Instead of ‘splurging’ on a dumb tv bc they’re more expensive now thanks to the data sompanies sell off of smart tvs I was considering getting a smart tv and dumbing it down. Is the way to do this never connecting it to the internet? And is that the only way?

  • droopy4096@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    manufacturer may very well integrate add and update endpoints so that it’s rather hard to distinguish. For example, say Samsung decides to serve adds and updates. Doing so through https://serives.samsung.com/{ads,updares} they leave you with 0 handle on what’s going on, since the only thing your routers and proxies can see is “samsung.com” and differentiator is “hidden” after that. So TLDR; is: you either allow internet access or you do not, there’s no “a little bit”

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      So TLDR; is: you either allow internet access or you do not, there’s no “a little bit”

      Good point! There would be “temporarily” though, which might work for updates. Of course, then it might just serve you the same ads forever that it pulls along with its update.

      • ringwraithfish@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        If you’re using it as a dumb TV, unless it shipped some critical firmware issue that prevents core functions from working (like HDMI input, switching inputs, etc) there shouldn’t ever be a reason to update it out of the box.

        I’ve used smart TV’s for 10+ years now and figured this out of the awful experience from the first one. Never had any issues with the ones I’ve never connected to the Internet.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Newer TVs are getting even worse. If you don’t connect them to the internet and don’t agree to their TOS, you get a less useful tv. They purposely give you the worst experience they can without drawing adverse attention from regulators.

          • droopy4096@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Disclaimer: I did not buy smart TVs recently. However from my research and experiences with other “smart” appliances - manufacturers now offloaded the most basic functions to the cloud and they LOVE IT. This gives them leverage in any extortion scheme they desire (just look at Toyota making some of their fob functions “subscription only” retroactively. This is a new era of digital extortion and the only way to shift is to avoid participating in a market of “smart things”. Corporations certainly capitalize on that, but if there is no market for smart things or it’s not lucrative enough they’ll begrudgingly cave as they need to sell. We’re not the majority though so unless we educate others this is the new reality.

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              This is something that needs government intervention unfortunately. Counting on individuals to not just buy the smart tv that is cheaper and more convenient isn’t a viable plan.

    • virku@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I am about to set up a pi-hole in my network. Would that help with this scenario?

      • anonymouse@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        It depends. Using OPs scenario, if all data, ads and updates, are served from data.samsung.com, then the pi hole can’t help. But if ads are served from ads.samsung.com and updates from updates.samsung.com, then you can blacklist the ads while still receiving the updates.

        My experience with a Vizio is that the pi is blocking a lot of the “phoning home” connections, but the ads seem to be integrated with the software that allows me to use apps, so I still see them when I use the TV’s apps. More and more though, I’m using the HDMI port with my HTPC.

      • jecht360@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Generally, no. Manufacturers just bake in a DNS server setting and it will only fail over if it can’t get to it.

        • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          The way to get around this is to have your router block outgoing dns requests to anything but your dns server (which I have my pihole do double duty for)

          • zelifcam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I’ve come across devices where they will stop functioning or flood my network with DNS requests if they can’t reach their baked in addresses. I setup a redirect rule to handle that. ANY 53 request gets redirected to my DNS server. I’ve had similar issue with NTP and had to do the same.

            At the same time they are assigned an IP that’s part of a subnet that has a rule preventing access to WAN. It allows me to “contain” my smart home devices but continue to work as much as possible on LAN without it freaking out.

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is certainly possible from a technical perspective, but it’s unlikely that it would happen in reality. Consumer product companies are invariably going to want to outsource ads to a third party, not host them from their own systems. It’s also going to be a pretty small percentage of customers that would bother to do this, and they are probably not the ones that are likely to make purchases based on ads anyways.

      • droopy4096@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        from what I’ve observed so far outsourcing does not preclude proxying external entities through existing trusted domain.