No one want's your shitty software, it's not a competitive edge. No one has ever been impressed by the software their TV comes with, and for every person that found your software easy to use, there is a thousand who are still trying to figure out what that one button does on their remote. You wanna know what people are care about? Picture quality. That's it. That's always been the key. I don't know why you constantly fail to understand that.
Why can't you just make a dumb screen? You know desktop monitors? Like that. No sound, minimal software, but if you really want to get fancy, maybe a nice small remote to turn it on and off. Everything else, from sound to color profiles can, and have already for years now, be handled by external devices smarter than you.
If you make this, and you focus on picture quality instead of figuring out ways to confuse and exploit the customer, I promise you, I absolutely promise you, every AV nerd I know will buy one. And they will love it. And they will recommend it, and share it, and buy them for their loved ones. And blog about it. Tweet about it. Podcast, vlog and sing about it.
And you'll disrupt the old model. You will be the company that brings about the next revolution in television. You've been looking to do that for so long haven't you? And while you always secretly knew it wasn't IPTV or 3D that was going to start the next revolution, what you didn't know is how easy it would be to disrupt the current incumbents.
Disagree. I agree that many current 'Smart TV' efforts are awful, but the concept is very, very sound. There are TVs with Hulu and Netflix just a few remote presses away - people want that. AV nerds are a small market by comparison.
This seems like more of an extension of hardware manufacturers still not being good at software. I'd say Samsung's version of Android proves that they still aren't great at it (but are getting better).
One major problem is that the TV makers continue to release new models without updating old ones. I got a high-end 55" LG TV with Netflix built in. One year later I moved to another country, where Netflix exists but the TV didn't support it. LG told me that the model year after mine supported changing the region, whatever that means. Since then I changed to iTunes then Amazon, neither of which the TV has. Built-in stuff in will continue to suck until it becomes modular and upgradeable. The rest is mostly worthless, and separate boxes remain necessary.
Agreed. I've been trying to get my parents and in-laws to check out Netflix for a while. Recently both got new "smart" TVs. Now that Netflix is right on the remote they seem to feel confident and comfortable enough to start using it.
> I agree that many current 'Smart TV' efforts are awful, but the concept is very, very sound.
What makes the concept sound if the implementation certainly isn't?
> There are TVs with Hulu and Netflix just a few remote presses away - people want that.
Most Blu-ray players, game consoles, DVRs, etc come with Netflix and Hulu too. Why do I want my TV to do it when I have 5 other devices hooked up that can do it with a better UI? People already have these devices, so no, I don't think people want another, shittier, implementation.
> AV nerds are a small market by comparison.
Small, but like every nerd market, very vocal and very influential. Look at the best selling TVs on Amazon, they are all highly recommended in AV circles.
> This seems like more of an extension of hardware manufacturers still not being good at software. I'd say Samsung's version of Android proves that they still aren't great at it (but are getting better).
It's like the remote designer's revenge. "Too many buttons? I'll show you what it's like to not have buttons!" This remote literally has a button on it that brings up an on-screen picture of a remote that you use by swiping around on the trackpad, so you can get at the buttons your remote is missing.
I'm a little surprised that these are all held up as "bad examples". For example, I looked at the picture of the Windows `wget` gui and thought "that doesn't look that bad." Sure there's a lot of dense information, but things are pretty well explained and it's pretty clear how it works. It is ugly, but it's also totally functional.
I guess ultimately, I really don't care how ugly something is if it's at least consistent and informative. However, I know I'm an outlier in this.
Remotes are incredibly hard to design. My company builds Smart TV Apps we have just about every remote imaginable and that Samsung one you chose "just works" its like the Nokia 3310 of remotes. You can pick it up and use it without thinking about it.
Show me a remote that works better then that one and I can probably tell you why it sucks.
One interesting thing about UI design - it all seems so obvious. But a guy who designed airplane cockpits told me that those "obvious" aspects were all paid for in blood.
I had that Samsung remote and then upgraded to a newer model as the previous Samsung glass TV base literally exploded. And amusingly, the newer remote is far worse than the one you've used as an example. I wish I could revert!
I plan to keep using my TV for at least 10 years and probably rather longer. There is no chance any of the "smart" BS will still be useful then. (Imagine you had a "smart" TV in 2004 that, say, updated your Myspace page.)
Obviously as far as the manufacturer is concerned, they'd rather I buy a new TV after 4 years so I can get new "smart apps" and yada yada yada, but anyone who does research isn't going to fall for that.
My mother bought a nice Sony smart TV in 2012, but it was a 2011 model still in stores. The TV has a bunch of apps, can display video from a bunch of sites, but Sony REFUSES to release a Netflix app for it, stating Netflix is only for 2012 models.
The hardware is there, it can run stuff and show videos just fine, but the manufacturer refuses to update it. It really pisses me off since it's a nice panel with great picture quality.
The rate of change of the "smart" technology is far greater than that of the actual video display. That is, I expect that the TV will continue to work for displaying video for many years, but the cycle time for "smart" services is currently months or very few years.
Thus, to keep current with the ability to display content, I'd need to dump a display system that's perfectly good.
Better to separate the modules. Have a really good display system, and separate, a smart device that handles content. That smart device can be dead-simple to install and to operate, and still do a great job (like Roku).
Tangent: I think there's room for an 'Android of TVs.'
This may or may not be Android, which is kind of the problem. The most likely contenders here (Apple, Google, MS, Sony) have a dog in the race & incumbent problems. They committed to an approach or a technology too early. They have a market (eg itunes), complementary products or ecosystems to protect.
What does TV software really need in order to be significantly better than the average smart TV? A handful of core apps (Youtube, Netflix), some local ???Players (these could be introduced market by market) and some experimental/novelty apps (eg Skype, spotify). That's it. That's a good start. Crappy games and access to 99 upstart content marketplaces is not necessary. An app marketplace could come second.
*Vanilla android is not the answer. If it's going to be android it needs to be android for TV.
What you're describing though is currently what the Apple TV is like. It comes with Netflix, Youtube and a bunch of other apps (sports stuff, a few music services, etc). It's missing an app store - but there's a pretty decent chance that will arrive at some point over the next few years (there are so many apps on there at this point that it's becoming a little cluttered, so I think it's coming sooner rather than later).
Even though Apple has iTunes, their primary business is hardware and they don't seem to have an issue with putting iTunes competitors on there.
Of course, the Apple TV has a long way to go. It's still pretty much a hobby project (although recently it's getting more and more updates).
I think the best solution would be a well-built remote that plays nice with vanilla android. Android needs touch - that means a quick way to click on various screen elements, a good way to drag-scroll, and a way to use the onscreen keyboard.
A good hardware peripheral should be able to provide those services. Just give me an airmouse with a drag-scroll joystick and a keyboard when I need it. The problem is that most hardware vendors trying to hit this market are serious lowest-common-denominator companies - fly-by-night Chinese manufacturers and whatnot. Sony did it too, but they stuck it to the stillborn Google TV OS.
Take it away from the TV division and get somebody who designs controllers to make the remote. Get the Playstation guys on this. A hybrid between the PS3 Move Controller and this thing:
The problem is that what you're suggesting is a race to the bottom in terms of price. The TV industry is hurting from that approach, which is why they're now trying to become more than just dumb panels.
