Slashdot Mirror


Samsung TV Owners Furious After Software Update Leaves Sets Unusable (theguardian.com)

Thousands of owners of high-end Samsung TVs have complained after a software update left their recently acquired $1,800 sets with blank, unusable screens. From a report: The Guardian has been contacted by a number of owners complaining that the TVs they bought -- in some cases just two weeks ago -- have been rendered useless by an upgrade sent out by Samsung a week ago. Others have been posting furious messages on the company's community boards complaining that their new TVs are no longer working. The company has told customers it is working to fix the problem but so far, seven days on, nothing has been forthcoming. The problem appears to affect the latest models as owners of older Samsung TVs are not reporting the issue. The report doesn't identify the models that have been affected. But we scanned the forums and found that at least UE49MU7070, UE49MU7070TXXU, and MU6409 models are affected.

346 comments

  1. "Smart" TVs are stupid. by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even when they are working correctly.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, and unambiguously so.

      Personally, if for some reason I was forced to have a "smart" TV, I would be very certain to make sure it never gets connected to the internet.

      There's also another relatively recent trend that plays into this: the idea that updates are always good and should be applied automatically. It was never the case that this was a safe practice. Updates need to be carefully evaluated before applying them.

    2. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not when you see the profit they generate from spying on their customers. On the way to the bank, chances are near 100% you hear nothing but laughter.

    3. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      One problem with this is that a number of them refuse to let you "set up for the first time" without being given a network connection. And the fact that you can't ever undo an update is what makes it so dangerous to apply them, with a computer you have the option to reinstall, not so with a TV.

    4. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      I bet you used to own a combo TV/VCR. Saved an input...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My TV has youtube support.

      Oh wait, it doesn't anymore because youtube deccided to block the api and my tv didn't get an update for it. At least I got a free chromecast as compensation.

      You're putting yourself at the mercy of third parties with your tv. If hulu and pandora decide to change their api and your manufacturer doesn't push an update, because it's more then a year old, then I'll see you back crying about how unfair it is.

    6. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      I did. 13" *with color*. It was my combined birthday and Christmas present that year, as it was the only thing I asked for. I could finally tell which ones were different colors in the original final fantasy (this was the mid 90's).

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    7. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by peragrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I own a Samsung smart tv. At first I connected via wifi but then wanted a faster more reliable connection in my apartment sometimes ran a cable and switched to Ethernet. I realized that I wasn't using the smart tv functions so I ditched the Ethernet cable.

      Wifi off Ethernet unplugged no big deal. Except I noticed random connections from an unknown MAC address to my wifi router during a router upgrade. So I watched it. It would connect for a day and then disconnect for weeks. I got curious and enables wifi on my tv again and guess the MAC address that was used. So even in it's wifi off but tv on state it would attempt to connect to wifi.

      That's when I banned the MAC address on the router. No misc packets for you sneaky tv.

      Personally I prefer using a roku and hardwiring it to the router. Easy to disconnect, faster speeds for streaming.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

      with a computer you have the option to reinstall, not so with a TV

      It sounds like these people don't know how to do computers right then, because their TVs are computers. From a hardware perspective, aren't they basically just low-end iMacs (with worse mobos but better screens)? They simply fucked up the software.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    9. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      I agree. I fell for it. I bought at Samsung smart TV in 2013. Now all of the apps are being removed remotely because the creators don't want to support the old hardware anymore.

      It's not better than having a separate box, it's worse!

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    10. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Which died first, the VCR or the TV? Did you learn anything from the experience?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're putting yourself at the mercy of third parties with your tv. If hulu and pandora decide to change their api and your manufacturer doesn't push an update, because it's more then a year old, then I'll see you back crying about how unfair it is.

      Yep, I just had to replace my otherwise fully functional BD player, because Hulu had changed their API, and Sony no longer provided updates for this model.
      The really sucky thing is that a new shiny 4k BD player lacks a lot of functionality that the cheaper old one had, like analog audio/video out, storing authentication on USB (so when re-playing an already played BD, there's no delay while it contacts the mothership) and an information display. Heck, they've even skimped on the power cable, which can no longer be disconnected/replaced. And I'm sure that after 2 years, firmware/software updates will cease. Consumerism and planned obsolescence at its worst.

    12. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the saving a port thing flies with any recent TVs.

      Just how many HDMI ports do you need? Cable/Satellite, DVD/BD, and Roku/Chromecast/Amazon Stick/AppleTV, and...? I haven't seen a TV in a long while with fewer than three HDMI ports, with an additional DVI if you need it, and a suite of analog (Component, VGA, and RCA) ports.

      And that's assuming you use the TV's audio. If you have a modern receiver, you'll probably plug everything into the receiver instead, which usually has far more than three HDMI ports.

      At best, if you're going to get a smart TV, at least get one with neutral third party firmware like Roku, so you're not at the mercy of content providers who'd rather not produce eleventeen different apps for just as many platforms.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and they keep getting more money as people buy more equipment to replace the inconvenienced (short order planned obsolescence IMO) prior equipment.

    14. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      For my last TV, the "Smart" TVs were priced far cheaper for the same quality/features than any dumb monitor I could find when on sale. I bought the "Smart" TV, and tried using it. Blew me away that in 2017 when I can pinch zoom, swipe words, etc., that I was stuck arrowing around with a remote to type anything in any of the apps. What the hell? "Smart"?
       
      And once I realized that my TV was also going to start trying to show me ads while using some of the apps, it got disconnected and I picked up a cheap mini-comp with HDMI for the brains instead. Wireless keyboard and mouse, and boom, Ubuntu runs everything I need it to, WINE picks up some slack, and it's all way faster, with less ads, and I don't run the risk of this BS where an update I can't control kills it off.
       
      You may find it harder and harder to find a dumb TV as time goes on. As long as I can isolate it from the internet I'm not going to be too picky, unless I can find a dumb TV for cheaper.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    15. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So what happens if that smart tv has built in wifi, and connects to some neighbour's unprotected open access hotspot?

    16. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by hackwrench · · Score: 2

      And now you got to check to see if your router isn't lying to you and letting the TV on anyway. They like each other better than they like you for ruining their fun. You are dooming them to living death by not letting them serve you as intended.

    17. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      My mom has a VCR/TV that is still kicking and we stored that thing for awhile in a musty old basement. Just clean it and it will be fine. We've always gotten rid of technology before it failed because it was obsolete and taking up space.

    18. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by SnarkSide · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are stupid by design. The typical Samsung TV pushes updates without any option to decline. It just puts up a notice about the upgrade with an "OK" button. No ignore, cancel, or decline, no close, just "OK". I don't think they understand what consent is supposed to mean. Consent is not actual consent if there is no other available option. Samsung, I'd like your product team to eat broken glass, "OK".

    19. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had bought a 4k TV for an upgrade to a 720p monitor connected to an HTPC also connected to a legacy Dolby Digital audio receiver. After upgrading the HTPC to Windows 10, I discovered windows 10 does not support Dolby Digital output in favor of DTS. Although there's a handful of programs still able to output Dolby Digital (VLC for example), most browser based playback (Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon Prime) will only output stereo audio with my setup. I ended up using the smart TV (Samsung) just when watching movies/TV shows when necessary. I don't imagine many are in my situation, but wanted to give a counter example where the smart TV outperformed my HTPC.

    20. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Karlt1 · · Score: 2

      In theory I agree and I told myself I would never buy a smart TV. But, I found the TCL Roku TV to enticing to pass up. I trust Roku to make good software much more than I trust most TV manufacturers.

    21. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by ctilsie242 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's when it gets returned. Not working because it isn't given a connection to slurp from, is just the same as not working due to a manufacturing defect.

    22. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      users are stupid...tvs are just boxes

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    23. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by ctilsie242 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I had to have a smart TV, probably the best matter of course would be having it have its own SSID and VLAN, with a connection going through a VPN so geolocation registers some other place, and so it can't find anything useful on the LAN it sits on.

      Ironic that modern IoT devices have to be treated as hostile network entities in order to have decent security.

    24. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Wasn't my experience with VCRs. They were built for _shit_ for the last 10+ years they existed.

      Many compo units had one AV input, some had _none_.

      An example of a unit bought the week before everybody abandoned tapes is an edge case.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with a computer you have the option to reinstall, not so with a TV.

      Not quite true. The new TVs *are* a computer. You just need to know how to be able to reset them. It probably involves either an Ex-link port, TFTP or a USB stick. You can't expect most people to know how to do that though.

    26. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Depends on the TV.

      Downstairs, 2 is enough. It's a dumb TV and I run a Roku stick and a Raspberry Pi to it.

      Upstairs, I have an Xbox One, PS4, and a Switch. If not for the fact that it was a smart TV I'd have to remove a device or use one of the consoles for Netflix/Youtube/etc (which wouldn't be the end of the world but small devices like a Roku or a player built into the TV are way more power efficient).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    27. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's cool is the crap some older Vizio smart TV's pull. If you allow outbound DNS and NTP but block everything else (so that your TV clock works but it otherwise can't connect anywhere) then the TV assumes you have a full internet connection and proceeds to try to initiate contact with relevant servers. You'd expect this to fail since (since you are blocking these packets) and for it to periodically try again on some reasonable schedule.

      Only Vizio in their infinite wisdom decided the appropriate retry was to DNS lookup again and if it passes then to immediately try connecting. The result is around 200 packets per second from the TV constantly the entire time its on as it rapid fire retries connections infinitely.

      So if I can't buy Vizio anymore and now Samsung is out then WTF do I buy if I want a quality TV?

    28. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      There's also another relatively recent trend that plays into this: the idea that updates are always good and should be applied automatically. It was never the case that this was a safe practice. Updates need to be carefully evaluated before applying them.

      The problem is most people don't have the time/inclination/skill to evaluate updates. So the realistic possibilities for most end user devices are either updates get applied automatically or updates never get applied.

      The former leads to stuff breaking from time to time, the latter leads to unpatched vulnerabilities, incompatibility with updated versions of online services etc.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    29. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by omnichad · · Score: 2

      You could just disable networking and not have your clock set. What do you need it for anyway?

    30. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also own a Samsung smart TV. About 2 years ago it auto-deleted the Amazon video app. Never got it back. Had to download it again and then it was no longer tied to the Amazon button on the remote. You have to run it from the general app menu.
      http://cordcuttersnews.com/samsung-tvs-are-auto-deleting-the-amazon-instant-app/

    31. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did it comply with this RFC?

      https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt

    32. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Missed opportunity to just buy a new Roku and not have to replace everything when just one component needs updated.

    33. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      They simply fucked up the software.

      Indeed. There are multiple levels of failure here. Obviously they failed to properly test the update on all their models. But they also failed to have a simple and easy "roll-back" to the previous version. There is no excuse for leaving their customers with no working TV for a week. For $1 they can include an extra 5GB of flash, so there is no reason to delete the old version until the new version is installed and working for a while.

    34. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by steveo777 · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing that all you did was deactivate the TV's wifi, or did you delete the wifi information and it still connected? That would be be pretty damned shady...

      I'd have filtered the MAC as well. HELLS no... But even then it's possible it's looking for open APs. :/

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    35. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Soon, they'll probably have built-in 3G modems like cars have now so the mfr can eavesdrop without even touching your LAN

    36. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by steveo777 · · Score: 2

      Can you even buy a new TV that isn't "Smart"? Five years ago I bought my LED TV and to get to the range of features I wanted there weren't any dumb TVs. They all had some kind of networking involved.

