This brings back memories of JailbreakMe with 'slide to jailbreak' in iOS 4. I am definitely starring and rooting my nice LG OLED that is currently an ad-filled cancer-fest.
They had an entire exploit chain from Safari to root. I can't imagine how much that would be worth today on the black market.
Is there a list of LG TVs this works on? If I buy an LG C1 today, will this allow me to root it?
It still boggles my mind that people connect these things to the Internet :p
Even if I don't connect the TV to the internet, I'll still be subjected to their rules. Who knows what this proprietary software is programmed to do? Maybe they wrote it so the TV will connect itself to the first available network it finds, with or without my consent. Maybe it's programmed to punish me for not giving them data by withholding features that don't require internet connection. This software is gonna do whatever is best for the corporation, my interests be damned.
I want software that does what I want without concern about some corporation's bottom line. Software I can trust.
Me too. Unfortunately, the bottom line is - if you didn't write it yourself, you can't trust it. That goes right down to the firmware/compiler level.
I would love to see open-source TV firmware. Or at the very least, some kind of certification that devices are not consumer-hostile.
For most of us, just blocking it from the internet is enough. If you're still worried, you could remove the antenna or wifi module, as some people are forced to with their cars now.
I think the only real solution to consumer-hostile devices is legislation, but that of course comes with it's own myriad problems.
It's easy to assume that they'll eventually require an unabridged connection to their own servers for updates, and they will simply send all ad data through the same routes such that you can't block one without blocking the other.
This is too lucrative for manufacturers to pass up. The added complexity also ads more points of failure and drives faster industry-wide consumer upgrade cycles. This is not something that will be fixed in the market alone.
Not quite as bad as that, but since I took my Sony TV offline it regularly reboots itself (when "off") and sometimes needs a "hard" start via the physical power button as the remote on has become unresponsive. I strongly suspect that it's just badly coded, going mad trying to connect to resources that don't exist, filling logs, etc. then failing over.
I so want tracked advertising in all of its forms to be outlawed.
I give it 15 years or so for the tech to mature.
Ads will play at 3AM and the TV will just record.
Or push it through some kind of subcarrier data signal.
TV will be able to triangulate its location by multilateration of ATSC/DVB-T signals. West end of the city will play different ads than east end.
Not particularly surprising, given that cable is dying and most content is delivered over the Internet nowadays. Sure, you can use something like an Apple TV, a Roku, or Fire TV, but most people prefer the convenience of a single device rather than having to buy a second device. In fact, LG TVs come preinstalled with almost all the streaming apps: Netflix, Disney+, Prime Video, HBO Max, YouTube, Hulu, Plex, etc etc.
People always choose convenience.
Well for convenience I'd rather use the built in netflix/hbo/etc apps than use a separate box with a separate remote on them.
Unfortunately those don't work without the Internets(tm).
You can join the OpenLGTV Discord for more information:
(check pinned messages in rootmytv channel)
Same thing on the Sony Bravia I have in my living room, which is what I usually watch television on.
But I do run my own DNS server in an OPNSense router/firewall with some pretty strict blocking rules, and it recurses to a NextDNS server that also has its own blocklists enabled. So if these devices are actually using DNS via DHCP instead of hard-coding their own servers, and serving ads from known ad domains, that would do it.
Not sure if LG hasn't got around to sourcing ads for the EU or they're not doing it because of some legal reasons.
Edit: got some screenshots. Apparently you need to agree to the terms and conditions to get ads on a RO LG. Don't know who ever does that.
Using it basically as a dumb screen seems fine so far.
We are enabling hardware vendors shipping half assed products if we accept things like that.
This worked for a while to prevent ads, but now the ads ignore the policies and show up anyway, and they became really obnoxious, including the notification system sometimes showing ads while you are using the TV.
First it was a Disney+ ad, then it was a Tim Hortons ad.
It's gotten so slow I'm planning to replace it in the near future, probably with something from Apple.
I haven’t seen any ads on my tv, but Google is disabled along with personalization services.
Mine is an older set tho—LGC9 series.
It's a damn shame companies feel incentivised to do this.
People hacking on their own TVs is quite literally a victimless crime (besides yourself, if you brick your one TV), because you knowingly void the warranty.
Mazdas have a great third-party firmware called Mazda AIO Tweaks that fixes a whole host of bugs and allows you to customize the infotainment system. The best part is you can use it to enable Android Auto on older Mazdas (this was before AA was even released for Mazda!)
Mazda then proceeded to lock down the firmware so much you now need to take apart some consoles and attach a serial connection. Disgusting behaviour.
(vis-a-vis plugging in an SD card with the scripts you want to run.)
On the other hand, the ability to physically flash our own software into any hardware we buy should be a basic consumer right. There should be no need for exploits in the first place, it should be a built in feature.
What dangers are there for TVs in terms of malware? This isn't a phone or a computer which holds sensitive information. The very worst that could be done would be to steal your streaming service session cookies.
