Samsung can now remotely brick your TV

[Berni]

Quote from: Berni on September 08, 2021, 10:12:14 pm
"the various apps like youtube..."

Quote from: eti on September 08, 2021, 10:51:30 pm
"The "smart" TV manufacturers are NOTORIOUS for abandoning their shitty products..."

Several years ago I got an email from Sony saying they will turn off the YouTube app on my fairly new Sony TV on a specific date.
That date arrives, and no more YouTube.
I paid for that function, and they just delete it.
So I had to go buy an external box (which turned out to be better).

Never seen them kill off apps like that, rather frustrating indeed. Tho what i tend to see happen is that the stuff just stops getting updated and eventually apps and similar just become so old that they stop being compatible with the backend servers and just stop working.

This is also one of the things that renders old Android phones useless. At some point the never updated OS becomes so old that almost no app can be installed on it due to being deemed incompatible.

[NiHaoMike]

This is also one of the things that renders old Android phones useless. At some point the never updated OS becomes so old that almost no app can be installed on it due to being deemed incompatible.

If it's not too obscure of a device, there's a good chance XDA will have some usable builds for it.

[JPortici]

Never seen them kill off apps like that, rather frustrating indeed. Tho what i tend to see happen is that the stuff just stops getting updated and eventually apps and similar just become so old that they stop being compatible with the backend servers and just stop working.

This is also one of the things that renders old Android phones useless. At some point the never updated OS becomes so old that almost no app can be installed on it due to being deemed incompatible.

panasonic does that, too. As you say the app is not updated, then something changes in the backend and the thing doesn't work anymore (in my case it happened more or less when everything had to go HTTPS - the internal browser stopped working as well, though the thing was rather useless and i already used a chromecast for control and direct stream from PC)

I don't blame them 100%, at some point you really want to abandon the old hardware which causes you nothing but headscratches (and for what? taking the android example i look at my apps and i have less than 10 installations on devices with 5.0 or earlier, they were cut off from updates. No complaints so far, the apps work anyway)

[neil555]

For anyone wanting a large dumb screen with lots of inputs ...

https://www.sharpnecdisplays.com/p/eeme/en/products/choice.xhtml?mg=ESSENTIAL&cat=PublicDisplays

I've got the older E437Q and it's fantastic 

[Bassman59]

Two recent changes I've seen to ad presentation that are definite pet peeves:

1) They cleverly compose the page such that the "Next Page" button is below an ad which doesn't render to its full size at first. When you move the pointer to click to the next page, the ad suddenly renders which pushes the button down the page, and you end up clicking on the ad. Happens far too often, on far too many different sites, to be an accident. Technically clever but infuriating.

2) Some sites now seem to have a "master" hyperlink that is activated no matter which link on the page is clicked, and of course it takes you to an ad site. Back-arrowing to the original page then lets you click on the actual links.

Speaking of pet peeves:

Why the fsck does content on a paid service have any ads at all?

Now the advertiser apologists love to say, "you wouldn't have free content without ads, so that is the deal."

Then cable TV was introduced. You pay for the service. Yet the service has ads.

[Tomorokoshi]

Adverts are always going to be around but the insane amount is tiresome but often neccessary. Who would pay for facebook? how many would rather not have adds. I just don't bother to use it.

Isn't anyone old enough here to remember the internet before adverts? I am, it was great, the internet was a place full of content. Then the adds came along and look an the cess pit it is now. How many sites exist just for the add revenue? tons, try googling any product and just look at the number of results for sites that claim to tell you about the top 10 of a product in 2021 or the year before if they have not made another senseless page of dribble yet with promoted links to amazon. Often these pages themselves are advertised.

The add system has gone from being sensible adds to walls of crap that make up 50% of some sites.

But then who does not want free stuff? no such thing as free. I was highly irritated when my brother in law made us all get signal because of the changes to whattsapp. Yet he still has facebook and gave signal no donations. It's a race to the bottom these days.

...

That said, it is still wasted on me because I have zero justification for buying new test gear, there is a virtually 0% chance that it's going to result in a sale no matter how many times I see that Keysight banner.

...

I don't mind the Keysight banners.

I find the animated JCLPCB ads to be obnoxious and distracting, so I will probably actively avoid them when it comes to PCB builds.

I immediately scroll them off the screen. Therefore the Keysight banner gets blocked out anyway. Guilt by association.

[james_s]

Speaking of pet peeves:

Why the fsck does content on a paid service have any ads at all?

Now the advertiser apologists love to say, "you wouldn't have free content without ads, so that is the deal."

Then cable TV was introduced. You pay for the service. Yet the service has ads.