      We did use the apps a few times, but as soon as my game systems had the same features I unplugged the ethernet cable.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    37. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure they did learn something, but care to enlighten us as to what you think they should have learned? Or are you only able to speak cryptically?

    38. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Yes, precisely this.

    39. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That will be a cool way for poor people to get a 'free' 3G connection on their phones.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    40. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Sounds like my LG "smart" TV from 2012. I disconnected it from the network after seeing multiple updates which served only to remove old services like Amazon.

      It works just fine as a dumb flat panel connected to a third-gen Apple TV. If I want to update my "smart" services, I can just buy a newer Apple TV or a Roku box - that's a lot less expensive than a new television.

      These TV manufacturers apparently want us to "upgrade" our boxes ever two or three years, which is ridiculous - and wasteful.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    41. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      What's bizarre is that these devices are all running 'stock' software from the factory. If they test the update at all, it ought to work the same on all of them, no?

      Then again, you're always hearing about how some iOS or Android update is causing problems for owners of some specific model of phone. Again, if these things are all on stock, shouldn't the update work on all of them? Maybe for phones it's a matter of various bits of their hardware or firmware only getting exercised if you're on a particular carrier in a particular location - or if you have a particular bluetooth device connected. TV's should be much easier...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    42. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Missed opportunity to just buy a new Roku and not have to replace everything when just one component needs updated.

      And have to deal with another remote, extra cabling, and switching back and forth between devices on the receiver? And have Yet Another Device that needs an account and phones home?

    43. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, I just had to replace my otherwise fully functional BD player, because Hulu had changed their API, and Sony no longer provided updates for this model.
      The really sucky thing is that a new shiny 4k BD player lacks a lot of functionality that the cheaper old one had, like analog audio/video out, storing authentication on USB (so when re-playing an already played BD, there's no delay while it contacts the mothership) and an information display.

      This is precisely why it's better to just not have a Blu-Ray player, not buy BD discs, and just download stuff on BitTorrent...

    44. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I had no idea smart TVs were so dangerous! One app stops being supported, and the entire thing becomes useless. You can't even use it as a dumb TV!

    45. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Yup. I bought a Samsung Smart TV shortly after my divorce left me without pretty much anything, a little 24" model. Got it (and used the smart feature) specifically for netflix, effectively as an integrated STB. Based on the *forced* updates, just how long they took, the annoying habit to change UI layout for no good reason, and that it would prevent you from using the TV at all while they were running, I disabled its network connection. Switched to a chromecast and never looked back.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    46. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by mhkohne · · Score: 1

      Yup. I've got one (it was the best in my price range for other features), and the 'smart' bits have never worked correctly - the thing takes 2-3 minutes to figure out it's internet connection when it starts up (judging by the internet, this is 'normal' for this model). Even if I WANTED to use the smart features, it's incomparably shitty at it. Had I bought it for the smart features, I'm pretty sure it would have ended back at the store it came from, if not shoved up the ass of the person who sold it to me.

      As it is, it's disconnected from the internet and serving it's primary function as a front to the DVR and XBox.

      --
      A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
    47. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be "Yet Another Device" if you don't use online services on the BD player.

      I already have a cheap learning universal remote and I'm not too lazy to change inputs. That's solved easily. Extra cabling means maybe a 3-ft HDMI cord and currently a power brick because MHL doesn't yet provide enough power for full-size STB's. The benefits way outweigh the small extra trouble.

      Yes, I currently use Ethernet on my Roku - but hopefully that will be solved someday with HDMI 1.4

    48. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      I didn't trust my Vizio not to connect itself to Wi-Fi without my asking, and it didn't provide a way to flat-out delete Wi-Fi networks. So I temporarily created a randomly-named guest network, connected my Vizio to that one, disabled Wi-Fi on the TV, then deleted that guest network. Now the TV has nothing to connect to even if it wanted to.

      I mean, I know I'm missing out on its shitty, ancient, unmaintained versions of the Netflix and Hulu apps, but I think i'll manage.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    49. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which begs the question, why would you want a smart TV which has the smart features disabled? If you're not going to use it to connect to Netflix or Amazon or Hulu, a stupid big screen without those features is good enough and probably cheaper.

      Lots of the smart TVs won't let you use them until you register them directly with their manufacturer over the internet. If it's not connected to the internet, then at best it's a flatscreen or it won't break out of the 'register_product()' function. In would go straight back to the store if that's the case. These people who bought the thing 2 weeks ago are well within their rights to pack it all up and take it back to the store for a full refund by refusing acceptance of the sale (that's the legal language to use). If they won't take it back, charge back the credit card used to buy the thing.

    50. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zealous Autoconfig
      https://xkcd.com/416/

    51. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% in the Mark. Ditto here. I set the gateway to a bogus address and stream local content as well as attach hard drives and flash drives to mine. Would not live with out my smart TV, But I would never use the apps.

    52. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by AK9oh7 · · Score: 1

      I use quite a few HDMI ports. There's the BD player, Xbox, Chromecast, Fire TV, RPi, speakers, and PC for the Oculus.

    53. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      This is precisely why it's better to just not have a Blu-Ray player, not buy BD discs, and just download stuff on BitTorrent...

      Welcome to the new world of metered internet without competition, where 40GB downloads can become quite costly.

    54. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by HiThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And to evaluate properly you need a test system that you can expose to the update. When you only have one system, that doesn't work so well.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    55. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      What's bizarre is that these devices are all running 'stock' software from the factory. If they test the update at all, it ought to work the same on all of them, no?

      No. Even if every model ships with the same software out of the factory, there are hardware differences between models (that the stock software is accounting for).

      If you update that software, it is important to test it with all of the hardware variations that you are intending to support. What software the device shipped with is only a minor factor in this.

    56. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This happened with my CostCo Samsung BluRay player. The Netflix app doesn't connect to the servers any more and there's no update for it. Apparently CostCo is selling a bargain basement player that many years old. The player works fine on commercial disks but anything I burn it says is pirated and won't play it. Same with videos on thumb drives.

      I don't have this problem with my Roku 2 and thumb drives. It will play videos from the external drive just fine. And I still can do Netflix on it, so the player is around for playing Netflix disks and stuff I buy on Amazon.

    57. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be "Yet Another Device" if you don't use online services on the BD player.

      Well, yes, it would be, because I also use the BD player for playing BDs and SACDs.

    58. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The problem is most people don't have the time/inclination/skill to evaluate updates.

      Yes, but those people should do what used to be common practice: when an update rolls around, don't apply it for a few weeks and keep an eye on the internet to see if people start reporting a problem. If not, then go ahead.

      It's not perfect, but better than blindly accepting every update as it rolls out.

    59. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It doesn't need an account for that.

    60. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      What made it enticing? You can have your Roku without having a smart TV -- and regardless of how awesome Roku's code may be, that doesn't mean your TV will continue to support it over time.

    61. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing happened to me. Originally I used my BD player to play Netflix. But after many years and no updates the UI was starting to show limitations. For example, it would never list more than 99 episode of a TV show. For long running shows that would mean I could only play the last several seasons and some random episodes. Checking with Netflix app on my phone, I could see more than 99 episodes available to stream. Since it didn't get updates in years, I gave up that it would ever be updated so I got a streaming appliance.

    62. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I'll never buy a smart TV again. I'll switch between Apple TV, chromecast, kodi or rokku depending how who is providing the best experence.

    63. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My last two TVs were "smart" 4K TVs. (Couldnt help myself... I'm a PC gaming graphics whore.)

      Both TVs (Sharp and Samsung) performed updates that reduced input lag and did not break anything (no my knowledge).

      So there's that.

    64. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I do with my iPhone. I poke around online, and if I see a bunch of, "Nooo! My ph0ne is borked!!!one!" posts, then I wait to upgrade.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    65. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by mikael · · Score: 1

      Smart-TV's are basically giant smartphones. Same CPU's (ARM quad-core) but with Samsung Tizen OS (Before 2015, it was something called Orsay).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    66. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by mikael · · Score: 1

      They are constantly upgrading the hardware and device drivers. Within the embedded market with SoC's, every company sells the "intellectual property" for the chip logic (VHDL source files), along with C++/C/assembler device driver source code, all tested and verified to work together. These are constantly being upgraded every few months depending on the contract. Maybe they find performance enhnacements for the hardware or device driver and that upsets something elsewhere; timing, mutex, bootup sequence.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    67. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you need to let it use NTP? Don't you get the time from the TV signal?

    68. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And this is why manufacturers love the "smart" stuff. Used to be they had to build obsolescence in by using marginally rated components, so many devices lived on long past when the maker wanted them to die. Now they can just stop providing updates at a pre-defined date and let API changes take care of turning your shiny thing into a lump of uselessness.

    69. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      They simply fucked up the software.

      But they also failed to have a simple and easy "roll-back" to the previous version.

      It's a bit hard for the owner or Samsung to roll back if the TV is bricked. If Samsung can connect to the set, maybe they can fix it but for the owner if the screen is black, it could be tough.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    70. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Evaluating whether an update bricks a TV or not is the job for the MANUFACTURER, not the user.

    71. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Hasn't happened yet, at least in my locality. But I admit it is a danger.

      However, I'll also point out that 1) you can always get internet service elsewhere (e.g. free WiFi in shops), and 2) you don't need to download 40GB: a decent x265-encoded version of a movie can be as small as 1-3GB (in 1080p resolution). Even the super-high-quality rips are maybe 8GB or so, though I seriously doubt anyone can really tell the difference without very careful examination. The really big ones are x264, which is old and should not be used any more since x265 is so much better.

    72. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by msauve · · Score: 1

      ITYM "idiot boxes."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    73. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by msauve · · Score: 1

      But, you can't pause and rewind live TV with just a Roku box. You can't even receive live TV with a stand-alone Roku. They've done a pretty decent job of maintaining support for older boxes, as long as they have enough performance to support the newer apps.

      I got a couple of Roku TVs for bedrooms - there's an app from my cable provider which streams all the channels I pay for, so I don't need to rent a STB for each of them. That alone will pay for them in 2 years (<$150 each). Plus, there's an app which does DLNA so I can stream content from my own server.

      Roku's model with the TV seems to be to sell a reference design and let others make the hardware to that spec, then they take care of the code just like on their own boxes. They may even get a bit of a license fee, but I suspect not. They're building a revenue stream on services - taking a cut when they bill for a "channel," some relatively unobtrusive advertising, etc. They sure don't make a lot on hardware when selling their own $30 sticks.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    74. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

      Evaluating whether an update bricks a TV or not is the job for the MANUFACTURER, not the user.

      Why pay real money for in house QA group when you can have paying customers do it for free?

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    75. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which begs the question, why would you want a smart TV which has the smart features disabled? If you're not going to use it to connect to Netflix or Amazon or Hulu, a stupid big screen without those features is good enough and probably cheaper.

      You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. I suspect a number of factors at play making this so: the hardware for "smart" features is fairly cheap anyway, "smart" TVs make up the majority of manufacturing so economies of scale are greater, companies are hungry for privacy-invading usage data.

    76. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing with any third party box. My "smart" TV is new enough that all streaming services work, and it's the only way for me to get 4K content since I don't have any 4K-capable external boxes. My attitude is I'll use the TV for those functions until it finally gets left behind. At that time, I can just buy the latest Roku or whatever and move on. Makes no sense to do so now.

      I also have automatic updates disabled. Hopefully it actually honors that setting (so far it does, but I wouldn't put it past them to have a hidden "mandatory" update capability that forces an update regardless of setting). The only time I updated the firmware was when HBO Now finally came out for my model and it required a newer TV OS.