"No one want's your shitty software, it's not a competitive edge [...] You wanna know what people are care about? Picture quality."
To be fair, a lot of that is software, too, nowadays. Upscaling without visible artifacts? Figuring out what the optimal backlighting should be? Adaptive blurring? Motion blur compensation? All done in software.
A large part of the problem, I think, is that tv companies, traditionally, let the hardware engineers who write that software add a menu structure, because they are programmers, and all programming is programming, isn't it? I do think things are a lot better than they were 5 years ago, but could be a lot better still.
No, that's not what happens at all. Are you living under a rock? Every CEO and his brother wants to talk about "value-adds" via custom software and branded interfaces.
No one would argue that signal processing and the stuff traditionally known as "firmware" has a valid purpose. It's the stuff that arises when an executive get a boner for a "product vision" that people don't want or need. It's the kind of trash that looks alluring on a list of bullet points, but gets turned over every 24 months because it's utterly void of any substance, and only got produced at the whims of some empty suit trying to prove his worth.
I doubt people care about picture quality as they watch SD channels when the HD version is available. Norms care about having 1 box that they plug in with the fewest number of cables and works well enough they don't need to buy something else. Geeks want a display, norms want a TV.
Of course I want a new firmware board for my 5 year old HD TV which sends the wrong resolution data to my pc, has a terrible SD UI, and doesn't decode HD OTA signals, but it's not going to be cheaper than buying a new TV
My mother bought an LG flatscreen, but I had to show her how to use it. A gyroscopic remote? Ads in her TV menu? Using the system was painful even for me and I fully expect that the software will not be updated two years from now. I guess the manufacturers feel they have to be able to point to something unique or different, even if it doesn't actually provide any value (like "Collectors Edition cereal boxes") and that idea gets in the way of focusing on core strengths/"less-is-more".
(I bought her a Roku 3 but it was returned due to hardware errors so she's been using the TV system since)
Actually quite like the DLNA browser and renderer capabilities on mine, and the youtube feature, means I don't need another box attached. I already have enough with the audio receiver and various consoles.
Agreed, I have a Sony Bravia and I love the Netflix button, plus the ability to easily watch youtube and movies that I have on my computer through the menu. Sure, I could get the same thing other ways (Roku, Wii, etc), but having it built into the TV is pretty handy.
I just bought a TV. I bought a 720 'cos it was cheaper (because, really, who cares about "picture quality" except nerds?), and I was really impressed with the software - it can do DLNA streaming, Youtube pairing, and Netflix and none of that was even mentioned on the box! Means I don't even need to bother gluing a Raspberry Pi to the back like I planned. Awesome! And so cheap!
(In case it wasn't clear... you are not the only market segment. Neither am I.)
1. I cannot easily distinguish between SD and HD screens. I would much rather have a faster frame rate or better sound quality or an easier way to legally access international TV channels. Better picture quality? I don't care for that any more.
2. My (non-technical) housemate plans to upgrade his TV to one with built-in software, because he thinks it will be an improvement on the buggy set-top box software and he won't need to worry about cabling and upgrading external devices. He has no interest in HD either, but he is happy to pay for a TV with better picture quality simply because he imagines that paying more for a TV means he'll get better software.
Most people dont actually care about picture quality, if they did they wouldnt buy a tv based on how it looks in the store. From my personal experience there are a lot of people who either cant tell or dont care if the current cable channel is in HD or not.
Most people care about how big it is and much it cost, hench why LCDs beat out Plasmas.
Simplicity is another thing I value immensely, which this branded-software nightmare is completely at odds with. A TV should be a dumb display, with connectivity for anything people may want to add. Nothing more. I don't want to pay for trash I'll never use and I certainly don't want to be stuck with it or spied on by it. Nor do I want a frankenstein-remote with 300 buttons when 12 will do.
If the data sending wasn't creepy enough, LG's response to the author's letter takes the cake - they tell him to contact the retailer!
"The advice we have been given is that unfortunately as you accepted the Terms and Conditions on your TV, your concerns would be best directed to the retailer. We understand you feel you should have been made aware of these T's and C's at the point of sale, and for obvious reasons LG are unable to pass comment on their actions."
You joke but I can totally imagine a future where there are embedded sensors in the bread that transmit local conditions and (after ingestion) health/medical data.
Such a loaf could be given away free if the data collected could be repackaged and access to it sold to the highest bidder (I'm thinking pharma companies might pay).
A (imho insidious) way to get this accepted by the public would be to target humanitarian efforts first. Tracking health and disease in refugee populations is a real problem, so this system could offer tangible benefits. The refugees aren't really in a position to complain about privacy aspects and it'd be unpalatable for anyone to try a cost/benefit analysis when considering immediate survival against future privacy concerns (esp when it's framed from the point of view of saving a child -- as it usually is). Once this is considered 'normal' in such situations, it could be a short hop (or slippery slope?) to the supermarket.
If you think this is ridiculous, please remember that there was once a time when having robots read our email was considered hugely invasive by much of the public (Gmail launch).
It is not, however, the UK law on data protection.
And if LG's argument is that the software that comes with the TV has some sort of licence agreement that customers must accept before using it, that's another whole can of worms.
Please let them try to fight this in a court high enough to set a precedent. Making an example of LG under the various consumer protection laws might be easier than taking on a dedicated software company.
We are well overdue for a heavyweight case in the UK to prove that vendors selling a device for a well understood purpose can't get away with sneaking terms into their legal weasel words about DRM or spyware or introducing security vulnerabilities or rights of physical access for audit purposes or various other abuses that really have nothing to do with what the customer bought the device for.
Actually, there's real good and simple method to determine which one is a shit or not. If it has a word SMART on its name, that's a shit. SMART - it's a magic word to identify shits. Because I never saw stupid companies can make great stuff with more computing power and accessibility. When they have more freedom, they always make a bigger shit. And sometimes it becomes deadly huge.
Real nice product doesn't advertise such smart shit stuff, and only focus on the feature what you actually need and use. Even such computing features made you happy, they know that's not a feature to be advertised.
Just don't buy any SMART stuff. Whatever they ADVERTISE, they're saying on advertisement are all bullshit.
Just started looking at what my Samsung is dialing up.
http://54.241.140.58/api/tvp/1.0 + huge url param string is one thing that jumps out. Resolves to 'Samsung AdHub Portal'
Only seems to be transmitting back when using the smart tv stuff though.
The request params and some of the stuff I can decipher.
request?
id=<some id>
s=220x124
dt=03
did=<device id>
pt=04
pv=T-INFOLINK2012-1003
nt=10
coc=<country>
lnc=<language>
ts=1384856584858 <timestamp>
tz=<time zone>
scr=1280x720 <screen size>
dy=2012
md=12_X10PLUS
mf=Samsung HTTP/1.1\\r\\n
A nice write up for the Information Commissioner would probably be a good idea.
I'd suggest doing a short cover letter, a simple-English write-up, with a detailed technical appendix.
I'd ask if LG are registered to collect data, and if their registration covers this data. And if any of this information leave the EU etc.
Thanks for the write up! It's interesting. I wonder if rooting the telly to replace this functionality is legal? I never know what the laws are about reverse engineering stuff now.
