216M Spy TVs – The LG Smart TV Problem [video]
youtube.com476 points by treve a day ago
476 points by treve a day ago
https://www.notebookcheck.net/LG-smart-TVs-caught-logging-au...
Here are LG's contract terms for appliances.[1] They are awful. Not only can they listen in. You have a contractual requirement to tell everyone in range of an appliance that they may be eavesdropped upon. CONSENT REQUIREMENT: You acknowledge and agree that it is your sole responsibility to obtain all necessary consents from any third parties whose voices may be captured by the Product and to notify household members and guests that their voices may be captured and processed, in compliance with applicable wiretapping, eavesdropping, and privacy laws. If anyone does not consent, you should disable the microphone or voice features in the settings. LGE disclaims any liability for your failure to obtain such consent or provide such notification. What's absurd is that this doesn't void the terms by default. There should be limits to what companies can put in their ToS beyond which those terms aren't enforceable. Is that actually for smart tvs? The first paragraph includes "the products you may access or otherwise connect to via the ThinQ mobile application (not including Smart TVs)" and "These Terms of Use do not apply to any other LG products or services, including Smart Media Products." [EDIT] Smart Media products terms appear to be at https://us.lgappstv.com/main/terms (for comparison here's UK: https://gb.lgappstv.com/main/terms, there are some other EU versions available for e.g. Germany but I imagine UK terms should be quite close and more accessible for most of readers) It appears so from the link you provided: https://us.lgappstv.com/main/terms#tabContentTerms6 > 8. I understand that LGE will retain the collected Voice Information for 6 months to fulfil the purposes for which we collected it, and after this period, it will be deleted or anonymized, depending on the case. > 9. I understand that this Smart Media Product is a household device. If this Smart Media Product will be used by more than one person, I represent that, in addition to agreeing to this Agreement, that I have obtained consent from all other members of my household whose information may be collected through this Smart Media Product and am providing consent on their behalf. tempted to go into my nearest big box electronics store and then sue them when they don't tell me the LG tv's they have on display are eavesdropping on me. Can that kind of clause really be enforceable? It really doesn't seem legal in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. (not a lawyer) These (and other TOS agreements) fall under the category of "adhesion contracts". Because the buyer has no real ability to negotiate, any ambiguity is resolved in their favor. A judge can also strike provisions that a reasonable buyer would not expect, or that are unconscionable. So it's up to the judge's judgment. The cool thing is that they make you go into forced arbitration rather than through the legal system. LG probably can't sue you for failing to get consent from a guest, but the guest can sue you, not LG, for being recorded. LG's purpose is to avoid being sued by the guest, not to be able to sue the customer. lawyers hope to trap / trick people that are smart enough to read, but not legally smart enough to understand enforceability. are state's attourney's general going to go after them? eh. you ask if they're enforceable but that's the wrong question, the real question is will anyone do anything to stop them? This is the kind of thing that states need to make explicitly illegal. Can you actually even turn and keep the microphone off or does it toggle itself back on like Apple's Wifi and Bluetooth one-touch toggle off for now buttons? > Apple's Wifi and Bluetooth one-touch toggle off for now buttons? This comparison rubs me off the wrong way every time I see, because. 1. The notifications clearly tell the behavior (doing $THING until tomorrow). 2. There's a way to turn them "really off". What LG does is completely different. IIRC from the teaser of this video, the microphone is never "completely" off or apps can re-enable them somehow. It just reads as legal boilerplate. How else can voice recognition listen for a wake word without being able to process everything it hears. Yes that's giving me a bit of pause. I wonder what, say, Apple's ToS has for this kind of functionality. And yet what lawmakers focused on was getting your consent for a cookie on a website you were only going to visit once. That was the maliciously compliant way that companies chose to do to a reasonable law. The exact same law says LG TVs can't record you without consent. Do you like the law or not? The law has been unable to keep up with tech changes. Let's hope for the irony of AI helping them figure this stuff out. > The law has been unable to keep up with tech changes. Nah, for the most part the law has been unable to keep up with (or choose to oppose) corporate power, and new ways it's being used. Usually there's no magic quantum doohickey which demands fundamentally new legal theory. I've bought an LG Smart TV 5 years ago, read t&c where I was supposed to grant them any data they wanted, decided to disagree and kept all network functions disabled. I was ridiculed by my friends for that. At some point, I thought - maybe I'm really crazy to do so? Who am I, a caveman, a luddite? Oh well, I'm not. Not a bad tv though, many HDMI ports! I have a similar reaction from folks when I don't trust services/devices. Most telling moment was when I refused to upload my license to LinkedIn because I lost 2FA (token on phone, phone destroyed). Microsoft assured me they would "delete the license as soon as it was verified". I've written too many software systems for too many companies, and I do not believe them. Of course, they'd outsourced to AU10TIX, which did retain the licenses, and got hacked: https://www.404media.co/id-verification-service-for-tiktok-u... That's from 2024, but we just had a larger breach with IDScan this week. Sorry for the digression, but the common thread is how much to trust these companies, and my conclusion after dealing with them for many years is they will lie, cheat, and steal to get whatever they want. Some paranoia is warranted, I think. > my conclusion after dealing with them for many years is they will lie, cheat, and steal to get whatever they want Honestly, it's not even that extreme in most cases. I think it's usually not malice, it's incompetence. That's why I don't trust big companies with my data. Nothing to do with some CEO's evil plans, but more to do with the hundreds/thousands of mid-level "not my job" or "doing my best" workers who are actually in charge of handling my data. > I think it's usually not malice, it's incompetence. Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and should be treated accordingly. > Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, and should be treated accordingly. I disagree with this as stated. Maybe in the right context you could make a case for it, but in general? Heck no. Intent matters a great deal, and there is no justice in treating someone incompetent (or negligent) the same as someone who is actually malicious. Both things are bad, but the latter is worse than the former even if they lead to the same outcome. > Nothing to do with some CEO's evil plans, but more to do with the hundreds/thousands of mid-level "not my job" or "doing my best" workers who are actually in charge of handling my data. The CEO is responsible for what their company does. If a major breach can occur through the oversight or "incompetence" of one worker, the CEO has already failed, whether through negligence or malice. Will the CEO suffer consequences? It seems the worst they face is being fired with a golden parachute. Pardon my French but bull-fucking-shit! A CEO _should_ take responsibility for what their subordinates do. It's preposterous to simple throw up our arms and say "oh well, some employees were sloppy so we lost some 100 million user IDs and other sensitive information that we promised not to store but we lied. Oopsie, silly me, pardon my wee incompetence tee-hee". No no no NO NO! At some level, and certainly at the level where you get paychecks of 10 million a year for the "huge responsibility you are bearing", then incompetence IS malice! Everything you say should be true on any level playing field. Not in the British public sector where shambolic incompetence is the norm. Uhh. I think you misread my comment pretty badly here. I am not making excuses for anyone. I am saying that it's less likely to be some evil machination that led to the misuse of my data and more likely to be negligence or incompetence. Both are inexcusable, but one is more common/likely than the other. You can certainly link them together and yes leaders should be held responsible no matter what, but from my perspective as the user who had his data leaked, it doesn't really matter how/why it happened, does it? > I am saying that it's less likely to be some evil machination that led to the misuse of my data and more likely to be negligence or incompetence. Not being held accountable for negligence or incompetence is the evil machination. Same here when they find out I’ve never had an FB/IG/X etc account. As though having that crap in your life is somehow mandatory. People who make poor choices love to pretend that they had no choice at all. 1. Interaction with Meta is virtually mandatory in many places in the world. Try opting out of Meta when your kid's daycare or your building's group chat is on whatsapp. 2. It doesn't really matter if you opt out, because _other people around you don't_: they take pictures in which you show, they tag you, they talk about you, they send you links, etc. Which means they (Meta) build a shadow profile of you anyway. The "personal responsibility angle" is pure fiction. My building’s group is on FB. I’ve managed without access for over a decade. I live a somewhat normal adult life and manage without having anything to do with Meta ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I probably miss out on some things, but I don’t notice. All my friends just contact me through other sources. If you have kids, it’s more difficult - I can acknowledge that. You’re assuming that my primary concern is my privacy rather than my sanity. I don’t understand how anyone can seek out a non-stop feed of the sort of people who routinely post on FB. I’ve seen exactly what the doom scroll does to people without them realizing it. So yeah if a business requires me to have an account I’ll find a different business to patronize. Frankly if you’re expecting someone other than you to take responsibility for the media you consume, that’s a problem. When are the victims going to start getting significantly compensated for these breaches? They will keep happening as long as the consequences are just the cost of doing business. It will be when enough people elect enough politicians who take action against this weaponized incompetence and strip-mining of the peoples' assets. Or, if that does not happen, when enough people rise up in revolution and take the compensation for themselves. Or, never. If enough people vote enough or revolt enough, they cannot be stopped. But the incentives for too few people rising up are too costly. They work hard to keep the equilibrium in that balance. It’s okay to be a luddite. Not everything needs to have an interface. Got into a spat with a manager at my apartment complex because I refused to install their app just to deal with a maintenance issue. He was like, “I don’t see the problem, you have to use the Latch app to open your apartment door.” To which I replied, “No, I have the door keypad code memorized.” Just like I don’t need an app to make a log of exit/entry history in a backend database just to enter my apartment via a Bluetooth lock… …I should not have to install their app to make my apartment livable. Indeed, my argument was convincing enough to have a resolution which didn’t include installing their app. Does this app work on GrapheneOS? LineageOS? Android betas?
