uppers do exist.
I believe the majority of stuff California regulates attaches to the upper anyways, which isn’t a firearm under federal law (unsure if Cali is weird about that). Bump stocks and responsive triggers are the only things I can think of California might regulate that go on the lower, and last I heard the ATF was tracking those down as an NFA violation.
The lower is the serialized part, and is regulated in isolation as a firearm in every instance I am aware of (but I am not familiar with California gun laws specifically).
Unless a CA-licensed attorney knowledgeable in California gun laws and ATF regulations specifically told you that a particular CA law applying to "semiautomatic firearms" does not apply to your AR-15 lower in isolation, do not listen to random internet comments about it especially when they begin with "I believe." Regardless of where you fall on the issue politically or ideologically, it's an objective fact that California's government is hostile toward its citizens possessing and bearing firearms, and being fuzzy on what is or is not a felony is a risky proposition.
If you're wrong, best case scenario you will lose all your guns, worst case you will end up in federal prison.
>it's an objective fact that California's government is hostile toward it's citizens possessing and bearing firearms
A state puts restrictions on semi-automatic weapons (one model which has been used to kill hundreds or thousands of people in random shootings) and here it's described as "being hostile to people possessing firearms". For most non-americans (which is my case) this will always sounds so strange
It's relative. Think of the US as a collection of small countries, comparable to the EU, and it's a little easier to understand.
I know relatively little about European gun laws, but I imagine that the gun laws in Romania and the Czech Republic are quite different, and that the Czech would argue Romania is "hostile toward it's citizens possessing and bearing firearms."
Texas would argue California is. California would argue the UK is.
Texas has more regulations than people think. It's the only "gun-friendly"[0] state I can think of that not only requires classes, but also a certain level of marksmanship - if memory serves you have to put 7 rounds in a piece of paper at 7 yards within 10 seconds or something.
I am certainly not suggesting anyone rely on me for legal advice, to be clear.
But no, my understanding in CA is unlike the Feds, California does not have the concept of constructive possession as it applies to assault weapons. As such, separated parts cannot constitute a CA AW, unless the lower is already registered as such, or said lower is on the list of named CA AWs.
It is technically not an assault weapon in that configuration; however, depending on the DA, they may still come after you under PC 12280(a), stating that you are attempting to possess an assault weapon. The sticking point for them is showing intent, but they have convicted on possession and research of how to assemble an assault weapon.
They certainly could charge someone, and maybe even win; I’m not suggesting anyone rely on this as a defense, but that is what the law states. Short of any other aggravated reasons to charge you, it’s unlikely a DA would have any interest.
CA regulates magazines and pistol grips (in combination with other parts) which attach to the lower receiver. Not sure you are fully correct in saying the lower is not a semiautomatic firearm. While the lower by itself is clearly not a complete and functional firearm, and not capable of firing without an upper, the sear/disconnector, which determines semi/full auto is part of the lower.
> > In CA, for example, owning an AR15 with certain features is illegal. But separate the upper from the lower, and ... [it's] no longer illegal.
This is not accurate unless I'm misunderstanding your intent--absolutely possible, which is why I am responding over a day later :)
The lower is the firearm, and if it has CA-illegal features on it, it will remain illegal.
If you're referring to things like a threaded barrel, or a vertical foregrip (no idea if these are actually illegal in CA, just examples), or other things that are attached to the upper, when they're separated those things are no longer attached to a firearm because they're attached to the upper, which is no longer a firearm when it's separated.
This isn't a loophole, this is a natural consequence of the fact that if you take a firearm and separate it into two pieces, at most one of those things can legally be a firearm - you can't turn one firearm into two firearms by breaking it in half.
Thanks for the thoughtful response! Yes, I think a misunderstanding and/or I was unclear.
I never intended to make the claim that separating the upper and lower somehow makes neither a firearm. That was not my intent at all. Of course the lower is still a firearm, still needs to be serialized, legal, etc.
There are also some named firearms in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and those would be illegal no matter what, broken apart or not. Obviously naming specific weapons was idiotic and not going to last a very long time, since keeping the list up to date was impossible, so...
In 1999, the act was amended (P.C. 35015), and named specific features that would make a firearm an assault weapon. The amendment states that a semiautomatic, center-fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and any of the features below, is deemed an assault weapon:
* a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
* a thumbhole stock.
* a folding or telescoping stock.
* a grenade launcher or flare launcher.
* a flash suppressor.
* a forward pistol grip.
All of which are pretty clearly target AR and AR-like firearms.
Now, to be specific about what I was trying to say: California does not have the concept of constructive possession, unlike the federal government, as applied to assault weapons. As such, separated parts cannot constitute a CA assault weapon, unless the lower is already registered as such, or said lower is on the list of named CA assault weapons. If it is disassembled, it is considered to be weapon parts, and not the actual weapon itself.
However, depending on the DA, they may still come after you under P.C. 12280(a), stating that you are attempting to possess an assault weapon. The sticking point for them is showing intent, but they have convicted on possession and research of how to assemble an assault weapon in the past.
You mean import tax? Then the solution is simple: assemble a dummy device from the components, pay the lower import duties, and then disassemble it and sell the parts. This is called tariff engineering.
And they are invariably inferior to the latest models of higher end consumer TVs for movies and gaming. Older panels, poorer contrast ratio, if they even support HDR or VRR. For even partial feature parity they will be thousands more in cost. Outdoor and digital signage panels are great for their intended purpose only.
Show me the commercial equivalent to the LG G4.
And even these commercial TVs may be “dumber” but they still have firmware and it can still have some of the same nuisances. Meanwhile you can opt out of most shit on the smart TV and just not leave it connected.
SMART TV WITH MULTIPLE VOICE ASSISTANTS: This TV comes with your favorite voice assistants built-in and ready to help. Choose from Bixby, Amazon Alexa, or Google Assistant”
It’s less expensive than a G4 because it’s is generations older than a G4. Samsung is now on the S95D.
Yes, I did paste the wrong link. Sorry about that. I meant to paste this one[0] However, there are other options available with oled, AI upscaling, etc. They are sold as "business displays" or similar, and can be expensive, but is exactly what a lot of people want instead of a "smart" TV.
Ok, an edge lit LCD with "4000:1" contrast, 350 nit, is nowhere in the ballpark of a QD-OLED display. This isn’t even SotA for LCDs. This has no HDR display capability, no VRR. PQ wise it will be smoked by even some $300 Black Friday specials. It runs the same Tizen OS as the consumer TVs, and will still be annoying, just maybe not in all the same ways.
This isn’t even close (and anything running Tizen is arguably not completely "dumb") and is precisely what I’m saying. If there really is something comparable, then why didn't you just link to that?
On the other hand it won’t burn in, just color shift. It’s built for a different purpose (digital signage), neither movies/entertainment or gaming.
I maintain there’s a very small consumer market for those willing to forgo a decade (but even 1 or 2) of flat panel advancements just to not leave WiFi or Ethernet off. But good luck to anyone who tries.
LG used to make a commercial HDR OLED large format in one size (65 inch), it's was $20k, now $10k for new old stock. Still not as bright as newer consumer displays (it's 3 gens behind), therefore not great for HDR, and no VRR. It's just not a market.
You have this backwards. The consumer "smart" units are subsidized by the monetization of the data they hoover up as you use it. This subsidized price has become accepted as normal price, but they clearly are discounted prices.
Yeah yeah, economy of scale on consumer vs prosumer+ units, but if you really believe that is the sole reason you are sorely mistaken
I wanted to find a reputable source to back up this claim but instead I found a link from the atlantic. I did not read it, its behind a paywall and its not peer reviewed. The general concensus is that smart = subsidized by adware
The link simply states that they make a lot of money from the malware on TVs, something I'm not disputing. I am disputing that if I would buy a TV burn it without ever turning it on they manufacturer would lose money. In essence: The ads are simply pure profit on top of the TV sale.
You do not get to decide because privacy concious options are simply not available at the high end. You'd also need to significantly compromise on quality.
I recently picked up an 85” Sony TV from Costco on clearance for $1399 (this model originally retailed for $2500, its only a step or two down from their top-of-the-line). I connected it to a hardwired ethernet cable, let it do the software updates, then unplugged it. No need for it to be online if I’m just using it with an AppleTV box anyway. I’d suspect an 85” “business TV” would be at least 4-5x the price.
Funny thing was after the software updates, the next day the TV prompted me to install a firmware update on the remote. First time I’ve ever seen that one.
Most TV manufacturers still supply firmware updates as a separate download for installing from a USB drive. I just checked Sony's site for a model that sounds like yours, and they do offer this.
Because sometimes it's necessary to make sure basic features work correctly, I remember my LG Oled didn't work with 4K 120Hz sources until LG released a firmware update for it.
I would love to buy a TV with a great image quality, a bunch of ports, image tweaking and nothing else. No wifi, no cellular, no internet, no speakers.
Honestly? Doesn’t even need a remote provided CEC works fine with my Apple TV.
I wouldn't. What I was picturing is that the TV has buttons on its frame (like your monitor).
You can use those to change sources, tweak the image and any other simple "setting" the tv might have.
Those are infrequent enough operations that I don't mind standing up and walking to the TV to do it.
Of course if it did come with a simple remote that'd be fine too. I'm not against a remote.
I don't watch TV as in broadcasts (neither OTA nor cable nor online streaming). I do watch TV shows from BluRay / DVD / files from my friend. I also don't use playback devices that don't let me modify them to work how I want.
I think you'll find the price at that volume and without subsidy a bit higher than a lot of people want to pay.
It may be cheaper and even easier to just buy and somehow modify Onn/Hisense into dumb displays, though I've never explored the idea myself to know how feasible it even is.
Problem is: you’d still be stuck with a Hisense TV. They got planned obsolescence built in, most of their TVs power supplies go out after only 4 years or even less.
Just don't connect the "smart" Tv to the internet. It's still a "dumb display" if you don't give it internet access. Don't give it wifi access, don't plug in an ethernet cable.
This really irks me. Even if not connected to the internet, it still has whatever android bloat OS on it. Ageing android (or any other) are just intolerable even when they haven't completely rotted. It will fail. A family member let us borrow their second smart TV, a Samsung, and it would not function, internet or not. It would crash on turning it on, and even if it didn't crash it took six or seven minutes to get from standby to 'actually displaying HDMI 1' if it didn't crash. A quarter of the time crashed so bad on turning it on that the firmware had to be reflashed. I gave it back. Don't get me started on all the weird android alzheimers bullshit like trying to set the time (so the old fashioned EPG would work) would set the time to literally anything but what was input and did so in a totally random and unpredictable pattern meaning it couldn't just be worked around.
I was grateful to find a totally dumb 4K 48" TV that had the same firmware as the decade (at minimum) old 1080i 23" TV it was replacing. Its image quality would offend TV nerds but I will never ever own a smart TV and they don't really make actually dumb TVs any more. You could not pay me to use a decade old android or tv os device, let alone the considerably younger TV we borrowed. Absolutely not.
Amazon set a precedent with Kindle 3G keyboard edition many years ago; it had free worldwide cellular access for buying books and had an experimental web browser good enough for webmail. I never thought it was free from the carriers, I assume the bill went to Amazon.
If Vizio can’t arrange that alone, they could pool together many manufacturers and devices, offer the phone companies a copy of the data, or wait until the cost drops low enough.
While its allowed by the standard, its not something that is often used. Certainly the AppleTV that I use does not even offer an option to share its network connection over Ethernet. And I’m not aware of any other box that does.
Pretty sure you need a special cable that carries ethernet, as well as a device at the other end that supplies ethernet to HDMI, so you have to really want to let your "smart" tv to have access to the internet.
Yeah, let's keep rewarding the companies that are profiting from weaponizing consumer electronics by buying from them, instead of promoting an alternative that offers something that actually is what people want.
It's not really rewarding the company if they are subsidizing the price of the TV by selling people's information through the "smart" part of the TV, when you don't participate in the "smart" part of it. You got a cheaper TV, didn't hand over any of your info, so the company loses money on the "smart" TV.
The manufacturer is not losing money on the device. Google/Amazon are paying them to get their spyware crap on the device.
> You got a cheaper TV, didn't hand over any of your info...
But you are still enabling Surveillance Capitalism. Even if you think you personal data is safe, the system still exploits the majority of the consumer market.
Nobody is being rewarded when I don't connect the subsidised "smart" TV to the internet.
There are other kinds of very cheap TVs with forced ads and tracking that require an internet connection to function at all, but those are a whole other story entierly, and we aren't talking about those here.
That's a win-win-win in my book. I get a cheap device, manufacturer sells a device, evil data collection companies don't get my data. The rest of you can connect your tv to the internet and have creeps do stuff with your data, I really don't care what you do. And really, why should anyone be worried that some company knows you watch family feud instead of the price is right.