    77. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they test the update at all, it ought to work the same on all of them, no?

      Hell, no. Even within the exact same model a production run is constantly changing as "cost accountants" source components from different suppliers based on price. In theory they're only supposed to use compatible components, but practice inevitably proves this wrong again and again.

      The exact same problem occurs in car manufacturing as well. On top of that component suppliers (e.g.: ZF) are constantly tweaking their products while supplying them to OEMs with the exact same SKUs.

    78. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      It's the integration. One remote to control everything whether it is the physical remote or the mobile app. The mobile app can turn the tv off and control the volume.

    79. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't own a Blu-Ray player, but I buy plenty of BD discs. They get loaded into the computer using MakeMKV and then into Plex. Downloading stuff you didn't pay for is immoral, but I don't have a problem with doing so (skipping the MakeMKV step) if you legitimately own a copy of equivalent or better quality.

    80. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 2015 Samsung TV has a setting to disable automatic updates. So far it appears to honor that. You may be right that if auto updates are already on, there's no way to decline once the process has been initiated. But go look in your system settings and see if you can turn it off altogether.

    81. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      But, you can't pause and rewind live TV with just a Roku box. You can't even receive live TV with a stand-alone Roku.

      I hardly ever watch "live" tv. I watch almost everything on demand. We can get live TV via Sling, the FX app, and CBS Now. But the inability for a standalone Roku to get live over the air TV is even more of a reason to get a Roku TV. You can connect an antenna to it and see a preview of what's on OTA (as well as the other HDMI inputs via the Roku app selection screen.

      As far as discontinuing updating it, worse case is that you have to buy a Roku stick and connect it to an HDMI port. But even when they discontinue support, the old apps still work. My old 2011 Roku boxes still work with all of the streaming apps I use except for Sling.

    82. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      It's the integration. One remote to control everything whether it is the physical remote or the mobile app. The mobile app can turn the tv off and control the volume.

      My entertainment system meets those requirements. I can do all of those things with a physical remote, with a mobile app, or even through a web browser. Not a smart TV in sight.

      I'll admit, I pieced my system together myself -- it wasn't a single thing that you can just run out and buy. But what I've gained is that I have all the features of a smart TV (and more), I can replace individual components if they break without having to replace the entire thing, I'm not reliant on any outside services (I can use them if I choose, but nobody can accidentally brick anything or force updates on me), and the whole thing cost about half of what smart TVs go for.

      So, I guess what you're saying is the appeal is pure convenience. Which is fair -- nothing wrong with that at all. But you are giving a lot of stuff up for it.

    83. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      Well two things: Is your setup wife friendly? But more importantly, this is a 49" TV for the bedroom. We weren't trying to deck out or bedroom with an entertainment system.

      As far as price, the "smarts" doesn't actually add any perceivable cost to the TV. The TCL 49 inch TV was only $350 from Amazon.

    84. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Only Spamsung aren't taking returns on the bricked TVs, claiming that it's a temporary issue that'll soon be fixed.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    85. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but who buys from Samsung...just take it back to the store.

    86. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You buy Vizio for quality?

    87. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to let it use NTP? Don't you get the time from the TV signal?

      My ASUS Z97 Motherboard has no time setting in the BIOS (EFI) has to connect to NTP to set time.

    88. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by jonwil · · Score: 1

      So glad I own a 32" Samsung dumb TV with no smarts whatsoever.

    89. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Yes, the setup is very easy and intuitive to use, with one exception: if you want to plug a USB stick into it to play media from, a non-technical person would probably need a little bit of guidance -- but not much. I could fix that, but it's not worth it to me.

      As far as pricing goes, I stand corrected. My setup cost me (excluding the value of my time), right around $400 altogether.

    90. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is so true. $1 for a duplicate flash chip will drop an already thin profit margin to an unacceptable level. So the push is to keep churning cost reductions during each production run, which may mean dropping chips, integrating more on a SoC, or the most dangerous, IMHO, being changing clock frequencies to support cheaper memory or decoder chips as they come available. Keeping large samples of each production version, flashing them, and running full QC just doesnt happen as it is cheaper in the short term to piss off some customers while a cheaper run is being made available. After all, they already have the customer's money.

    91. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because it is impossible to add the ability to boot off an external USB stick. That is rare and expensive technology back here in 1994 when that was a semi legitimate excuse.

      These $1000+ TVs already have most of a raspberry pi in them. Just add a MB (M not G) of flash with a basic recovery boot loader to handle usb stick recovery back to the factory firmware. Or spend a whole dollar to add a backup ROM to boot off if the main one abends.

    92. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never said good or high...

    93. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      we have 2 7070's. i guess we got lucky.

    94. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This precisely why I hate and won't use anything that wants to auto-update.

    95. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      There is an excuse for not fixing the problem, greed. Dead screen is really bad, I can readily guess the fix, plug in upload device to an board mounted connector to update the system, pretty bloody expensive and of course the scammy bastards are trying to force that cost on the people who bought those TVs rather than pay more than a hundred dollars a go to fix it and it should be done as a call out to the owners premises. Why have they done nothing yet because fuck the customer, they knew within 24 hours exactly what needed to be done and are doing nothing.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    96. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by lgw · · Score: 1

      So if I can't buy Vizio anymore and now Samsung is out then WTF do I buy if I want a quality TV?

      I switched to LG when my Samsung bricked itself. Never gave it a network connection, and have no complaints. Can't speak for those who connect it to the overmind.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    97. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by lgw · · Score: 1

      "Live TV"? Really? I mean, sure, the 90s were cool and all, but it's time to move on.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    98. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Updates need to be carefully evaluated before applying them.

      This might be the case in Enterprise IT, but for a one off consumer device at home, you end up needing to trust the manufacturer to do the careful evaluation. How are you going to carefully evaluate it otherwise? Do you buy a second identical TV just for evaluation purposes?

    99. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a similar aged Samsung Smart TV, which I bought because it had one extra HDMI port than the non-smart version and it only cost $15 more at the time (Jan 2014, so the shop was clearing out the 2013 stock to make way for 2014 - the non-smart TVs on the other hand don't need upgrading every year so weren't as heavily discounted). The only apps I've ever used are YouTube and TED when I couldn't be bothered powering on the PC, or when I was playing with the YouTube device pairing, but I've noticed the messages popping up when I turn it on about applications being end-of-lifed have been becoming more and more frequent lately.

      That extra HDMI port - I needed that to connect my PC to, which takes care of all my "smart" needs.

    100. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pliers, Hammers and Nails fix the WiFi, Camera's and Microphones. Permanently.

      Of course, you can always go into Service Mode and disable the shit you do not want in the BIOS. It is nothing more than a computer (albeit a very crappy one) after all.

    101. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I bought my TV at the beginning of 2014, there were still non-smart TVs available, but only with 1 or 2 HDMI ports. To get a minimum of 3 (Bluray, cable box, PC), I was limited to Sony, Panasonic or Samsung Smart TVs. Actually, I really wanted 4 so I would have a spare, but then I would have had to pay the premium for stupid gimmicks like curved screens, so I settled for a Samsung with 3.

    102. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by msauve · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest you move on the the '00's. Welcome to the future!

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    103. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by sd1248 · · Score: 1

      We are getting closer to inventing the Telescreens in Orwell's 1984. Google has the technology in Android phones to constantly monitor audio looking for keywords. Now Samsung has invented the communication channel for the Telescreen that can't be turned off.

    104. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SAMSUNG UPGRADE NOTICE: Due to anti-rape laws in you country, Samsung is required to have your consent to screw you.

                                                                                                                                                                                                OK

    105. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by theCoder · · Score: 1

      I bought an Insignia (Best Buy generic brand, I think) in late 2016 that doesn't have any smart features. Just a TV tuner and 3 HDMI ports. It works great, and I think it was cheaper than the smart equivalent. So it's definitely possible to get a non-smart TV.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    106. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by houghi · · Score: 1

      I have a smart tv (Are there any others now?) and the only thing I use is the HDMI cable. Basically I use it as a monitor connected to a PC. The first reason is that the interface (I looked at it) is pretty useless to me.

      My router only allows MAC addresses I allow and disallows by default anything else. There are no open routers that are open, so it can't use a neighbors router either.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    107. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish it was possible to buy just the straight panel with the eDP exposed, screw this smartTV shit. I'm sure the nerd community wants just a DP connector for games-only or STB-only boxes, and these boxes can do their own switching. The reason it won't ever happen is because the MPAA doesn't want a decoder box for BD movies, which is why "smartTV"'s are as shitty as they are, the hardware required to process 4K and HDR is cheaper to implement in black box software than it is to build into a chip, a chip that only ends up in one model of TV that they don't sell enough of to justify building millions.

    108. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It won't happen. North America didn't adopt a mobile tv system like Japan and Europe. So the vast majority of North America have no ATSC 720p let alone 4K ATSC3.0

      Since mobile radios change annually, it is not worth adding 300$ to the cost of the SmartTV for the additional radio and SIM card for an LTE radio, especially when cellular wireless networks purposely degrade video to 240p even when the device is capable of 1080p

    109. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      From a hardware perspective, aren't they basically just low-end Android devices (with worse mobos and worse, but bigger screens)?

      FTFY

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    110. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I have one as well. It's never been connected to any network, and never will. It's fronted by a mini HTPC system which is the only thing that connects to the internet. I prefer to not have my TV spy on me, thank you very much.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    111. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got 4 "smart" tvs in my home. They are 3 different brands and I havent had any issues in the years that I've owned them.

      I havent heard of a manufacturer that bricked a product with an update that hasnt made it right by repairing or replacing the device. It may be an inconvenience but I think we can live without a tv for a few days or a week or two without going insane or murdering our family members. In most cases that I'm aware of they have upgraded affected customers to a higher end device or given them something else to make up for their inconvenience.

      If it's mission critical, like an Air B&B electronic lock, a security, or medical device, then auto updates that might brick it are bad. If its just an entertainment device then the benefits outweigh the very small chance that its going to get killed by an auto update and cause you to miss Game of Thrones for 30 minutes until you can watch it on your laptop or tablet.

      I wish everyone would stop acting like everything has to work perfectly every second of every day for freaking ever. Things have always broken and almost everything we can buy today will last longer than the same thing purchased 20 or 40 years ago. Televisions broke all the damn time since they were invented. Sure you can find a console tv from the 70s still going strong but the 720p flat screen I bought in 2004 is still working like new as well and may last 30 more years. I could buy a new dishwasher tomorrow that breaks 3 weeks later.

      I do think we should be able to adjust the settings to skip auto updates on connected devices but then again what if there is a security update and nobody installs it? Then those 150k devices are just botnet zombies because auto updates were turned off.

      We have a choice. We can stream everything right to our televisions and deal with the good and the bad of that or we can have dumb tvs that we have to plug some other device into so we can stream a show or movie. This is where technology is and where its headed. We can figure it out or just sit with our thumbs up our butts going "I'll never connect muh tv to the wifi" like some luddite hillbilly who has no understanding of how technology works and just wants to live in the past and keep those damn kids off their lawn.

      Samsung will replace the televisions and probably give people an upgrade or some other really good extra for their trouble. Things like this happen. Connected devices and automatic updates are still fairly new and there are going to be events that break things. Hell 40 years from now this type of thing will still happen from time to time. There is simply no way around it unless we all decide to live in caves and hunt our food with a sharp pointy stick.