Samsung smart TVs are the same. I'm normally happy to view adverts if I am benefiting from whatever they fund - TV advert breaks paying for the content that I'm watching, in-app ads because I got the app for free, etc. With the adverts on the Samsung SmartHub all I can see is the software that I have already paid for.
Of course, the demo mode doesn't have advertising, so there is no way to know about it beforehand.
I'm looking at buying a new TV at the moment, and it's disturbingly difficult these days to find a regular TV that doesn't come with so-called smart features.
I don't want smart features in my TV. I want my TV to show pictures and maybe make sounds from a useful range of input connections, and nothing else.
I can add my own features by connecting different sources to the TV, and so can anyone else who ever bought a FreeView box or PVR or other similar device. And that way, we can also ignore those sources that don't serve our interests, and upgrade or replace the supplementary sources as things like catch-up and on-demand services evolve, without throwing out perfectly good TV hardware.
I get that the TV brands want to jump on the advertising bandwagon, but this is the UK, home of the (commercial-ad-free) BBC. The vendors aren't going to be popular if they try to ram this obvious backward step down our throats, and I suspect they may be surprised by how many of us will vote with our wallets to avoid it. We just need to make sure customers who aren't A/V fanatics or HN-reading geeks are educated about what is going on, so they can vote with their wallets too.
I worked for a system like this, but for Philips. Could be that the company ( cannot tell the name!) sold the solution to LG. Actually this was meant to display channel suggestions, not ads. Seems like since last time they twisted it. Quite a shame.
It was an opt out system, every TV got a unique ID, but it was anonymous - Philips didn't knew who you were. If someone watched something more than 15 mins, it was send to the DB and was profiled. After a while, the system learned your preferences - also depending on the watching hour - and started to show, per request, recommandations what to watch - which channel was the most close to your preferences. It worked like a charm.
But indeed, no personal data was collected so I don't really understand the fuss. Same for this case, LG sens anonymous data, and returns best ads for you. A little better than Google, i might say.
I'm sorry, but every detail of what I do or my family does within the privacy of our own home is personal. I do not expect my TV to be spying on me in any form.
>But indeed, no personal data was collected so I don't really understand the fuss.
Filenames on USB sticks attached to the TV could quite easily include personal data. That and the lack of (working) option to disable the feature entirely.
I wonder what would happen if I had a movie on my USB stick I wanted to watch, and it happened to be in the same folder as a few documents that happened to be named with my personal identifying data.
My name, address, tax number, drivers license number, passport number, etc, etc.
Now they've slurped that off my drive without my permission, and transmitted it in the clear. Can I sue them for "unauthorized access" or identity theft?
What if the file name was some industry secret under NDA or other protection?
(For example Apple_iPhone_7_2015_design_spec.pdf or NSA_POTUS_PHONE_LOGS_2013_TOP_SECRET.csv )
Trade secret information is not blanket protected. For example, the recipe for Coke is a trade secret, but you can still try to reverse engineer it. You cannot try to steal it, or pay someone to give it to you. It seems that the user agreed that the TV would give that information, in some sort of license agreement, and plugged that data into the TV also. I don't think it would count as a fraudulent way of getting the data.
With regard to TOP SECRET info, I think that the person plugging the data in is at fault, if they were under an obligation to keep it protected, and they failed by letting it go to a private server.
Identity information could be a liability for them, I think. By instituting this feature, they open a possibility of collecting private information, which they should have a duty to protect.
Anyone have a link to LG's Terms and Conditions that reveal they will be collecting data?
Furthermore, there's an issue of going further down the rabbit hole with smart TVs. What about the terms and conditions of use of software that you may never even use that is still collecting data?
I have a LG dumb TV with DLNA and wired connectivity only. LAN only setup does not work. It has to have a full Internet connection.
Why non-smart especially ?
You're free not to connect it to the internet. That's exactly what most customers do with their 'smart' tvs : not plugging them or getting their hands dirty with the wifi settings.
Why non-smart especially ? You're free not to connect it to the internet.
Until they get "smart" enough to connect via someone else's WiFi hotspot within range.
If you think this is a joke or some sort of silly conspiracy theory, please consider the scheme BT already operate across the UK where you can piggy back on other people's home broadband to get wireless Internet access. On my fairly typical residential street, I already have several homes within range of this computer that are part of that scheme, which any wireless device in my home could be connecting to without my knowledge or consent, including those with access to my home network or that include equipment like cameras and microphones.
I expect BT could make a tidy profit from making deals with these kinds of companies so they can phone home using their built-in wireless without depending on the customer's own Internet provision, and given their track record, I have no reason to believe they would object to their networks being used for the purposes of intrusive surveillance. I am hoping that laws against these in-home privacy intrusions will arrive before it becomes the norm for consumer products to use the national wireless spynet for this kind of purpose, but given the way the market is going, I am not happy about our prospects on this one.
could you get a small USB device (Rasberry Pi?) and set it up to show as a USB storage device and randomly generate file names while it's plugged in? That would flood their servers with dummy data :)
Now who can suggest the best software to install on the home router to block the connections based on the URLs? Ideally it would be a transparent solution -- the client computers shouldn't need any additional configuration. I have an OpenWrt based router.
URLs or domains? If the latter is enough, you could just install a DNS resolver like dnsmasq and configure those domain to redirect to 0.0.0.0 or so. Example config:
address=/[banned domain]/0.0.0.0
Then either configure your dhcp server or clients to use the router as the DNS resolver.
Theoretically. But I've found out that it doesn't work on small Linuxes like OpenWRT -- the guy who took over maintenance obviously only works with big desktops and servers, he even removed the mechanisms for proper cross-compiling, at least the last time I looked, a couple of years ago. It looks like the people who use such distros aren't particularly interested in URL-based blocking?
We are really making it easy for all the companies that do the same that LG does.
Auto manufacturers do the same thing. Stop giving me a button to talk to your shitty computer and have it be a bluetooth command action for Siri or Google Now.
How can't it be disabled? It needs a network connection to do that. I imagine there is a use case compelling enough to encourage the user to hook it up (YouTube?) but I doubt it has satcoms. Sooo... just don't configure the network.
That notwithstanding, I see boxes like Apple TV and Xbox One becoming the way that people interact with their TVs, making the whole problem somewhat moot anyway.
As I posted to his blog, I think he should contact the Information Commissioners Office. The TV appears to be sending cookie information, which makes it likely that not presenting him with the information in a clear way runs afoul of the infamous EU cookie law. Expecting people to read T&C's for a TV is nonsene.
There are also potentially other issues with the UK Data Protection Act, such as if they were to collect any personally identifiable information, which is likely that they will at times do if it snarfs data from attached USB devices at will.
And I'd love to see how they respond if he serves them with a Subject Access Notice (in the EU we have a legal right to see what data companies hold on us in most cases).
My TV (not an LG, thankfully) has really very good LoveFilm and BBC iPlayer apps built right into it, both of which require a network connection and are quite compelling reasons to use said network connection. I could watch both of these things via my Xbox, but then I'm needlessly powering the TV and the Xbox, rather than just the TV as in scenario one. I don't think I should have to double my power use just to avoid being spied upon.
Yes, but reporting back every program you choose to watch to the TV manufacturer certainly isn't.
Naturally they bury this little fact deep in the T&Cs where you won't even get to read it until you get the TV home, and who reads T&Cs? Almost nobody & the LG knows it.
How well do you think this TV would sell if they had to emblazon "This TV will report what you watch to LG so that they can sell that information to anyone" across the front in the store?
I've been shopping for a TV, and while the network-enabled features may be the point of calling certain models "smart", it is not necessarily something the buyer wants. It may appeal to many people - if they don't realize that the software may be buggy, security-compromising, or soon outdated and hard to update.
For me it's only unwanted bloat, like 3D. IOW, I may buy a "smart" TV, but if so it's only for the other features like screen size and quality. Nontechnical people have to be educated that the network features may compromise privacy and LAN security - but AFAIK you can always opt out, as the grandparent points out.
At least I assume it needs a cable or a wifi key - if it actually seeks out wireless and connects without permission, it's lawsuit time.
> I think it's important to point out that the URL that the data is being POSTed to doesn't in fact exist, you can see this from the HTTP 404 response
Is it possible that they do indeed collect it, but are faking 404?
Step now would be implement technology into the TVs. check
Step two would be to accept payload, however perhaps they are in waiting period to see if news like this one will come up, and then how much damage, if any, it will create. If none, then Step two: check.
What's step 3? Agreement with RIAA or Holywood to sell this data? It could help in litigation by giving more ammunition to plantiff. What is LG TOS of the TV says? Mentions anything about it?
Thank you for the post BTW. While they are tens of TV brands, its good to know which one to stay away from.
I've worked in the consumer electronics business for quite some time so let me present some information for your consideration, I don't expect you to like it but it will explain context:
1) Adverts: These are often used to subsidise features and capabilities. Sometimes good EPG data needs to be paid for, sometimes you need to justify the running of applications stores. This is a business choice that the manufacturer has to make, be off-putting or lose money. Targeted advertising does increase acceptance of advertising over non-targeted advertising, however if you hate advertising your just not going to get a subsidised product (if it is economically feasible to make one).
2) Viewer tracking: This has many uses a) product improvement: by knowing how users use products you can improve your designs. However this isn't usually done in such a scatter gun approach. b) You can sell anonymous information to agencies who use it to understand viewing habits and increase the value of traditional TV advertising.
3) Third party content tracking - This could be used a) to identify working and non-working content formats, not all encoders are the same and it is a nightmare debugging all the strange formats the people of the internet generate. b) to deliver improved titling, indexing and other metadata.
Above all remember Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.":
1) LG's response from their CS department was composed by a minimum wage agent who got a response from their mid-level supervisor who enquired with someone in product management who badly translated that from some Korean discussions.
2) Most Koreans don't care about content piracy, it is rife in Korea, especially with their excellent bandwidth.
3) Most of these policies were probably written by someone more interested in making the best product for the least money and probably not someone from the west.
I would hope that LG might pick up on this and make a better statement, but it won't change their attitude.
Finally, personally as someone who makes a lot of set-top boxes I would happily see more dumb TVs, but the business of TVs is loss making. None of the big brands has made money in the TV business in ages, most people do it either for turn-over or brand recognition. Making basic large "monitors" is a difficult business to make a profit in because you are selling something very basic in a mature market.
And I would happily pay more for a top display and decent audio, if I could have it without all the junk. I don't even need a tuner or channel selection. Just let me point the TV at the input source I want and then do what that input tells it, but do it well. My PVR/Blu-Ray/console/whatever can do the rest.
I wonder what the names/IP addresses of those servers are that this TV is contacting? Has anyone sniffed the data and figured out a way to spam their servers with bogus data? Feels to me like they're inviting something like this.
Why do these companies seem to always get away with violating their customers privacy? Why don't they have to pay huge fines for that, or even better, go to jail (those who made such decisions)? Seriously, what they do is criminal.
Yup, this actually saved me in the past when a statistics logger was returning an internal error (PHP) but Apache was logging the requests, so we could just parse the logs to get the info needed :)
Dear TV manufacturers,
No one want's your shitty software, it's not a competitive edge. No one has ever been impressed by the software their TV comes with, and for every person that found your software easy to use, there is a thousand who are still trying to figure out what that one button does on their remote. You wanna know what people are care about? Picture quality. That's it. That's always been the key. I don't know why you constantly fail to understand that.
Why can't you just make a dumb screen? You know desktop monitors? Like that. No sound, minimal software, but if you really want to get fancy, maybe a nice small remote to turn it on and off. Everything else, from sound to color profiles can, and have already for years now, be handled by external devices smarter than you.
If you make this, and you focus on picture quality instead of figuring out ways to confuse and exploit the customer, I promise you, I absolutely promise you, every AV nerd I know will buy one. And they will love it. And they will recommend it, and share it, and buy them for their loved ones. And blog about it. Tweet about it. Podcast, vlog and sing about it.
And you'll disrupt the old model. You will be the company that brings about the next revolution in television. You've been looking to do that for so long haven't you? And while you always secretly knew it wasn't IPTV or 3D that was going to start the next revolution, what you didn't know is how easy it would be to disrupt the current incumbents.
The customer is waiting, cash in hand.
Disagree. I agree that many current 'Smart TV' efforts are awful, but the concept is very, very sound. There are TVs with Hulu and Netflix just a few remote presses away - people want that. AV nerds are a small market by comparison.
This seems like more of an extension of hardware manufacturers still not being good at software. I'd say Samsung's version of Android proves that they still aren't great at it (but are getting better).
One major problem is that the TV makers continue to release new models without updating old ones. I got a high-end 55" LG TV with Netflix built in. One year later I moved to another country, where Netflix exists but the TV didn't support it. LG told me that the model year after mine supported changing the region, whatever that means. Since then I changed to iTunes then Amazon, neither of which the TV has. Built-in stuff in will continue to suck until it becomes modular and upgradeable. The rest is mostly worthless, and separate boxes remain necessary.
7 replies →
Agreed. I've been trying to get my parents and in-laws to check out Netflix for a while. Recently both got new "smart" TVs. Now that Netflix is right on the remote they seem to feel confident and comfortable enough to start using it.
3 replies →
> I agree that many current 'Smart TV' efforts are awful, but the concept is very, very sound.
What makes the concept sound if the implementation certainly isn't?
> There are TVs with Hulu and Netflix just a few remote presses away - people want that.
Most Blu-ray players, game consoles, DVRs, etc come with Netflix and Hulu too. Why do I want my TV to do it when I have 5 other devices hooked up that can do it with a better UI? People already have these devices, so no, I don't think people want another, shittier, implementation.
> AV nerds are a small market by comparison.
Small, but like every nerd market, very vocal and very influential. Look at the best selling TVs on Amazon, they are all highly recommended in AV circles.
> This seems like more of an extension of hardware manufacturers still not being good at software. I'd say Samsung's version of Android proves that they still aren't great at it (but are getting better).
Agreed.
One look at the average TV remote tells you enough about TV manufacturers and their ability to do any kind of UI design.
Remotes like this: http://wardiesworld.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/raspi_samsun...
always remind me of this: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/11/this-is-what-happen...
have you seen the 2013 samsung remote? http://www2.crutchfield.com.edgesuite.net/pix.crutchfield.co...
It's like the remote designer's revenge. "Too many buttons? I'll show you what it's like to not have buttons!" This remote literally has a button on it that brings up an on-screen picture of a remote that you use by swiping around on the trackpad, so you can get at the buttons your remote is missing.