If there are no sensors on the TV, malicious actors can always use it to mine Monero at my expense.
yes, it was found that the cameras were abused.
or what if the malware took screenshots of what you were watching every so often? oh wait, that was also found to be a built-in "feature".
otherwise, they are a foothold onto the rest of your internal LAN, possibly with other more vital IoT devices ready to be compromised, or at least serve as a botnet army
However, another angle to view it is that these are huge security vulnerabilities. Visiting a webpage on your TV to install a custom firmware could also be used for great evil as well.
So letting this huge holes exist is not that great, but there should be an easier on path for people who want their own custom firmware.
I think Google phones do a good job here. It's nearly impossible to accidentally flash your phone with an unsigned firmware, but you can also unlock the boot loader and do whatever you want.
From what I have heard, that "whatever you want" excludes important things like banking apps.
Forbidding such things will be like whac-a-mole; but forcing businesses to provide security update support for 5 or 10 years if their product offers internet, wifi, or cellular data connections would make some businesses balk.
As with all things, these costs are off-loaded to the consumer and it leads to some serious problems when scaled.
From the business side, having a quantifiable cost for security would also extinguish some bad ideas; perhaps by the bean counters.
Nitpick: it's not a victimless crime, on account of not being a crime at all.
There are other comments in this thread talking about disabling ads. The companies are financially incentivized to keep those ads running.
Though on the flip side, I consider ads even more reason to demand full control over my hardware.
So, the incentives there are a lot clearer.
Or using a tomato for something other than a pizza base.
you don't need to root it to watch Youtube without ads. you just need to pay for Youtube premium.
Something else a lot of people don't know is that it can be configured to skip things that are not simply sponsor spots, stuff like filler, intro and and cards, begging for subscriptions, and so forth. That add-on is the single greatest quality of life improvement YouTube has ever seen.
Amazing! I didn't know that. Now I'm starting to wonder why I ever tolerated this noise in the first place...
Don't get extorted. The right answer to all YouTube advertising is uBlock Origin and Sponsor Block.
People say "just let me pay" but when the option is there no-one really does. They just want free things.
The only way to provide content for free, yet force users to watch advertising, is to lock down users' computers and remove their freedom to control their own computing. That's what most HN users are against, as it goes against the philosophy of free software .
If YouTube doesn't want to provide free content, they have all the liberty in the world to remove free content from their site and provide it only for YouTube Premium users. But they don't want to do that, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
But YouTube provides very little content of their own. They are primarily a hosting platform used by third-party content providers.
If YouTube doesn't want to make content accessible for free anymore, it would undermine the use case of the vast majority of people who use it to distribute their own content.
I don't know what their finances and operations look like internally, but I suspect that the revenue they are bringing is enough for them to operate very much in the black, despite some proportion of their audience blocking ads, just as traditional broadcast TV networks have been profitable for decades without having nay mechanism to ensure that viewers are watching commercials.
Perhaps YouTube should just accept that ad blocking is part of the market landscape they operate it, and plan their monetization around reasonable estimates of the actual reach of their ads with blocking taken into account. Potentially undermining their core business model just to increase ad viewership by a few percentage points doesn't seem like a sound strategy.
If you believe in the philosophy of free software to the letter YouTube can't do as you suggest. If they were to offer a paid only service to Premium members that respects their freedoms, that content should also be freely distributable to others. That undermines their entire business model.
Torrenting is the only real solution that comes to my mind, but that only works for the most in demand media. If you want the long tail, then as I see it, YouTube's (or similarly Facebook's) infrastructure offers the only viable solution, and there's no alternative to paying them for maintaining this infrastructure, either via ads, or via a subscription.
I also want to be able to feed, shelter, and educate the whole world without having to worry about costs, but I have no options.
I agree that 'free as in beer' is not required for a 'foss device', but I don't see how you can have content which is not 'free as in freedom' on a foss device. Without DRM and licensing restrictions, how can YouTube prevent premium users sharing that content with non-paying individuals?
To be clear I am not saying it is right or wrong, just a statement of facts. All I am suggesting is that both business models (ad supported free (beer) content or paid subscriptions) do not respect free software principles. Either way, you are restricting what a user can do with that content.
The propaganda is so pervasive that we believe that people must be made physically unable to steal, otherwise they definitely will.
> The propaganda is so pervasive that we believe that people must be made physically unable to steal, otherwise they definitely will.
Are you suggesting that if tomorrow YouTube removed all their DRM and turned into a paid for only service, that content would not be freely distributed to non-paying individuals? Hell, content with DRM is getting torrented all the time.
Again, and I want to stress this, I'm not saying it's 'right' or defending YouTube's business practices. I just don't see how either business model can be reconcilled with the Free Software principles.
And I've never seen a video streaming site that just gave you links to download the videos. They all have some degree of security, but no supermarket ever tied my hands behind my back on entry.
> Are you suggesting that if tomorrow YouTube removed all their DRM and turned into a paid for only service, that content would not be freely distributed to non-paying individuals?