What if you were told that I've worked for those ad companies, I know all the tricks they use, and I know extremely well how they target me - and I'm still not worried about buying a "smart" TV and using it while not connecting it to the internet.
I quit on moral grounds, so you really don't have the moral high ground here, as much as you'd like to think you do. Once I realized what was going on there I found another job and left them immediately, my employment there lasted all of 3 months. So I know what they do, how they do it, but I don't condone it and never did. In many ways I'm better off for having been on the inside for a brief period of time, learning about what they do and how they do it, so I can avoid it.
I'll still continue to use my cheap unconnected "smart" TV knowing full-well why it was created, what it is capable of, and how I've bypassed all of that by simply not plugging it in to the internet.
The point that you are missing is that this is not just about what you can do, but how the system as a whole is rigged.
The fact that you know how the sausage is made and yet you are not actively working to dismantle it would be a strong sign of apathy, but when you come boasting about how you are for "getting a nice TV for cheap" just turns the whole thing into complete moral bankruptcy.
You are not sticking to the man. You are just a rounding error to them, when you could full well be part of an alternative that puts human decency above petty savings.
>The fact that you know how the sausage is made and yet you are not actively working to dismantle it would be a strong sign of apathy,
So you think it's my responsibility to take on Google and every other mega corporation? You're huffing your own farts.
What have you done to "dismantle" the ad companies? Nothing? Got it.
>but when you come boasting about how you are for "getting a nice TV for cheap" just turns the whole thing into complete moral bankruptcy.
Let those without sin cast the first stone. It seems you're throwing a lot of stones, but I doubt your own moral fortitude. You've not said one thing about anything that you have done to "dismantle" these companies you seem to fear so much. Put up or shut up.
>You are not sticking to the man. You are just a rounding error to them, when you could full well be part of an alternative that puts human decency above petty savings.
I don't really care what you think, you're so full of hate that you can't understand what's going on at all.
I got a cheap TV, subsidised by ad companies, and I didn't let them do what they wanted to do to recoup that cost. If you don't think that is at least a little bit of "sticking it to the man" then you're just deluded and cranky and an typical internet troll.
> my responsibility to take on Google and every other mega corporation?
There is a whole world of choices and options between "standing up to fight against mega corporations" and "paying a (small) premium for a product that is produced by a company with a stronger sense of ethics".
> What have you done to "dismantle" the ad companies?
A suite of services that offer messaging and social media network without any ads, tracking or data collection: https://communick.com.
> Put up or shut up.
Isn't that exactly what this thread is about? I am saying "hey, how about an alternative where people would pay just for the components and assemble themselves?" and for every person saying "that would be great, sign me up", there is some lizard brain saying "just don't connect it to the internet and let companies pay for your shiny gadgets while they exploit the other losers".
I don't see you making a cheap dumb TV, so I'll continue to buy "smart" TVs and not connect them to the internet, and I'll suggest to other people that they do the same if they buy a "smart" TV. If everyone bought a "smart" TV and not connect it to the internet, then there wouldn't be any more "smart" TVs made. That's how you change the world, not with "Lemmy" or "Funkwhale" or other stuff people don't want.
Fair enough. You are absolutely right. People do not "want" Lemmy or Funkwhale. They want to communicate, get in touch with friends, listen to some music, find someone to hook up with, share pictures of their kids with their family... do you agree?
But in light of all the things that you know about Facebook, Google, Reddit et al, do you think that it's enough to just tell people "If everyone just used an ad blocker, there would be no ad tech companies?"
>They want to communicate, get in touch with friends, listen to some music, find someone to hook up with, share pictures of their kids with their family.
People want to be on the popular platform(s). It's the same reason they like shitty fad music, and shitty fad food, and all kinds of ridiculous and harmful things - people are like sheep. Cheap, easy, and instant gratification. Good luck changing human nature.
>But in light of all the things that you know about Facebook, Google, Reddit
It doesn't matter what I know. Nobody is going to do anything just because I or you want them to. "You can lead a horse to water..."
But if trying is what floats your boat, then more power to you. You do you. I'll enjoy cheap subsidized TVs without giving my data away.
>You want to think you are so much better than those poor village idiots, so all you can do is take advantage of them.
I am not the one suggesting that others should spend their time to "take down" large corporations. You've been quite holier than though. It's quite funny that you can't even see that the cartoon you shared exactly describes your behavior here.
As a journalist once said to me, regarding a different topic (local politics in some city), something like: I wasn't surprised that bribes were happening; I was surprised that the bribes were so small.
Similar applies here: incredulous that, in various aspects of the tech industry, customers/users are often being sold out for such small amounts of money.
(Though manufacturing is easier to understand than a lot of software-only businesses, which aren't about cost engineering.)
It sort of makes sense. Like, I’m very bothered by this spyware-industrial system and put a high value on my privacy. But, objectively, I am extremely boring and seeing what I’m looking at is actually worth much less than $15.
It is actually really weird how popular this business model has become (I guess it is a thing because people don’t read the fine print). Invasion of privacy is, I think, extremely asymmetric, so the business model of spying on people is a huge destroyer of value.
A problem, as I understand it, is that if you let all the customers with high disposable income pay extra to avoid ads, you're left with a group of lower income customers who are less valuable to advertisers.
Manufacturers would rather get $15 for every TV than only $15 for some TVs. If they were to let you pay your way out, you'd have to pay significantly more in order to subsidize the people who won't pay.
Try buying the regular smart ones and disabling the spyware while keeping the rest of the subsidized price. It would be a legal battle about whether you can actually enforce some terms of use that would prohibit it. The rough part is having to cover the warranty when resold which will cost a lot. But probably still cheaper than the dropshipped dumb panels.
Industrial panels make horrible TVs. Even if you use an appropriate panel, there’s more than just designing a sheet metal case.
Based on people suggesting commercial large format displays, apparently some don’t understand this. The market for someone foolish enough to drop $3k on a large screen without Dolby Vision is very small though. People that are absolutely cost conscious will continue to buy the loss leader crap TVs.
See the LG 48 CX OLED television versus the Gigabyte AORUS FO48U OLED monitor. The LG was a jump in quality and performance (4K 120Hz) and many people bought it to use as a computer monitor. But it's smart (cannot disable advertising itself over Bluetooth while on), cannot be woken up over HDMI (requires using the remote control to turn on each day) and it does not have displayport in.
The Aorus is the same panel but not a TV, functions as a monitor should, and I would have bought that instead had I known.
If a product finder like alternativeto.net existed, where you find non-shittified alternatives to a popular appliance, I would use it every time I shop.
Just order a standard, add infested one, and a basic chinese board for it. Sellers will flash them for your panel and all. It can't any more basic than that.
The problem in that segment is that it's basically the same disposable, non-repairable tech that's destined to the dumpster in a couple of years. The company is selling the appearance of having a different design philosophy, and it works because the consumer has no way of telling.
So, if you want to do anything more profound in that space, it's going to be hard to compete.
That one you linked has actually quite a lot of features - the 12 presets, auto cooking mode, weight setting, the potentially confusing buttons like "express" and "micro power".
Microwaves that are just time and power setting, cooktops that are just four knobs, ovens that are just mode and heat, maybe a simple timer… I’d buy those too.
Look up "large format display". Its basically a TV sans any smart shit. Used in commercial display applications, dynamic menus in restaurants, info panels etc.
They are mad expensive because presumably they are not subsidised by the shitware that "smart" tvs ship with.
I'm sure the ad revenue is part of it, but the commercial ones are also built for 24/7 operation over the course of years. And I expect another part of the added expense is that they know commercial purchasers aren't as price sensitive.
The entire reason that smart TVs are cheap with ads is because consumers "prefer" that. If (most) people bought expensive TVs with no ads, companies would, you know, sell that.
Nah, that's upside down. Consumers buy what they can afford. Wages are low, but companies still want to sell TVs. Advertising to the rescue! And so, as ever, good ol' capitalism pushes quality down while telling the consumer "you've never had it so good!"
Everything sucks where the hardware is a loss leader and just good enough to perform its function and the software is developed as a trojan horse for the actual revenue generating business. Soundbars, "smart" speakers, printers...
I’ll keep repeating this but I used to be a TPM for “advance analytics” for a major media agency and we used this data in our reporting for ad reach effectiveness.
From a previous comment of mine:
> … my Insignia TV (best buy store brand) with fire tv built in is basically unusable.
Echoing a previous comment I made too, about “smart tvs” and the “streaming sticks”:
Hey, have you ever thought of why even the $149 Black Friday loss-leader no-name-brand TVs all have Amazon Fire, Roku, or are now "Smart" in some way? Certainly isn't because they need to incentivise you to connect it to the internet so it acts as a Nielsen-esq measurement device of all media you view on the screen via digital fingerprints that exist in all commercial media and advertisements. [1][2]
Aargghh, a prompt similar to this is going to make me an extremist that'll wage j**d on IT companies!
Google Photos wants you to turn on backups so you blow through your 15GB quota and buy storage from them, so once in a while when I open the app it screams "Back up is not turned on! You risk losing your photos!" (ok maybe not that hysterically).
Then the "Back up photos" slider is active, and I just have to hit "Continue". I'd have to slide it to off, and the button changes to "Continue without backup" and I have to hit it.
It's freaking disgusting that software companies now change your settings (ok, thankfully it still asks for your confirmation) and nag you about it every few weeks.
BTW Google, I have a Google Pixel 1 phone that has lifetime unlimited photos backup, and I intend on abusing that functionality by using automated transfers between my daily phone -> my NAS -> Pixel 1 -> your servers until you fuck me over and delete my account.
Why the fuck would anyone buy a "smart monitor" that is hooked up to a computer? Are they too incompetent to directly watch Netflix/Prime/etc on the computer? What is LG's target audience here?
I'm guessing snwy_me got the monitor from someone else and forgot to factory reset it and disable WiFi.
I bought something like this from Samsung. Honestly, was an oversight that I only started regretting when I learned that the controls to change the input source suck in a major way (not possible to switch source via a provided remote, source-switching buttons are very inconveniently placed at the bottom of the monitor and sometimes enter full settings instead of the source-switch menu). Lesson learned the hard way. And yeah, I keep the wifi disabled on that thing, except when occasionally checking for updates in the hopes that they fixed that shit via a software update.
I forgot to add that the device doesn't seem to support DDC/CI, so input-switching via software is also out the window (TBH, that is what I hope they fix in the future).
It’s the only way to get a good hidpi panel in the 5K space without breaking the bank. They also have DEEP integration with the Samsung ecosystem like dex integration.
LG has been getting into this market; their target market appears to be folks that want to have a miniature tv at their desk in small (studio) apartments to watch Netflix, etc on without fiddling with a pc. Which makes sense: in Korea and a lot of other places now, 200sqft apartments are becoming more common and the affordable option without splitting with others.
I have a similar monitor from LG. I pair it with a MacBook, and there are times when the MacBook isn’t connected, but I still want to watch Netflix. Or even when the MacBook is connected, if I’m not at my desk it’s easier to control with the remote. It actually sees more use as a standalone streaming device than as a monitor.
I think smart monitors are convenient multi-purpose displays and make a lot of sense for home use. Not so much for office use like in the source tweet.
Yeah, I'm trying to see what the problem is here. Seems like just a reason to gripe. What difference does any of this makes if the monitor itself is only fed a video signal (i.e. don't connect its wifi). Does the monitor fail to operate without its WiFi connection or something?
And if you gaze for long into an LG™ liquid-crystal display monitor, the LG™ liquid-crystal display monitor asks your permission to gaze also into you.
For what it’s worth, this is a Smart TV (ie, a streaming box) that happens to also be monitor sized. I have no idea why anyone would buy one of these for primary use as a computer monitor, and the marketing and messaging is clear and up-front that these are streaming devices running an Internet connected OS.
Why streaming devices need to be so ad-infested is a different interesting topic, but IMO this “my monitor has an EULA” thing is just engagement bait.
Agree - this twitterbait is purposely omitting relevant details that this is NOT a traditional external display in any sense of the word. I mean the category of displays on LG's website is labelled "Smart Monitors with webOS" - which should be a clue right there.
That Samsung/LG/etc. are sulfurous pits of spyware is a completely different and well understood problem (but coincidentally too pedestrian to garner the desired rage induced upvotes).
Just give it another decade and you will be telling us how it's ok that all monitors come with smart features and how you can just ignore them with only minor annoyances.
I'd say it's the smartphones success that lead to smart bring a euphemism for everything. smartphones worked so well, It led to everyone and their mother attaching smart to everything.
The smartphone OS is not fine. It is build to take away you computing freedom. It's what enables and encourages these shitty apps while preventing better options. It is designed around advertising.
Hm. Will Linux drivers permit this thing to talk to the Internet? And if it can't reach the mothership, will it still work as a monitor?