It didn't used to. Originally when cable TV came out there were no ads, you paid for the service. Then they figured out they could add ads and people would still pay for the service, so they make even more money. One of the most annoying aspects about pay TV services is the bulk of your bill goes to pay for sports channels, a category which I have zero interest in across the board.

[Berni]

It gets even worse.

We have a national radio/TV station much like the British BBC that we also have to pay for. They don't care if you watch it, as long as you have a TV (and they assume everyone does) you have to pay for it, much like the BBC. However unlike the BBC they are allowed to have ads just like any other TV station. They also often get the live broadcasts of the big events such as the Olympics where the price of ads is astronomical.

[Bud]

I find amusing that TV licensing practice existing is some countries. I should be paid money to watch governement's shit, not the other way around.

[james_s]

I'm not opposed to the idea of public TV, as far as I know it isn't a propaganda channel or something. A TV license may have even made sense back when a lot of people didn't have a TV but when it is assumed that everyone has one then it may as well just be a tax so people don't have to think about it. As someone who doesn't watch broadcast TV and hasn't for probably 20 years I would be highly annoyed at having to pay a fee to support the station. If there was a station that had no ads and no on-screen logos I might actually watch it though. Unfortunately even if you can get away from ads, you won't get away from those worthless obnoxious logos.

[Zero999]

I'm not opposed to the idea of public TV, as far as I know it isn't a propaganda channel or something. A TV license may have even made sense back when a lot of people didn't have a TV but when it is assumed that everyone has one then it may as well just be a tax so people don't have to think about it. As someone who doesn't watch broadcast TV and hasn't for probably 20 years I would be highly annoyed at having to pay a fee to support the station. If there was a station that had no ads and no on-screen logos I might actually watch it though. Unfortunately even if you can get away from ads, you won't get away from those worthless obnoxious logos.

The BBC in the UK doesn't have and advertising, except for its own programmes. Unfortunately it is horribly biased and full of propaganda, but it reflects the political views of the people running it, more than the government. I have paid my TV licence up until April this year, but will not renew it when it's due. I no longer watch it and I'm sick of its left-wing propaganda and the way it lies by omission, by choosing not to report things which don't suit its agenda.

In some respects the news is better in the US. If you watch Fox, you know it's Tump loving, whilst CNN is the opposite.

[Cerebus]

It is a truism that the BBC is politically biased to the opposite of what one's personal political prejudices are. I would suggest that precisely because right-wingers say the BBC is full of leftists and that left-wingers say it's full of smug middle class Tory voters that it's probably doing quite a good job of treading the thin line where it isn't biased. I would however agree that BBC news, in fact all television news reporting, is remarkably shallow.

[Zero999]

It is a truism that the BBC is politically biased to the opposite of what one's personal political prejudices are. I would suggest that precisely because right-wingers say the BBC is full of leftists and that left-wingers say it's full of smug middle class Tory voters that it's probably doing quite a good job of treading the thin line where it isn't biased. I would however agree that BBC news, in fact all television news reporting, is remarkably shallow.

That's funny because I'm in the centre, so should think the BBC are not biased, but I do. Take for example how they've reported on the BLM riots last year, which were portrayed to be "peeceful demonstrations" inspite of all the vandalism. There was no mention made, of the neo-Marxist ideology behind the BLM organisation, who were shown in a positive light, when in reality many black people themselves, dislike them. Then there's the lack of coverage of the anti-lockdown demonstrations, which went on throughout the country, between March last year and July 2021.

I could post links to their website, where they promote contensious topics such as critical race theory, without questioning them, but I don't want to be accused of turning this into a political thread. I have no issue with the BBC writing about contraversial topics, but it should be done in an impartial manner, which they've failing to do.

[IDEngineer]

I have no issue with the BBC writing about contraversial topics, but it should be done in an impartial manner, which they've failing to do.

Mass media cannot be impartial because it would break their business model. People don't get passionate about centrism or moderation. Media is funded by advertising, which targets likely buyers of the product being advertised, who are emotionally driven, and strong emotions are better drivers of purchasing decisions.

My $0.02 on this subtopic: I consume "reporting" from an intentionally wide spectrum of political viewpoints, to keep track of what the crazies are thinking. The hilarious part is that the extremes on all sides of the spectrum sound way more alike than different. There's just as many batfreak crazy conspiracy theories, just as many "for your own good" "because we know better" desired infringements on individual liberties, on the left and right and up and down as anywhere else. If you invert the polarities and change a few nouns you couldn't tell one from another. Yet they all think "the others" are evil incarnate. News flash: The weirdos could substitute for each other pretty easily. And because they are loud and flamboyant, they get all the news coverage.