No, I'm suggesting that not everyone would steal it, in te same way that not everyone shoplifts now. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the convenience of Netflix over torrents is so great for the average person, that they'd keep paying even if there was no DRM on Netflix, because
> Hell, content with DRM is getting torrented all the time.
What security measures can YouTube employ which are compatible with FOSS? How can they prevent users copying the content if the content is DRM free and has an open license?
> no supermarket ever tied my hands behind my back on entry.
Again, I don't follow this analogy. The overwhelming majority of people are quite happy consuming content with DRM and heavily restricted license agreements, it adds no friction to their experience.
DRM and license restrictions only matter when you want to break their terms, which is analogous to the point in a shop when someone tries to steal something. It's only at that point does the DRM feel restrictive, in the same way that you would expect your hands to be tied behind your back in a shop if you steal something.
> No, I'm suggesting that not everyone would steal it, in te same way that not everyone shoplifts now. In fact, I will go so far as to say that the convenience of Netflix over torrents is so great for the average person, that they'd keep paying even if there was no DRM on Netflix, because
I did not suggest everyone would 'steal it' (whatever stealing means with open licensing) but enough would for it to significantly materially impact their business. As it stands, licensing and DRM protections mean that none of the big players will touch hosting another's content, YouTube's legal team would be would be all over them like a ton of bricks. If they removed the restrictions though, why not give it a go? Twitch could host say the top 10% of gaming content off YouTube and earn ad revenue off it, or include it as part of Twitch Prime ad free.
It's really interesting you bring up netflix because it probably demonstrates this problem more clearly. If netflix removed their license restrictions, that means a big player could host their content and pretty much only pay the bandwidth costs. I appreciate that's no small feet, but it's certainly easier than making the content in the first place and paying the bandwidth fees. YouTube is certainly at the scale that they could trivially host all of Netflix's content and their business would be gone overnight.
The only reason people keep paying for netflix is because piracy has friction. That friction only exists because of the restrictive licensing and DRM.
For what it's worth, I have been to some unattended small shops (particularly in smaller places around Europe) that are fully trust-based, with just self-service credit card checkout or a money box that you should put the right amount in, and it seems to work. I don't know if it would work for a large supermarket, but I think we are getting there, with the proliferation of self-service, and camera-based technological solutions like Amazon's.
As long as increased levels of theft doesn't exceed the salary they would otherwise have to pay, it's a good deal for the store owners.
I agree with the other child comment to you that such systems only work in a highly trustworthy society.
That's not true, as content is not software.
They also lost before commerical skipping existed, in the 80s, when they tried, and again failed to get VHS recording of live TV banned, because you could fast forward through the commercials.
Before that, there were attempts to make it illegal to record songs off of the radio, going back to the 70s!
So many attempts were made at this, that many countries have legislation which makes recording off of TV, for personal use, specifically legal.
Democracy has spoken.
In other words, youtube's model of injecting commecial content into freely viewable media, and hoping people won't modify it to their tastes, is a proven failed business model.
Any executive which thinks this is the path, and they one can legally enforce it, is literally delusional and unfit to ply their trade.
All their hand-wavy attempts to get around this, via encryption, via copyright have also failed repeatedly.
This business model is still alive, but control of endpoint is dead, dead, dead.
Except in this case, where it’s a proven successful business model.
Universal Studios sued Sony over BetaMax not because it was worried about skipping commercials, it wanted to be able to sell movies instead of people being able to record it.
The first lawsuit about programmatically being able to skip commercials which is more akin to the crowdsourced YouTube skipping creator embedded sponsorship was in 2001 when 28 studios sued ReplayTV out of existence.
Also see: no cable tv was never ad free except for premium channels like HBO.
In spirit, you're right. But legally, the DMCA was specifically intended to give the media companies what they had always wanted but been denied by the courts.
YouTube could monetize their content with YouTube Premium without taking the control away from the users, by means of not letting anyone view the content without paying. But they do not want to do that, as providing content for free is what made YouTube popular in the first place. So they lock down the users' machines.
Where's the YouTube plan where Google doesn't track me, where I get zero ads, where YouTube itself blocks hardcoded sponsor segments in videos, where YouTube allows me to download videos DRM-free? Because we already have all that without paying them a cent. You want us to pay them to have less freedom and power than we already have? Nope.
I pay for YouTube Premium because I won't sit through ads but I want creators to get paid (and apparently at a better rate than without it). I also use SponsorBlock, by the time I've watched a channel's back catalog I've often already signed up for their Patreon. I can't practically do so for every channel, so making sure they get their impression money is minimally just.
That makes things even easier. I don't really want surveillance capitalism corporations like Google to keep existing. Therefore I won't pay them for anything, not even with my attention. "Minimally just" has nothing to do with it. Any data they have on me, they took despite my best efforts to deny them. If creators can't make it work without exposing me to this evil, that's OK too. It was never meant to be.
> signed up for their Patreon
Yeah, I think this is the way to go for creators. They get paid before they create for the act of creating. This is the only thing that makes sense in the 21st century. Outdated stuff like ads and copyright needs to go, if they refuse we'll force them out with amazing world changing technology like uBlock Origin, Sponsor Block, Ad Nauseam and the almighty ability to copy that every computer inherently possesses.
