A separate streaming device, or a computer, has the same issues. Unless a TV screen is special here it sounds like this logic won't let me use any streaming services.
I'm not saying that other people should go the route that I did, I'm just adding to the conversation.
I wanted to make my "smart" tv "dumb" without losing smart tv functionality, so I bought a mini pc and installed Kubuntu on it. Normally I don't use KDE but it is a very highly customizable DE and so I customized the hell out of it to make the desktop look like a typical smart tv launcher page. I created launchers for streaming services and YouTube etc. and bought a USB remote control from Amazon.
Now I have a Linux machine that is entirely under my control, runs FOSS software and runs streaming services in a web browser instead of installing proprietary software on my TV. I also have way more features, like being able to use VLC to play local media so it supports pretty much every file format ever (and I have a lot of older video files from decades ago so that's nice).
My "smart" tv is no longer connected to any network but I can still do every smart tv thing that I want to and more.
I've not had any issues with any streaming service not working on Linux. Disney+, Netflix, Prime Video, Shutter all work fine for me. If it can be streamed in a browser, on any OS, it works on Linux. Typically your browser just needs to have Widevine installed.
As for Netflix quality, I've not noticed any quality issues at 1080p but I've not measured the stream to confirm if that's what they're actually streaming.
A streaming box can be factory reset or thrown in the trash. If your 65 inch TV doesn't let you roll back an update you have to buy a new TV. Streaming boxes are usually faster and more feature filled than the in built TV stuff as well.
Without connecting my TV to the Internet for firmware upgrades, I would be missing out on several fixes and improvements especially with handling of higher frame rates, VRR and IIRC at least one in the HDMI ARC subsystem that was causing audio drops.
Interesting! I haven’t connected my smart LG to the net since it was new, and it handles everything I throw at it.
I prefer to use an external box as opposed to the built-in apps, to have a more responsive interface, to keep the TV as clean as possible, and to have control over choosing to update the TV or not.
I imagine all of them. This is all controlled in soft/firmware and as such is bound to have bugs. There's also updates that make better use of the hardware.
That's exactly the problem. There's no guarantee that the built-in will be and remain "proper" with updates. It's like saying we can trust our government with encryption backdoors as long as they behave properly.
Having an internet-connected TV running Android is great. With this, I can download and install SmartTube, and then use it to watch YouTube without ads or sponsor segments. I can also install Jellyfin, so I can watch various media served by my PC.
You're better off using an Nvidia Shield for that. You can swap that or the TV out independently as tech changes. You can also plug drives into it and play whatever media you want.
Except that my TV already has a computer running Android inside, so why would I want to spend a bunch more money on an additional device that just does the same thing?
If I could have saved a little money by getting a 65" monitor, this advice would make a lot of sense. But that's just not an option these days. You're getting a built-in computer whether you want it or not.
As for plugging in drives, it looks like you can only do that with either microSD or USB. Either way, doing that for every item I want to watch is very inconvenient compared to just using Jellyfin, which lets me browse everything on my PC.
Not at all. I have an SSD plugged into my Shield, to which I can copy whatever I want over my network. People also like to install torrent-based clients for illicit streaming services, although I don't consider that worthwhile.
Your observation about every TV forcing built-in junk on you is legit; but I use a projector, which doesn't have any of that bullshit. Every source I have goes through my receiver, which is another reason to use a media player that's not your TV.
The whole thing is a sad commentary on the state of A/V and people's laziness today. They're buying giant TVs but settling for the shitty audio from its built-in speakers... or fooling themselves with a sound bar.
I have a sound bar. I'm not fooling myself. It's much better than the built-in speakers (though my soundbar has a small subwoofer, so that helps a lot). Is it equivalent to a real A/V receiver/amplifier with large speakers? Definitely not, but that setup costs a LOT more money, plus I'm limited in how much I can turn up the volume anyway because of my neighbors.
The projector thing is a no-go for many people. They cost a lot of money, the bulb inside has limited life and is very expensive (and makes a lot of heat too), but worst of all, they just aren't bright enough for many viewing environments. I would never be able to see it in my apartment, except late at night.
There is, if you desire control of your television.
If you have no problem with Roku et al. pushing updates to your TV, then by all means use integrated software.
A separate streaming device, or a computer, has the same issues. Unless a TV screen is special here it sounds like this logic won't let me use any streaming services.
I'm not saying that other people should go the route that I did, I'm just adding to the conversation.
I wanted to make my "smart" tv "dumb" without losing smart tv functionality, so I bought a mini pc and installed Kubuntu on it. Normally I don't use KDE but it is a very highly customizable DE and so I customized the hell out of it to make the desktop look like a typical smart tv launcher page. I created launchers for streaming services and YouTube etc. and bought a USB remote control from Amazon.
Now I have a Linux machine that is entirely under my control, runs FOSS software and runs streaming services in a web browser instead of installing proprietary software on my TV. I also have way more features, like being able to use VLC to play local media so it supports pretty much every file format ever (and I have a lot of older video files from decades ago so that's nice).
My "smart" tv is no longer connected to any network but I can still do every smart tv thing that I want to and more.
