Its an old LG, but given the recent light on the lengths they'll go to spy on us, I figured this guy was better off without any ability to even connect wirelessly. Don't know if the Ethernet still works but I plan on keeping my TVs as dumb as possible, HDMI only.

If you're wondering how to open lg TVs you just have to remove all the screws then start pulling open at the bottom and open the clips going up. With the TV face down on a soft surface just keep pulling on the back case from the bottom, it'll take some effort to pop open. The top edge folds open more like a hidge than clips.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 56 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

This is Plan B when you already have an LG product.

Plan A is to not buy LG anything, ever.

PS: Just out of curiosity and based on other people pointing out here and in another post of mine how hard is to get a non-smart TV, I looked around and here is the largest non-smart consumer TV I could find (which is 1080p and 40" from what looks like a Spanish manufacturer, for €209 with VAT), here is a non-smart 65" 4K Samsung hospitality display ($1023 in the US) and here is what looks like the same spec consumer TV from Samsung ($379.99 in the US).

So, sorry, it is in fact possible to not just avoid LG products (which itself would be easy, just buy any other brand out there) but even smart TVs altogether, just either pay more (over 2x as more judging by that Samsung TV) or settle for smaller 1080p TVs from smaller TV makers.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    They all do this. Why do you think displays are so cheap? The business plan is not the display, it's the data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    Here is a Samsung 65" 4K Non-Smart Hospitality Display in the US and here is the closest consumer Samsung TV also in the US.

    The former is $1,023.00, the latter is $379.99.

    HOWEVER, here is the Samsung commercial smart version of the first TV model.

    Notice that it's actually a bit more expensive at $1080.

    Also judging by figures I heard years ago for the cost to buy private information about people (well below $1 per person if I remember it correctly), I suspect Smart TV makers don't make all that much money from selling private information (especially if you consider that they're competing with the likes of Google as well as many other companies that also have massive surveillance operations) as a percentage of the total price of the TV.

    I suspect that the difference in price between commercial and consumer TVs is mainly due to higher resilience in the device's design, longer and/or stricter warranties and support availability plus that they simply can extract more money from business customers (an effect you see in A LOT of things, not just this).

    I suspect the current situation where non-smart consumer TVs are pretty much non-existent are a mix of big companies pursuing even small increases in profit (from selling private data) so they all inevitably end up doing that same thing that brings them a small additional revenue stream and consumers themselves being convinced that "smart" is a good thing on a TV and actually preferring those over non-smart TVs.

    Certainly consumers favoring "smart" TVs would explain why even little no-brand Chinese TV manufacturers who really don't have the scale and systems for mass-surveillance are selling Smart TVs rather than non-Smart ones outside the cheapest possible TV sizes (you can find monitor-size non-smart TVs)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    Well, considering LG's advertisement data selling makes more money than actually selling TVs with 0 hardware production costs... (According to the GN investigation)

    There is a reason that every single company, cars, IoT, fucking washing machines are all moving into the data harvesting and selling business...

    I think those figures are quite outdated.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Every smart TV brand is doing this. There is no escape

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    Don't get a smart TV, just use an external media player for the "smarts" - easiest is to put LibreELEC in a Pi and get a remoted like this.

    Personally last TV I got (5 years ago) I went for something that did not advertise any "smarts" (a Blaupunkt which turned out to have some "smarts" so it has always been disconnected), though if it was nowadays I would probably spend the extra to get a commercial display - a commercial display is not only "smarts" free, it is also designed to last a long time under constant use rather than with built-in obsolescence like consumer products, so it should not need to be replaced for a long time.

    I'm lucky that I've been an really early adopter of media players (well before Android TV) and quickly figure out that the life-cycle of medial players (i.e. the "smarts" in Smart TVs) is way shorter than the life-cycle of the actual display, mainly because of how often new codecs become widespread (video decoding of 1080p or higher content is only performant if done in hardware or it you throw a ton of general computing power at it), so it's economically wiser to have those things separate since you'll replaced the media player hardware much more often than display hardware, all of which is even more so when software updates of closed "smarts" solutions can literally make the device unusable simply by using too much memory, a common built-in obsolescence trick.

    PS: I had a look around and above 40" 1080p the only non-smart TVs I found were indeed commercial things like "hospitality displays" and judging by example I checked from Samsung with the same spec, the explicitly "non-smart" "hospitality display" (65", 4K) was a bit over 2x the price of the "smart" consumer version.

    So yeah, it's feasible to avoid smart TVs by going commercial (but costs over 2x) or be limited to the smaller sizes and resolutions, as well as simpler tech of small brands in the low-end of the consumer TV market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment