You absolutely do not want these smart tvs connected to the internet. Do it once maybe to update firmware. Then use them as a dumb tv and put an apple TV in front of it.

All tvs from all manufacturers have microphones and they do listen an sell info.

Everyone things Facebook is listening but it really is your tv.

Not in Europe if that's the case. I've monitored what my LG does and it's basically nothing.

I've got an LG C2 and you can't disable the Bluetooth, so anyone can try to connect to it. No service menu options too. I've not yet found out if cutting the WiFi/Bluetooth antennas is the only option.

> You absolutely do not want these smart tvs connected to the internet.

You can refuse to give them a direct WiFi connection, but just wait until they start using IOT mesh networks like Amazon Sidewalk as a fallback channel (assuming some aren't quietly doing that already).

What a living nightmare. It’s getting to the point where it might be time to pressure companies like Best Buy to stop carrying them.

They would not carry any TVs then.

There are settings… deep, deep, hard to find settings.

Bought one, and I have regrets... Every time I turn it on and start watching something, after about 10 minutes a nag screen modal pops up for me to activate AI voice features. At first I entered the wizard and hit cancel. But that's not good enough, It will just keep showing up until you hit accept and activate it. I have since then deleted the Bixby account. We'll see how long it takes until it starts nagging me again.

Also random features require you to be logged in to a Samsung account on the TV. Like picture-in-picture for instance.

I'm considering refunding it, but it has absolutely brilliant picture quality though.

How much is "technically the best" worth compared to "convenient, secure, and good"?

To most, all they care about is picture quality and being able to watch the content they want.

Also, I assume you can still do what I did for my current LG TV, skip the wifi setup, plug in AppleTV and use it purely as dumb TV.

> all they care about is picture quality

I get that, but at some point you're installing it in your house with non-color corrected lighting and viewing it during the daytime with your terrible human eyes. I get why 200-300 lumens of peak brightness can make a difference, but does 2-3% of color correctness really matter to people as they watch their low bitrate netflix stream?

Maybe we'd all be better off if we calmed down a bit on chasing the specs, and focused on something else for a while.

Are there any streaming services that offer video quality on par with a high-end blu-ray?

Sony Pictures Core and Kaleidescape are as close as it gets, and both require expensive proprietary hardware.

That's really disappointing; I have zero interest in allowing a device like that on my network, or in spending that much on hardware for a single proprietary service that could go away or change its terms, or in having a service that only works with one device rather than many services that all work on the same device (e.g. Android TV).

Sigh. Where's the video equivalent of music stores for "just let me buy a high-quality DRM-free download I actually own" already?

I imagine it won't be long before the TVs come with eSIMs to connect directly to Tmobile/Verizon/ATT, and maybe add some cameras in the borders to track eye movement.

Then the advertisers could buy more accurate information to improve product placement in movies/tv shows.

The sci-fi version could be a TV that can recognize what kind of things are in the room or clues for the viewer's socioeconomic status and emotional state to bring up content (or even change it in real time) to maximize resonance with the viewer.

The cost is probably still too do prohibitive to do so.

I worked with IoT devices, generally the cost per GB of data is around dollar per GB. I doubt you would make that back in advertisements.

Also, there is cost per SIM so you wouldn't want situation where SIM is active if you don't need it which is why alot of IoT devices have you setup with a phone because they turn SIM on when you sign up for their plan. If consumer never puts TV on Wi-Fi network or cooperates with the phone, then you would have keep each SIM active and turn it off when it checks in via Wi-Fi. My guess is cost is not worth it if you get 98% cooperation. Write off 2% and call it a day.

The cheaper play (which could be implemented today, likely with few HW changes) would be to just use BLE or another 2.4GHz proprietary protocol to broadcast your usage data (maybe encrypted with a vendor key - let's be generous) to another TV or refrigerator in your area that is already internet-connected.

Is that not pretty similar to what Amazon already do with Ring devices?

People on HN have been saying this for years and TVs still aren’t shipping sims.

This doesn't make the overall product better, though. People get so tunnel visioned on one narrow feature being the best and use that to justify purchasing a product that is overall hostile to them. This is why these practices never die.

In 2030, it will be "Well, the TV sends a 24/7 video of my living room to Samsung, plays a 5 minute ad every 10 minutes of content, displays in 480i unless I pay a $100/mo subscription, and it will kill my pets, but hey, it has the best display in the world, so I'm thinking about buying it."

I thought LG G5 is the best OLED TV in 2025

Sony and LG have comparable video quality.

I hope their OLED is better than their QLED because the latter has white splotches all over the screen from backlight bleeding through. I would throw it in the bin if I felt more strongly about it.

But not the best OS for sure.