1 reply →
I'm a little surprised that these are all held up as "bad examples". For example, I looked at the picture of the Windows `wget` gui and thought "that doesn't look that bad." Sure there's a lot of dense information, but things are pretty well explained and it's pretty clear how it works. It is ugly, but it's also totally functional.
I guess ultimately, I really don't care how ugly something is if it's at least consistent and informative. However, I know I'm an outlier in this.
3 replies →
Remotes are incredibly hard to design. My company builds Smart TV Apps we have just about every remote imaginable and that Samsung one you chose "just works" its like the Nokia 3310 of remotes. You can pick it up and use it without thinking about it.
Show me a remote that works better then that one and I can probably tell you why it sucks.
22 replies →
One interesting thing about UI design - it all seems so obvious. But a guy who designed airplane cockpits told me that those "obvious" aspects were all paid for in blood.
They're obvious only in hindsight.
I had that Samsung remote and then upgraded to a newer model as the previous Samsung glass TV base literally exploded. And amusingly, the newer remote is far worse than the one you've used as an example. I wish I could revert!
Seriously.
I plan to keep using my TV for at least 10 years and probably rather longer. There is no chance any of the "smart" BS will still be useful then. (Imagine you had a "smart" TV in 2004 that, say, updated your Myspace page.)
Obviously as far as the manufacturer is concerned, they'd rather I buy a new TV after 4 years so I can get new "smart apps" and yada yada yada, but anyone who does research isn't going to fall for that.
My mother bought a nice Sony smart TV in 2012, but it was a 2011 model still in stores. The TV has a bunch of apps, can display video from a bunch of sites, but Sony REFUSES to release a Netflix app for it, stating Netflix is only for 2012 models.
The hardware is there, it can run stuff and show videos just fine, but the manufacturer refuses to update it. It really pisses me off since it's a nice panel with great picture quality.
4 replies →
Agreed.
The rate of change of the "smart" technology is far greater than that of the actual video display. That is, I expect that the TV will continue to work for displaying video for many years, but the cycle time for "smart" services is currently months or very few years.
Thus, to keep current with the ability to display content, I'd need to dump a display system that's perfectly good.
Better to separate the modules. Have a really good display system, and separate, a smart device that handles content. That smart device can be dead-simple to install and to operate, and still do a great job (like Roku).
So, basically a monitor attached to an HTPC?
Tangent: I think there's room for an 'Android of TVs.'
This may or may not be Android, which is kind of the problem. The most likely contenders here (Apple, Google, MS, Sony) have a dog in the race & incumbent problems. They committed to an approach or a technology too early. They have a market (eg itunes), complementary products or ecosystems to protect.
What does TV software really need in order to be significantly better than the average smart TV? A handful of core apps (Youtube, Netflix), some local ???Players (these could be introduced market by market) and some experimental/novelty apps (eg Skype, spotify). That's it. That's a good start. Crappy games and access to 99 upstart content marketplaces is not necessary. An app marketplace could come second.
*Vanilla android is not the answer. If it's going to be android it needs to be android for TV.
Isn't the Android of TVs the Google TV?
What you're describing though is currently what the Apple TV is like. It comes with Netflix, Youtube and a bunch of other apps (sports stuff, a few music services, etc). It's missing an app store - but there's a pretty decent chance that will arrive at some point over the next few years (there are so many apps on there at this point that it's becoming a little cluttered, so I think it's coming sooner rather than later).
Even though Apple has iTunes, their primary business is hardware and they don't seem to have an issue with putting iTunes competitors on there.
Of course, the Apple TV has a long way to go. It's still pretty much a hobby project (although recently it's getting more and more updates).
3 replies →
I think the best solution would be a well-built remote that plays nice with vanilla android. Android needs touch - that means a quick way to click on various screen elements, a good way to drag-scroll, and a way to use the onscreen keyboard.
A good hardware peripheral should be able to provide those services. Just give me an airmouse with a drag-scroll joystick and a keyboard when I need it. The problem is that most hardware vendors trying to hit this market are serious lowest-common-denominator companies - fly-by-night Chinese manufacturers and whatnot. Sony did it too, but they stuck it to the stillborn Google TV OS.
Take it away from the TV division and get somebody who designs controllers to make the remote. Get the Playstation guys on this. A hybrid between the PS3 Move Controller and this thing:
http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPo...
Why isn't the Android based Google TV the "Android of TVs?" If I remember correctly, most of Google TV was merged into Android itself.
http://www.google.com/tv/
http://developer.android.com/training/tv/index.html
why is vanilla android not the answer? i don't even need apps. just a browser, really.
1 reply →
The problem is that what you're suggesting is a race to the bottom in terms of price. The TV industry is hurting from that approach, which is why they're now trying to become more than just dumb panels.
"No one want's your shitty software, it's not a competitive edge [...] You wanna know what people are care about? Picture quality."
To be fair, a lot of that is software, too, nowadays. Upscaling without visible artifacts? Figuring out what the optimal backlighting should be? Adaptive blurring? Motion blur compensation? All done in software.
A large part of the problem, I think, is that tv companies, traditionally, let the hardware engineers who write that software add a menu structure, because they are programmers, and all programming is programming, isn't it? I do think things are a lot better than they were 5 years ago, but could be a lot better still.
No, that's not what happens at all. Are you living under a rock? Every CEO and his brother wants to talk about "value-adds" via custom software and branded interfaces.
No one would argue that signal processing and the stuff traditionally known as "firmware" has a valid purpose. It's the stuff that arises when an executive get a boner for a "product vision" that people don't want or need. It's the kind of trash that looks alluring on a list of bullet points, but gets turned over every 24 months because it's utterly void of any substance, and only got produced at the whims of some empty suit trying to prove his worth.
1 reply →
I doubt people care about picture quality as they watch SD channels when the HD version is available. Norms care about having 1 box that they plug in with the fewest number of cables and works well enough they don't need to buy something else. Geeks want a display, norms want a TV.
Of course I want a new firmware board for my 5 year old HD TV which sends the wrong resolution data to my pc, has a terrible SD UI, and doesn't decode HD OTA signals, but it's not going to be cheaper than buying a new TV
Norms? Really.
Edit: You can get big, dumb TVs that look stellar. Look at TVs targeting the commercial space. Of course, you're going to pay for it though.
My mother bought an LG flatscreen, but I had to show her how to use it. A gyroscopic remote? Ads in her TV menu? Using the system was painful even for me and I fully expect that the software will not be updated two years from now. I guess the manufacturers feel they have to be able to point to something unique or different, even if it doesn't actually provide any value (like "Collectors Edition cereal boxes") and that idea gets in the way of focusing on core strengths/"less-is-more".
(I bought her a Roku 3 but it was returned due to hardware errors so she's been using the TV system since)
Actually quite like the DLNA browser and renderer capabilities on mine, and the youtube feature, means I don't need another box attached. I already have enough with the audio receiver and various consoles.
Agreed, I have a Sony Bravia and I love the Netflix button, plus the ability to easily watch youtube and movies that I have on my computer through the menu. Sure, I could get the same thing other ways (Roku, Wii, etc), but having it built into the TV is pretty handy.
I just bought a TV. I bought a 720 'cos it was cheaper (because, really, who cares about "picture quality" except nerds?), and I was really impressed with the software - it can do DLNA streaming, Youtube pairing, and Netflix and none of that was even mentioned on the box! Means I don't even need to bother gluing a Raspberry Pi to the back like I planned. Awesome! And so cheap!
(In case it wasn't clear... you are not the only market segment. Neither am I.)
I don't believe this is true. Anecdotally:
1. I cannot easily distinguish between SD and HD screens. I would much rather have a faster frame rate or better sound quality or an easier way to legally access international TV channels. Better picture quality? I don't care for that any more.
2. My (non-technical) housemate plans to upgrade his TV to one with built-in software, because he thinks it will be an improvement on the buggy set-top box software and he won't need to worry about cabling and upgrading external devices. He has no interest in HD either, but he is happy to pay for a TV with better picture quality simply because he imagines that paying more for a TV means he'll get better software.
Dear LG,
I just returned a Nexus 5 because it had poor reception compared to other phones using the same SIM card.
I was going to buy a LG G2 but having just seen how you treat your TV customers as cattle, I won't touch anything from LG for the forseeable future.
In a nutshell, LG, you lose my money.
Regards,
Ex-Customer
Most people dont actually care about picture quality, if they did they wouldnt buy a tv based on how it looks in the store. From my personal experience there are a lot of people who either cant tell or dont care if the current cable channel is in HD or not.
Most people care about how big it is and much it cost, hench why LCDs beat out Plasmas.
In case you're wondering, here's the company behind this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/02/cognitive_lands_lg_a...
Alternatively, just throw Android in there and let me hack away. That would at least be fun.
It's too bad your views don't represent the views of the vast majority of TV buyers.
Simplicity is another thing I value immensely, which this branded-software nightmare is completely at odds with. A TV should be a dumb display, with connectivity for anything people may want to add. Nothing more. I don't want to pay for trash I'll never use and I certainly don't want to be stuck with it or spied on by it. Nor do I want a frankenstein-remote with 300 buttons when 12 will do.
If the data sending wasn't creepy enough, LG's response to the author's letter takes the cake - they tell him to contact the retailer!
"The advice we have been given is that unfortunately as you accepted the Terms and Conditions on your TV, your concerns would be best directed to the retailer. We understand you feel you should have been made aware of these T's and C's at the point of sale, and for obvious reasons LG are unable to pass comment on their actions."
Next time I buy a loaf of bread I shall ask for the terms and conditions, just to be sure...
You joke but I can totally imagine a future where there are embedded sensors in the bread that transmit local conditions and (after ingestion) health/medical data.
Such a loaf could be given away free if the data collected could be repackaged and access to it sold to the highest bidder (I'm thinking pharma companies might pay).
A (imho insidious) way to get this accepted by the public would be to target humanitarian efforts first. Tracking health and disease in refugee populations is a real problem, so this system could offer tangible benefits. The refugees aren't really in a position to complain about privacy aspects and it'd be unpalatable for anyone to try a cost/benefit analysis when considering immediate survival against future privacy concerns (esp when it's framed from the point of view of saving a child -- as it usually is). Once this is considered 'normal' in such situations, it could be a short hop (or slippery slope?) to the supermarket.
If you think this is ridiculous, please remember that there was once a time when having robots read our email was considered hugely invasive by much of the public (Gmail launch).
3 replies →
I read this as: "Please organize a class action lawsuit if you have any further concerns."
The problem for LG is: more than 0 people do do that.
That's the UK law if you have a faulty product.
It is not, however, the UK law on data protection.
And if LG's argument is that the software that comes with the TV has some sort of licence agreement that customers must accept before using it, that's another whole can of worms.
Please let them try to fight this in a court high enough to set a precedent. Making an example of LG under the various consumer protection laws might be easier than taking on a dedicated software company.
We are well overdue for a heavyweight case in the UK to prove that vendors selling a device for a well understood purpose can't get away with sneaking terms into their legal weasel words about DRM or spyware or introducing security vulnerabilities or rights of physical access for audit purposes or various other abuses that really have nothing to do with what the customer bought the device for.
Actually, there's real good and simple method to determine which one is a shit or not. If it has a word SMART on its name, that's a shit. SMART - it's a magic word to identify shits. Because I never saw stupid companies can make great stuff with more computing power and accessibility. When they have more freedom, they always make a bigger shit. And sometimes it becomes deadly huge.
Real nice product doesn't advertise such smart shit stuff, and only focus on the feature what you actually need and use. Even such computing features made you happy, they know that's not a feature to be advertised.
Just don't buy any SMART stuff. Whatever they ADVERTISE, they're saying on advertisement are all bullshit.
Just started looking at what my Samsung is dialing up. http://54.241.140.58/api/tvp/1.0 + huge url param string is one thing that jumps out. Resolves to 'Samsung AdHub Portal'
Only seems to be transmitting back when using the smart tv stuff though. The request params and some of the stuff I can decipher. request? id=<some id> s=220x124 dt=03 did=<device id> pt=04 pv=T-INFOLINK2012-1003 nt=10 coc=<country> lnc=<language> ts=1384856584858 <timestamp> tz=<time zone> scr=1280x720 <screen size> dy=2012 md=12_X10PLUS mf=Samsung HTTP/1.1\\r\\n
I have a Samsung "Smart TV" and fortunately as their frontend is a piece of shit I never use their "smart" features.
Unfortunately for me my cable and internet provider (Bell Canada) has decided to start tracking usage habits to target ads:
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/bell-to-start-tracking-customers-...
Have you tried blocking the IP and see what that might break?
A nice write up for the Information Commissioner would probably be a good idea.
I'd suggest doing a short cover letter, a simple-English write-up, with a detailed technical appendix.
I'd ask if LG are registered to collect data, and if their registration covers this data. And if any of this information leave the EU etc.
Thanks for the write up! It's interesting. I wonder if rooting the telly to replace this functionality is legal? I never know what the laws are about reverse engineering stuff now.
I can't even find LG Electronics UK Ltd on the data protection register...
Actually perhaps the most annoying thing I can see is that after paying a fuck-load for the television, they dare to show me adverts on the guide!
LG is instantly on my shitlist for this and the channel and media data leaks.
Do you know what, this actually annoyed me about my Panasonic TV, it does exactly the same.
When I go into the "Internet" function, it shows me ads at the bottom. Why am I seeing these ads?
For example, in the UK we pay the TV license to BBC to NOT see ads. We are paying for a TV so why am I still seeing ads?
If I was renting a TV at a reduced cost or some type of freemium model then I would expect it, takes the biscuit a little I say.
Samsung smart TVs are the same. I'm normally happy to view adverts if I am benefiting from whatever they fund - TV advert breaks paying for the content that I'm watching, in-app ads because I got the app for free, etc. With the adverts on the Samsung SmartHub all I can see is the software that I have already paid for.
Of course, the demo mode doesn't have advertising, so there is no way to know about it beforehand.
Potentially relevant link: http://www.samsungadhub.com
I'd have taken it back.
My Bravia EX has no adverts but I don't entirely trust it.
2 replies →
You can turn this off. There's a setting somewhere, I forget which
I'm looking at buying a new TV at the moment, and it's disturbingly difficult these days to find a regular TV that doesn't come with so-called smart features.