    112. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      2) you don't need to download 40GB: a decent x265-encoded version of a movie can be as small as 1-3GB (in 1080p resolution). Even the super-high-quality rips are maybe 8GB or so, though I seriously doubt anyone can really tell the difference without very careful examination.

      1) 1-3GB is for simple cartoons.
      2) 1080p high quality rips with TrueHD 7.1+ sound usually start at about 7GB and have been as large as 16GB.
      3) Yes you can easily see compression artifacts in more highly compressed sources. Most cable/satellite sources are good examples with blocking readily evident
      4) 4K content will be a minimum 30GB compressed pretty severely. I haven't looked yet, but the reported sizes are up to 70GB for H265 movies.
      5) Physical media will, for the near term future, always be much much better than anything streamed.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    113. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      As I said earlier, if you can't do a real evaluation, the best practice is to wait a couple of weeks before applying the update and then search the internet to see if anyone has had problems. That's not so good for finding security issues, but it's decent for determining if the update is going to break things.

    114. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not at home right now but Im 99% sure that my smart tvs have a reset button on the back. Similar to a wifi router it resets it to default settings and firmware if I use something pointy and push that button in while holding the power button for 45 seconds. I have a samsung, 2 vizios, and I think the other is a phillips smart tv. IIRC from when i hooked them up all of them have a recessed reset button that can be used to reinstall the default factory software. I'm pretty sure the manuals that came with the tvs even gave instructions on how to do it.

      I've bricked a few routers and used that option to get them back. Electronics devices should be required to have some kind of safety net like this for when bad updates happen because no matter how much testing is done things can still go to hell.

    115. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      It may be an inconvenience but I think we can live without a tv for a few days or a week or two

      Well, certainly, but why even suffer that inconvenience when you don't have to?

    116. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, not applying security updates automatically is arguably a worse problem.

      I think the true goal is to not only ensure updates are applied automatically, but automatically rollback if they fail for some reason. Which is exactly what Canonical are doing with Ubuntu Core and Snappy.

    117. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, not applying security updates automatically is arguably a worse problem.

      That argument can be (and often is) made, but I remain unconvinced.

      I think the true goal is to not only ensure updates are applied automatically, but automatically rollback if they fail for some reason. Which is exactly what Canonical are doing with Ubuntu Core and Snappy.

      That addresses the issue of when updates cause a malfunction, but it doesn't address the issue of when updates cause a change of behavior that was intended, but is not desired by the user.

    118. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'm thinkin' a spare PC, a Hauppauge dongle, and a dumb screen would do just fine.

      Actually, I haven't even watched TV in 15 years, so I don't know why I'm here in the first place!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    119. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart TV. Stupid consumer for buying it.

    120. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      So basically the same thing as in the article, except the upgrade that broke stuff was to the OS on the HTPC and not the TV firmware. Though one advantage to the HTPC is that it could be rolled back if you were so inclined to do so.

    121. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Actually, what you need is an external HDMI switch, then all the TV needs is a single port. It would be nice to have the HDMI switch built into the TV, but if big dumb monitors come with only a single port, then I guess that's what is needed.

    122. Re: "Smart" TVs are stupid. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      They make things like that, do a search for commercial monitors. These are used for things like the electronic displays at the mall and stuff like that. They are expensive - though not as bad as they once were. But are designed to run 24/7 so they should last a long time in a home setting, at least in theory.

    123. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      I just realized you'd replied, so my apologies on the tardiness of the response. Neither died. I had that TV for 14 years until my ex took it with her when she moved out. To be fair, that was less time than the black and white 12" I'd used before that had lived. My parents bought that one in 1982, and got rid of it in 2012 when they moved 1200 miles.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  2. Monitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I put together a panel to monitor the situation, we recommend you screen all updates before applying.

    1. Re: Monitor by Aphadon · · Score: 1

      Sure, but Samsung doesn't publish patch notes, you just get a message saying an update is available. If you click the more info button, you get a message saying... an update is available. You're lucky to get a version number.

    2. Re:Monitor by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Funny, subtle, sneaky. Well played.

    3. Re:Monitor by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Can we please get more of these posts instead of the stupid "APPS!" crap?

      Thank you.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Monitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not 'appy with the APPS crap? We may be 'appy to comply.

  3. That sucks... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't pay $1,800 for a paperweight.

    1. Re:That sucks... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Presumably they worked when purchased so they paid 1800 for a TV that Samsung converted to a paperweight. I have to wonder, don't they test these updates on real sets?

    2. Re:That sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't pay $1,800 for a paperweight.

      Smart thinking, might as well put all that excess weight to some good use - no need to spend 1800 on something you already have available for free!

    3. Re:That sucks... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem clear from TFA whether this affects all TVs of a given model or whether it is a relatively rare issue that is being blown out of proportion.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:That sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They don't need to. Customers will test for them. Those whose TVs are bricked, well, they can try to get something individual arbitration, they can wait until Samsung comes up with a fix, they can invoke the extended warranty if they have one and demand a working replacement from the seller (also probably with an arbitration clause), or they can just go buy a different TV. The usual call for lawyers and class action is affirmatively blocked by the license you agree to when buying the set.

      Updates that remove features are common. See Windows. Also, my old Panasonic plasma where updates mainly have removed "apps" providing access to online content (at least Amazon still works) rather than making any noticeable improvements.

      IMO all "smart" device and computer updates, unless addressing critical security issues, should be done only with the user's express and informed permission.

    5. Re:That sucks... by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      whether it is a relatively rare issue that is being blown out of proportion.

      I'm not so sure about "blown out of proportion", even if it is rare. It serves to highlight the risk and folly of buying a "smart" TV -- or, for that matter, any expensive thing that includes a computer you have little control over, that depends on third-party services, and that and that you don't intend to replace very often (I'm looking at you, automobiles).

    6. Re:That sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone is paying 50K$ a year to have you around, so...

    7. Re:That sucks... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Even if it is just a handful of TVs, if they were competent and gave a damn about their customers they would have a way to roll the change back until they could re-do it properly.

      Alternatively, 7 days is long enough to have gotten a replacement to each and every affected customer, if they were at all inclined to pay for their own breakage.

    8. Re:That sucks... by samwichse · · Score: 1

      What if the paperweight was 1.5 troy ounces of 24kt gold?

  4. Auto Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You gotta love those push updates!

    I am still looking for a nice 4K OLED 65" screen with say 4 HDMI inputs, RF in and that's all. I don't want built in anything just a screen with some inputs.

    1. Re: Auto Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't connect the fuckin thing to the internet then. If you get all of your media through external devices then you don't need the internet. Derp.

    2. Re: Auto Updates by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      And even if you do want to use internet services, don't let the TV be the one doing it. Get a cheap computer to do it instead, and feed the video from it to the TV.

    3. Re: Auto Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not enough, I don't want to just not plug it in, how do I know the embedded wifi isn't active? I want to smarts, otherwise the company could just hold you hostage until you connect it, what if they just made it so without connection it won't boot or it needs to phone home occasionally. I don't even want to give them the option.

    4. Re: Auto Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your suggestion isn't sufficient. If a neighbor's wifi is set to password-less for 5 min, then this "smart tv" will happily use this window of opportunity to download a firmware update and brick itself.

    5. Re: Auto Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how will the manufacturer be able to send you informative advertisements based on what you watch?

    6. Re: Auto Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly this.

    7. Re: Auto Updates by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      how do I know the embedded wifi isn't active?

      Set a password on your wifi. Don't enter the password in the TV.

      In case of insecure neighbors, it might be tinfoil TV hat time.

    8. Re: Auto Updates by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen a smart device that will initially connect to unsecured WiFi without user confirmation. If you're aware of a specific make & model that does so, please share. Otherwise, you're kind of FUDing...

      You can always head it off preemptively if you really must. Configure a static MAC->IP mapping for the TV, block all outbound access for that IP at the router, then associate the TV to your WiFi. It's connected and yet also cut off from the world.

    9. Re: Auto Updates by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      What if the fucking thing connects to the Internet anyway, without telling you and without your knowledge? Oh, you're blocking everything on your router, are you? What about all your neighbours? Your smart TV could connect through their open wi-fi.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    10. Re: Auto Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it doesn't matter if it is advertised as smart or not. If you distrust the hardware that much then DON'T BUY ANY FUCKING TVs or other consumer electronics.

    11. Re: Auto Updates by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What about all your neighbours? Your smart TV could connect through their open wi-fi.

      Unless your smart TV has an Xfinity account, it's unlikely to find an open AP.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re: Auto Updates by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      Worst case, give the TV a generic SSID to connect to, which leads to a separate VLAN that gets proxied out somewhere well away from your physical location.

    13. Re: Auto Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless your smart TV has an Xfinity account, it's unlikely to find an open AP.

      Stop giving them ideas!

    14. Re: Auto Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we ARE bitching about the direction of CE

      direction nothing, the Idiot of Things is already a zombiefest

    15. Re: Auto Updates by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      That's probably not as far fetched as you might think. What is to stop LG or Samsung to make a deal with xfinity for that kind of access? Those god damn Xfinity routers are everywhere.

      Besides, there is something to say for giving your smart TV some latitude. Mine for example; has a job (consumer behavior monitoring agent: pay is dick, hours suck, but at least it can work from home) -- not sure about paying taxes though.

      Sadly though, getting it to chip in on rent is a no-go, every-time I bring it up it just gives me this blank stare and just shows "I Love Lucy" re-runs while refusing to acknowledge the remote control.

      Asshole.

    16. Re: Auto Updates by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      what if they just made it so without connection it won't boot or it needs to phone home occasionally.

      Then it goes back to the store.

    17. Re: Auto Updates by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      If you live near me, you will. I intentionally run an open WiFi AP as a courtesy to my neighbors. People like me are everywhere.

    18. Re: Auto Updates by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I don't know why, but I read that comment in Professor Farnsworth's voice.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    19. Re: Auto Updates by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Those damn Xfinity routers are everywhere.

      Maybe in the U.S.A. I have no idea what they are or ever seen one.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    20. Re: Auto Updates by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I intentionally run an open WiFi AP as a courtesy to my neighbors. People like me are everywhere.

      No, people like you are vanishingly scarce. I rarely see an open AP any more, and when I do, it's pretty much always a passworded gateway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re: Auto Updates by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      We are getting more rare, but -- at least where I tend to roam -- I do see them around.

    22. Re: Auto Updates by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      basically comcast nee xfinity (they married the devil, it works) piggybacks a separate wifi access point onto all of their leased modems that allows other xfinity subscribers to connect to them using their xfinity credentials. The ultimate effect is for any given area, you have dozens of fucking xfinity hotspots.

      The networks/bandwidth are supposedly separated, but I don't trust xfinity to not fuck it up. Nor do i want to lease a modem/router from those people. But many people do, and there you are.

    23. Re: Auto Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Affinity customers need to trust every Xfinity site is actually an Xfinity site too. If i set up a WAP with that name, I can MITM the connection, optionally throw a prompt and clone those creds.

      Creds i can use on real xfinity sites for shady activities that get traced to you. Even spoof your MAC since you broadcasted it.

    24. Re:Auto Updates by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I hear there are a few Samsung former SMART TVs for sale really cheap that fit these specs, just don't expect anything but a "blank" 65 inch 4K screen.......

      --
      I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  5. Why? Just why? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like my electronic toys. Have a lot of fun playing with them, but why all this integration? Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with, get turned into weird hybrids that have operating systems, computer parts, and memory?

    Is it a matter of people not understanding what they're getting anymore? Is it a matter of perceived value? Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.

    1. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      To vertically integrate parallel consumer content streams to enhance end user metric marketability.

    2. Re:Why? Just why? by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.

      It's astounding how many people engage in this reasoning. Pretty much the entirety of business history has amply shown that more expensive does not automatically mean better, and sometimes means worse.

      It is impossible to judge quality by the price tag.

    3. Re:Why? Just why? by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You need to put a seizure warning on this comment. I started twitching a little.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, Give me a quality dumb tv with a android box or stick 100000% of the time. They are usually 500 bucks cheaper with the same specs as their smart "alternative". you can get an 8 core minix box for $200 Canadian peso's these days. less for a more remote friendly roku device.

    5. Re:Why? Just why? by ThinkingThinker · · Score: 2

      To vertically integrate parallel consumer content streams to enhance end user metric marketability.

      Do you have a program that assembles random words into a sentence?

    6. Re:Why? Just why? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You get what you pay for...at best and only if you do you due diligence every single time. There are basically no 'quality' brands left, that's all been monetized.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Why? Just why? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I like my electronic toys. Have a lot of fun playing with them, but why all this integration? Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with, get turned into weird hybrids that have operating systems, computer parts, and memory?

      Is it a matter of people not understanding what they're getting anymore? Is it a matter of perceived value? Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.

      I learned long ago you should just stop fucking asking why.

      Trust me on this. If you do start asking, you stand a very high risk of frying your common sense circuit.

    8. Re:Why? Just why? by Holi · · Score: 1

      I just used that in my business meeting, I got a raise.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    9. Re:Why? Just why? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.

      It's astounding how many people engage in this reasoning. Pretty much the entirety of business history has amply shown that more expensive does not automatically mean better, and sometimes means worse.

      It is impossible to judge quality by the price tag.

      Apple has over 200 billion reasons to judge quality by the price tag. Just exactly how many more do you require?

    10. Re:Why? Just why? by msauve · · Score: 2

      "Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with"

      So, do you limit those signals to baseband video (e.g. HDMI)? Because those are called monitors, not TVs. Or do you include OTA DTV signals? If you include DTV signals, why would you exclude digital signals received via WiFi or Ethernet?I suspect that more people stream content than get it OTA.

      Oh, and TVs have had "operating systems, computer parts, and memory" ever since the switch to DTV, over 8 years ago.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    11. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with, get turned into weird hybrids that have operating systems, computer parts, and memory?

      The same reason Samsung is building an Amazon Echo equivalent -- to spy on you more effectively.

    12. Re:Why? Just why? by Aaden42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know we're all nerds here, but most of the market doesn't like having multiple devices & wires to configure. Given a choice between a TV that "has Netflix on it," versus attaching and configuring a separate Roku, AppleTV, or Chrome-ish stick, the vast majority of consumers will plug the TV into power, connect to their WiFi, and be much happier than if they'd had to deal with yet another box with yet another remote and more wires.

      Offering (and choosing to purchase) the integrated model is a rational choice. *Not* offering a plain dumb screen option is annoying to us nerds, but we're kind of a purchasing minority for this stuff.

      Inadequate QA on updates and bricking TV's is lousy business, but again it's a minority of customers who are capable of recognizing that the smart TV caused a greater problem than a separate device. Even that is debatable given the number of users who just use streaming at this point. If an update bricked their Roku and left their TV functional but with no available signal to watch... I guess mailing the bricked Roku back for service is easier, and it's cheaper to replace outright, but that's about it.

    13. Re:Why? Just why? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      The same could be said about systemd.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    14. Re:Why? Just why? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Found the PHB. What do I win?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    15. Re:Why? Just why? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Gotta love the buzzwords. So much fancy talk, so very little meaning, like shoe polish on a dried turd.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    16. Re:Why? Just why? by Jason1729 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do you have a program that assembles random words into a sentence?

      I hope not...that's the last marketable skill people with MBA's have. If we automate it, imagine the horror when those people disperse into the rest of society.

    17. Re:Why? Just why? by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      A lack of other features. At the core of it, there's almost no functional difference for the casual consumer between a Samsung 60" 4K TV and an LG, Sony or (fill in manufacturer here) 60" 4K TV. There are styling differences and a few other differences that most non-videophiles don't care about all that much, and a few things like HDR that only click for people when they see it for themselves, but for the most part a TV is a TV these days. Pick the size and 1080p or 4K, pick the cheapest price and off you go.

      As a result, manufacturers tried to differentiate with smart TVs to charge more money for the same panels. The Smart TVs offered the convenience of watching streaming apps without needing a separate device (and another remote), so the manufacturers saw this as a new battleground. Problem is that adding apps to a TV was a relatively easy process as most TV makers weren't going to go out and reinvent the wheel, instead using modified OSs already out there (Android, WebOS, Tizen, Roku, etc). This meant that the Smart TV battle was a very short one with no winners and now we're back to square one where the consumer just wants a TV of a given size and resolution AND with all the apps, and buys the cheapest one that looks good to them in the showroom.

      Which leads to a new problem with app/firmware updates, like we see in the parent article. But that's a whole different kettle of fish that is more about sloppy QA, the absurd "patch patch patch" mindset for *appliances*, etc.

    18. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'smart' TVs are being sold cheaper than passive TVs of the same size and specs, possibly to encourage adoption. That's how I got mine. It was a terrific deal for a larger TV than I originally intended to purchase. I've never connected the TV to the internet and I just pretend it's not smart anymore. So their loss.

    19. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I install cable for a living. So many of my customers buy smart TV's because they think that makes the TV "better" somehow. Never mind the fact that they rarely to never actually use the smart functions. Caveat, most of the customers I service are of the age and technological savvy as to barely be able to turn the darn thing ON, let alone use Netflix.

    20. Re:Why? Just why? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Do you have a program that assembles random words into a sentence?

      I hope not...that's the last marketable skill people with MBA's have. If we automate it, imagine the horror when those people disperse into the rest of society.

      Too late. The bull shit generator has been around for a while now.

    21. Re:Why? Just why? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ...Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with, get turned into weird hybrids that have operating systems, computer parts, and memory?...

      Because more people than not want a nice flat screen they can hang on the wall and not have any other boxes to deal with. So the sceen now has to be "smart." Obviously, Samsung's screen are not smart enough. Or too smart. I haven't decided yet.

    22. Re:Why? Just why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If TV-sized monitors were more common, they would be cheaper. Given the relatively low price of an external tuner, and the growing number of people who don't need a tuner at all, it would probably be better for almost everyone for the majority of displays to not include a tuner. For many people it's just an annoying, static and noise-filled input that they occasionally hit accidentally.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Why? Just why? by juancn · · Score: 1

      It's the manufacturers that need something to push more units. Smart TVs obsolesce faster than dumb ones. So they push the convenience of not having to deal with multiple devices and most people fall for it.

    24. Re:Why? Just why? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      I thought that was Wally trying to baffle the PHB and CEO with bullshit.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    25. Re:Why? Just why? by redmid17 · · Score: 1

      99% of the people in the US with a TV use it as a monitor. Few people actually use OTA signals

    26. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most regular consumers prefer to have one device with one remote. Turn the TV on, cycle between cable/satellite, youtube, Netflix, Amazon, etc all with one remote. I used to have a dumb TV with a Roku connected and my wife never used it because she isn't a technophile and couldn't be bothered with dealing with a handful of remotes, switching sources, etc. Most people don't give a shit about any of the implications of having their TV connected to the internet, until an update breaks everything.

    27. Re:Why? Just why? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      I like my electronic toys. Have a lot of fun playing with them, but why all this integration? Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with, get turned into weird hybrids that have operating systems, computer parts, and memory?

      Is it a matter of people not understanding what they're getting anymore? Is it a matter of perceived value? Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.

      Because they were going to anyways.

      My TV (about 10 years old now) has a 166MHz processor and runs LInux. The only reason it has a processor is for controlling the display - the onscreen menus, configurations, etc. It even has basic "smart TV" features that I've never tried (it has a 10/100 Ethernet port), though with a 166MHz processor, I don't expect much.

      These days, a TV SoC has benefited from the smartphone revolution - instead of a 166MHz processor, you can get 1GHz+ in single/dual/quad core configurations. And they don't cost a whole lot more than going with a "basic' controller. In fact, once it's all said and done, the advanced SoC most likely is cheaper

      So now you've got a processor that's way more powerful than you need because sticking in a slower one costs more money in the end. What do you do with it? You add smart features because well, it can add value - either in increased sales (consumer has a choice of buying a smart TV or a dumb one for the same price) or the "value add" in increased price and margin (will the consumer pay $100 more to pick up a smart TV than a dumb one?).

      That's the reason why. Low to midrange controller processors just aren't cost effective.

    28. Re:Why? Just why? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      just an annoying, static and noise-filled input

      Where were you when ATSC was rolled out a decade or so ago?

    29. Re:Why? Just why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Where were you when ATSC was rolled out a decade or so ago?

      I already owned a TV with a classic tuner, and it's still in there. Actually, I have two of 'em, a 52" 1080p and a 20" EDTV, both Sharp AQUOS. Only the bigger one deserves the name, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:Why? Just why? by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      TVs have always had tuners in them, they were never pure display devices.

      In the mid 2000s governments started switching off traditional analog TV in favour of complex compressed digital systems to support more channels and/or free up bandwidth for other uses (TV used a LOT of prime radio spectrum). In the run up to this there was understandably a push to implement digital TV reception in TV sets. That basically meant a computer system with a digital tuner and a MPEG2 decoder. Newer broadcast HDTV standards required H.264 decoding so that got thrown in too a few years later.

      So TVs prior to "smart TVs" already had a computer system to drive the digital TV menus, they already had a decoder for H.264. Why not throw on some network ports and a bit of extra ram and add a bunch of functionality for relatively little extra cost.

      At least I suspect that was what was going through the minds of the people who built these things.

      The problem of course is that the internet is a very different world from the broadcast reception world. Broadcasters are trusted so you don't have to worry too much about security. Broadcasters also accept that any new technology will have to be rolled out slowly and/or in a backwards compatible way to avoid pissing off users too much.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    31. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like my electronic toys. Have a lot of fun playing with them, but why all this integration?

      Because it's cheap. When computers are only like $5, you might as well put them everywhere. It's not even necessarily wrong. Worst case (when we otherwise ass/u/me sanity!), you don't use it and there was a small amount of waste. Best case, you think of something cool/useful to do with it.

      The fuckup is that they don't do computers right. You know all that experience we got over the last few decades, where we realized that software ought to be maintainable, auditable, and you should never under any circumstances have a single source holding you hostage or risking you end up an orphan?

      "Consumer electronics" companies reject all that accumulated knowledge.

      And we keep forgetting to reject them. (And Samsung really does appear to be one of the ones who just keeps getting worse, which is a shame, because they used to be a "at least it won't suck" brand, occasionally even good!)

      It's so ridiculous that some people think that a minor change in the form factor of a computer, somehow makes it exempt from all the lessons of the past and all the strategies we've developed. Every past nightmare has to be relived all because a computer's case is a different size or shape.

    32. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      monetizing alternative revenue streams through no-opt usersourcing

      In other words: Your product, your purchase, your results, are obstacles. They are nothing but obstacles. Providing you with a functional device is not their objective. You are nothing but a speedbump in the way of money.

    33. Re:Why? Just why? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's called a master's of business administration.

