I’m mostly sailing the high seas, using the tv as a giant monitor for the always-on laptop connected to it. I’m afraid of the 1984-esque “You must connect to the internet to continue using this TV” that might come after some time.
I’m mostly sailing the high seas, using the tv as a giant monitor for the always-on laptop connected to it. I’m afraid of the 1984-esque “You must connect to the internet to continue using this TV” that might come after some time.
OP’s topic isn’t about being monitored. They just don’t want an update pushed onto their tv that disables it from operating the way they want it to operate
The way they want it to operate is not monitoring them, presumably. You just added one extra step for the same thing.
I mean, if it’s not for that reason then connect it to the Internet and have fun, who cares. Just give them all your data and hope for the best.
Or pushing ads on the device idle screen, or inserted into other things you are trying to watch. (pre-rolls on HDMI sources…)
What the hell kind of TVs you have, guys? I mean, home screen ads sure. You don’t need to see them much if you’re always on the one external source, but sure.
But what kind of TVs do you have inserting pre-roll ads on external sources? The one example of that I can think of off the top of my head was this one weird concept of a TV you’d get pretty much for no money and was primarily funded by acting as an ad service in your house, which was a crappy business model and that’s probably nobody else is doing it.
Man, I wish people would get better at dealing with these types of issues well instead of making up new ones to get mad about. Getting your TV usage milked for data is a very real issue. And yeah, the enshittification of smart TV UX with targeted ads is as well. And it’s hard to sidestep because a lot of it is also baked into the media sources you’re paying for on the side, so even if you watch them elsewhere you get a lot of the same crap.
Is that genuinely not bad enough of a problem to solve to go into weird edge cases like HDMI pre-roll ads, self-destruct firmware updates or mandatory connection prompts? It is in my book.
You may think it’s crazy talk, but the concept has already been patented.
I don’t think it’s “crazy”, I just gave you an example of something similar that actually exists.
I think it’s a bad business model, which is why I only gave you an example.
As opposed to the real stuff you should care about, which not only exists, but is widespread and nearly unavoidable. You don’t need to dig through patents in ragebait articles to be concerned about this for real reasons.
Everyone else on this page is interpreting it differently than you are
OK, so… how? How is everyone else interpreting the desire of keeping your TV offline if not for privacy? What other reason could there be?
So that it won’t push updates that make the tv worse, like slower startup times for example
OK, but that’s not what the OP said. OP is concerned that keeping the TV offline may trigger a mandatory connection check down the line (not a thing that I know of, at least outside of very specific ad-based cheap models, to answer their question).
The only other thing being brought up in their post are that they play back pirated content primarily. That and the reference to 1984 make me think privacy more than “mostly made up minor technical inconvenience related to firmware updates”.
Either way, if the TV works fine and they are exclusively using an external device for playback there should be no downside to keeping the thing offline indefinitely.
OP just posted a clarification comment. You were right, i was wrong
Hey, you didn’t have to say that at all, disagreeing online is what it is, but it’s genuinely rare to see that written down. Genuine tip of the hat to you. Trivial as this conversation is, that’s huge gentlemanly energy right there.
Thanks! It’s something i try to do whenever it happens