> Amazing! I didn't know that. Now I'm starting to wonder why I ever tolerated this noise in the first place...
It's not like I'm hacking into their servers and exfiltrating data against their will.
Our attention belongs to us. Our minds are sacred. Not a single corporation on this earth should have an assumed right to "compete" for our attention or otherwise exploit it for personal gain. Our attention is not theirs. They have no right to sell it off to the highest bidder. There really does not need to be any justification beyond this.
Economic harm? It doesn't matter how much money they lose. When some advertising corporation calls ad blockers "robbery" I can only laugh. I call their advertising robbery. They rob us of our attention. They mind rape us, inserting their little brands into our awareness without our consent. I think they belong in jail for this stuff. Blockers are just legitimate self defense, we're just protecting ourselves against these malicious corporations trying to manipulate us with their advertising for profit.
1. pay 2 cents (or whatever the value is to Google for a single ad view) for each ad skipped
2. if your total cost exceeds the monthly cost, just pay the monthly cost
I pay for hulu without ads because we watch enough hulu for that to make sense. But I watch probably a handful of videos on youtube a month. I can't really justify paying for youtube premium in that case.
Otherwise, it generally looks ok, but (and I understand that this may just be a preference) I have an older Samsung panel and I think it looks better.
I have youtube premium but I still prefer smarttubenext over default android tv youtube app
>No. This does not break or limit access to subscription services or other DRMed content.
I can't run Netflix app on rooted Android, but could on a rooted TV. I guess this isn't something Netflix was prepared for.
Server side Netflix has nothing to do, just send out the encrypted stream if asked by a client.
(Netflix do the same thing on MacOS with Apple signed drivers, backed up by hardware based security.)
Including Widevine. Widevine Level 3 is a software based solution that can be used on a variety of platforms, but the space for Widevine Level 1 requires OS and hardware integration (which doesn't include Windows for example, but is available for Android if the OEM does the requisite work).
No you don't. Safari doesn't support Widevine at all for example.
As someone who has hid root from banking apps in the past, there is no just here. You need to keep up with release notes of software updates in several components (custom OS, magisk and any roothide mods you use). That's fun to do for a while, but not long term. And definitely something I wouldn't expect from the mythical average user.
No longer going to be possible due to hardware remote attestation.
I don't know if LG does the same, but in terms on ads in the display I ... never really found it to be anything.
I sold my 55" LG OLED highend model last year when moving, but except for a "recommended app"-showing on the main menu I don't recall any nag-ware. I also found the smart TV features to beat most, if not all, dedicated boxes in speed and usability and preferred it to Apple TV.
While not perfect it is the system I like the most if I have to use a smart TV. I do still prefer an Apple TV 4K though.
Now all smart functionality is via the Apple TV.
· LG, for patching symptoms of bugs rather than underlying causes...
Imagine ads when emergency brake is on so people stop using that.
TV you can bypass with a media device (good idea for portability/repalcement too)
But a car, can't
If you pay extra, you can have a "limited ad" experience, and see a virtual view out the windshield or even play content from partner subscription services.
Of course, those will have ads too.
"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy."
Hisense TV's suffer from this massively (the ones running VIDAA).
One such is 'the crashd exploit', you can find instructions for that in the OpenLGTV Discord.
i don't know about this, but what i do know is that WebOS on LG is miles ahead of any PC, Chromecast, Apple TV etc etc
My TV was a AU$420 42" LCD that was approximately the last of the models that dont have built in bullshitware.
One day it will break I suppose. Probably should have bought ten of them.
Now might be a good time to stick up on secondhand dumb TVs.
Fortunately I enjoyed watching movies / series, but not so much that I think a $3000 / better quality display would enhance the experience significantly. I also can't justify that sort of expenses on a screen.
On a side note: the difficulty in blocking ads has shown me how much control I have lost over my devices.
I have zero interest in using apps, I just want to cast stuff from my phone. My old (non-4k) chromecast switched to the correct htmi input and started the TV when I started casting to it. The new white one doesn't even show a stream if you cast to it when in the "app" interface which is its default interface.
Instead you have to use the remote and leave the app interface first (go "out" to the photo/clock/screensaver interface which was default on older ChromeCasts), and only then you can cast to it? Am I misunderstanding something? Is there a configuration option to just make it a "dumb but 4k" chromecast, i.e. so that it boots up in the mode that accepts streaming?
I think it's a combination of Google having a pretty strong security team (so there aren't many exploits), and geeks not really wanting to use Google stuff anymore.
I've been doing this as well. I love the idea of rooting but not being able to get system updates bugs me a bit.
I also prefer keeping my tv software up to date with patching, I don't want to jailbreak and keep the tv software at the specific vulnerable version.