This has exploit potential. If a properly crafted ad can successful take over a monitor, the attacker now owns a USB-C device with an Internet connection. From there, it can make the device pretend to be some other USB device, such as a keyboard, mouse, and USB storage. From that point, they can do almost anything.
A few manufacturers are now shipping monitors with the same OS as their smart TVs, so they can stream Netflix and stuff standalone. OP has an LG one, and I know Samsung are also doing it on some of their newer models. Thankfully there's still plenty of dumb monitors on the market for now, including most LGs and Samsungs.
For now, yes. There also used to be plenty of dumb TVs on the market, but not anymore. If there isn't major consumer resistances to this (and let's be honest, most people already accept smart phones and smart TVs and smart cars and smart appliances all with the same shit) then in less than a decate you won't have many options for dumb monitors.
Given how garbage the software quality is on hardware devices, why would I ever want them to be connected to the internet? Ad/privacy or security concerns aside, even companies who should know better have shown they cannot be trusted and will continue to load up irrelevant patches onto a device until it eventually crawls under the increased computational demands. Slowing a previously responsive system.
Why does my monitor need to do that? My OS, the Intel Management Engine, my application, the website I'm using, my internet provider, my modem's hardware stack, and the several networked microphones in my home are already doing it.
Consider the case where there's a quiet observer looking at the screen alongside you. The monitor also needs to identify them so that it can ensure that you're not an accessory to thoughtcrime by letting them look at your screen.
Your comment is very similar to past comments in HN where the user was sadly not being sarcastic (generally people with defeatist attitudes). Please use the widely-accepted sarcasm symbol. Example:
I don't think that really caught on that much. Film studios care about it, but TV manufacturers don't really.
This is for advertising plain and simple (and probably selling user data to some extent). That's direct income for the manufacturers so they care about it a lot.
But, why doesn't the ethernet just connect to the device directly? Have they really taken so many ports away from us that the only way to connect to ethernet is to daisy chain through a fucking smart monitor?
Single cable docking. You plug your laptop into the monitor via USBC and it charges your laptop, provides it a Ethernet connection and drives the monitor display.
Not defending the sickening concept of a “spy” monitor.
But my Dell P2423DE monitor has a USB-C “dock” built into it so that I plug a single cable into my laptop which connects it to 2x 1440p monitors, power, mouse, headset receiver, keyboard and a wired ethernet connection.
Quite frankly, it’s awesomely convenient.
It’s totally legitimate to have a network port on a monitor.
I've never heard of this. What specific devices, if you don't mind me asking?
I had no idea a Thunderbolt hub could serve as a parallel Ethernet hub, nor that there were devices that could or would want to take advantage of this.
AFAIK, while there is a standard for Ethernet-over-Thunderbolt, typical Thunderbolt docking stations simply expose the underlying Ethernet controller as a PCIe device, typically using a chipset with drivers that are widely available if not preinstalled on all major OSes.
In other words, they not hubs (or switches) in the Ethernet sense, just a different physical connection to an otherwise ordinary PCIe NIC.
I imagine non-Thunderbolt USB docks are similar, presenting as a USB hub with a garden-variety USB Ethernet controller attached to one of its ports.
With that said, I imagine a "smart monitor" with integrated dock would additionally include Ethernet switch-like functionality, to enable sharing of a single physical Ethernet port (or wireless connection) between the connected host and the smart TV subsystem, just as some servers allow sharing of a single Ethernet port between the installed OS and an onboard BMC.
The manufacturer could have added connectivity via mobile baseband and a SIM card, just for the privilege of harvesting your viewing habits and passwords.
If this is anything like an LG smart TV — and, as the UI is identical to my C4, I assume it is — none of the agreements are required to use the device as a monitor.
On LG TVs, at least, you can also completely disable the WebOS UI via a command sent through an onboard RS-232 interface, at which point the TV displays no overlays at all.
I think the solution to these kinds of issues is a coordinated campaign in small claims courts across the world.
If people decided to take the time to simultaneously take this issue before a judge who will give them a default judgment when a company like LG no-shows it'll start to hurt them and the publicity from this will force change.
I wonder what would happen if Amazon introduced a boycott feature. It could be a list of active boycotts next to the buy button on a product page. Customers can choose to join one of the boycotts instead of clicking the buy button, and then get redirected to a list of alternatives.
It won't ever happen obviously, but I wonder if it would solve these types of problems? Consumers collectively boycotting something is the most powerful way to fight things like this, but I can't think of a successful example of that in recent times. Even "viral" boycotts on social media platforms are likely to get limited reach due to algorithm fuckery. Or is it that nobody but us tech nerds actually cares about stuff like this, and even a blatant in-your-face boycott feature on Amazon wouldn't make a difference?
> I wonder what would happen if Amazon introduced a boycott feature. It could be a list of active boycotts next to the buy button on a product page
A feature that simultaneously discourages sales, encourages retailers to pull products from the platform, and heavily incentivizes abuse from competitors who would benefit from convincing customers to boycott their competitors products? For some reason I don’t imagine Amazon product managers are going to like this idea.
Boycotts are wishful thinking in the modern era of online shopping. The Venn diagram of people who would actively boycott a product like this and the people who would seek it out on Amazon has no overlap. These products are targeted at people who do purchasing for their office or who click the buy button without taking 1 minute to glance at reviews. The people who care enough to actively boycott have already read reviews of a product before they seek it out for purchase.
If Amazon were competing to win customers, they might do something like this to increase trust in the quality of the products on their store. Of course, that's not Amazon. The only significant threats to Amazon today are anti-trust regulators.
I don't think it's competitive, it's suicidal. No rational storefront would ever tell you all the terrible things about the products they stock, no matter how large or small they are. It's insulting to the suppliers and more importantly, stops people from impulse-buying big-ticket products.
You might argue that showing these "boycotts" would stop people from returning these products, but it would also curtail a whole lot of buyers that would consider it "good enough". Amazon deserves their fair shake by the FTC but if you think this is the reason then you've got pretty bizarre expectations.
Agreed, sadly comment OP is in dreamland about why an E-commerce company would ever even consider doing anything to stop people from buying things, regardless of quality or any other external factor.
This would be a fantastic chrome extension because Amazon would never do this. It would be great to vote on the reasons why to boycott, allowing the most egregious reasons at the very top.
I'm on the fence regarding a "likely boycott" for Ooni pizza ovens, specifically the Karu 16 dual fuel. There are many videos about defective or improperly installed thermocouples. Ooni has some really helpful FAQ guides for fixing it on your own, but I was amazed at how many videos exist about this problem for an $800 pizza oven.
Amazon is part of the _problem_. What you're really looking for is called a "law", and it's something a government does to make people stop doing things that hurt other people. Laws are then enforced so the bad actors stop doing their harmful stuff.
Not buying alone sounds a pretty powerful boycott thing.
Unluckily, so many care less than nothing, buying whatever is the cheapest and loudest in praising itself with the biggest lies or misdirection. There is a huge and successful market for these kind of customers. Actually it overwhelms the small group of conscious costumers. So manufacturers are making less and less 'honest' products.
No, if I remember correctly it was a local beverage company. It wasn't unusual for Microsoft to back local businesses. I remember a very talented Indian software engineer that left Microsoft and purchased 3 "food trucks" and decided to serve food instead, true story. He parked his truck outside building 88 for a few years.
Actually, it's Sony's patent 8,246,454 which has that "interactive networked video game" feature (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246454B2/en), and AFAIK there isn't a "drink verification can"-style patent yet.
Not sure if it's this one in question, or even from a real patent at all, but I think this is what GP was referencing; it made the rounds a few years back.
Unfortunately, DisplayPort and HDMI specifications are kept private unless you're a paying member. I've successfully implemented DisplayPort 1.2 in an FPGA from specification documents I found, but I could never find the specification for anything better.
My understanding is that display-port is quite open in that there is no per-device fee for implementing it, I suspect you still have to be a vesa "member" to get a legit copy of the spec.
Honestly at this point I consider VESA one of the good guys. At least compared to the alternative, spits, HDMI
I have started preparing myself mentally for a future where I give up on most of modern technology in the home and just go back to paper books/vinyls/etc.
Ehh, Framework isn't open-source hardware and its repairability is reliant on a single vendor. A nice step in the right direction, but MNT is the only company making computers that meet the bar for true "anyone can make their own" open source hardware (and certified[0] by the Open Source Hardware Association). This means MNT could go under, and anyone can still make/repair the entire machine. Not the case for Framework. If they close up shop, their hardware just lost its repairability. Their tagline "you can use them for as long as you'd like" has a big caveat - "as long as Framework parts are being manufactured". MNT doesn't have this limitation. The actual schematics are open source. Heck, even if individual components in the BOM stop shipping, compatible hardware can be made by the community because the entire computer is "known" and not encumbered by NDAs and whatnot. New PCB revisions can be made by whomever has the skill to do so. Too cool :D
that's amazing, I'll look them up! I hadn't realised they were that open, I assumed everybody was repairable like framework (i.e. pray they don't go under).
I know, right? The prior fully-OSHW computer I knew of was Novena but that was quite a while ago https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/novena Great quote from Bunnie still true today: "if you can't hack it, you don't own it" :)
How good will it be? Hopefully better than the OpenMoko Freerunner I once had - good idea, worst execution ever. Wouldn’t even work half decently as a phone, not to mention any other aspects of it…
We updated security policy at our company to prohibit use of monitors that aren’t specifically authorized.
One of our customers detected a risk in an audit - it hadn’t occurred to anyone. Now we log display connections and customer facing folks can be terminated for violating the rules.
Related: my mac bugs the hell out of me to accept new cloud Eula junk after os upgrade ... it's constantly popping up every 5 mins or so and can interrupt shutdown. Out stubbornness I've ignored for 6months running.
My TV did this. The worst part was that it disappeared so quickly I didn't have time to get the remote and acknowledge it. There did not appear to be any way in the settings to go and handle it manually. I just had to wait and get lucky.
New video game idea: In the 21st century, with increases in computational and networking power it is now inevitable that any device with a screen attached can be reconfigured to show ads. You fulfill this inevitability by hooking up your portable advertisement control computer to every car infotainment system, smartwatch, and Adafruit 16x16 RGB LED matrix in sight. Bonus points (your salary) for stealth interstitial insertion.
Player controls a character that runs around putting ads on every screen and empty surface, gameplay is periodically interrupted by satirical EULA updates.
I don’t know why everyone here thinks it is unconscionable for a hardware vendor to block user access to content with a pop up, when this is standard practice in the entire software industry.[1][2]
I’ve had Microsoft Teams interrupt my presentation to a CEO to force me to click through some stupid dialog that a self-important developer put in there at the direction of an an even more self-absorbed manager.
“STOP TALKING NOW! You are nothing! Only our imagined legal risks matter! Click here to accept. DO THIS NOW.”
It didn’t exactly say that, but it may as well have. That was the meaning.
Nah, it can still connect through the smart TV of the neighbours.
They probably have cross-brand agreements in place to let any "offline" device access advertisement networks. Your data is a very profitable business for them.
Yeah this is something I feel like doesn't get talked about enough. I have a raspberry PI that acts as my streaming device connected to my Samsung "Smart" TV and since Samsung can't get on the WIFI it's effectively just a display terminal.
I am outraged by the lack of outrage over this enshittified dystopia.
I would like to think myself better than that but things have really escalated to a point I really wish death and illness upon the advertiser leeches that started and continuously fueled the enshittification train till the point that we're at now.
If only we had some mechanism to force companies to stop doing things like this, instead of trying to invent economic dead-ends like Lego-style monitor assembly kits or Amazon-flavored voting systems.
I don't get how we have the most connected technology that ever existed, but we dont have proper tools to stick it to these terrible practices?
Obviously , en-masse we need to be buying these things, opening them, losing the manuals and packaging, and returning them explaining very clearly how there is unwanted shit in the firmware that was not made clear upfront before purchase.
Each of us doing it over and over at every store we have access to.
Wow the Q&A's answers seem AI generated... Everything about these 'smart' monitors feels quite 'fabricated' to me. I feel next time I shop for a monitor I will skip LG.
A particularly annoying aspect of monitor makers blurring the distinction between monitors and TVs that I hit with my Samsung S9 5K is that my Samsung TV remote can turn the monitor on/off and the monitor remote can turn the TV on/off.
Did it not occur to Samsung that people might have their computer in the same room as their television?
I don't know, I am still processing the 'remote for a monitor' idea. Sounds like the 'remote for a car stereo' kind of thing. Is this for people with short arms perhaps?
The remote actually makes some sense. It has a button/joystick-thingy control on the back than can bring up a settings menu and navigate it but it is a pain to reach. Leaning forward enough to reach under to it brings my face too close.
Edge controls would be easier to reach. Side edge controls can be a problem because people often want to have things right beside their monitor, such as another monitor. Bottom edge might be reasonable.