    34. Re:Why? Just why? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You mean the company that sold phones that wouldn't work if you held them normally?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    35. Re:Why? Just why? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      OTOH, my sister never did learn how to reliably set up her "smart TV". Neither did I, so it wasn't obvious, but, OTOH, the only "TV" in the house is used as a computer monitor. But after seeing my sister's TV, I went with ViewSonic rather than Samsung. (I think it's a TV anyway, but I'm not sure, as I only use it as a monitor.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    36. Re:Why? Just why? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      You mean the company that sold phones that wouldn't work if you held them normally?

      When the competitors design tries to set the user on fire, it tends to define "quality" real fucking quick.

    37. Re:Why? Just why? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      No, Wally is already gone from the meeting to apply an urgent and critical security patch on the legacy systems.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    38. Re:Why? Just why? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      (will the consumer pay $100 more to pick up a smart TV than a dumb one?).

      I would. But then, I think that adding the "smarts" to a TV actively reduces its value rather than enhances it.

    39. Re: Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's far more convenient to launch the Netflix app and be able to watch in 4k hassle free. Hooking up your Tv as a computer monitor can be a pain, plus in many browsers Netflix maxes at 720p.

    40. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are several bullshit generators. The genre extends back into paper/pencil days. See: Buzzword Generator and Simulated Integrated Modular Prose generator (SIMP) http://www.brianjford.com/anonscic.htm

    41. Re:Why? Just why? by kauaidiver · · Score: 1

      Well for me, as a cord cutter I like having my apps right there. I have an XBox but the convenience of one device handling tv-apps is nice, if it works!

    42. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% of statistics are bullshit. Especially when collected from behind the bull. But you may be correct when usage is viewed with temporal segregation (hey, there's a nice buzzword!). While a small (but growing, and well over 1%!) percentage of US TV users actually gets their programming OTA using a terrestrial broadcast source, virtually everybody has a device (VCR, Laser Disc, DVD, BD, cable box, satellite TV, Roku, Chromecast, HTPC, etc.) for which the TV serves as a display. So properly limited, your comment may be correct, but it is inadequate to describe how the population of TVs is actually used. /pedant

    43. Re:Why? Just why? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with, get turned into weird hybrids that have operating systems, computer parts, and memory?

      Because at some point the world got sick of 10 boxes, with 12 remotes, connected with cable spaghetti sitting in the living room.

    44. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the trigger warning damnit?!

    45. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% of the people in the US with a TV use it as a monitor. Few people actually use OTA signals

      Whoo-hoo! I'm in the 1%, I must be rich! Oh, wait.

    46. Re:Why? Just why? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I take this to mean, "To have more Big Data to sell to get more monies."

      Do I win the bingo?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    47. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't feel like this is true but maybe you are right. Do people these days literally just buy a TV, plug it into the outlet, connect it to wi-fi and then are done?

      Even doing that is possibly harder than setting up one of the "boxes" which have slicker and more intuitive interfaces.

    48. Re:Why? Just why? by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      Do you have a program that assembles random words into a sentence?

      I hope not...that's the last marketable skill people with MBA's have. If we automate it, imagine the horror when those people disperse into the rest of society.

      Too late. The bull shit generator has been around for a while now.

      I prefer the Chomskybot. What Samsung might be doing is hiring bullshit code grinders instead of high priced quality inhouse programmers. Either that or they have hired a pile of the recently deceased from Redmond. I always wondered what happened to the cruft that got the ax at Microsoft after Ballmer left, perhaps too many of them got into the hot IOT device market. I would not trust a Microsoft schooled hardware coder to program my friggin' toaster!

      I have to say I have not seen a bad update from Samsung on any device I have owned so most likely their Q and A in coding has gone for a shit recently and there is a rational explanation for the down turn in the quality of their software.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    49. Re:Why? Just why? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > I learned long ago you should just stop fucking asking why.

      Sticking your head in the sand, trying to ignore the problem, doesn't make it go away.

    50. Re:Why? Just why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yup, brands are bought and sold. That BigNameCo television is probably made by a commodity manufacturer in China that is licensing the name.

    51. Re:Why? Just why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Actually the dumb TVs are not always less expensive. The "smart" part of the TV is dirt cheap and they're not using quality design. In a brick and mortar store the vast majority of TVs will be smart TV, to get a dumb TV you may need to do the searching online.

    52. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the company that sold phones that caught fire even if you held them normally?

    53. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand why you're twitching. Because you know this sentence means the TV is providing data to the mothership on your viewing habits. What channels you watch, what devices you have plugged into it. How long you're watching the local Netflix / Hulu apps. And of course that 1-pixel infrared camera on the front watching every thing you do...

  6. WTF is wrong with people by Bastardinho · · Score: 1

    It is a FUCKING Television. Why the fuck do people connect it to the internet? Why does it need updates? WHY

    1. Re:WTF is wrong with people by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      YouTube, Netflx and Hulu, just to name a few.

    2. Re:WTF is wrong with people by MasseKid · · Score: 1

      Which you can get by connecting a very cheap device to the internet and to the TV. A device made by people who actually understand security.

    3. Re:WTF is wrong with people by jandrese · · Score: 1

      To watch Netflix? The idea of a network connected TV doesn't seem that crazy in a world where we have literally hundreds of streaming services to choose from. Updating it is unfortunately necessary if you do this, services change over time. Building the functionality into the display cuts down on clutter, cables, power plugs, and remotes too.

      Of course the downside is that even with updates, the hardware eventually goes out of date, probably faster than the display does. The best solution would be some sort of standard card you could plug into the TV that does all of the "smart" functionality and allows you to swap out the display while keeping the same Internet services. This will not happen in the foreseeable future however because the manufacturers prefer to stovepipe the whole system and it would require a working group and standardization track and everything.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:WTF is wrong with people by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Which you can get by connecting a very cheap device to the internet and to the TV. A device made by people who actually understand security.

      That's where the iPhone app comes into play. ;)

    5. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best solution would be some sort of standard card you could plug into the TV that does all of the "smart" functionality and allows you to swap out the display while keeping the same Internet services...

      They make those cards! They plug in via HDMI. A couple popular ones include the Google Chromecast, the Apple TV, Amazon Fire Stick, Roku....

    6. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building the functionality into the display cuts down on clutter, cables, power plugs, and remotes too.

      1. you've never heard of a universal remote?

      2. is clutter all that important in the grand scheme of things? does it actually interfere with the experience? maybe you can get you car mechanic to reduce the clutter under the hood to enhance the driving experience?

      3. this story alone is good reason to separate the display from the computer

    7. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      classic case of "good on paper, lousy on execution."

    8. Re:WTF is wrong with people by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Why would you need a card? What function does the device need that can't be done over displayport or HDMI? The standard already exists.

      How many expansion slots does your newer PC have? 15% of the number available in 486 days? Modern expansion ports are great for many things you used to need a bus for.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does it need updates?

      Maybe they ship the TV with a placeholder mapping from RGB values to pixel voltages. This gives them an extra month to compute the correct RGB curves, and push them as a firmware update. Who wouldn't want more accurate colors?

    10. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best solution would be some sort of standard card you could plug into the TV that does all of the "smart" functionality

      Yeah it's called HDMI, sound, video, networking, remote control events, etc all pass through it.

    11. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get a cheap, reliable device connected to your TV that does this better than your TV does or will ever do. A Roku from 5 years ago is and will be better at streaming content than your TV will in 30 years. If/when my Roku ever dies, I'll be replacing it and my TV will still not be connected to the internet. There is no logical reason for my TV to ever "call home" or get hacked or be connected. Period.

      No "smart" TV has been implemented properly, not a single one. They all fail miserably at their job.

    12. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Bastardinho · · Score: 1

      I know that, but for me a TV is just a monitor. I use a box for that. If people want connected services and start treating their televisions as PC's then don't complain when things go wrong. It's a matter of time when some imbecile app on some samsung-tv-app-store starts doing nasty stuff on a large scale. Btw, I remember my Sony Trinitron lasting 20 years

    13. Re:WTF is wrong with people by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Funny

      You've never heard of a universal remote?

      I tried using a Universal remote once. People in alpha centauri were not amused to be muted.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    14. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      1. you've never heard of a universal remote?

      I have. Have you ever tried to get someone who isn't a nerd to set one up? Even Logitech Harmony is beyond the ability of most intelligent but non-technical people. Also, by the time you've added an external streaming box and a Harmony, you've eaten most of your cost savings versus the smart TV.

      2. is clutter all that important in the grand scheme of things? does it actually interfere with the experience?

      Yes. Not everyone is content with a living room that looks like a dorm room or a scene out of /r/cablegore. The idea of a single TV that can be wall mounted with nothing but power running to it is attractive to lots of people. For the mid-budget consumer who lacks the money to pay a professional installer and lacks the skills to do cable management themselves, the integrated option is a VERY attractive feature.

      maybe you can get you car mechanic to reduce the clutter under the hood to enhance the driving experience?

      If you could close the hood on your TV setup and not have to see it, that might be a viable option. Big bulky "entertainment centers" that hide cables have largely given way to simple open frame shelving or wall-mounting that makes it much more difficult to conceal cabling. A pro installer could clean things up, possibly by cutting into the wall to hide things, but that's $$$$.

      3. this story alone is good reason to separate the display from the computer

      The number of bricking updates as compared to the number of models of smart TV's and the number of years they've been on the market are pretty good odds to me.

      Clearly if any model of internal combustion engine automobile ever had a recall or design flaw that rendered it inoperable, that's sufficient justification to go back to a separate carriage and motive system, and we'd all be smarter buying horses and separate buggies to ride around in.

    15. Re:WTF is wrong with people by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Out to an external box with its own network connection, power connection, etc...

      And I have never seen a set that passes remote events out HDMI to a connected device that actually listens to them.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    16. Re:WTF is wrong with people by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The point was to reduce clutter/cables/power, not increase it!

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    17. Re:WTF is wrong with people by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Universal remotes end up sucking because there standards on what buttons to support are skimpy. Too often you discover that some functionality is hiding on a button not implemented on the remote (like a Menu button). The Harmony remotes theoretically get around this by allowing you to reprogram buttons yourself, but the tradeoff is laughable battery life, a clunky UI, and a stupidly high price point.

      I think the situation is slowly improving overall, but it still sucks.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    18. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, sometimes this is very useful.

      The firmware (which is a Linux OS in 2013-era Samsungs) is apparently somehow involved in rendering the picture. Some of the earlier updates to my TV (a Samsung 64F8500) actually improved the picture quality noticeably. By the time I bought my unit, those updates were history, so I applied them, got my improved picture quality, and then disabled updates.

      Since then, all of the updates seem to be just fiddling with the smart features and the built-in apps, so I have blocked them all.

    19. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix will only stream 4k to "approved devices", such as the built-in Netflix app on most modern smart TVs. If you use a cheap Android box or even a full PC, you can't stream 4k from Netflix.

    20. Re:WTF is wrong with people by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      There has been one smart TV which has been implemented well. It is called an iMac.

    21. Re:WTF is wrong with people by omnichad · · Score: 1

      But a nice Roku is still relatively cheap next to replacing your TV every time an API is deprecated.

    22. Re:WTF is wrong with people by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And yet PCMCIA and ExpressCard are gone in favor of Thunderbolt and USB 3. HDMI already supports powering small devices (MHL) and CEC (which could eliminate having a separate IR receiver if mounting devices behind the TV). I think things are already going in the right direction. The next step would be a good addition to the VESA mounting holes for mounting STB type devices.

    23. Re:WTF is wrong with people by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I use a cheap learning remote that supports 6 devices (under $30). Used to be a Sony, now currently RCA. And you get to choose which buttons are implemented. Would be great if this idea could be expanded just enough to include a MicroSD for sharing remote codes instead of the clunky mess that is the Harmony. The Harmony appears to be objectively more complicated to use than separate remotes for the less technologically inclined.