LG's interface is pretty insane in places. E.g. there's no button to go straight to the TV guide. There's not even a play/pause button on the remote. You have to press the centre button anywhere between 1 and 4 (yes!) times to pause. The screen brightness control is buried somewhere insane in the settings like "OLED care". The home screen is literally 85% wasted space. Fully half of it is just a big "WebOS" banner.
If I can fix any of those this is definitely worth doing!
Not sure if you know this, but you can bind any application to a "long click" shortcut. Hold one of 1-9 buttons for two seconds over an application in the menu and it will bind it. From there on you can just hold said button for two seconds and application starts.
As for UI things, depending on the version of WebOS, you can likely make (some of) the tweaks you want by using bind+mount to make QML files writable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QML). There are a some people doing small tweaks to the UI, but I don't know of anyone that did any huge changes (since, once rooted, the ads are trivially removed).
 https://github.com/romland/webos-svelte-template (it lacks documentation)
This was a great tip, thank you
Given I mostly watch Kodi, I’d love that to be the primary UI.
While LG allows willing Homebrew developers/users to install unofficial applications onto their TVs, official method requires manual renewal of "developer mode session", which expires after 50 hours of inactivity.
Some of the amazing homebrew that has been built/ported onto webOS would likely never be accepted onto LG's official Content Store.
Lower level user/application access
This allows willing developers to research webOS system internals, which will result in creation of amazing projects, like PicCap (high performance video capture used for DIY immersive ambient lighting setups), or access to some interesting features like customization of system UI, remote adjustment of certain TV configuration options, and others.
- All app sideloading. Bye Pornhub app, you died too soon. Roku uninstalled the apps sideloaded from my tv's the day this changed. I've never been so angry.
- SHOUTCast App inexplicably removed from both TV's and unavailable now with unhelpful message saying it's gone because reasons.
- The 10.0.5 update one one of the two units REMOVED VOLUME LEVELLING, which the unit came with, and it's never come back.
Yeah Roku can get fucked. What a poor outcome those two tv's were ultimately. Removing functionality you had at purchase time should be illegal.
I do only use with apps or am external source (no DTV or cable), so maybe it’s that?
This is AFAICT because it blocks "sponsored product placement" type ads — which are indeed ads, but which some users are deriving value from (at least so they think), and want to see.
(Luckily the admin dashboard makes it fairly easy to deal with these, but usually I "don't have time" right then and just disable it for x minutes.)
“Why would anyone use a Smart TV?! Just build a home theatre PC to connect to your old TV via a 60ft HDMI cable and use a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse. I’ve been doing this since 2005”
As if any normal person wants that kind of setup. Not to mention the difficulties with the above for higher end content such as 4K Dolby Vision playback.
People want a basic interface that doesn’t require downloading files beforehand. Click a few buttons on the remote and you have high quality streaming video without the fuss.
What is hard to understand about why people like smart TVs? It’s just convenience.
I also have the impression that "everyone" buys an apple tv/Chromecast/etc anyways because of limitations in the smart tv or just ease of use. It makes a lot of sense to have these things separated except for TV manufacturers that want you to buy a TV more frequently.
Can we produce substantially inexpensive black-boxed hardware that they desperately want in order to cut costs, but interferes in dissatisfying but barely tolerable ways with the quality of life too? Can we occasionally make it send messages in-store to their customers that the execs wouldn't want or approve of but find themselves putting up with because it's relatively benign compared to a worse bottom line?
Using a computer monitor or specialist/signage TV is both expensive and offers a worse experience.
My Samsung TV has never been connected to the internet - we use a Roku box to feed streaming content to it - but it's still laggy and unresponsive by default, getting worse over the course of a few months until we decide to factory reset it again.
At one point it was so bad that I pressed the "change source" button a couple times, noticed it wasn't working, pressed the volume buttons, then the menu button, assumed the remote was dead, went to find some batteries in a drawer, took the remote batteries out, and then the TV rapidly switched sources, changed volume and opened the menu over the course of half a second.
But I expect that of my car infotainment, my computer monitor, and a recently purchased signage screen as well. Finding a device (any device) that didn't behave like this would me more shocking. I tend to think that the best thing to do is buy the most popular product, from a known brand. Because at least then there are millions of people having the same experience, increasing the chance of a fix.
We get amazing hardware in many cases these days. The quality of the screens in TV's these days is completely unbelievable. And you can get a decent one for a few hundred. I too wish there was a brand that would spend a little more on better UX (both hardware and software). But the harsh reality is that it doesn't sell. Rumor doesn't spread that BrandX has snappy intuitive menus, fewer bugs or less ads. The commercial says that UsualBrand has new magical colors and ultra high def thingamajigs, and that sells TVs.
The ARM chip in the AppleTV is anything but slow and the only thing I had to do to prevent ads on the Home Screen is to remove Apple’s apps from the top bar and replace them with my most used apps.
And often by that point they’re looking for an excuse to buy the new shiny anyway.
Problem with Smart TVs is they become obsolete super fast software wise. And basically, unsafe to connect to the internet in a few years.
Most TVs have CI+ ports. I can easily imagine an upgradable "smart module". Just buy a new compatible one (which, effectively could just connect for power and HDMI) and get the brand new stuff.