For people with bigger monitors than mine (mine is 27") their arms might actually be too short to reach bottom edge buttons comfortably, assuming they sit farther back from the screen than I do from mine.
Anyway, the remote can be faster than buttons would be because it allows for voice commands. If I want to set the brightness to say 6 I just pick up the remote, hold down the mic button, and say "brightness 6". That's faster than navigating to the picture settings menu and adjusting the brightness there.
A lot of vehicles also show this on the nav screen every time you start the car, and many websites also display similar popups when you visit. It's a disgusting practice but it certainly isn't new.
BTW if you want a TV that doesn't have any of these smart features you can get one of those commercial displays used in malls, train stations, and such. They're expensive though.
I would love to create a simple, searchable directory of consumer appliances, software and services that list all the ways you are _objectively_ fucked over as a consumer (I.e. whether something sells your data, requires always-on internet connectivity, requires additional subscriptions to unlock full functionality, etc..)
To those here who suggest buying a typical 'smart' TV and disconnecting it from the internet, there are a few issues. As some have pointed out, TV manufacturers will catch up with this and eventually make it harder. Embedded 5G, voiding warranty if you don't accept ads, etc.
Buying 'smart' TVs also sends a signal to the manufacturers that this is what people want (as some here have suggested). It perpetuates the delusion that ad-ridden TVs are acceptable. Vote with your wallet and buy something else.
It's also somewhat profligate to buy hardware and deliberately disable it (although I entirely understand the motivation and hacker ethos). That hardware represents sunk resources. Buying it to ignore it leaves a bad taste for me. Electronics manufacturers are ecological bad news, in general. I'd rather not contribute to unnecessary manufacturing if I can avoid it.
Regarding quality of image, I kinda suspect that the necessity for ultra-high def TV has been over-sold. Sure, for gaming, home cinema, etc it might be a real concern for some. For me, I've got a genuinely dumb TV and nobody has ever commented on the image quality for TV or movies or gaming (Switch). But maybe this is one area where the visual equivalent of audiophiles will never be dissuaded :)
Which unfortunately means not buying a high end TV at all because there are none without "smart features".
> Regarding quality of image, I kinda suspect that the necessity for ultra-high def TV has been over-sold. Sure, for gaming, home cinema, etc it might be a real concern for some. For me, I've got a genuinely dumb TV and nobody has ever commented on the image quality for TV or movies or gaming (Switch).
Most likely people are just being polite - kind of a dick move for a guest to diss your TV.
> But maybe this is one area where the visual equivalent of audiophiles will never be dissuaded :)
Size, resolution (up to 4K at least), true blacks from emissive display technologies and real HDR are all things immediately noticeable to the average user. Color space and bit depth are also very real improvements. This is very far from audiophile territory.
Related: my mac bugs the hell out of me to accept new cloud Eula junk after os upgrade ... it's constantly popping up every 5 mins or so and can interrupt shutdown. Out stubbornness I've ignored for 6 months running.
Nice, I've got the same (default colorway)! Such a good keyboard! I built/bought many keyboards and finally got tired of the search and decided to finally try the fabled Topre... so good <3
The idea of TVs doing this smells of urban legend to me, but a friend bought a new car recently, and he can connect to it from his phone (obviously over the cloud), he was wondering how it works because he didn't have to subscribe to anyhing, but yeah it has cellular connectivity paid for by the car manufacturer...
It's required for use in vehicles, at least in the US. Tracking cars and even remotely disabling them is important for safety reasons. But it is suspicious.
Great, make sure you max out that bandwidth with random garbage (preferably to the same endpoints that the telemetry goes to) to prevent your owned devices from exfiltrating your life.
I wonder if they bought these on purpose, or if the monitors were provided by their employer. That looks like an office.
It's hard to sympathize with someone buying one of these in 2024 and then being outraged that it wants to do ad tracking. 'Smart' monitors are so easy to avoid right now, they are all clearly marketed as such and it's still the case that premium 'dumb' monitors are available in every category.
I am seriously considering creating a dropship company focused exclusively on buying and selling electronic components that are sold for parts and people can assemble them at home, Ikea-style.
I would start with selling 50" and 65" inch "dumb" TVs. Just the panel, a nice enclosure and a board with an IR receiver, TV tuner and HDMI outputs. BYO top box and Soundbar. I wonder how fast it would take to get 10000 orders.
The Framework folks hit an unexpected snag with a similar idea: turns out the US tax on a laptop assembled in Taiwan is much lower than on a box of parts made in Taiwan that you can assemble into a laptop yourself. (Why? Because.) Thus the strange not-really-DIY “DIY edition”.
What is a laptop anyway? Can somebody sell 60 2-in-1 convertible laptops where the top bit comes off and also has an HDMI in port? The computer could be a raspberry pi or something…
Probably. This is a thing with guns, too. In CA, for example, owning an AR15 with certain features is illegal. But separate the upper from the lower, and you no longer have an AR15; now you have parts, none of which are semiautomatic and center-fire on their own. That’s no longer illegal (though if they can prove intent everything changes, of course).
IANAL, but I always found that kind of loophole fascinating.
No, the lower is still legally considered a firearm. It can't fire anything, and it's not a gun in practical purposes, but for purposes of regulation it is still a firearm.
The reason it's probably still legal to have in California is that California bans a lot of largely cosmetic or non-functional items. For example, many states ban threaded barrels which by itself doesn't change any characteristics of the barrel other than the fact that it has a thread on the end of it.
Specifically in the case of ar-15 pattern firearms, having the lower be "the firearm" is hilarious. the lower is a low precision, low pressure part. it is actually one of the easiest parts of the firearm to make. and because the lower is the controlled part, every other part, the ones that are hard to make, are readily available.
It's particularly stupid when you realize a sufficiently motivated person can in fact just fire an upper. I have no idea where the bolt is going to wind up in this, but it will in fact shoot a bullet out the other end of the barrel
I believe California has some laws that specifically apply to semiautomatic firearms, which an AR15 lower is not. The lower is incapable of semiautomatic fire (as in the gas blowback/piston system is in the upper).
They sell single-shot .50 BMG uppers, non-semiautomatic AR15 uppers do exist.
I believe the majority of stuff California regulates attaches to the upper anyways, which isn’t a firearm under federal law (unsure if Cali is weird about that). Bump stocks and responsive triggers are the only things I can think of California might regulate that go on the lower, and last I heard the ATF was tracking those down as an NFA violation.
The lower is the serialized part, and is regulated in isolation as a firearm in every instance I am aware of (but I am not familiar with California gun laws specifically).
Unless a CA-licensed attorney knowledgeable in California gun laws and ATF regulations specifically told you that a particular CA law applying to "semiautomatic firearms" does not apply to your AR-15 lower in isolation, do not listen to random internet comments about it especially when they begin with "I believe." Regardless of where you fall on the issue politically or ideologically, it's an objective fact that California's government is hostile toward its citizens possessing and bearing firearms, and being fuzzy on what is or is not a felony is a risky proposition.
If you're wrong, best case scenario you will lose all your guns, worst case you will end up in federal prison.
>it's an objective fact that California's government is hostile toward it's citizens possessing and bearing firearms
A state puts restrictions on semi-automatic weapons (one model which has been used to kill hundreds or thousands of people in random shootings) and here it's described as "being hostile to people possessing firearms". For most non-americans (which is my case) this will always sounds so strange
It's relative. Think of the US as a collection of small countries, comparable to the EU, and it's a little easier to understand.
I know relatively little about European gun laws, but I imagine that the gun laws in Romania and the Czech Republic are quite different, and that the Czech would argue Romania is "hostile toward it's citizens possessing and bearing firearms."
Texas would argue California is. California would argue the UK is.
Texas has more regulations than people think. It's the only "gun-friendly"[0] state I can think of that not only requires classes, but also a certain level of marksmanship - if memory serves you have to put 7 rounds in a piece of paper at 7 yards within 10 seconds or something.
[0] on the US scale of friendly-to-unfriendly :)
Texas has a marksmanship test for a license to carry, but you can carry without a license.
I am certainly not suggesting anyone rely on me for legal advice, to be clear.
But no, my understanding in CA is unlike the Feds, California does not have the concept of constructive possession as it applies to assault weapons. As such, separated parts cannot constitute a CA AW, unless the lower is already registered as such, or said lower is on the list of named CA AWs.
It is technically not an assault weapon in that configuration; however, depending on the DA, they may still come after you under PC 12280(a), stating that you are attempting to possess an assault weapon. The sticking point for them is showing intent, but they have convicted on possession and research of how to assemble an assault weapon.
They certainly could charge someone, and maybe even win; I’m not suggesting anyone rely on this as a defense, but that is what the law states. Short of any other aggravated reasons to charge you, it’s unlikely a DA would have any interest.
CA regulates magazines and pistol grips (in combination with other parts) which attach to the lower receiver. Not sure you are fully correct in saying the lower is not a semiautomatic firearm. While the lower by itself is clearly not a complete and functional firearm, and not capable of firing without an upper, the sear/disconnector, which determines semi/full auto is part of the lower.
The bump stock ban was struck down as exceeding statutory authority [*] in June.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
[*] - edited reason after rereading; this wasn’t 2nd amendment, but ATF misinterpretation of the law
That's the federal ban. The comment is about California law
> last I heard the ATF was tracking those down as an NFA violation.
I was responding to this portion of the comment, where they referred to the ATF and NFA - a federal agency and law.
I was updating them that was no longer true as of a few months ago.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a firearm.
> > In CA, for example, owning an AR15 with certain features is illegal. But separate the upper from the lower, and ... [it's] no longer illegal.
This is not accurate unless I'm misunderstanding your intent--absolutely possible, which is why I am responding over a day later :)
The lower is the firearm, and if it has CA-illegal features on it, it will remain illegal.
If you're referring to things like a threaded barrel, or a vertical foregrip (no idea if these are actually illegal in CA, just examples), or other things that are attached to the upper, when they're separated those things are no longer attached to a firearm because they're attached to the upper, which is no longer a firearm when it's separated.
This isn't a loophole, this is a natural consequence of the fact that if you take a firearm and separate it into two pieces, at most one of those things can legally be a firearm - you can't turn one firearm into two firearms by breaking it in half.
Thanks for the thoughtful response! Yes, I think a misunderstanding and/or I was unclear.
I never intended to make the claim that separating the upper and lower somehow makes neither a firearm. That was not my intent at all. Of course the lower is still a firearm, still needs to be serialized, legal, etc.
There are also some named firearms in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and those would be illegal no matter what, broken apart or not. Obviously naming specific weapons was idiotic and not going to last a very long time, since keeping the list up to date was impossible, so...
In 1999, the act was amended (P.C. 35015), and named specific features that would make a firearm an assault weapon. The amendment states that a semiautomatic, center-fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and any of the features below, is deemed an assault weapon:
* a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. * a thumbhole stock. * a folding or telescoping stock. * a grenade launcher or flare launcher. * a flash suppressor. * a forward pistol grip.
All of which are pretty clearly target AR and AR-like firearms.
Now, to be specific about what I was trying to say: California does not have the concept of constructive possession, unlike the federal government, as applied to assault weapons. As such, separated parts cannot constitute a CA assault weapon, unless the lower is already registered as such, or said lower is on the list of named CA assault weapons. If it is disassembled, it is considered to be weapon parts, and not the actual weapon itself.
However, depending on the DA, they may still come after you under P.C. 12280(a), stating that you are attempting to possess an assault weapon. The sticking point for them is showing intent, but they have convicted on possession and research of how to assemble an assault weapon in the past.
You mean import tax? Then the solution is simple: assemble a dummy device from the components, pay the lower import duties, and then disassemble it and sell the parts. This is called tariff engineering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax#Circumventing_the_...
U eu lkdn7g 53 55 me 4fg2n5
You can search NewEgg or Amazon for "Business TV" or "Commercial TV" and they will almost all be "dumb" TVs. They are readily available.
And they are invariably inferior to the latest models of higher end consumer TVs for movies and gaming. Older panels, poorer contrast ratio, if they even support HDR or VRR. For even partial feature parity they will be thousands more in cost. Outdoor and digital signage panels are great for their intended purpose only.
Show me the commercial equivalent to the LG G4.
And even these commercial TVs may be “dumber” but they still have firmware and it can still have some of the same nuisances. Meanwhile you can opt out of most shit on the smart TV and just not leave it connected.
>Show me the commercial equivalent to the LG G4.
I am not an expert, but this[0] looks like a commercial equivalent. And on my searches seems to be less expensive (although both are quite expensive)
[0]https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16889356840
You must have pasted the wrong link, or are yanking my chain.
(SAMSUNG 65-Inch Class OLED 4K S95B Series Quantum HDR TV(QN65S95BAFXZA, 2022 Model)
Nothing about this is aimed towards commercial:
https://www.samsung.com/latin_en/tvs/oled-tv/s95b-65-inch-ol...
