That's why I bought myself a dumb TV, and added smart features using a Raspberry Pi connected to it by HDMI. The TV has no internet connection available.
Of course, but I for one haven't come across a smart TV that has a decent user interface (not necessarily in features, but responsiveness). Some will regularly prompt the user to connect the device to the internet if there's no connection. There's also the issue of long startup times should the whole device be powered off.
I think the point is, you set the TV to the HDMI input (or whatever) and leave it there. Of course, you may still have to deal with laggy start up, volume controls (annoying, on my parents' Samsung), and the like.
But once the HDMI input is up and delivering, whatever content you pick comes through it from the smart box(en) upstream that are the only thing(s) connected to the Internet.
Of course, I suppose that may not work with people who have cable TV -- those cable TV boxes probably don't or will be made to not cooperate, as much as possible. Don't know -- don't have one, right now.
Maybe TV's will become like Windows computers, at least for some of us. Buy the "smart" version because it's the only one available or has a price break, and then "throw out" / don't use the OS that comes with it (well, except to display whatever the upstream box is putting out).
If we're to think of this from an economist's perspective, then you would want to get an equivalent television without the voice command feature, and it would be cheaper.
This is a really facile comment; markets are not an infinite continuous smooth differentiable array of feature/price points, they're a mess of bundles with obfuscatory pricing an some negative added value features that have been stuck on there because the OEM was paid to do so.
The point I was trying to make was that from a market efficiency perspective, this kind of thing should not be a problem.
So it might be more expensive to remove the feature altogether, including the advertising revenue it would generate. Such is the cost of privacy, apparently.
I wouldn't trust that security model. Ultrasonic communication and other covert channels still provide a way to exfiltrate data. Best to remove the microphones personally.
Why would you need voice search in a TV though... I can't understand ... I don't understand which everyone is going nuts for IOT either!? Why do I want a web browser on my fridge really
It's handy on the new Apple TV to speak a search phrase rather than select each letter one at a time using the remote. At least on the Apple one though you press to speak into a mic on the remote so presumably it's not listening all the time.
Imagine you didn't have to worry about security, privacy, or out-of-date hardware and software. Would you still not see any benefit to having your fridge (or coffee pot, or oven, or ...) connected to the network? You might not; but if you do, then that obviously says there are beneficial reasons to have those things be connected.
I think a lot of people who say "What's even the point?" in this context don't really mean that in the end, they just don't think it's worth it given the current security / privacy / obsolescence issues involved with IoT devices. And of course those are all real issues that can absolutely weigh against any benefits. But just imagine if smartphones and tablets today were in the same poor state the IoT ecosystem is currently in. There would be a non-trivial amount (more) people wondering if they were worth the trouble.
tl;dr: Potential benefits of IoT, while they certainly have to be weighed against the potential issues that currently exist, are still potential benefits.
> Imagine you didn't have to worry about security, privacy, or out-of-date hardware and software. Would you still not see any benefit to having your fridge (or coffee pot, or oven, or ...) connected to the network?
No I don't. Well I kind of do, but the cool features you'd want it for are the things everyone stops using after a day or two.
The reason the get included is to drive sales, manufacturers need a way to differentiate themselves in a saturated market, they know hardly anyone uses the features and that even if they do then they get the bonus of planned obsolescence.
And as I said, you might not, which is a totally valid opinion; and I agree with your last sentence. My point was just that the costs of IoT don't erase the benefits, even if you believe that they outweigh them.
As an aside, just off the top of my head, and not to say that you necessarily said anything to the contrary: ignoring potential costs, do you (or anyone else who wants to respond) see the benefits of a fridge that can tell you (or, if you want, the grocery store, or the delivery company) what you're running low on, or a coffee pot that automatically turns on when you're about to wake up or get home, even if that's not at a certain time every day, or a dishwasher/etc that can wait for off-peak prices before running, or a sprinkler system that won't water your lawn when there's rain expected later in the day, or a security system that let's you monitor your home and be alerted if there's anything unusual going on (e.g. movement when no one should be home), or an armed defense drone that can monitor the Internet for signs of an incoming zombie horde?
Let me start with the caveat that I'm in my early-mid 30's and progressing ahead of time into the cranky old man stage stage of life. In general though I find this style of automation has too many exceptions and the negatives of those exceptions generally outweighs the benefits.
To take the coffee pot as an example. I'll hit the snooze button between zero and 10 times a morning, so automating the coffee machine would often result in cold coffee. Other times, if I've get a bit to drunk the night before, I'll skip the coffee, so the automation would be a waste. There's also some introduced mental overhead of having 2 workflows for the same thing, if I want a coffee, I go make a coffee, but now I'd have to think about if this was one of the automatic ones or if it requires manual intervention.
I may be atypical in this, but I have largely automated the process myself. I wake up and while I'm still on autopilot fill and turn on the jug (we don't do coffee pots here) go pee, come back and put the instant coffee in and the jug is boiled by then. There simply isn't room to optimize much further than that. I'm also a bit of a stickler for fresh water (incident with a cockaroach ~25 years ago), so I don't like the idea of filling the water the night before. If I wanted too though, I could automate turning the jug on in the morning with an electrical timer 30 years ago.