There is no bubble, smart TVs are a consumerist trap and it will require government intervention to fix because nobody has any incentives otherwise.
Having a switchable "compute" module that the user can upgrade without replacing the whole TV would be great but the truth is that is what a streaming box is doing just not integrated into the TV but connected via HDMI.
I treat my smart TVs like a dumb TV. It doesn't have internet access as I have explained elsewhere. I just use the TV OS to switch inputs and change picture settings but never use any of the built in apps.
Having said that my parents do use the apps and haven't reported any issues with them on their LG C8 from 2018. I have tried to get them to use a streaming box but they didn't see the point in complicating things to use the same streaming services. Maybe if the apps get slow or crappy they will change their mind rather than replace the TV.
Sure, if they worked, but they don't. Sadly it's pretty hard to get any real numbers on this. I do know people who use the smart bit of their smart tv, and to be fair, their use case might be exactly what the designers had in mind. The apps on the TV is a supplement to live TV. So mom and dad will watch just regular cable TV, maybe stream a movie once or twice a month, while the kids will use the YouTube app.
For people who are basically done with cable or over the air broadcasts, smart TVs just aren't good enough (for the most part). I think you can get high-end TVs now that are fast enough and where the software is reasonable. However, if you buy your TV in the supermarket, or just pick the cheapest one in the right size or color, when you can safely add something like a ChromeCast or even an AppleTV and it will still be cheaper.
You're right that a "normal person" simply do not want a home theater PC with a keyboard and mouse. They also don't care about Dolby, Atmos or soundbars. They just want a TV and if the speakers are built in, then perfect, less to worry about... In fact I'm kinda normal in that sense, my TV is a screen, it has speakers and inputs, it's fine. What's not fine is the shitty apps and the fact that I can reboot my AppleTV twice in the time it takes to open the Netflix on the TV. The AppleTV is my current baseline, you have to be at least as good or better.
Then there's the apps, you can be certain that whatever streaming subscription you want will have an AppleTV app or it works with ChromeCast. Does it work on a random Philips TV.... Will it ever get updated on your Samsung TV from 2016? Most likely not.
The concept of smart TVs are very convenient, but the TV manufactures lost this one. Either they stuff some Android stuff into the TV and upgrade the hardware or at least add in a small shelf in the back of the TV for me to put the AppleTV into, like B&O did at one point.
Are you aware of Google TV? It basically is android on the tv, and it's on lots of low to high end tvs across a bunch of manufacturers (Hisense, Tcl and Sony last I looked).
It's more than good enough for people who are done with cable and broadcast (I'm one of them). There are apps for all the streaming services, both my country's tv channels and the big players like netflix, apple, disney etc, and they perform great.
That must be... an extremely niche device. With some considerable knowledge of the space, I cannot think of an Android TV device that supports Apple TV but not Netflix ever.
And you know what? If they do abandon it, I'm still free to buy an add-on of some sort, so I haven't lost anything compared to people who have this weird obsession with dumb-tvs.
Of course not everyone cares about that but if you're going to spend good money on a nice 4K HDR TV I suspect you want to actually be able to watch HDR content.
But, even for that, I personally would not let my TV connect to the Internet and ruin my teaching experiences with ads.
Like most things in engineer's life, tradeoffs and people choose to trade different things.....
For me, convenience is having my dumb TV connected to my PC. It's not impossible to get a remote for a PC too you know.
They were arguing it's uncommon and requires above average competency.
The LG built-in system is actually pretty nice (and the reason why I buy LG TVs). Netflix and Prime Video are a click away. If I have downloaded something, I just plug a USB stick or use the built-in software (SmartShare) to stream from my computer by WiFi. If I want to play some games in the Steam Deck, I plug it with an HDMI cable and it just works. If I want to show my kid a Youtube video, it's a little more inconvenient with the on-screen keyboard but not a big deal. By the way, I have a Sonos Amp connected through HDMI Arc, feeding two wired front speakers and two wireless back speakers, and it works with many versions of Dolby surround sound - I haven't bothered to check if this is easy on PC, but I suspect it might not.
Maybe it's just that I don't watch a lot of TV so I'm not fussy, but I haven't found any particular feature I would like to have that isn't reasonably easy with my smart TV, while I do find significant drawbacks in the PC setup (basically more stuff in the living room, why would I need a keyboard or mouse there?).
So yes. I'm a nerd, and I like my smart TV. Go figure.
I love my LG OLED TV, everything I need is on the remote.
Back in the 00s I had a nice setup with a networked media player (connected via SCART back then) that could play my DivX/XviD DVD rips from a network share.
These days I have a NAS running Plex with an Apple TV 4K (2nd gen) and use Infuse for playback that happily plays back 150GB 4K HDR Bluray REMUXES over the network instantly. Also it is accessible anywhere I have internet so I can access my whole media library on a phone, tablet or laptop while away as easily as I can Netflix.