That is a 2.5 year old model (out of stock on Newegg), standard high end consumer smart TV, not sure why you think otherwise:
“ Amazon Alexa Compatible / Bixby Compatible / DLNA / Dolby Atmos / FreeSync (AMD Adaptive Sync) / Google Assistant Compatible / High Dynamic Range (HDR) / Mountable / Samsung SmartThings Compatible
SMART TV WITH MULTIPLE VOICE ASSISTANTS: This TV comes with your favorite voice assistants built-in and ready to help. Choose from Bixby, Amazon Alexa, or Google Assistant”
It’s less expensive than a G4 because it’s is generations older than a G4. Samsung is now on the S95D.
Yes, I did paste the wrong link. Sorry about that. I meant to paste this one[0] However, there are other options available with oled, AI upscaling, etc. They are sold as "business displays" or similar, and can be expensive, but is exactly what a lot of people want instead of a "smart" TV.
[0]https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?d=QB65R
Ok, an edge lit LCD with "4000:1" contrast, 350 nit, is nowhere in the ballpark of a QD-OLED display. This isn’t even SotA for LCDs. This has no HDR display capability, no VRR. PQ wise it will be smoked by even some $300 Black Friday specials. It runs the same Tizen OS as the consumer TVs, and will still be annoying, just maybe not in all the same ways. This isn’t even close (and anything running Tizen is arguably not completely "dumb") and is precisely what I’m saying. If there really is something comparable, then why didn't you just link to that?
On the other hand it won’t burn in, just color shift. It’s built for a different purpose (digital signage), neither movies/entertainment or gaming.
I maintain there’s a very small consumer market for those willing to forgo a decade (but even 1 or 2) of flat panel advancements just to not leave WiFi or Ethernet off. But good luck to anyone who tries.
LG used to make a commercial HDR OLED large format in one size (65 inch), it's was $20k, now $10k for new old stock. Still not as bright as newer consumer displays (it's 3 gens behind), therefore not great for HDR, and no VRR. It's just not a market.
Readily available at a good premium.
You can sometimes get a great deal on these during liquidation though.
> Readily available at a good premium.
You have this backwards. The consumer "smart" units are subsidized by the monetization of the data they hoover up as you use it. This subsidized price has become accepted as normal price, but they clearly are discounted prices.
Yeah yeah, economy of scale on consumer vs prosumer+ units, but if you really believe that is the sole reason you are sorely mistaken
You are assuming that consumer electronic devices are sold at cost and not at whatever markup that the manufactuer thinks they can get away with.
Nope, you're getting the ad-infested TVs for a good discount.
I really doubt manufacturer lose money on smart tv sales.
I wanted to find a reputable source to back up this claim but instead I found a link from the atlantic. I did not read it, its behind a paywall and its not peer reviewed. The general concensus is that smart = subsidized by adware
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/01/smart...
The link simply states that they make a lot of money from the malware on TVs, something I'm not disputing. I am disputing that if I would buy a TV burn it without ever turning it on they manufacturer would lose money. In essence: The ads are simply pure profit on top of the TV sale.
I literally only use my smart tv with external devices. There’s no TV ads I see.
Cool bro. How does this relate to the discussion about whether smart TVs are sold below cost though?
> I did not read it, its behind a paywall
Browse to the article, click reader mode, click refresh. Might need to be in a private window, in case of cookie shenanigans.
Well, they're at a discount if your privacy has no value.
You have to decide what's more valuable to you - an extra chunk of money or the privacy which is endangered with the cheaper option.
You do not get to decide because privacy concious options are simply not available at the high end. You'd also need to significantly compromise on quality.
No, they're at a discount period. They're sold for less money.
Are you claiming that the delta is entirely covered by the fees payed to manufacturers to add apps, ads, etc?
Yes, how else would it be covered?
By increased margins? Common enough when your target market is not consumer.
Then the equivalent business tvs with no apps wouldn’t be thousands of dollars more.
This is backwards, increased margin would allow exactly that without all of it being covered by increased cogs.
I recently picked up an 85” Sony TV from Costco on clearance for $1399 (this model originally retailed for $2500, its only a step or two down from their top-of-the-line). I connected it to a hardwired ethernet cable, let it do the software updates, then unplugged it. No need for it to be online if I’m just using it with an AppleTV box anyway. I’d suspect an 85” “business TV” would be at least 4-5x the price.
Funny thing was after the software updates, the next day the TV prompted me to install a firmware update on the remote. First time I’ve ever seen that one.
Most TV manufacturers still supply firmware updates as a separate download for installing from a USB drive. I just checked Sony's site for a model that sounds like yours, and they do offer this.
Good to know but don't expect this to completely protect you from ads since they could be baked into the new firmware.
Why did you do the software update at all?
Because sometimes it's necessary to make sure basic features work correctly, I remember my LG Oled didn't work with 4K 120Hz sources until LG released a firmware update for it.
I would love to buy a TV with a great image quality, a bunch of ports, image tweaking and nothing else. No wifi, no cellular, no internet, no speakers.
Honestly? Doesn’t even need a remote provided CEC works fine with my Apple TV.
How would you tweak the image via CEC over the Apple TV?
HDMI CEC v1.3 specification, page 38: "Device Menu Control"
Is there an Apple TV app for that? Or do you expect Apple to bake this into tvOS?
Potentiometers on the side. (I’m only half joking)
I wouldn't. What I was picturing is that the TV has buttons on its frame (like your monitor). You can use those to change sources, tweak the image and any other simple "setting" the tv might have. Those are infrequent enough operations that I don't mind standing up and walking to the TV to do it.
Of course if it did come with a simple remote that'd be fine too. I'm not against a remote.
Ideally you do not need to tweak the image. All I need is a calibrated display, the rest is handled by my computer producing the input.
Do you watch TV through a computer? But also, how does that make the Apple TV able to tweak the image?
I don't watch TV as in broadcasts (neither OTA nor cable nor online streaming). I do watch TV shows from BluRay / DVD / files from my friend. I also don't use playback devices that don't let me modify them to work how I want.
I think you'll find the price at that volume and without subsidy a bit higher than a lot of people want to pay.
It may be cheaper and even easier to just buy and somehow modify Onn/Hisense into dumb displays, though I've never explored the idea myself to know how feasible it even is.
Problem is: you’d still be stuck with a Hisense TV. They got planned obsolescence built in, most of their TVs power supplies go out after only 4 years or even less.
Just don't connect the "smart" Tv to the internet. It's still a "dumb display" if you don't give it internet access. Don't give it wifi access, don't plug in an ethernet cable.
This really irks me. Even if not connected to the internet, it still has whatever android bloat OS on it. Ageing android (or any other) are just intolerable even when they haven't completely rotted. It will fail. A family member let us borrow their second smart TV, a Samsung, and it would not function, internet or not. It would crash on turning it on, and even if it didn't crash it took six or seven minutes to get from standby to 'actually displaying HDMI 1' if it didn't crash. A quarter of the time crashed so bad on turning it on that the firmware had to be reflashed. I gave it back. Don't get me started on all the weird android alzheimers bullshit like trying to set the time (so the old fashioned EPG would work) would set the time to literally anything but what was input and did so in a totally random and unpredictable pattern meaning it couldn't just be worked around.
I was grateful to find a totally dumb 4K 48" TV that had the same firmware as the decade (at minimum) old 1080i 23" TV it was replacing. Its image quality would offend TV nerds but I will never ever own a smart TV and they don't really make actually dumb TVs any more. You could not pay me to use a decade old android or tv os device, let alone the considerably younger TV we borrowed. Absolutely not.
It’ll only be a matter of a few years before it has a 5G modem and doesn’t give you a choice to “just” not connect it to the internet.
But for now you can still rip the modem and antenna, like what I am forced to do with my car.
Then the TV will just display a generic error telling you to get it serviced and refuse to work.
If apple can’t get free data for their cellular devices theres no hope for vizio et al.
The data required to exfiltrate the telemetry and serve ads is vastly smaller than that used by the average iPhone.
What about the data for a 4g watch?
Amazon set a precedent with Kindle 3G keyboard edition many years ago; it had free worldwide cellular access for buying books and had an experimental web browser good enough for webmail. I never thought it was free from the carriers, I assume the bill went to Amazon.
If Vizio can’t arrange that alone, they could pool together many manufacturers and devices, offer the phone companies a copy of the data, or wait until the cost drops low enough.
My understanding is Amazon paid an enormous amount for that!
I think the hdmi standard allows for Ethernet over hdmi. That’s a sneaky way in for your tv
While its allowed by the standard, its not something that is often used. Certainly the AppleTV that I use does not even offer an option to share its network connection over Ethernet. And I’m not aware of any other box that does.
Pretty sure you need a special cable that carries ethernet, as well as a device at the other end that supplies ethernet to HDMI, so you have to really want to let your "smart" tv to have access to the internet.
Yeah, let's keep rewarding the companies that are profiting from weaponizing consumer electronics by buying from them, instead of promoting an alternative that offers something that actually is what people want.
It's not really rewarding the company if they are subsidizing the price of the TV by selling people's information through the "smart" part of the TV, when you don't participate in the "smart" part of it. You got a cheaper TV, didn't hand over any of your info, so the company loses money on the "smart" TV.
The manufacturer is not losing money on the device. Google/Amazon are paying them to get their spyware crap on the device.
> You got a cheaper TV, didn't hand over any of your info...
But you are still enabling Surveillance Capitalism. Even if you think you personal data is safe, the system still exploits the majority of the consumer market.
Nobody is being rewarded when I don't connect the subsidised "smart" TV to the internet.
There are other kinds of very cheap TVs with forced ads and tracking that require an internet connection to function at all, but those are a whole other story entierly, and we aren't talking about those here.
The manufacturer is being rewarded. You just bought a TV from them. They are making money anyway. The revenue from the data selling is just extra.
That's a win-win-win in my book. I get a cheap device, manufacturer sells a device, evil data collection companies don't get my data. The rest of you can connect your tv to the internet and have creeps do stuff with your data, I really don't care what you do. And really, why should anyone be worried that some company knows you watch family feud instead of the price is right.
> The rest of you can connect your TV to the internet and have creeps do stuff with your data,
Your data is still getting collected, just not through the TV.
> I really don't care what you do.
What if you were told that ad companies are still going to be able to target you just by collecting data from others like you?
What if you were told that I've worked for those ad companies, I know all the tricks they use, and I know extremely well how they target me - and I'm still not worried about buying a "smart" TV and using it while not connecting it to the internet.
> I've worked for those ad companies
Well, then I definitely don't trust your moral compass and this whole discussion is pointless.
I quit on moral grounds, so you really don't have the moral high ground here, as much as you'd like to think you do. Once I realized what was going on there I found another job and left them immediately, my employment there lasted all of 3 months. So I know what they do, how they do it, but I don't condone it and never did. In many ways I'm better off for having been on the inside for a brief period of time, learning about what they do and how they do it, so I can avoid it.
I'll still continue to use my cheap unconnected "smart" TV knowing full-well why it was created, what it is capable of, and how I've bypassed all of that by simply not plugging it in to the internet.
The point that you are missing is that this is not just about what you can do, but how the system as a whole is rigged.
The fact that you know how the sausage is made and yet you are not actively working to dismantle it would be a strong sign of apathy, but when you come boasting about how you are for "getting a nice TV for cheap" just turns the whole thing into complete moral bankruptcy.
You are not sticking to the man. You are just a rounding error to them, when you could full well be part of an alternative that puts human decency above petty savings.
>The fact that you know how the sausage is made and yet you are not actively working to dismantle it would be a strong sign of apathy,
So you think it's my responsibility to take on Google and every other mega corporation? You're huffing your own farts.
What have you done to "dismantle" the ad companies? Nothing? Got it.
>but when you come boasting about how you are for "getting a nice TV for cheap" just turns the whole thing into complete moral bankruptcy.
Let those without sin cast the first stone. It seems you're throwing a lot of stones, but I doubt your own moral fortitude. You've not said one thing about anything that you have done to "dismantle" these companies you seem to fear so much. Put up or shut up.
>You are not sticking to the man. You are just a rounding error to them, when you could full well be part of an alternative that puts human decency above petty savings.
I don't really care what you think, you're so full of hate that you can't understand what's going on at all.
I got a cheap TV, subsidised by ad companies, and I didn't let them do what they wanted to do to recoup that cost. If you don't think that is at least a little bit of "sticking it to the man" then you're just deluded and cranky and an typical internet troll.
> my responsibility to take on Google and every other mega corporation?
There is a whole world of choices and options between "standing up to fight against mega corporations" and "paying a (small) premium for a product that is produced by a company with a stronger sense of ethics".