[Cerebus]

I have no issue with the BBC writing about contraversial topics, but it should be done in an impartial manner, which they've failing to do.

Mass media cannot be impartial because it would break their business model. People don't get passionate about centrism or moderation. Media is funded by advertising, which targets likely buyers of the product being advertised, who are emotionally driven, and strong emotions are better drivers of purchasing decisions.

You seem to have completely missed the point that the BBC, which is the broadcaster being discussed, is NOT funded by advertising.

[IDEngineer]

Well, yeah, I triggered on the wrong data. Sorry.

Closest thing we have here in the States is National Public Radio (NPR), which is funded by a combination of government and private donations ("memberships"). It swings a bit left but isn't as horribly biased as advertising funded outlets.

[james_s]

My $0.02 on this subtopic: I consume "reporting" from an intentionally wide spectrum of political viewpoints, to keep track of what the crazies are thinking. The hilarious part is that the extremes on all sides of the spectrum sound way more alike than different. There's just as many batfreak crazy conspiracy theories, just as many "for your own good" "because we know better" desired infringements on individual liberties, on the left and right and up and down as anywhere else. If you invert the polarities and change a few nouns you couldn't tell one from another. Yet they all think "the others" are evil incarnate. News flash: The weirdos could substitute for each other pretty easily. And because they are loud and flamboyant, they get all the news coverage.

It's kind of annoying that it's necessary. I have to check the left wing and right wing news sites and then try to interpolate something resembling a reality from what they cover. I find it both interesting and unfortunate how widely divergent they are, even when covering the same event. Then of course there are many events that are covered by only one and completely ignored by the other. I really wish some would at least pretend to be centrist and impartial.

[IDEngineer]

I really wish some would at least pretend to be centrist and impartial.

I promise, some do pretend to be centrist and impartial. With "pretend" being the key word in that statement. Your approach, "I have to check the left wing and right wing news sites and then try to interpolate something resembling a reality from what they cover", is really the only proper thing to do. One must gather as much data as possible and then use critical thinking skills to interpolate something close to the truth on your own. The only safe presumption is that everyone in media and government has an agenda they're trying to sell you.

[james_s]

It drives me absolutely nuts, some are worse than others, but most of the really mainstream news at least in the USA is sharply biased, the shrill voiced hype and hysteria is over the top, hyperbole all over the place. This or that group of people is evil and is destroying the country, this law is the worst thing ever and does this, that and the other thing! Then you read the actual law and it does nothing of the sort   I would love to blame one side or the other but they BOTH do it, and they BOTH claim that only the other side is doing it, or that the other side is worse. The curse of being a centrist independent is that politically I have no home, the lefties think I'm a right winger and the right wingers think I'm a leftie. I can piss off everybody.

[IDEngineer]

I would love to blame one side or the other but they BOTH do it, and they BOTH claim that only the other side is doing it, or that the other side is worse.

And the worst part is that they defend against this reality with accusations of "whataboutism". As if that's some sort of legitimate refutation of actual facts. That your opposition did something wrong does not justify your own wrong behavior, but you'd never know that to read or listen to these shriekers.

The good news is that I'm reading and hearing many more people saying what you are. That they see through the smokescreen, they recognize the hypocrisy. I'm optimistic that people are waking up, ignoring the spins from both sides, and realizing that their neighbors aren't the problem. Politicians and their media are the problem, seeking to pit we regular folk against each other.

I've travelled all over the world, to many countries under many different forms of government, and the people are all the same. They love their families, they work hard, they pursue their dreams just like everyone else. It's the politicians who screw things up. It appears to be a universal constant. Yet here in the States, we have a federal recividism - er, excuse me, reelection - rate of over 90%. We truly get the government we deserve.

[james_s]

Bringing up "whataboutism" is just a method of dismissal, it's a euphemism for "shut up", nothing more.

[Zero999]

I really wish some would at least pretend to be centrist and impartial.

I promise, some do pretend to be centrist and impartial. With "pretend" being the key word in that statement. Your approach, "I have to check the left wing and right wing news sites and then try to interpolate something resembling a reality from what they cover", is really the only proper thing to do. One must gather as much data as possible and then use critical thinking skills to interpolate something close to the truth on your own. The only safe presumption is that everyone in media and government has an agenda they're trying to sell you.

That statement applies to the BBC. The problem is, the organisation is filled with a particular type of people, with similar backgrounds and political views. They attempt to be impartial, but it becomes obvious they're not, by the spin they put on certain stories and more importantly, what they choose not to report.

I really started losing faith in the BBC when it was discovered they employed Britains most prolific paedophile and helped to shelter him and cover up his crimes. I've known they were biased for a long time, but it's really become more obvious in the last 18 months, so I've tuned out.