I use my LG "smart" TV like a dumb TV. I don't let it have internet access as it doesn't need it for how I use it although it is connected to the network but it has its own blackhole VLAN just to stop the "connect your TV to complete setup" message it always shows.
* Dolby Atmos decoded direct to speakers with no delay.
* Correctly demuxes and sends Dolby Vision HDR content at 4k 120 Hz to the display with a calibrated consistent lag with no frame drops.
* Correctly handles atmos surround system speaker calibration.
* Can play any Blu-Ray available on the market, sending the content without quality loss.
But it's also not unreasonable to want a smart TV that doesn't plaster the UI with ads.
Pretty much everyone believes their own specialist skills should be part of general education curriculum. If you ask a lawyer if law should be taught in schools, or an accountant about accounting, or a translator about languages, or a mechanic, or a nurse, or literally any person in any job they all think their own skills are appropriate to be taught to everyone. Obviously that isn't going to work.
Given that even farmers have to spend more time behind the computer than anybody is willing to admit, a little bit of understanding ans ability to automate the boring things is just a basic skill that should be thought. Not to solve any specific problem, but to learn how to find your own solutions and be clever about work processes.
Any society that teaches this will massively outperform one where specialists put up walls because they are afraid of sharing the magic incantations. Or we could continue living in a society where clerks print out a form just so the other clerk can type it into another program, because they haven't even discovered the concept of copy and paste.
The fact you believe everyone should learn some basic coding just shows you work in tech. It doesn't make it true. For a start, very few people actually apply the skills they learn at school until at least a decade afterwards (learning at around 10 - 12 years old, getting a first proper job where skills matter in their early 20s). Do you really think basic coding taught today is going to apply to a farming job in 2032 in the light of Github Copilot, visual programming, the death of filesystems and the rise of iOS/Android file pickers etc? Of course not.
If their career won't see any benefits by improving their computer skills, they have no reason to care about inefficiency.
I don't have any data but I feel like most people (technical or not) are thinking the same as me.
But a normal person doesn't want a smart tv either. It sucks. And that is when it is working, and it will stop working. And it does spy on you.
I get that people want to like smart TVs. Unfortunately, you can't.
I assume you mean normal people don't like crappy smart TV experiences with slow and crappy apps but if they were smooth and fast and easy to use they would like them more? If so that is true of pretty much everything technology related :) Nobody likes using a slow, crappy computer that takes 5 minutes to load a webpage do they.
I think normal people love smart TVs they just wish they were better especially as they age a bit.
What would be fantastic is a modular smart TV where the screen has a standardised connection for a compute unit that you can replace for a much smaller cost than replacing the whole TV itself. If you're happy with your screen it is frustrating you need to buy a whole new TV just because the shitty SoC can't handle all the new stuff Netflix, Disney, etc. add to their apps over time.
Erm, yeah, they do. They want a tv that's got the netflix and stuff all built in. A 'normal' person doesn't want to deal with an extra device that may or may not have a separate remote control. They want simplicity. Smart tvs give them that.
I'm perfectly happy to have a smart tv, it does what I need without extra wires or remotes. I have zero desire to have a separate box. If I'm still using my tv when it stops getting updates and being able to stream, then I'll investigate and add-on for it, not now, because in 5 years that would likely be out of date too.
I don't get this weird obsession with dumb screens. Device convergence is excellent. The fewer boxes and wires and the more capable the devices, the better.
My Apple TV is from the previous generation. Little by little it's losing software support. Should I replace the whole TV, which is still pretty good, when I finally upgrade the device?
The TV turns on when there is an active HDMI signal. The two volume buttons are the only thing I use every time I need it. If the Apple TV remote had volume buttons (like the new ones) I wouldn't need the TV remote at all.
It's not an "obsession". It's rational use of resources. Why does my TV need to be a full computer? If it is, what should I do when Netflix drops support for the application it's running?
Netflix still works on the first gen Roku devices from 2011 - at least it did a couple of years ago.
You can play back HDR and Dolby Vision 4K content just fine with Plex and it is all decoded on the TV (or streaming box) so no need to mess around with Windows video settings to get HDR looking not-shit.
They use Netflix, BBC iPlayer, YouTube and the Disney+ apps daily. No complaints other than when the wifi sometimes goes out but that isn't a fault of the TV.
No shit, the reason you jailbreak a tv is to put apps on it that were not built in (or remove apps that are intrusive.) This is just like saying that people who are happy with things aren't unhappy with things.
The parent commenter claimed that “almost nobody uses” the built in smart TV features. This is false outside of whatever tiny bubble they are in.
It probably depends on the kind of crowd you sample.
Roku by itself comes pre-installed on almost 40% of new TVs
Manufacturers have just started installing FireTV software.
And Google has been in the game for awhile with preinstalled Android.
A few observations:
1. I can’t stand watching TVs in many hotels because of settings, you get the “soap opera effect”. My wife isn’t bothered by it.
2. Most cable boxes had channels with both the standard definition feeds and HD feeds. How many times have you seen people watching the SD feeds on large TVs and it didn’t bother them?