> What have you done to "dismantle" the ad companies?
A suite of services that offer messaging and social media network without any ads, tracking or data collection: https://communick.com.
> Put up or shut up.
Isn't that exactly what this thread is about? I am saying "hey, how about an alternative where people would pay just for the components and assemble themselves?" and for every person saying "that would be great, sign me up", there is some lizard brain saying "just don't connect it to the internet and let companies pay for your shiny gadgets while they exploit the other losers".
I don't see you making a cheap dumb TV, so I'll continue to buy "smart" TVs and not connect them to the internet, and I'll suggest to other people that they do the same if they buy a "smart" TV. If everyone bought a "smart" TV and not connect it to the internet, then there wouldn't be any more "smart" TVs made. That's how you change the world, not with "Lemmy" or "Funkwhale" or other stuff people don't want.
Fair enough. You are absolutely right. People do not "want" Lemmy or Funkwhale. They want to communicate, get in touch with friends, listen to some music, find someone to hook up with, share pictures of their kids with their family... do you agree?
But in light of all the things that you know about Facebook, Google, Reddit et al, do you think that it's enough to just tell people "If everyone just used an ad blocker, there would be no ad tech companies?"
>They want to communicate, get in touch with friends, listen to some music, find someone to hook up with, share pictures of their kids with their family.
People want to be on the popular platform(s). It's the same reason they like shitty fad music, and shitty fad food, and all kinds of ridiculous and harmful things - people are like sheep. Cheap, easy, and instant gratification. Good luck changing human nature.
>But in light of all the things that you know about Facebook, Google, Reddit
It doesn't matter what I know. Nobody is going to do anything just because I or you want them to. "You can lead a horse to water..."
But if trying is what floats your boat, then more power to you. You do you. I'll enjoy cheap subsidized TVs without giving my data away.
Yeah, thanks for going all https://xkcd.com/610 now.
You want to think you are so much better than those poor village idiots, so all you can do is take advantage of them.
Enjoy your TV.
>You want to think you are so much better than those poor village idiots, so all you can do is take advantage of them.
I am not the one suggesting that others should spend their time to "take down" large corporations. You've been quite holier than though. It's quite funny that you can't even see that the cartoon you shared exactly describes your behavior here.
Honestly when you see what a modern TV has inside and how it is assembled you realize that there’s not much “subsidy”.
please do. but it seems it would be more expensive to produce a tv with less features: https://www.tomsguide.com/features/dumb-tvs-heres-why-you-ca...
"Google pays between $12 and $15 per unit to a manufacturer like TCL or Hisense per TV that uses Google TV."
I'd be willing to pay a $15 premium for a TV that is built to do what I want, not what an advertiser wants.
As a journalist once said to me, regarding a different topic (local politics in some city), something like: I wasn't surprised that bribes were happening; I was surprised that the bribes were so small.
Similar applies here: incredulous that, in various aspects of the tech industry, customers/users are often being sold out for such small amounts of money.
(Though manufacturing is easier to understand than a lot of software-only businesses, which aren't about cost engineering.)
It sort of makes sense. Like, I’m very bothered by this spyware-industrial system and put a high value on my privacy. But, objectively, I am extremely boring and seeing what I’m looking at is actually worth much less than $15.
It is actually really weird how popular this business model has become (I guess it is a thing because people don’t read the fine print). Invasion of privacy is, I think, extremely asymmetric, so the business model of spying on people is a huge destroyer of value.
A problem, as I understand it, is that if you let all the customers with high disposable income pay extra to avoid ads, you're left with a group of lower income customers who are less valuable to advertisers.
Manufacturers would rather get $15 for every TV than only $15 for some TVs. If they were to let you pay your way out, you'd have to pay significantly more in order to subsidize the people who won't pay.
Try buying the regular smart ones and disabling the spyware while keeping the rest of the subsidized price. It would be a legal battle about whether you can actually enforce some terms of use that would prohibit it. The rough part is having to cover the warranty when resold which will cost a lot. But probably still cheaper than the dropshipped dumb panels.
i think somebody is already doing it - you may combine forces. Check this thread, about year ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35484594
also, check this one from yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41855403
Wouldn’t hold my breath.
The relevant subthread really is this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35487062
Industrial panels make horrible TVs. Even if you use an appropriate panel, there’s more than just designing a sheet metal case.
Based on people suggesting commercial large format displays, apparently some don’t understand this. The market for someone foolish enough to drop $3k on a large screen without Dolby Vision is very small though. People that are absolutely cost conscious will continue to buy the loss leader crap TVs.
Drop me a line if you ever decide to start. Be glad to help.
I love this idea; it really does seem like us geeks need to come to the rescue here.
How about BYO tuner while you're at it?
See the LG 48 CX OLED television versus the Gigabyte AORUS FO48U OLED monitor. The LG was a jump in quality and performance (4K 120Hz) and many people bought it to use as a computer monitor. But it's smart (cannot disable advertising itself over Bluetooth while on), cannot be woken up over HDMI (requires using the remote control to turn on each day) and it does not have displayport in.
The Aorus is the same panel but not a TV, functions as a monitor should, and I would have bought that instead had I known.
If a product finder like alternativeto.net existed, where you find non-shittified alternatives to a popular appliance, I would use it every time I shop.
Just order a standard, add infested one, and a basic chinese board for it. Sellers will flash them for your panel and all. It can't any more basic than that.
I’ve also thought about this in quite some depth. I think people would be willing to pay a premium for simple, quality electronics.
I also think there could be a good opportunity to expand this to kitchen appliances too. Premium quality but really dumb. I would be a loyal customer
With kitchen appliances, it's already a thing. For example, there's a "retro" brand that sells microwaves with a timer knob:
https://www.amazon.com/Nostalgia-NRMO7YW6A-Countertop-Microw...
The problem in that segment is that it's basically the same disposable, non-repairable tech that's destined to the dumpster in a couple of years. The company is selling the appearance of having a different design philosophy, and it works because the consumer has no way of telling.
So, if you want to do anything more profound in that space, it's going to be hard to compete.
I think you make a good point in general, but the Ikea TILLREDA microwave might be a better example of cheap and simple: https://www.ikea.com/ie/en/p/tillreda-microwave-oven-white-6...
That one you linked has actually quite a lot of features - the 12 presets, auto cooking mode, weight setting, the potentially confusing buttons like "express" and "micro power".
Microwaves that are just time and power setting, cooktops that are just four knobs, ovens that are just mode and heat, maybe a simple timer… I’d buy those too.
Is it even possible to just buy panels for normal consumers?
Look up "large format display". Its basically a TV sans any smart shit. Used in commercial display applications, dynamic menus in restaurants, info panels etc.
They are mad expensive because presumably they are not subsidised by the shitware that "smart" tvs ship with.
I'm sure the ad revenue is part of it, but the commercial ones are also built for 24/7 operation over the course of years. And I expect another part of the added expense is that they know commercial purchasers aren't as price sensitive.
If you buy a model that's one or two years old, they aren't actually that much. E.g. My company paid €700 for a 55" Samsung digital signage display.
I'm not sure about using it as a TV (no speakers, matte display), but as a monitor it looks really nice.
The higher cost is because the hardware is designed to run for years 24/7, and the compute hardware is (a little bit) more powerful than regular TVs.
The entire reason that smart TVs are cheap with ads is because consumers "prefer" that. If (most) people bought expensive TVs with no ads, companies would, you know, sell that.
Consumers only have a choice among what is already been made available in the marketplace.
Which is of course why cahble TV, which consumers chose as an ad-free alternative to over the air TV, does not have ads.
And it's also why premium streaming, which consumers chose as an ad-free alternative over cable TV, does not have ads.
You can't buy your way out of ads because paying just means the advertisers have extra incentive to put shit in front of your eyes.
Even the high end $3,000, $4,000+ TVs have ads. Show me a mainstream TV that doesn't.
Nah, that's upside down. Consumers buy what they can afford. Wages are low, but companies still want to sell TVs. Advertising to the rescue! And so, as ever, good ol' capitalism pushes quality down while telling the consumer "you've never had it so good!"
IR receiver is optional IMO. Most people would plug an Android TV box or media PC into it anyhow, which will handle volume control and power via HDMI.
I would absolutely love something like that.
soundbars suck too.
All of them have wireless subwoofers, which require wifi or bluetooth.
Really, why can't they do cables or spdif?
Everything sucks where the hardware is a loss leader and just good enough to perform its function and the software is developed as a trojan horse for the actual revenue generating business. Soundbars, "smart" speakers, printers...
Sign me up
Simple. Buy TV, never connect to wifi. Plug in Apple TV. Never worry about ads or anything.
Customer here!
I’ll keep repeating this but I used to be a TPM for “advance analytics” for a major media agency and we used this data in our reporting for ad reach effectiveness.
From a previous comment of mine:
> … my Insignia TV (best buy store brand) with fire tv built in is basically unusable. Echoing a previous comment I made too, about “smart tvs” and the “streaming sticks”: Hey, have you ever thought of why even the $149 Black Friday loss-leader no-name-brand TVs all have Amazon Fire, Roku, or are now "Smart" in some way? Certainly isn't because they need to incentivise you to connect it to the internet so it acts as a Nielsen-esq measurement device of all media you view on the screen via digital fingerprints that exist in all commercial media and advertisements. [1][2]
[1] https://www.ispot.tv/
[2] https://www.samba.tv/
> I used to be a TPM
For clarity, are you meaning "Technical Project Manager"?
A lot of people here are probably more familiar with TPM being "Trusted Platform Module":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module
Yup, technical project manager.
Aargghh, a prompt similar to this is going to make me an extremist that'll wage j**d on IT companies!
Google Photos wants you to turn on backups so you blow through your 15GB quota and buy storage from them, so once in a while when I open the app it screams "Back up is not turned on! You risk losing your photos!" (ok maybe not that hysterically).
Then the "Back up photos" slider is active, and I just have to hit "Continue". I'd have to slide it to off, and the button changes to "Continue without backup" and I have to hit it.
It's freaking disgusting that software companies now change your settings (ok, thankfully it still asks for your confirmation) and nag you about it every few weeks.
BTW Google, I have a Google Pixel 1 phone that has lifetime unlimited photos backup, and I intend on abusing that functionality by using automated transfers between my daily phone -> my NAS -> Pixel 1 -> your servers until you fuck me over and delete my account.
Unlimited photo backups? Well how many qr codes can you store in JPEG because that screams free HDD back up with a little scripting.
(Later) --> Remind me (Tomorrow) (3 days Later)
I want that T-Shirt.
Your LG monitor likely just read that comment and will bill you for the T-shirt immediately.
Please scroll to the bottom and confirm you have read the entire FUTURE EULA before continuing.
There's a song called: "The future is not what it was" that I am a fan of in this context.
By definition, another "future I wanted" can only arrive "later" than now, so those two options actually kinda make sense. :P
It appears to be this line of Smart Monitors: https://www.lg.com/us/smart-monitors
Why the fuck would anyone buy a "smart monitor" that is hooked up to a computer? Are they too incompetent to directly watch Netflix/Prime/etc on the computer? What is LG's target audience here?
I'm guessing snwy_me got the monitor from someone else and forgot to factory reset it and disable WiFi.
I bought something like this from Samsung. Honestly, was an oversight that I only started regretting when I learned that the controls to change the input source suck in a major way (not possible to switch source via a provided remote, source-switching buttons are very inconveniently placed at the bottom of the monitor and sometimes enter full settings instead of the source-switch menu). Lesson learned the hard way. And yeah, I keep the wifi disabled on that thing, except when occasionally checking for updates in the hopes that they fixed that shit via a software update.
> in the hopes that they fixed that shit via a software update.
Hell will freeze over first.
Dum spiro, spero. ; )
I forgot to add that the device doesn't seem to support DDC/CI, so input-switching via software is also out the window (TBH, that is what I hope they fix in the future).
My partner has the Samsung equivalent of these.
It’s the only way to get a good hidpi panel in the 5K space without breaking the bank. They also have DEEP integration with the Samsung ecosystem like dex integration.
LG has been getting into this market; their target market appears to be folks that want to have a miniature tv at their desk in small (studio) apartments to watch Netflix, etc on without fiddling with a pc. Which makes sense: in Korea and a lot of other places now, 200sqft apartments are becoming more common and the affordable option without splitting with others.
> in Korea and a lot of other places now, 200sqft apartments are becoming more common
No surprise Korea is on the verge of demographic collapse
I have a similar monitor from LG. I pair it with a MacBook, and there are times when the MacBook isn’t connected, but I still want to watch Netflix. Or even when the MacBook is connected, if I’m not at my desk it’s easier to control with the remote. It actually sees more use as a standalone streaming device than as a monitor.
I think smart monitors are convenient multi-purpose displays and make a lot of sense for home use. Not so much for office use like in the source tweet.