I don't want smart features in my TV. I want my TV to show pictures and maybe make sounds from a useful range of input connections, and nothing else.
I can add my own features by connecting different sources to the TV, and so can anyone else who ever bought a FreeView box or PVR or other similar device. And that way, we can also ignore those sources that don't serve our interests, and upgrade or replace the supplementary sources as things like catch-up and on-demand services evolve, without throwing out perfectly good TV hardware.
I get that the TV brands want to jump on the advertising bandwagon, but this is the UK, home of the (commercial-ad-free) BBC. The vendors aren't going to be popular if they try to ram this obvious backward step down our throats, and I suspect they may be surprised by how many of us will vote with our wallets to avoid it. We just need to make sure customers who aren't A/V fanatics or HN-reading geeks are educated about what is going on, so they can vote with their wallets too.
I don't buy TVs anymore. I just buy a monitor that takes HDMI input. After all, the output of the cable box is HDMI.
2 replies →
I worked for a system like this, but for Philips. Could be that the company ( cannot tell the name!) sold the solution to LG. Actually this was meant to display channel suggestions, not ads. Seems like since last time they twisted it. Quite a shame.
It was an opt out system, every TV got a unique ID, but it was anonymous - Philips didn't knew who you were. If someone watched something more than 15 mins, it was send to the DB and was profiled. After a while, the system learned your preferences - also depending on the watching hour - and started to show, per request, recommandations what to watch - which channel was the most close to your preferences. It worked like a charm.
But indeed, no personal data was collected so I don't really understand the fuss. Same for this case, LG sens anonymous data, and returns best ads for you. A little better than Google, i might say.
I'm sorry, but every detail of what I do or my family does within the privacy of our own home is personal. I do not expect my TV to be spying on me in any form.
>I do not expect my TV to be spying on me in any form.
The spying is done by the people working at LG. The TV is only the technical method used to spy on you and your family.
>But indeed, no personal data was collected so I don't really understand the fuss.
Filenames on USB sticks attached to the TV could quite easily include personal data. That and the lack of (working) option to disable the feature entirely.
It sounds like this solution was for cable shows, not every piece of media that is played.
Such a service (even the one you describe, not the ads) would be a breach of privacy if merely opt-out. Anything like this must be opt-in.
> LG sens anonymous data, and returns best ads for you
Thanks! I always love it when I get the best ads!
Make it opt in, present it as an option when user sets up TV, and avoid all the negative publicity.
You had us until "but indeed".
My television preferences and the times that I am normally watching TV are personal data - and potentially sensitive.
There is some disconnection within two sentences: If it's not personal to me, how can they return the best ads for me?
priz3 found this info on the company
The first comment on that page is important: contact the ICO.
But it's interesting and worrying that this problem would not have been found if LG was using SSL.
Well, I doubt they would be using certificate pinning.
So you could bypass it easily
How would I get a SSL certificate issued for an lg domain from an issuer that the LG tv trusts?
2 replies →
So when this sniffs the viewing habits of someone who is under 13, does it run afoul of CIPA or COPA or whatever it's called?
I don't think so, because COPPA only applies if the service is directed at children and/or asks (directly or indirectly) the user's age.
What about when it starts showing ads for things kiddie shows?
I wonder what would happen if I had a movie on my USB stick I wanted to watch, and it happened to be in the same folder as a few documents that happened to be named with my personal identifying data.
My name, address, tax number, drivers license number, passport number, etc, etc.
Now they've slurped that off my drive without my permission, and transmitted it in the clear. Can I sue them for "unauthorized access" or identity theft?
What if the file name was some industry secret under NDA or other protection?
(For example Apple_iPhone_7_2015_design_spec.pdf or NSA_POTUS_PHONE_LOGS_2013_TOP_SECRET.csv )
Trade secret information is not blanket protected. For example, the recipe for Coke is a trade secret, but you can still try to reverse engineer it. You cannot try to steal it, or pay someone to give it to you. It seems that the user agreed that the TV would give that information, in some sort of license agreement, and plugged that data into the TV also. I don't think it would count as a fraudulent way of getting the data.
With regard to TOP SECRET info, I think that the person plugging the data in is at fault, if they were under an obligation to keep it protected, and they failed by letting it go to a private server.
Identity information could be a liability for them, I think. By instituting this feature, they open a possibility of collecting private information, which they should have a duty to protect.
Anyone have a link to LG's Terms and Conditions that reveal they will be collecting data?
Furthermore, there's an issue of going further down the rabbit hole with smart TVs. What about the terms and conditions of use of software that you may never even use that is still collecting data?
I have a LG dumb TV with DLNA and wired connectivity only. LAN only setup does not work. It has to have a full Internet connection.
I'm currently in the market for a new TV 50-55", preferably the least smart, the better.
Any suggestions? I can't seem to find any non-smart TVs that are reasonably current with at least 3 HDMI ports.
Why non-smart especially ? You're free not to connect it to the internet. That's exactly what most customers do with their 'smart' tvs : not plugging them or getting their hands dirty with the wifi settings.
Why non-smart especially ? You're free not to connect it to the internet.
Until they get "smart" enough to connect via someone else's WiFi hotspot within range.
If you think this is a joke or some sort of silly conspiracy theory, please consider the scheme BT already operate across the UK where you can piggy back on other people's home broadband to get wireless Internet access. On my fairly typical residential street, I already have several homes within range of this computer that are part of that scheme, which any wireless device in my home could be connecting to without my knowledge or consent, including those with access to my home network or that include equipment like cameras and microphones.
I expect BT could make a tidy profit from making deals with these kinds of companies so they can phone home using their built-in wireless without depending on the customer's own Internet provision, and given their track record, I have no reason to believe they would object to their networks being used for the purposes of intrusive surveillance. I am hoping that laws against these in-home privacy intrusions will arrive before it becomes the norm for consumer products to use the national wireless spynet for this kind of purpose, but given the way the market is going, I am not happy about our prospects on this one.
I've never tried this but knowing Samsung/LG/etc, you would get constant nag screens...
I've got one of these TV's and annoyingly I think it's great. I'm likely going to have to set up some routing/dns/proxy rules to defeat this.
Might even have some fun with it by sending it lots of channel changes, pen drive details and the rest.
could you get a small USB device (Rasberry Pi?) and set it up to show as a USB storage device and randomly generate file names while it's plugged in? That would flood their servers with dummy data :)
It would be easier just to write a script that makes repeated requests and running that since it's just HTTP anyway
1 reply →
And I'm sure that you'll get a nice letter in the mail accusing you of breaking some sort of law that attempts to protect them from such shenanigans.
It would be far easier to set that Pi up as an XMBC instance with RaspBMC and treat the TV as a dumb output device.
That scares me. I'm going to fire up wireshark on my Sony Bravia tonight and see what that sends off as well.
Now who can suggest the best software to install on the home router to block the connections based on the URLs? Ideally it would be a transparent solution -- the client computers shouldn't need any additional configuration. I have an OpenWrt based router.
Another question is how to handle https requests?
URLs or domains? If the latter is enough, you could just install a DNS resolver like dnsmasq and configure those domain to redirect to 0.0.0.0 or so. Example config:
Then either configure your dhcp server or clients to use the router as the DNS resolver.