    24. Re:WTF is wrong with people by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Out to an external box with its own network connection, power connection, etc...

      I already mentioned MHL in one post, but Ethernet is also supported over HDMI. Your interface has already been invented. It just hasn't been implemented properly.

      And I have never seen a set that passes remote events out HDMI to a connected device that actually listens to them.

      CEC is almost as bad as IEEE 1394 in that respect. Every manufacturer names it something different - Anynet+, Aquos Link (Sharp), BRAVIA Link, EasyLink,
      HDMI-CEC. Anyway, remote control passthrough works if the manufacturer's decide to agree to follow the standard. And that's something that will make their products more marketable if they were smart enough to do it.

    25. Re:WTF is wrong with people by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Otherwise known as the Steam method of product releases.

    26. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have a 70" version that I can mount to my wall and control completely with a standalone, dedicated remote control just for the TV?

      Didn't think so, so it still stands. Not one single "smart" TV has ever been implemented correctly. They shouldn't even exist and instead be bundled with a Roku, Chromecast (the device not something built in) or something similar.

      There is no reason for a TV to connect to the internet under any circumstance, ever.

    27. Re:WTF is wrong with people by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 1

      The same reason people connect their phones to the internet, or their computers - it's pretty fucking useful.

      --

      Long signatures suck.
    28. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't even exist and instead be bundled with a Roku, Chromecast (the device not something built in) or something similar.

      The problem is lots of dumb consumers don't like having multiple remote controls, and want everything integrated into a single device.

    29. Re: WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My hisenses 55 inch 4k communicates well with my philips bluray/5.1 audio setup.

    30. Re:WTF is wrong with people by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      you're trading one kind of clutter (physical) for another (software)

      use the apps on a smart TV and tell me they are well-written, response, usable apps. They're all coded up with the same level of technical skill as the mother fucker who wrote the instruction manual (probably the same person actually)

    31. Re:WTF is wrong with people by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Have to agree. I have one "smart" tv that I got for the display quality, and one dumb (I think-- at least I don't use any smart functions). The dumb tv has a plug strip, network switch, Apple TV (actually two because they keep crashing and I had a spare), a wifi access point, and some other junk all velcro'd to the back.

      Smart TVs simplify things... but they aren't the "best of both worlds" by any means.

    32. Re:WTF is wrong with people by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The idea of a single TV that can be wall mounted with nothing but power running to it is attractive to lots of people.

      And can easily be accomplished without resorting to a "smart" TV. You can get cheap sticks that plug into your TV's HDMI connectors, talk over WiFi, and don't need any additional cabling at all.

      If you want more horsepower than that, you can obtain small, boxes that attach to the back of the TV, get their power from the same cable as your TV, and talk via WiFi. Still no additional cabling.

    33. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, the only universal remote that really got it right was the now-discontinued URC R50. The $80 price tag may seem a bit high, but it's the last universal remote you'll ever need. Which is good because you can't get them anymore. I imagine they'll show up on the secondary market as their owners die off.

    34. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cheap device still costs money. And requires extra wires to power and connect. The TV can do all of the streaming itself, so why not use that and save money? It probably runs at the highest available resolution, too - which may or may not be the case with the external device.

      When the TV becomes unsupported after some number of years, then buy the current cheap external device and hook it up. There's no reason to spend extra money on redundant functionality now.

    35. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They have Roku TVs now. TV made by a normal TV manufacturer (as normal as they can be these days), but with Roku built-in as the smarts. So you get best of class streaming instead of the typical crap.

      That said, I think it's still smarter to get a dumb TV + Roku, for flexibility.

    36. Re:WTF is wrong with people by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      These days, serial is faster than parallel for buses except with short traces, and so ports now are very often bundles of serial pairs. Ie, this is the reason that hard drives have gone serial. So you don't lose anything wth an HDMI port. i believe that HDMI already has capability of doing remote control functions (ie, your streaming stick would potentially be able to be used as a remote control as well).

    37. Re:WTF is wrong with people by lgw · · Score: 1

      Reduce clutter? Reduce cables? Reduce power? Hand in your geek card right now!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    38. Re:WTF is wrong with people by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I really wanted to buy a TV that does less. Even a tuner is redundant but they're cheap and reliable so I don't have a problem with that. I also wanted one with a lot of inputs though because I have several devices. That limited my choice to a handful all of which were smart TVs.

      On the plus side, the CEC works properly (very flaky on my gf's dumb TV), I don't need a slot for my fire stick, and it is nice having a big "NETFLIX" button on the remote. And I can play videos files from USB stick or network server, which is a nice feature.

      In a few years time, the smart functionality will be useless, I'm sure.

    39. Re:WTF is wrong with people by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      And I have never seen a set that passes remote events out HDMI to a connected device that actually listens to them.

      It depends on who makes it. My Sony TV works pretty well (although seems to break after adding too many devices). I have an obscure brand TV which barely works at all.

  7. Smart TVs are the dumbest thing in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As an owner of 2 Samsung smart TVs that are thankfully to old to be affected by this "update", I would recommend never buying a smart TV (and I will avoid doing so in the future).

    All you need is a Roku (or other external streaming device) and, if you still use satellite/cable, an external DVR. All my on-tv "smart" apps are hopelessly out of date, feature-poor compared to their Roku equivalents, and utterly useless. I avoid onboard TV apps like the plague, and have disabled toggling them on in my learning remote.

    1. Re: Smart TVs are the dumbest thing in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. My Samsung buit in apps are easy enough to use and I didn't have to shell out $100 to get content in 4k. I'm sure in the future I will have to abandon the smart tv aspects for a roku or similar device but for now...

    2. Re: Smart TVs are the dumbest thing in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally a well-reasoned, non-reactionary comment in this thread. Cheers, fellow AC! :)

  8. New things are no longer working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and soon, they will be no longer working even faster than before.

    1. Re:New things are no longer working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the future, new things will be no longer working before you buy them. All devices will evolve into a small box that says "put money here" and does nothing at all, but much faster, better and highly secure.

  9. Sue them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until these companies get a huge financial penalty for doing this they won't care.

    1. Re:Sue them! by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Until these companies get a huge financial penalty for doing this they won't care.

      Any amount you think you had to define "huge" is still a fucking joke. Try again.

      Nope. They're still laughing. Try again.

  10. Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 2026 Sony 930D smart TV can't even manage to keep up with adjusting the sound volume. Only on the latest firmware update has it been able to play videos in the correct aspect. Totally a waste of money.

    1. Re:Could be worse by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sony? WTF? Why? Trinitron tubes are long long gone, Sony now uses Samsung panels in the TVs, if you're lucky.

      If you're buying a video camera, maybe Sony. For any other hardware, just no. They still haven't gone to jail for shipping millions of virus infected CDs/DVDs!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Could be worse by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Tell us about the future, what's 2026 like?

  11. One more reason to avoid Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Before smart tvs were a thing, I had a Samsung plasma TV that failed under warranty. Samsung did nothing about and made every excuse they could come up with to avoid fixing/replacing until the warranty finally ran out. I have never, and will never, buy a Samsung branded device again.

    Yes, that includes smartphones. Enjoying my Pixel at the moment.

  12. Smart TV done Stupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "right" way to do it (if it must be done) is to have an internal HDMI connection to which you connect an android stick, or whatever, for televisions which have the smart TV option. There is no need to even use a real HDMI port, you can use something much cheaper like a simple header connector. And then hide that behind a trap door, or at least make it easy to get far enough into the case to replace it. I know you save a few pence per TV set by putting it all on one PCB, but odds are good that they're going to have to take back these sets and reflash them at service centers via JTAG or similar because they didn't take that route.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Smart TV done Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no need to even use a real HDMI port, you can use something much cheaper

      Raspberry Pi Zero costs $5 at retail for the whole computer and it has a real HDMI port.

    2. Re:Smart TV done Stupid by JBMcB · · Score: 2

      Great idea. Only thing I'd change is to have an internal HDMI connector (since it's already a standard and HDMI ports are cheap) along with an internal USB port for power, or if you just want to stick a USB drive full of stuff in the back of your TV instead. I'd also require the HDMI port to have CEC so you can control the stick with your TV remote.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:Smart TV done Stupid by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Why even bother with a computer-on-a-stick? Why not an SD or microSD card? Use a generic partition and filesystem on it so the technically inclined can easily take an image of the entire thing as a backup. Your TV gets bricked by an update? No problem, restore from the backup. Would also make fixing problems like Samsung created here easy to fix, if the TV has been sufficiently bricked that you can't install it the normal way: just ship affected people a new SD/microSD card.

      While we're all dreaming: Bonus points: Make the TV's software all open-source. Then people who like to void warranties can sift through it, remove all the junk they don't want, add custom features, and so on.

    4. Re:Smart TV done Stupid by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The HDMI connector is not expensive and likely to work better than a simple header connector. If a TV were to do anything here, it would be best to just make sure there is space on the back of the TV to insert streaming sticks easily, as some of them make it difficult to use a streaming stick without a cable. Additionally I wouldn't mind a nice caddy to hold the streaming box (roku, apple, firetv, all about the same size); I don't do it but I know people who velcro their tiny box to the back of the TV to hide it and the cables.

  13. No way to roll back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A complete system update with no automatic roll back on load failures? HUH WTF is Samsung thinking. Sounds like they hired a few too many fired Microsoft software engineers. ROLF

    1. Re:No way to roll back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try holding the "volume down" button on the TV while powering it up. Anybody rooted a TV and run Linux yet?

  14. A friggin' TV - get another! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get ye to Costco. Buy TV. Get 90 days. Plenty o'time to get primary working again. Return 'loaner' to Costco (and then get another if ya need mo' time!). All good. Now quit yer bitchin and Make America Great Again!

  15. And this is exactly why by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

    my last TV purchase was a dumb TV.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:And this is exactly why by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And the modern world is why that will be your last dumb TV too. Good luck buying one now.

    2. Re:And this is exactly why by antdude · · Score: 1

      New dumb HDTVs are hard to find these days. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:And this is exactly why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here - question is, will we even have the option for our next one?

    4. Re:And this is exactly why by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I bought mine less than a month ago from Best Buy for $99. Granted it was a 32" 720P, but it was for my bedroom, so good enough.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:And this is exactly why by antdude · · Score: 1

      Which brand was that?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:And this is exactly why by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Which brand was that?

      Westinghouse.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    7. Re:And this is exactly why by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ah thanks. I have never heard of that brand before. It seems people love it.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  16. Of course older TV's aren't reporting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smart Samsung owners (like me) disabled auto-updating, and only allow updates to the TV after the update has been vetted and it's effects are understood.

    1. Re:Of course older TV's aren't reporting it by supremebob · · Score: 1

      It's probably more like Samsung being too damn cheap to provide updates to "Smart" TV's that are more than 12 months old.

      So, yeah... your TV isn't crashing right now, but it's probably full of security holes and will probably become part of an IoT botnet someday.

  17. UG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlucky Goldstar

    1. Re:UG? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      That's LG. Isn't it?

  18. Firewall? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    This is why you need a good Firewall, so you prevent your TV from being reachable via the internet.

    1. Re:Firewall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firewall. Samsung.

      Insert joke here.

  19. Maybe Samsung will fix this by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    before the hordes of class action lawyers descend like a plague on them.

    Maybe people will become more educated. A large screen panel should be more like a monitor, and less like an internet connected media device.