Yeah, I'm trying to see what the problem is here. Seems like just a reason to gripe. What difference does any of this makes if the monitor itself is only fed a video signal (i.e. don't connect its wifi). Does the monitor fail to operate without its WiFi connection or something?
And if you gaze for long into an LG™ liquid-crystal display monitor, the LG™ liquid-crystal display monitor asks your permission to gaze also into you.
For what it’s worth, this is a Smart TV (ie, a streaming box) that happens to also be monitor sized. I have no idea why anyone would buy one of these for primary use as a computer monitor, and the marketing and messaging is clear and up-front that these are streaming devices running an Internet connected OS.
Why streaming devices need to be so ad-infested is a different interesting topic, but IMO this “my monitor has an EULA” thing is just engagement bait.
LG has a page dedicated to "LG SmartMonitors", and the photo shows a desk with mouse and keyboard, no mention of TV or Smart TV
No, pretty sure this is specifically marketed as a monitor. The product is called SmartMonitor for that reason.
Agree - this twitterbait is purposely omitting relevant details that this is NOT a traditional external display in any sense of the word. I mean the category of displays on LG's website is labelled "Smart Monitors with webOS" - which should be a clue right there.
That Samsung/LG/etc. are sulfurous pits of spyware is a completely different and well understood problem (but coincidentally too pedestrian to garner the desired rage induced upvotes).
Just give it another decade and you will be telling us how it's ok that all monitors come with smart features and how you can just ignore them with only minor annoyances.
Holy. This is so dire. I like how "smart" is always a euphemism for "shitty" when it's the prefix of a technology product.
Jury's still out on the Smartphone with a good number of pros/cons.
I'd bet that many who are enraged by this story, have already accepted numerous such agreements in the software/sites they use.
I'd say it's the smartphones success that lead to smart bring a euphemism for everything. smartphones worked so well, It led to everyone and their mother attaching smart to everything.
The smartphone is fine. It’s the apps that suck, and most of all it’s advertising.
The smartphone OS is not fine. It is build to take away you computing freedom. It's what enables and encourages these shitty apps while preventing better options. It is designed around advertising.
Is this a side effect of allowing monitors to use USB-C? Is there some driver via WHQL that allows the monitor to connect to the internet???
This seems to me like a potential security issue.
Hm. Will Linux drivers permit this thing to talk to the Internet? And if it can't reach the mothership, will it still work as a monitor?
This has exploit potential. If a properly crafted ad can successful take over a monitor, the attacker now owns a USB-C device with an Internet connection. From there, it can make the device pretend to be some other USB device, such as a keyboard, mouse, and USB storage. From that point, they can do almost anything.
That was my question as well. What is the user benefit of the monitor having a network connection?
A few manufacturers are now shipping monitors with the same OS as their smart TVs, so they can stream Netflix and stuff standalone. OP has an LG one, and I know Samsung are also doing it on some of their newer models. Thankfully there's still plenty of dumb monitors on the market for now, including most LGs and Samsungs.
For now, yes. There also used to be plenty of dumb TVs on the market, but not anymore. If there isn't major consumer resistances to this (and let's be honest, most people already accept smart phones and smart TVs and smart cars and smart appliances all with the same shit) then in less than a decate you won't have many options for dumb monitors.
Given how garbage the software quality is on hardware devices, why would I ever want them to be connected to the internet? Ad/privacy or security concerns aside, even companies who should know better have shown they cannot be trusted and will continue to load up irrelevant patches onto a device until it eventually crawls under the increased computational demands. Slowing a previously responsive system.
Well how else would you get security updates for your insecure devices if not by connecting them to the internet. /s
Once you've identified the viewer you can see if they have a license for that they're viewing and report the thoughtcrime if not.
Why does my monitor need to do that? My OS, the Intel Management Engine, my application, the website I'm using, my internet provider, my modem's hardware stack, and the several networked microphones in my home are already doing it.
Consider the case where there's a quiet observer looking at the screen alongside you. The monitor also needs to identify them so that it can ensure that you're not an accessory to thoughtcrime by letting them look at your screen.
Your monitor manufacturer isn't on the list and also wants a piece of that fresh brain meat
Until we could tap into your optical nerve or directly into your brain, the monitor is the closest we could get.
Yes, it's okay to abuse people because others are already might be abusing them.
Your sarcasm detector needs a tune up, especially with three other replies that already read it correctly giving you big hints.
Your comment is very similar to past comments in HN where the user was sadly not being sarcastic (generally people with defeatist attitudes). Please use the widely-accepted sarcasm symbol. Example:
(Insert sarcasm here.) /s
I don't think that really caught on that much. Film studios care about it, but TV manufacturers don't really.
This is for advertising plain and simple (and probably selling user data to some extent). That's direct income for the manufacturers so they care about it a lot.
special offers!
I use my monitor's network connection so devices connected to it via thunderbolt also have ethernet.
But, why doesn't the ethernet just connect to the device directly? Have they really taken so many ports away from us that the only way to connect to ethernet is to daisy chain through a fucking smart monitor?
Single cable docking. You plug your laptop into the monitor via USBC and it charges your laptop, provides it a Ethernet connection and drives the monitor display.
It's neat, but not this dystopian neat.
I'd rather just use a dedicated (dumb) docking station rather than giving yet another device internet access.
Not defending the sickening concept of a “spy” monitor.
But my Dell P2423DE monitor has a USB-C “dock” built into it so that I plug a single cable into my laptop which connects it to 2x 1440p monitors, power, mouse, headset receiver, keyboard and a wired ethernet connection.
Quite frankly, it’s awesomely convenient.
It’s totally legitimate to have a network port on a monitor.
That does not sound to me like a network port on a monitor. That sounds like a monitor / docking station combination.
Yeah, but the Ethernet port is inside the display case and you control it from the display menu.
I've never heard of this. What specific devices, if you don't mind me asking?
I had no idea a Thunderbolt hub could serve as a parallel Ethernet hub, nor that there were devices that could or would want to take advantage of this.
AFAIK, while there is a standard for Ethernet-over-Thunderbolt, typical Thunderbolt docking stations simply expose the underlying Ethernet controller as a PCIe device, typically using a chipset with drivers that are widely available if not preinstalled on all major OSes.
In other words, they not hubs (or switches) in the Ethernet sense, just a different physical connection to an otherwise ordinary PCIe NIC.
I imagine non-Thunderbolt USB docks are similar, presenting as a USB hub with a garden-variety USB Ethernet controller attached to one of its ports.
With that said, I imagine a "smart monitor" with integrated dock would additionally include Ethernet switch-like functionality, to enable sharing of a single physical Ethernet port (or wireless connection) between the connected host and the smart TV subsystem, just as some servers allow sharing of a single Ethernet port between the installed OS and an onboard BMC.
The manufacturer could have added connectivity via mobile baseband and a SIM card, just for the privilege of harvesting your viewing habits and passwords.
I'd love to see a lawsuit regarding them knowingly shipping a monitor with this defect.
When the EULA is blocking the content, the monitor isn't working as advertised. And they willingly shipped it like that.
If this is anything like an LG smart TV — and, as the UI is identical to my C4, I assume it is — none of the agreements are required to use the device as a monitor.
On LG TVs, at least, you can also completely disable the WebOS UI via a command sent through an onboard RS-232 interface, at which point the TV displays no overlays at all.
> via a command sent through an onboard RS-232 interface
Christ
I think the solution to these kinds of issues is a coordinated campaign in small claims courts across the world.
If people decided to take the time to simultaneously take this issue before a judge who will give them a default judgment when a company like LG no-shows it'll start to hurt them and the publicity from this will force change.
I wonder what would happen if Amazon introduced a boycott feature. It could be a list of active boycotts next to the buy button on a product page. Customers can choose to join one of the boycotts instead of clicking the buy button, and then get redirected to a list of alternatives.
It won't ever happen obviously, but I wonder if it would solve these types of problems? Consumers collectively boycotting something is the most powerful way to fight things like this, but I can't think of a successful example of that in recent times. Even "viral" boycotts on social media platforms are likely to get limited reach due to algorithm fuckery. Or is it that nobody but us tech nerds actually cares about stuff like this, and even a blatant in-your-face boycott feature on Amazon wouldn't make a difference?
> I wonder what would happen if Amazon introduced a boycott feature. It could be a list of active boycotts next to the buy button on a product page
A feature that simultaneously discourages sales, encourages retailers to pull products from the platform, and heavily incentivizes abuse from competitors who would benefit from convincing customers to boycott their competitors products? For some reason I don’t imagine Amazon product managers are going to like this idea.
Boycotts are wishful thinking in the modern era of online shopping. The Venn diagram of people who would actively boycott a product like this and the people who would seek it out on Amazon has no overlap. These products are targeted at people who do purchasing for their office or who click the buy button without taking 1 minute to glance at reviews. The people who care enough to actively boycott have already read reviews of a product before they seek it out for purchase.
If Amazon were competing to win customers, they might do something like this to increase trust in the quality of the products on their store. Of course, that's not Amazon. The only significant threats to Amazon today are anti-trust regulators.
I don't think it's competitive, it's suicidal. No rational storefront would ever tell you all the terrible things about the products they stock, no matter how large or small they are. It's insulting to the suppliers and more importantly, stops people from impulse-buying big-ticket products.
You might argue that showing these "boycotts" would stop people from returning these products, but it would also curtail a whole lot of buyers that would consider it "good enough". Amazon deserves their fair shake by the FTC but if you think this is the reason then you've got pretty bizarre expectations.
Agreed, sadly comment OP is in dreamland about why an E-commerce company would ever even consider doing anything to stop people from buying things, regardless of quality or any other external factor.
It takes only a slight mind jump to considering Amazon a marketplace platform like Ebay.
This would be a fantastic chrome extension because Amazon would never do this. It would be great to vote on the reasons why to boycott, allowing the most egregious reasons at the very top.
I'm on the fence regarding a "likely boycott" for Ooni pizza ovens, specifically the Karu 16 dual fuel. There are many videos about defective or improperly installed thermocouples. Ooni has some really helpful FAQ guides for fixing it on your own, but I was amazed at how many videos exist about this problem for an $800 pizza oven.
Hah, like the ad-block extensions you'll be able to download boycott-lists.
But as Basil Fawlty said... don't mention the war!
Amazon is part of the _problem_. What you're really looking for is called a "law", and it's something a government does to make people stop doing things that hurt other people. Laws are then enforced so the bad actors stop doing their harmful stuff.
Not buying alone sounds a pretty powerful boycott thing.
Unluckily, so many care less than nothing, buying whatever is the cheapest and loudest in praising itself with the biggest lies or misdirection. There is a huge and successful market for these kind of customers. Actually it overwhelms the small group of conscious costumers. So manufacturers are making less and less 'honest' products.
I doubt "boycott" thing would work, but "nerd recommendations" as browser addon would actually be useful.
It would probably be possible as a third party extension. See Fakespot extension for instance.
Coming soon to monitors with integrated webcams: please drink verification can to continue working!
Sadly they've only given us Mountain Dew flavored Doritos but not the other way around yet...
Doesn't microsoft have that patented?
I know you guys are joking, but there use to be a Microsoft energy drink, that was only available to employees.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Microsoft+employee+Talking+R...
The blue one actually tasted really good. Was available on campus for several years in nearly every building. :)
I suspect these are just rebadged generic soda cans but there is something oddly dystopian about a company drink.
No, if I remember correctly it was a local beverage company. It wasn't unusual for Microsoft to back local businesses. I remember a very talented Indian software engineer that left Microsoft and purchased 3 "food trucks" and decided to serve food instead, true story. He parked his truck outside building 88 for a few years.
A-ring-a-drink-a-Bing
Actually, it's Sony's patent 8,246,454 which has that "interactive networked video game" feature (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8246454B2/en), and AFAIK there isn't a "drink verification can"-style patent yet.
Not sure if it's this one in question, or even from a real patent at all, but I think this is what GP was referencing; it made the rounds a few years back.
https://i.redd.it/wb7lhfporqj91.png (sorry for reddit pic link, poked around a bit and this was the one I could find)
The verification can version specifically comes from 4chan: https://i.imgur.com/dgGvgKF.png
I just want a somewhat trustworthy group to create a 'dumb' certification.
This is the first time I ever thought we need an open source monitor hardware
Unfortunately, DisplayPort and HDMI specifications are kept private unless you're a paying member. I've successfully implemented DisplayPort 1.2 in an FPGA from specification documents I found, but I could never find the specification for anything better.
Do you have anything online documenting how you did this? That’s actually really cool
I thought only HDMI is problematic, and DP is quite open?
My understanding is that display-port is quite open in that there is no per-device fee for implementing it, I suspect you still have to be a vesa "member" to get a legit copy of the spec.