> software to install on the home router to block the connections based on the URLs?
tinyproxy does what you want.
http://wiki.openwrt.org/doku.php?id=oldwiki:proxy.tinyproxy
Theoretically. But I've found out that it doesn't work on small Linuxes like OpenWRT -- the guy who took over maintenance obviously only works with big desktops and servers, he even removed the mechanisms for proper cross-compiling, at least the last time I looked, a couple of years ago. It looks like the people who use such distros aren't particularly interested in URL-based blocking?
We are really making it easy for all the companies that do the same that LG does.
1 reply →
someone should DDOS these servers. Or may be pass wrong info. JK.
These is very bad For LG, And Samsung. These wrongful data collection should stop.
JK but not really
Auto manufacturers do the same thing. Stop giving me a button to talk to your shitty computer and have it be a bluetooth command action for Siri or Google Now.
My phone is smarter than you.
How can't it be disabled? It needs a network connection to do that. I imagine there is a use case compelling enough to encourage the user to hook it up (YouTube?) but I doubt it has satcoms. Sooo... just don't configure the network.
That notwithstanding, I see boxes like Apple TV and Xbox One becoming the way that people interact with their TVs, making the whole problem somewhat moot anyway.
As I posted to his blog, I think he should contact the Information Commissioners Office. The TV appears to be sending cookie information, which makes it likely that not presenting him with the information in a clear way runs afoul of the infamous EU cookie law. Expecting people to read T&C's for a TV is nonsene.
There are also potentially other issues with the UK Data Protection Act, such as if they were to collect any personally identifiable information, which is likely that they will at times do if it snarfs data from attached USB devices at will.
And I'd love to see how they respond if he serves them with a Subject Access Notice (in the EU we have a legal right to see what data companies hold on us in most cases).
My TV (not an LG, thankfully) has really very good LoveFilm and BBC iPlayer apps built right into it, both of which require a network connection and are quite compelling reasons to use said network connection. I could watch both of these things via my Xbox, but then I'm needlessly powering the TV and the Xbox, rather than just the TV as in scenario one. I don't think I should have to double my power use just to avoid being spied upon.
Isn't network connectivity kind of the point of a smart tv?
Yes, but reporting back every program you choose to watch to the TV manufacturer certainly isn't.
Naturally they bury this little fact deep in the T&Cs where you won't even get to read it until you get the TV home, and who reads T&Cs? Almost nobody & the LG knows it.
How well do you think this TV would sell if they had to emblazon "This TV will report what you watch to LG so that they can sell that information to anyone" across the front in the store?
1 reply →
I've been shopping for a TV, and while the network-enabled features may be the point of calling certain models "smart", it is not necessarily something the buyer wants. It may appeal to many people - if they don't realize that the software may be buggy, security-compromising, or soon outdated and hard to update.
For me it's only unwanted bloat, like 3D. IOW, I may buy a "smart" TV, but if so it's only for the other features like screen size and quality. Nontechnical people have to be educated that the network features may compromise privacy and LAN security - but AFAIK you can always opt out, as the grandparent points out.
At least I assume it needs a cable or a wifi key - if it actually seeks out wireless and connects without permission, it's lawsuit time.
1 reply →
> I think it's important to point out that the URL that the data is being POSTed to doesn't in fact exist, you can see this from the HTTP 404 response
Is it possible that they do indeed collect it, but are faking 404?
Step now would be implement technology into the TVs. check
Step two would be to accept payload, however perhaps they are in waiting period to see if news like this one will come up, and then how much damage, if any, it will create. If none, then Step two: check.
What's step 3? Agreement with RIAA or Holywood to sell this data? It could help in litigation by giving more ammunition to plantiff. What is LG TOS of the TV says? Mentions anything about it?
Thank you for the post BTW. While they are tens of TV brands, its good to know which one to stay away from.
I've worked in the consumer electronics business for quite some time so let me present some information for your consideration, I don't expect you to like it but it will explain context: 1) Adverts: These are often used to subsidise features and capabilities. Sometimes good EPG data needs to be paid for, sometimes you need to justify the running of applications stores. This is a business choice that the manufacturer has to make, be off-putting or lose money. Targeted advertising does increase acceptance of advertising over non-targeted advertising, however if you hate advertising your just not going to get a subsidised product (if it is economically feasible to make one). 2) Viewer tracking: This has many uses a) product improvement: by knowing how users use products you can improve your designs. However this isn't usually done in such a scatter gun approach. b) You can sell anonymous information to agencies who use it to understand viewing habits and increase the value of traditional TV advertising. 3) Third party content tracking - This could be used a) to identify working and non-working content formats, not all encoders are the same and it is a nightmare debugging all the strange formats the people of the internet generate. b) to deliver improved titling, indexing and other metadata.
Above all remember Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.": 1) LG's response from their CS department was composed by a minimum wage agent who got a response from their mid-level supervisor who enquired with someone in product management who badly translated that from some Korean discussions. 2) Most Koreans don't care about content piracy, it is rife in Korea, especially with their excellent bandwidth. 3) Most of these policies were probably written by someone more interested in making the best product for the least money and probably not someone from the west.
I would hope that LG might pick up on this and make a better statement, but it won't change their attitude.
Finally, personally as someone who makes a lot of set-top boxes I would happily see more dumb TVs, but the business of TVs is loss making. None of the big brands has made money in the TV business in ages, most people do it either for turn-over or brand recognition. Making basic large "monitors" is a difficult business to make a profit in because you are selling something very basic in a mature market.
"just not going to get a subsidised product"
What subsidized product? I just paid hundreds to thousands for something you advertise as a smart tv.
And I would happily pay more for a top display and decent audio, if I could have it without all the junk. I don't even need a tuner or channel selection. Just let me point the TV at the input source I want and then do what that input tells it, but do it well. My PVR/Blu-Ray/console/whatever can do the rest.
1 reply →
Which might not have those features if it wasn't subsidised.
Found this info on the company behind the LG data collection:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/02/cognitive_lands_lg_a...
http://vimeo.com/22276085
What's funny is that they think they can make their TVs phone home and get away with it.
Well they have mostly so far. What do you think is going to stop them getting away with it?
Erm, the law?
1 reply →
class action lawsuit?
I wonder what the names/IP addresses of those servers are that this TV is contacting? Has anyone sniffed the data and figured out a way to spam their servers with bogus data? Feels to me like they're inviting something like this.
Why do these companies seem to always get away with violating their customers privacy? Why don't they have to pay huge fines for that, or even better, go to jail (those who made such decisions)? Seriously, what they do is criminal.
TVs need a tomato or ddwrt
Some alternative OS they can install that doesn't suck.
http://openlgtv.org.ru/wiki/index.php/Wiki_index
Guess which TV brand I wont be buying this black friday?
Time to put a packet sniffer on my home network & see whether our Panasonic smart TV does the same!
Let us know if you turn up anything interesting :-)
Why does he assume that 404 means there isn't something on the server slurping the submissions...
Absolutely, The server can do whatever it wants with the data and return a 404 header.
Yup, this actually saved me in the past when a statistics logger was returning an internal error (PHP) but Apache was logging the requests, so we could just parse the logs to get the info needed :)
1 reply →
Thanks for the heads up. That's the last time I buy from LG. Ever. Period.