    I wonder if the solution Samsung will come up with is a thumb drive with a new system image.

    Because if the existing devices are truly bricked, that's about the only way (short of device replacement) that is going to solve this.

    1. Re:Maybe Samsung will fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qoute "Maybe people will become more educated"

      Really? Come on.

    2. Re:Maybe Samsung will fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      before the hordes of class action lawyers descend like a plague on them.

      Maybe people will become more educated. A large screen panel should be more like a monitor, and less like an internet connected media device.

      I wonder if the solution Samsung will come up with is a thumb drive with a new system image.

      Because if the existing devices are truly bricked, that's about the only way (short of device replacement) that is going to solve this.

      Yes. Because Samsung TVs never had any issues with thumbdrive-loaded data, before .

  20. Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's your problem. They're just cutting corners (in a round shape).

  21. Samsung TV's are junk, don't buy them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since I bought my Samsung, I've received many system updates to them. Never any new features, but the performance and reliability have tanked. My TV boot loops most every time I try to start it after having not started for a while. Whoever works on the operating system for Samsung are complete idiots.

    1. Re:Samsung TV's are junk, don't buy them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were they using Tizen for their smart TVs?

  22. Well by jon3k · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is Samsung, at least they didn't explode.

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They must have used the last Note 7 update for the TVs by mistake.

    2. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - I'm wondering if there's more truth to that than you think. My recollection is most (all?) of the smart-tv complaints seem to be at Samsung devices, not Panasonic or Sony.

    3. Re:Well by n329619 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the consumer heads have already exploded.

  23. All is not lost by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

    Relax. You may have lost your Kardashian drip feed, but the CIA can still see you.

  24. Where to get a "dumb" TV by FerociousFerret · · Score: 1

    Can you even get a TV that isn't a Smart TV anymore? I recently purchased a new TV and I couldn't find any 4K TVs there were not "smart" TVs. I didn't want a smart TV and certainly didn't want to pay extra to have that crap added to my TV, but none were to be found. I didn't want a "monitor" since I needed/wanted the TV tuner and wanted 55" or larger.

    1. Re:Where to get a "dumb" TV by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

      I use a projector and it doesn't have "smart" features.

    2. Re:Where to get a "dumb" TV by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      My TV's dumb, but it's a 32", and at least 3 years old. I wonder if even the small sets will be "smart" when I'm ready for my next one.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:Where to get a "dumb" TV by Frederic54 · · Score: 1
      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Where to get a "dumb" TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.
      You're post should get modded up!

  25. Oh, this can't be good... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    Are the affected TVs at least able to phone home for a new version of the update? Or are they total bricks?

  26. 2 weeks ago? Take it back by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    The guys that had their TV's for 2 weeks or so are in a good position. Just take it back to the retailer.

    1. Re:2 weeks ago? Take it back by epine · · Score: 1

      The guys that had their TV's for 2 weeks or so are in a good position. Just take it back to the retailer.

      I used to have a special T-shirt I called my "watching other people work" shirt.

      It's also useful for watching other people "just" hump their giant TVs back to the box store way out at the box store urban fringe.

      Of course, those who deliberately situate themselves smack dab in the middle of boxurbia have nothing else planned for Saturday in any case. For this class of people, random "undo" errands are apparently features, not bugs.

    2. Re:2 weeks ago? Take it back by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      If they're way outside of that box store fringe, what's the chance that they even hooked their TV up to their home network?

    3. Re:2 weeks ago? Take it back by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If they're way outside of that box store fringe, what's the chance that they even hooked their TV up to their home network?

      I have an Amazon Fire TV Stick, not a "smart TV", but I live where you can get neither cable nor DSL. My ISP is a WISP which charges me $99/mo for a 6/1 connection capped at 90GB/mo which they relay in across the mountaintops because only AT&T has fiber into my whole county.

      I can still watch Netflix, Amazon &c on this connection, so I'd say probably plenty of people fit that description.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  27. Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That.
    Is.
    Fucking.
    Hilarious.

    At least they didn't catch fire. Samsung is getting better.

  28. Only to a certain extent by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

    Offering (and choosing to purchase) the integrated model is a rational choice. *Not* offering a plain dumb screen option is annoying to us nerds, but we're kind of a purchasing minority for this stuff./

    I get that product convergence is a thing and that it can be useful when it happens well. Maybe it's this time we're living through. I don't remember what it was like when VCRs were first coming out, if there were similar difficulties with their connecting to televisions. I can remember the need to switch to channel 3 before you could watch a tape and flipping the selector box for Ataris before you could play. However, those became a thing. People learned how to make it work in short order. It wasn't wrapped up in this pseudo-mystical "only the nerds" can make it work bullshit I continually see being spouted.

    Was it decided that the public couldn't be counted on to learn to work the TV? Or was it the Boomers again with their constant whine about the pace of life?

    Learn. Unlearn. Relearn.

  29. Useless by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    I bought a cheap Samsung TV after our old plasma died, as a stop-gap until the OLEDs have been out for a couple of years (and have the bugs worked out of them.)

    Not impressed at all with the functionality of the built-in apps, nor the firmware upgrades. The extent of the release notes are always "Fix minor issues and enhance the performance of your TV" along with removing Twitter or some other app I wouldn't use on a TV anyways.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  30. Saw this coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone I know has one of the medium range Samsung smart TVs ($700-$1k), the screen is great but the "smart" functionality is the buggiest piece of garbage I've ever seen. It has to be factory reset once every few months or it can't even load common apps, its interface is clunky, it doesn't support a lot of popular apps, etc. Integrated smart functions are just never going to work, trying to support dozens or hundreds of different TV models is always going to end badly. Whereas supporting a few iterations of a standalone box is relatively easy. Also TV manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping you buying new TVs (ie breaking/not supporting the old ones), standalone box makers have an interest in keeping you utilizing their equipment even if it is a bit old.

  31. Customers should not be worried. by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    Samsung is a company committed to total client satisfaction. TV software will be fixed very soon, so that Samsung smart TV will explode at switch-on, as customers correctly expect for a properly working Samsung product.

    1. Re:Customers should not be worried. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      $1800 and it's two weeks out? Now there's some fine customer service. Maybe they sent their product tech support to India too?

  32. And this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is why you disable updates and only use manual updates after you've made sure there was no issues with it.

  33. Never again by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    I have a Samsung TV that I got a few years ago. It has not failed, but Samsung has been removing and adding apps at will, without my consent. Samsung is a bully of a company. I will never, ever buy another Samsung product of any kind.

  34. Never had one by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    I've never had a smart TV. I'm happy with my simple Roku. It gets my Netflix and Hulu stuff, I can get other stuff if I want, I've never heard of an update bricking one, and if it did, I'd be out a whole lot less than $1800.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  35. "Smart" by ledow · · Score: 1

    A TV is a display device.

    If you then want it to load content, operate as a computer, browse the Internet, have a separate device.

    Hey presto, your TV will always work by plugging it back into another working device, your content device will always work by plugging it back into another TV.

    TVs are just large monitors nowadays. That's it. Stop locking yourself into the apps, content, media, etc. supported by a Smart TV. Buy a Dumb TV (I would actually advertise one as that if I were a brand-leader, people WOULD buy it, if only for self-deprecation!). Buy a smart device that displays your content. In fact, get several. It'll cost no more and you'll have a backup.

    And nowadays a Dumb TV, a variety of cheap/free devices to display over-the-air content / casts / streams will be cheaper than, more reliable than, most cost-effective than, more upgradable than, and more resilient to service failure than a single Smart TV.

  36. FYI Samsung is also developing autonomous vehicles by jigawatt · · Score: 1

    Just sayin'

  37. Nope, that's not why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it were true that "more people than not want a nice flat screen they can hang on the wall and not have any other boxes", then you'd still be able to buy a TV equipped with a CableCard slot.

    1. Re:Nope, that's not why by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ... and your point is?

  38. yeah, samsung has lost it by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, at this time, I gave up on Samsung since $ for $, they are expensive and really have not only QA issues, but bad marketing. My TV actually has the ability to control the tuner, but samsung has elected to not allow that. Why? Because they charge a great deal more for that.
    At this time, we are looking at going to Vizio.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  39. I wonder why owners of older TVs aren't affected.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "owners of older Samsung TVs are not reporting the issue"

    Wouldn't have anything to do with older TVs not getting *any* updates at all, would it?

  40. They are stupid by design. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "They are stupid by design."

    Samsung is now SamCried?

  41. We will be paying a premium soon for 'dumb' screen by MarkH · · Score: 1

    If you want smarts buy a fire stick, chromecast or roku. Max $50.

  42. TV + computer is stupid by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    I don't know why anybody would bother with a smart tv. I refuse to get one, since I can just plug in whatever device I want to be the computer. Then, if I don't like one or the other, I don't have to throw out the whole thing.

  43. Re:"Smart" TVs aren't stupid, humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your error is in the term 'owner'. It should be obvious that Samsung is the rightful owner in this case, and that you merely bought a license to look at the alleged box as long as your complied with the terms of your EULA.

  44. What you want is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a Curtis Mathes, the most expensive television set in America, and darn well worth it

  45. Ironic: I need updates to work for a bit. by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    Samsung UN32F6300 32" HDTV I use as a computer monitor only.

    The drill - After many weeks of working it will turn off then on randomly. Unplug it for 24 hours or longer, see if it will turn on if so make a dash to the update selection, if an update it normally works for a bit longer. Of course the fix of turning off all sleep times was followed.

    My old monitor is now next to it's side, as it's down again.

  46. No reason to buy samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Samsung makes bad fridges, washers that explode, smartphones that catch fire and Tv's that spy on you ... why do people buy samsung?

  47. fucking software by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I am so sick and fucking tired of all these software updates. If you can't produce a good product get a job at your local Pizza Hut.

  48. Because CI/CD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And devops

  49. It's called coprolite by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Shoe-polished dried turds as jewelry is actually a thing -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:It's called coprolite by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      ..of course they are ... what a world.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  50. Hi-End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HI-End. For $1,800?

    That sounds like bottom of the shit barrel to me. Ten times that for a mid-size (80" or so) is about "Upper Middle Class".

  51. The original IoT crap by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    Smart TVs should've been enough for people to know why we should never have started going for IoT devices in the first place, unfortunately people are too dumb to notice such things.
    When they first appeared, some over a decade ago, it already had all the problems they still have today. Long lasting appliance (TVs), tied to some extremely crappy hardware running a horrible OS that was never updated and got useless in less than a year, riddled with security and privacy problems that no one used past a novelty thing.
    Now that pretty much all brands had some sort of scandal regarding smart TV leaking data, being used to spy on owners and whatnot, they are still there for some reason.
    It's pretty much the worst way to do just about anything they are programmed to do. They have clunky outdated apps, last less than a smartphone or any other device, and brands drop support as soon as the new line of TVs comes out.

    I have one, because I got in a deal where I got two TVs for the price of one. And fortunately enough, my model has a separate remote control for the smart TV functions which I shoved in a drawer after purchase and never used it. That's the smartest thing you can do with your smart TV - never use the smart functions. Possible exceptions for brands like Sony that uses Android TV instead of some poorly developed and badly maintained proprietary OS, but even those might be worse than just shoving a Chromecast or some other tabletop device there.

  52. Look on the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least they're not exploding.

  53. Smarter than the average TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a Smart TV. It's telling the user to get outside and exercise.

  54. THAT's where we put it! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    AH HA!
    "Now I remember where I put the Galaxy 8 patch!"


    Recommendation: SELL Samsung stock!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.