[flacebo]

Smart TVs are a curse (from a consumer perspective). A separate smart device makes much more sense.

People usually replaced their TVs when they broke, which could be 6-8+ years. Nowadays as their already slow hardware becomes even more obsolete, streaming apps are no longer updated and start to break, new ones are not released, etc. they go ahead and buy a new one.

You also have to accept all kinds of crappy agreements, so you can be spied on and get served ADS (?!?!).

Not to mention even the most expensive TVs come with baffingly slow hardware and software. $2k devices can take 10+ seconds to load the menu with 4 options, where you can modify picture settings. Incredible.

A TV should be a display with inputs and nothing more IMO.

Smart boxes are cheap and much faster than even the most expensive TVs, and they can be replaced inexpensively when eventually they become obsolete.

For a long time I pulled the network cable from my TV after I got tired of getting bombarded with changed ToS agreements, firmware updates and home screen ads. Now I have it on the network again just because I wanted to control the source from my PC, but it's still blocked from the internet on the firewall. Go ahead and make snapshots you stupid little TV.

[allturtles]

> Not to mention even the most expensive TVs come with baffingly slow hardware and software. $2k devices can take 10+ seconds to load the menu with 4 options, where you can modify picture settings. Incredible.

Yes it's really curious how much worse technology has gotten in some dimensions in recent decades. Analog TVs would respond to inputs effectively instantaneously - if you changed the channel, the very next frame would be drawn from the new channel. My TV now takes multiple seconds to change channels.

[unsnap_biceps]

Analog tvs would change in the middle of frames if you swapped channels.

Digital tvs are cursed to wait for the next key frame in the video to start displaying and providers are a-okay with very long waits for key frames as it improves their encoding efficiency and thus allows them to squeeze more channels on the lines.

It's apples to oranges sadly.

[xnx]

> Digital tvs are cursed to wait for the next key frame in the video to start displaying

If they chose too, couldn't TV decoders pretend to have a all-gray keyframe as a starting point and apply the streaming diffs to that until the next true keyframe came? That would at least give some garbled image before snapping in. I'm sure most consumers would consider this "broken" though.

[rbanffy]

> Analog tvs would change in the middle of frames if you swapped channels.

They'd get a little confused, as the next vblank (and hblank) would come at unexpected times, as channels wouldn't synchronize frames.

> Digital tvs are cursed to wait for the next key frame in the video to start displaying

This is very annoying.

[garaetjjte]

It doesn't need to be that bad if they cared about it. If channel is on the same band as previous one it could keep previous data in the buffer and decode it at once when switching.

[rob74]

While a separate smart device makes more sense from an ecological perspective, it won't save you from ads, tracking, screenshots etc., as long as the same OS that would be running on the TV is running on the device. And, if you want to install apps from streaming services, you need one of the supported OSs - AFAIK most smart devices use Android TV?

[kitd]

One benefit of a separate device, especially a small one like a Roku or Firestick, is you can take it on holiday with you to access all your services while away (assuming your destination has a TV with HDMI).

[abenga]

I would be terrified of leaving such a device every time I go somewhere, considering the ports are invariably behind the screen.

[xnx]

Tether it to something you can't forget like your bag.

[flacebo]

With smart boxes you have much more options. I'm thinking a stipped down android TV box doesn't make screenshots and track you like most smart TVs do, they also don't serve random ads on the home page.

[_mlbt]

Apple TV is really your best option if you want privacy. Google is primarily an ad company that wants to learn as much about you as possible to target those ads.

[flacebo]

Just because Apple promises? There is actually zero evidence that apple is any better for privacy. Your absolute best option is something like a raspberry pi with an open source OS.

[water-data-dude]

When companies have a privacy policy that says “we will spy on you and sell your information to whoever will pay us for it”, and then they do exactly that, that’s one thing. That’s the Google Experience™.

When companies have a privacy policy that says they won’t do that, and then they do, that’s an entirely different thing. They lied, and that puts them in legal jeopardy. It also hurts their bottom line.

Is it possible Apple is sneakily spying on you and selling your info to third parties in secret illegal deals? Sure, I guess? But I don’t think it’s super likely.

[mmh0000]

I mean... they tell you right on their webpage that track you and and use your private information (such as: location, current app, locale, device ID, ...).

Sure, it's a "random" identifier, ... tied to your exact location, soooo random.

https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-advertisin...

And also: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-privacy-data-collection/

[bestouff]

Nope. A Kodi box is really the best option here.

[hellisothers]

Only if you insist on control over minutia over everything else including ease of use, reliability, and simplicity.

[rbanffy]

The TV will still spy on you, and may even send frames for upstream classification. The only way to make sure is to never connect it to the network. And even then, I'd try to remove any wifi antennas.

[Hackbraten]

At least a separate smart device isn’t going to record everything I’m doing on my gaming console, which is connected to a different HDMI input.

[Meniceses]

A SmartTV is not a problem as long as it has HDMI Input.

You don't like your SmartTV? Switch to HDMI Input and use your device.

I find it very practical that my LG Smart TV has the normal core apps available and i do not want to have a second remote.

[trckdhsbr]

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, automated content recognition and analysis and advertising will apply to anything on your screen no matter the input source

[mahkeiro]

Ok but if the tv has no internet access what is the smart tv going to do with all these nice screenshots? First rule: never provide Internet access to your smart tv.

[trckdhsbr]

There was some talk lower in the thread about devices being able to form mesh-networks with other devices that do have internet connection (for ex. your neighbour) and share data that way, there hasn't been any links or sources to the claims yet however

[Grazester]

That is all nonsense.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Given that Amazon’s Sidewalk network is a thing, I think a more extensive counter is needed.

[zrobotics]

I mean, I remember people saying similar things about Google scanning Wi-Fi SSIDs to track their location. There was a point in time where people were saying that was conspiracy theory thinking.

[Am4TIfIsER0ppos]

That's what cheap ubiquitous 5G is enabling: total surveillance.

[flacebo]

Sure, it's practical, that's why most people don't have a separate smart box. That's why I called it a curse, because most people are being nagged with ads and being tracked on a level the article talks about.

Smart boxes can communicate with the TV (HDMI-CEC), and you don't have to ever use the TV's remote. If the box turns on, it turns on the TV and switches the source. Same with turn off. If you cast a youtube video to the box, the TV also turns on, etc. So it works completely seamless (at least in my case).

Oh wait, I just remembered regular TV channels exist, I guess you will still need the TV's remote for that.

[rbanffy]

> Oh wait, I just remembered regular TV channels exist

I don't think I have watched one in almost a decade.

[nickburns]

What makes you think an internet-connected streaming device couldn't and isn't just doing the same thing?

I otherwise completely agree with everything else you've said.

[hellojesus]

Presumably you could just cut it off from the internet by dns filtering or setting up a vlan to only allow it to communicate to your locally hosted plex/jellyfish instance.

[yencabulator]

Well, for one, a separate streaming box would only have access to the video it shows. The central multiplexer sees it all.

[nickburns]

Yeah no, that's exactly what I mean (in context of the parent to which I've replied): streaming devices are likely capturing and phoning home screenshots of their own display output, too.

But yes, a smart TV programmed to do the same is even more unscrupulous given that it can 'spy' on everything it displays, to presumably include the input of connected devices.