Unless things have changed, a Linux machine will not give you a high bit rate picture. Netflix requires DRM and will only give you 720p.
So you get freedom, but a worse product. Which is a trade off not all would be willing to make.
There are also few major streaming services which require elevated levels of DRM , preventing them from being used on Linux.
I've not had any issues with any streaming service not working on Linux. Disney+, Netflix, Prime Video, Shutter all work fine for me. If it can be streamed in a browser, on any OS, it works on Linux. Typically your browser just needs to have Widevine installed.
As for Netflix quality, I've not noticed any quality issues at 1080p but I've not measured the stream to confirm if that's what they're actually streaming.
A streaming box can be factory reset or thrown in the trash. If your 65 inch TV doesn't let you roll back an update you have to buy a new TV. Streaming boxes are usually faster and more feature filled than the in built TV stuff as well.
Without connecting my TV to the Internet for firmware upgrades, I would be missing out on several fixes and improvements especially with handling of higher frame rates, VRR and IIRC at least one in the HDMI ARC subsystem that was causing audio drops.
Interesting! I haven’t connected my smart LG to the net since it was new, and it handles everything I throw at it.
I prefer to use an external box as opposed to the built-in apps, to have a more responsive interface, to keep the TV as clean as possible, and to have control over choosing to update the TV or not.
What brand is the one you’re talking about?
Which TV manufacturer is shipping out buggy TVs that require updates?
I imagine all of them. This is all controlled in soft/firmware and as such is bound to have bugs. There's also updates that make better use of the hardware.
Then use USB offline update?
Samsung: https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00062224/
Vizio: https://support.vizio.com/s/article/Firmware-Information-215...
TCL: https://support.tcl.com/rokutv-common-questions/01-how-to-ma...
Name the specific one you're talking about. Either there is a manufacturer we should all avoid, or atleast a model, or you made it up.
Lol ok so I'm making it up, then. I don't owe you anything, dude. You can believe whatever you want, I don't give a single f.
And now we're getting into much more technical details and why I said "inherently".
A proper built-in box will let you bypass it.
That's exactly the problem. There's no guarantee that the built-in will be and remain "proper" with updates. It's like saying we can trust our government with encryption backdoors as long as they behave properly.
My perspective: the incentive for manufacturers is to generate as much revenue as possible. In hardware manufacturing, margins are extremely tight.
Consequently, any additional revenue from selling customer data is incredibly attractive.
Especially if you can do so better/faster than your competitors, thereby competing at the same retail price points with better net margins.
As a result... they have every incentive to fuck their customers over from a privacy perspective.
And what they're doing is invisible.
And this is an entity people are comfortable trusting with unfettered access to their devices/network?
Sorry, I was unclear.
By 'bypass', I mean something that does not require the cooperation of the box.
I should have said the proper way of adding it will let you bypass the box, not phrase things as if the box is the gatekeeper.
I'd rather my tv get updates than have it end up as part of a botnet. The recent RCE in ssh shows nothing is immune.
> The recent RCE in ssh shows nothing is immune.
An unplugged network cable.
For myself, I’ve never had a reason to put it online.
If you’re using the TV online, then yes, get updates, but if you never let it have network access then this isn’t a deep concern.
Having an internet-connected TV running Android is great. With this, I can download and install SmartTube, and then use it to watch YouTube without ads or sponsor segments. I can also install Jellyfin, so I can watch various media served by my PC.
You're better off using an Nvidia Shield for that. You can swap that or the TV out independently as tech changes. You can also plug drives into it and play whatever media you want.
Except that my TV already has a computer running Android inside, so why would I want to spend a bunch more money on an additional device that just does the same thing?
If I could have saved a little money by getting a 65" monitor, this advice would make a lot of sense. But that's just not an option these days. You're getting a built-in computer whether you want it or not.
As for plugging in drives, it looks like you can only do that with either microSD or USB. Either way, doing that for every item I want to watch is very inconvenient compared to just using Jellyfin, which lets me browse everything on my PC.
Not at all. I have an SSD plugged into my Shield, to which I can copy whatever I want over my network. People also like to install torrent-based clients for illicit streaming services, although I don't consider that worthwhile.
Your observation about every TV forcing built-in junk on you is legit; but I use a projector, which doesn't have any of that bullshit. Every source I have goes through my receiver, which is another reason to use a media player that's not your TV.
The whole thing is a sad commentary on the state of A/V and people's laziness today. They're buying giant TVs but settling for the shitty audio from its built-in speakers... or fooling themselves with a sound bar.
I have a sound bar. I'm not fooling myself. It's much better than the built-in speakers (though my soundbar has a small subwoofer, so that helps a lot). Is it equivalent to a real A/V receiver/amplifier with large speakers? Definitely not, but that setup costs a LOT more money, plus I'm limited in how much I can turn up the volume anyway because of my neighbors.
The projector thing is a no-go for many people. They cost a lot of money, the bulb inside has limited life and is very expensive (and makes a lot of heat too), but worst of all, they just aren't bright enough for many viewing environments. I would never be able to see it in my apartment, except late at night.
There is also nothing inherently wrong with connecting random Windows machines directly to the Internet.
It’s still not going to work out in a good way over any significant timeframe.