Honestly at this point I consider VESA one of the good guys. At least compared to the alternative, spits, HDMI
I thought that when I found out about MonitorDarkly, a remote code execution exploit for the Dell 2410U monitor firmware.
https://github.com/RedBalloonShenanigans/MonitorDarkly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32634467#32635631 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA4_POi9rsg https://web.archive.org/web/20160809063532/https://www.redba... https://web.archive.org/web/20160809062931/https://www.redba...
I have started preparing myself mentally for a future where I give up on most of modern technology in the home and just go back to paper books/vinyls/etc.
Same. My newest computer is from 2015... That said, at least one vendor is making computers I'm willing to purchase: https://www.crowdsupply.com/mnt/mnt-reform-next
What about Framework?
Ehh, Framework isn't open-source hardware and its repairability is reliant on a single vendor. A nice step in the right direction, but MNT is the only company making computers that meet the bar for true "anyone can make their own" open source hardware (and certified[0] by the Open Source Hardware Association). This means MNT could go under, and anyone can still make/repair the entire machine. Not the case for Framework. If they close up shop, their hardware just lost its repairability. Their tagline "you can use them for as long as you'd like" has a big caveat - "as long as Framework parts are being manufactured". MNT doesn't have this limitation. The actual schematics are open source. Heck, even if individual components in the BOM stop shipping, compatible hardware can be made by the community because the entire computer is "known" and not encumbered by NDAs and whatnot. New PCB revisions can be made by whomever has the skill to do so. Too cool :D
[0] https://certification.oshwa.org/de000017.html
that's amazing, I'll look them up! I hadn't realised they were that open, I assumed everybody was repairable like framework (i.e. pray they don't go under).
I know, right? The prior fully-OSHW computer I knew of was Novena but that was quite a while ago https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/novena Great quote from Bunnie still true today: "if you can't hack it, you don't own it" :)
I guess it could become so difficult that it could be easier to RE the hardware and remove all the spying stuff
I feel like we need open source hardware cellphones too, and everything else.
How do you feel about the PinePhone? There even the LTE modem runs FOSS Linux (on one of the two processors in the modem).
https://github.com/the-modem-distro
I have PinePhone. It's not really usable. Battery life is atrocious. Just overall meh. I wish I could use it.
Need? Absolutely.
How good will it be? Hopefully better than the OpenMoko Freerunner I once had - good idea, worst execution ever. Wouldn’t even work half decently as a phone, not to mention any other aspects of it…
Fair point
The multi-second startup times that many modern monitors have wasn't enough?
We updated security policy at our company to prohibit use of monitors that aren’t specifically authorized.
One of our customers detected a risk in an audit - it hadn’t occurred to anyone. Now we log display connections and customer facing folks can be terminated for violating the rules.
Related: my mac bugs the hell out of me to accept new cloud Eula junk after os upgrade ... it's constantly popping up every 5 mins or so and can interrupt shutdown. Out stubbornness I've ignored for 6months running.
My TV did this. The worst part was that it disappeared so quickly I didn't have time to get the remote and acknowledge it. There did not appear to be any way in the settings to go and handle it manually. I just had to wait and get lucky.
New video game idea: In the 21st century, with increases in computational and networking power it is now inevitable that any device with a screen attached can be reconfigured to show ads. You fulfill this inevitability by hooking up your portable advertisement control computer to every car infotainment system, smartwatch, and Adafruit 16x16 RGB LED matrix in sight. Bonus points (your salary) for stealth interstitial insertion.
Player controls a character that runs around putting ads on every screen and empty surface, gameplay is periodically interrupted by satirical EULA updates.
Many of the responses to the post on X don't seem to realize that the _monitor_ is putting up this message, and they're blaming "windows"
I don’t know why everyone here thinks it is unconscionable for a hardware vendor to block user access to content with a pop up, when this is standard practice in the entire software industry.[1][2]
I’ve had Microsoft Teams interrupt my presentation to a CEO to force me to click through some stupid dialog that a self-important developer put in there at the direction of an an even more self-absorbed manager.
“STOP TALKING NOW! You are nothing! Only our imagined legal risks matter! Click here to accept. DO THIS NOW.”
It didn’t exactly say that, but it may as well have. That was the meaning.
[1] https://how-i-experience-web-today.com/
[2] Command line tools used in unattended workflows will hang, waiting for EULA acceptance from a human who isn’t there: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5151034/psexec-gets-stuc...
Any TV that doesn't have your WiFi password is a dumb TV. No TV I've owned to dated has required network connectivity to work.
Nah, it can still connect through the smart TV of the neighbours.
They probably have cross-brand agreements in place to let any "offline" device access advertisement networks. Your data is a very profitable business for them.
Yeah this is something I feel like doesn't get talked about enough. I have a raspberry PI that acts as my streaming device connected to my Samsung "Smart" TV and since Samsung can't get on the WIFI it's effectively just a display terminal.
I am outraged by the lack of outrage over this enshittified dystopia. I would like to think myself better than that but things have really escalated to a point I really wish death and illness upon the advertiser leeches that started and continuously fueled the enshittification train till the point that we're at now.
DRINK VERIFICATION CAN
For those as out of the loop as myself, apparently a 12 year old 4chan greentext meme:
<https://imgur.com/please-drink-verification-can-dgGvgKF>
mountain dew is for me and you
in a life-imitates-art twist, Xbox did in fact release an Xbox minifridge that was mountain dew colors many years after this greentext
https://media.snopes.com/2023/01/sony-fig-9.png
If only we had some mechanism to force companies to stop doing things like this, instead of trying to invent economic dead-ends like Lego-style monitor assembly kits or Amazon-flavored voting systems.
Interestingly, the wording of this title painted a VERY different image in my head. Consider the difference between these two:
1. "Love being interrupted..."
2. "I love being interrupted..."
I don't get how we have the most connected technology that ever existed, but we dont have proper tools to stick it to these terrible practices?
Obviously , en-masse we need to be buying these things, opening them, losing the manuals and packaging, and returning them explaining very clearly how there is unwanted shit in the firmware that was not made clear upfront before purchase.
Each of us doing it over and over at every store we have access to.
This is one from a line of LG monitors that state they come with webOS
https://www.lg.com/us/smart-monitors
https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32sq730s-w-smart-monitor
Wow the Q&A's answers seem AI generated... Everything about these 'smart' monitors feels quite 'fabricated' to me. I feel next time I shop for a monitor I will skip LG.
A particularly annoying aspect of monitor makers blurring the distinction between monitors and TVs that I hit with my Samsung S9 5K is that my Samsung TV remote can turn the monitor on/off and the monitor remote can turn the TV on/off.
Did it not occur to Samsung that people might have their computer in the same room as their television?
I don't know, I am still processing the 'remote for a monitor' idea. Sounds like the 'remote for a car stereo' kind of thing. Is this for people with short arms perhaps?
The remote actually makes some sense. It has a button/joystick-thingy control on the back than can bring up a settings menu and navigate it but it is a pain to reach. Leaning forward enough to reach under to it brings my face too close.
Edge controls would be easier to reach. Side edge controls can be a problem because people often want to have things right beside their monitor, such as another monitor. Bottom edge might be reasonable.
For people with bigger monitors than mine (mine is 27") their arms might actually be too short to reach bottom edge buttons comfortably, assuming they sit farther back from the screen than I do from mine.
Anyway, the remote can be faster than buttons would be because it allows for voice commands. If I want to set the brightness to say 6 I just pick up the remote, hold down the mic button, and say "brightness 6". That's faster than navigating to the picture settings menu and adjusting the brightness there.
I think I saw a CRT with a little credit-card remote to make geometry changes.
There used to be desks where the monitor was sunk in somewhat in and maybe the knobs were unreachable.
Ah, the classic corner desk, the only way to not have your head permanently fixed to left/right side.
Please follow a simple rule: Don't buy a device that has the word "smart" in its name or description.
In Soviet Russia, monitor monitors YOU.
Bwah hah hah!
Have your pet accept the EULA :)
A lot of vehicles also show this on the nav screen every time you start the car, and many websites also display similar popups when you visit. It's a disgusting practice but it certainly isn't new.
BTW if you want a TV that doesn't have any of these smart features you can get one of those commercial displays used in malls, train stations, and such. They're expensive though.
I would love to create a simple, searchable directory of consumer appliances, software and services that list all the ways you are _objectively_ fucked over as a consumer (I.e. whether something sells your data, requires always-on internet connectivity, requires additional subscriptions to unlock full functionality, etc..)
Are monitors so unprofitable you need to add this like of garbage onto it?
To those here who suggest buying a typical 'smart' TV and disconnecting it from the internet, there are a few issues. As some have pointed out, TV manufacturers will catch up with this and eventually make it harder. Embedded 5G, voiding warranty if you don't accept ads, etc.
Buying 'smart' TVs also sends a signal to the manufacturers that this is what people want (as some here have suggested). It perpetuates the delusion that ad-ridden TVs are acceptable. Vote with your wallet and buy something else.
It's also somewhat profligate to buy hardware and deliberately disable it (although I entirely understand the motivation and hacker ethos). That hardware represents sunk resources. Buying it to ignore it leaves a bad taste for me. Electronics manufacturers are ecological bad news, in general. I'd rather not contribute to unnecessary manufacturing if I can avoid it.
Regarding quality of image, I kinda suspect that the necessity for ultra-high def TV has been over-sold. Sure, for gaming, home cinema, etc it might be a real concern for some. For me, I've got a genuinely dumb TV and nobody has ever commented on the image quality for TV or movies or gaming (Switch). But maybe this is one area where the visual equivalent of audiophiles will never be dissuaded :)
> Vote with your wallet and buy something else.
Which unfortunately means not buying a high end TV at all because there are none without "smart features".
> Regarding quality of image, I kinda suspect that the necessity for ultra-high def TV has been over-sold. Sure, for gaming, home cinema, etc it might be a real concern for some. For me, I've got a genuinely dumb TV and nobody has ever commented on the image quality for TV or movies or gaming (Switch).
Most likely people are just being polite - kind of a dick move for a guest to diss your TV.
> But maybe this is one area where the visual equivalent of audiophiles will never be dissuaded :)
Size, resolution (up to 4K at least), true blacks from emissive display technologies and real HDR are all things immediately noticeable to the average user. Color space and bit depth are also very real improvements. This is very far from audiophile territory.
If it gets bad enough Apple will sell monitors at this price point.
I knew most Smart TVs do these shenanigans, but computer monitors?
Related: my mac bugs the hell out of me to accept new cloud Eula junk after os upgrade ... it's constantly popping up every 5 mins or so and can interrupt shutdown. Out stubbornness I've ignored for 6 months running.
What keyboard is that and where do I get one?
Topre Realforce R2, but that colorway was a limited edition and it's already gone.
https://mechanicalkeyboards.com/products/topre-realforce-r2-...
Nice, I've got the same (default colorway)! Such a good keyboard! I built/bought many keyboards and finally got tired of the search and decided to finally try the fabled Topre... so good <3
I thought it was going to be some ‘90’s thing with a janky rewiring.
That’s neat.
HN will really say anything except "We should regulate common-sense bad behavior" huh?
Better get a firewall for you monitor. Maybe a usb-c plug that filters non visual traffic? /s
A prepaid cellular modem is installed to transmit essential telemetry.
The idea of TVs doing this smells of urban legend to me, but a friend bought a new car recently, and he can connect to it from his phone (obviously over the cloud), he was wondering how it works because he didn't have to subscribe to anyhing, but yeah it has cellular connectivity paid for by the car manufacturer...
It's required for use in vehicles, at least in the US. Tracking cars and even remotely disabling them is important for safety reasons. But it is suspicious.
This would be a great thing to hack to get free internets. =D
Those SIMs usually have very limited bandwidth packages.
Great, make sure you max out that bandwidth with random garbage (preferably to the same endpoints that the telemetry goes to) to prevent your owned devices from exfiltrating your life.
So is this Recall by Microsoft, without having to use Windows? Great!
/s
Did they really get interrupted or did they willingly click into 'Settings' and select 'Reset AD ID'?
Why would a device, monitor or TV or refrigerator, randomly reset it's AD ID?
I believe this is just your stock standard X (formerly known as Twitter) ragebait post.
Congratulations, you fell for it.
It's a shame ragebait is now popping up on this site.
The title text is from the quoted tweet, not the one that's directly linked.
https://twitter.com/snwy_me/status/1847389300687860062
I don't think the "interrupt" part of this is what I find concerning.
apologies for the confusion, i could have linked the first tweet but the further exploration was also interesting
I wonder if they bought these on purpose, or if the monitors were provided by their employer. That looks like an office.
It's hard to sympathize with someone buying one of these in 2024 and then being outraged that it wants to do ad tracking. 'Smart' monitors are so easy to avoid right now, they are all clearly marketed as such and it's still the case that premium 'dumb' monitors are available in every category.