3. On another note: how many people do you see walking around with cracked phone screens who you know could afford to get it fixed. But it doesn’t bother them? I couldn’t even deal with a scratch on my screen. Related : bad displays because of a screen protector on their phones and it doesn’t bother them.
You incredulously ask: Are you going to X?
I say: yes, I am going to X.
I’m not sure what your anecdotes are purporting to say. Clearly neither of us has done the research, I made an observation, you made another. Get over it.
Anecdotally, that's not true of people I know (and even less so for people not in tech), but anecdotes are not particularly useful.
It could also be running Netcast instead of WebOS? In which case there are other ways to get in, but you'll be asking yourself "why did I do this" pretty quickly.
Join the OpenLGTV Discord and you'll have a wealth of information.
Is this information archived in a more reasonable location than Discord?
Additionally, there was another Roku domain that I blocked at the router level that also helped (I think it was something like scribe.roku.com, but can't confirm until later today).
This will go well in Australia.
I don’t understand why people don’t stream using a separate box. There are plenty of options which perform much better than the under resourced built-in streamers inside cheap televisions
(The TV only uses chroma 4:4:4 when the input is set to PC mode)
Basically it will stop it auto-switching the “device mode” for a source; I use it to keep one input permanently on game mode.
I turned off internet access in my LG WebOS TV settings. On power on, it has no audio for about 5s and then the display blanks, shows LG Logo, and then finally is fully awake. Is there a solution?
This seems to be the most widely used TV and the worst offender.
This is great of course, but i don't know why they are targeting LG which is less used and has way less ads than Samsung.
Probably because the author (looking on the git history, for first 2 months it was developed by one guy and then one another has joined him) has LG tv. :)
Skimmed the comments and thought this was part of the KDE Plasma Bigscreen project.
Because commercial TVs are trusted devices that have the key to decrypt the HDCP stream, if a TV had a feature to record and rewind video, it would work just fine. Widevine isn't related because that's only used (AFAIK) for Internet streaming.
Remember to unplug your brain dongle before going to bed.
Like and unofficial Crunchyroll app.
Now I just need and app to reconfigure the control app shortcuts.
If I were willing to connect my LG TV to the network, I'd be all over this.
More trouble than it's worth, imho. I'll just keep casting from my laptop to the Google TV dongle.
I just use a regular Samsung smart TV, but I use a Chromecast + PS5 instead of the smart features and have never connected it to the internet. If there were viable "dumb" tv options I would totally prefer them though.
Also, price of a TV with "smart" features typically does not differ much from a price of a similar TV with only non-smart features. So, people buy them because they are getting something extra at little additional cost.
Of course one can create a DIY smart setup with any TV. But given that many people already have a TV with a capable hardware, it is in my opinion only natural that they want to turn it into a proper smart TV simply by changing its software, rather than by buying a smart PC, adding cables, etc.
Also would love to know how you are doing Dolby Vision playback for example as I’ve never found a reliable way to do Dolby Vision on Windows, macOS or Linux.
mpv can now decode most of the spec if you want a software player; if you want to passthrough the DV metadata to your TV, still no luck on PC AFAIK. I believe the approach most take is using an Android TV device (e.g. Nvidia Shield), where various apps are able to do it because there's native support. Kodi, Plex, etc, can do it on the Shield.
For a technical user: the smarts often serve no point, we already have a streaming solution. Unfortunately, higher end TVs with OLED panels and the such come with "smarts" built-in. So the best you can do is ignore it and hope the firmware updates (that you install over USB because you don't trust it with a wifi connection) don't cause a ton of UI slowdown over time or otherwise cripple the TV. But if we could buy a dumb TV with the same features, we would.
The reason technical people (even those few that do have a pc connected to it) will, and should, buy smart TV's is because they are the most widely sold and therefore by far the best screen for the money. Large computer monitors or signage screens aren't as good or cheap as the most sold smart tv in the most sold size. They are extremely good for the price. If you don't want to use any smart features, most should work fairly well when operated without internet and just connected to an external input.
They have one though, so technical people shouldn't entertain the direct-to-consumer lie that smart TVs aren't crippled and locked-down general purpose computers.
The last thing I would want even as a tech savvy person is to use a desktop or laptop with a TV in any way.
The other point: There's not really an easy PC solution. The closest you can get to one is Kodi, and in my opinion it is bad. Not that they haven't put an enormous amount of work into it, but the UI is very unpleasant. Their idea of what people want out of a television interface is violently different than mine, and the configuration is absurdly opaque.
It's the reason why I stick to my Sony Bravia from 2009 until it dies.
While both TVs have a PC connected, it's far easier to use the built-in apps to watch things like YouTube and Netflix.
The apps support 4K without any fuss (which is often locked away on desktop OSes due to DRM).
The LG magic remote is pretty cool, it works a bit like a Wii remote, so you can quickly point to things on-screen.
For those that do, such as those with a laptop, they don’t want the inconvenience of connecting it to the TV to open up Netflix to watch The Crown.