I think I could come up with a similar list of issues for all/most of your other examples considering most of them are more complicated, particularly the fridge one.
My zombie horde action plan is considerably lower tech ;)
> Imagine you didn't have to worry about security, privacy, or out-of-date hardware and software.
But you have to worry about this and weight cost and benefit, it's just not worth the hassle most of the time,
> But just imagine if smartphones and tablets today were in the same poor state the IoT ecosystem is currently in. There would be a non-trivial amount (more) people wondering if they were worth the trouble.
I don't need to imagine, security, privacy, or out-of-date hardware and software is a huge problem there, too.
> But you have to worry about this and weight cost and benefit, it's just not worth the hassle most of the time,
Perhaps you missed that I said, "And of course those are all real issues that can absolutely weigh against any benefits." The point still stands: "tl;dr: Potential benefits of IoT, while they certainly have to be weighed against the potential issues that currently exist, are still potential benefits."
> I don't need to imagine, security, privacy, or out-of-date hardware and software is a huge problem there, too.
Sure, that certainly crossed my mind, but it's just not as bad at a technical level as IoT is right now, though as far as final impact that has to be weighted by market penetration.
I probably could have come up with a better example, but I was dead tired when I wrote that. :)
A wired keyboard would be even more reliable and cheaper... but less convenient. This is the reason voice is being used, and it is more efficient on Amazon Prime etc.
Yes, thank you for saying that. I understand that different people have different use cases, but there is an environmental cost to owning too much shit that no one talks about.
Here's an example. I own a surface pro 3, and a smartphone. The SP3 is a tablet when I want it to be one, and a proper laptop when that's what's required. My brother, by contrast, has a Fitbit smartwatch thing, an iPod for music, a kindle for books, a Nexus tablet (just for flights!), a smartphone and a laptop!
And the industry seems to insist that even this is not enough. No, clearly, we must also own wifi connected anal probes, refrigerators that tweet, and coffee machines that need firmware updates before they can give you your morning cup. How do we end this madness?!
It's an odd problem. My partner insists on keeping a shopping list. But mostly I remember what we have in the fridge and store cupboard, as I frequently cook. I don't actually forget that many items when shopping. Toothpaste I don't keep in the fridge. Being able to have a quick glance remotely could help, but I'd probably then abandon trying to remember, and it would probably take me longer. My partner recently tried a little stretch of buying online and collecting from the store. But for me, it took all the fun out of shopping. I actually enjoy strutting the supermarket - and some domestic tasks. My partner likes certainty. I like mixing things up a little.
But Samsung said that it only happens when you issue a vocal command, not that the TV is always listening. I have a Samsung smart TV and you have to press a button to use a voice command so it may not always listen to you as is stated in the article. And they share the information to a third part not to sell it but for the voice recognition task.
It's just insidious though isn't it? There's a scare that we might have internet connected energy meters. You end up with dozens of devices that have connectivity and you don't actually know what they do. I have a satellite box, that I manually connect to the internet every once in a while for on demand services. But I have no idea what information it sends back. Could send back my entire viewing history for all I know. Or rather it might be collecting and storing data to later send.
I noticed my satellite box trying to pull a web page from my computer. Malware is another problem.
I noticed that TVs nowadays come with an HDMI connector for their video (and audio) input. Could a computer monitor with speakers serve in place of the TV?
I suppose that leaves the problem of not having a remote control for the 'TV'. However, if the inputs are from a cable-tv box or a media-box, they should have their own remote controls anyway.
Is there some simple reason to avoid doing this, which I overlook because of my ignorance?
Projectors have gotten much cheaper in the past few years (I used to look in awe at some of the incredible creations on the now-defunct lumenlabs forum at the DIY creations people would build because of the high projector cost back about 10 years ago). You can buy a very capable 1080p projector for €450-500 or so. You can build a high quality DIY screen if you're so inclined too. It's a bitch to setup, and you have to hide the power and HDMI cables somehow, but the experience is unbeatable.
They already have. I couldn't find a high end dumb TV last year.
I've used no features of my smart TV because ARC is awful and everything's (Kodi box, Sky and Chromecast) plugged into my home theatre system, so the TV's speakers are disabled.
Smart TV, however smart, won't be as good as a £30 Chromecast in a couple of years.
Looks like there is a small difference as voice search and voice activation.
I own smart tv (Sony) that has microphone on the remote which you can only use at Youtube search bar (then light lit on the remote when microphone is active), and I believe it's quite nifty as typing via remote is PITA.
On the other hand I don't know voice activation features on smart TVs. Do you tell your TV to "turn on" or "change channel", which is not practical IMHO.
It makes sense that personal assistants (amazon echo, apple siri, google whatever) listen all the time as you use trigger words to activate them but it's so useless for TVs.
I agree that it is old news. Orwell's "1984" with its scary concepts of mass control and indoctrination is even older.
Whenever I read about those TVs I have to think about how dehumanizing the outcome of the dystopian story was, and how we slowly - but decisively - move into the accepting such privacy and rights intrusions.
i don't mind cameras, you can just stick tape over them (until they will be build behind the display which will take few more years), microphones are worse, is there some easy way how to disable or mute them without disassembling TV and voiding warranty?