Who will troubleshoot issues if it doesn't? It's not about being a luddite. In many respects I consider it the opposite. It's engaging with technology in a way that demands standards of behaviour and performance. I don't want the new thing because it is the new thing. I want new things that are better. People accept abusive technology because they consider that's just the way it is with this new thing. It's a failure to understand what should be considered unacceptable. > you have to use the Latch app to open your apartment door So what happens if you arrive home with a dead phone? And possibly worse, they have a log of when you come and go? I am a student and where I live most student housing has an app to open the door instead of a normal key. My current place used Bluetooth, the previous one was even more inconvenient because it used NFC. It sucks, and if you accidentally forget your phone at home you're fucked, but the landlords do it because it lets them block old tenants from entering without having to switch the locks. You have a unique code, don't they already have a log of your coming and goings? But I would absolutely not install an app for that. They do. But the apartment complex gets a nice little kickback, especially since an app for unlocking your front door is one that has at least a plausible argument for having your location, which means a whole bunch of location data that can be mined/sold/both. > And possibly worse, they have a log of when you come and go? Most apartment buildings in the US already use face-tracking cameras to get this log My apartment complex came to install keypads and centrally managed smart thermostats and I would not let them. Thankfully my lease was old enough that I was able to argue against it. I don’t want a 3rd party company tracking my habits, and I don’t want some manager boiling my pets alive while I’m gone because they decided they think our AC is set too low. You got lucky. If you've got an apartment in, say, a healthcare facility, they'll install those thermostats and whatnot. Usually the neighbours are clueless about technology so complaining doesn't get very far at all. It's even worse if some staff wrote paranoid in your file, 'cause they'll argue it's good for "exposure". You mean if you are permanently resident in a mental institute they don't let you control the temperature? That's hardly surprising... Nah, you're not crazy. I'm also someone who actually reads terms documents, because I find that they're often the only thing that will be truthful about a company's intentions. And keeping it completely disconnected from the internet should be the default, in my opinion. There is absolutely no reason to read those contracts any more. As Louis Rossman keeps pointing out, most of them now include the ability for them to change terms at any time. That's basically the null contract. Since the legal system has once again failed to protect users from corporations, it's up to users to use technical means for self defense. Depends on jurisdiction, just because someone wrote something in a contract doesn’t mean it’s binding. In Poland/EU we have an (ever growing) list of forbidden clauses that even when written and signed by consumer are null and void. And I think these can be enacted retroactively - when corporations invent new shady clauses, government steps in and tells them these are invalid. This helps to even out the consumer-corporation field. > we have an (ever growing) list of forbidden clauses that even when written and signed by consumer are null and void I'm pretty sure that's true almost everywhere. Law beats contract. The real question is how strong the laws are. In the US not so much because of small government and stuff, especially in red states. The law matters very little when enforcing it in court often means a multiyear lawsuit against an opponent which employs an army of attorneys, has effectively unlimited amounts of money, will likely cost you ruinious sums of money, and for an outcome that's far from guaranteed. You can do that too. You can show up, represent yourself and pay a few hundred dollar court fee, while the big company has to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from you. You'll probably lose the case if you don't have a lawyer, but in a place like the US, you don't have to pay the other side's legal fees unless the case is frivolous (which it won't be). >The law matters very little when enforcing it in court often means a multiyear lawsuit against an opponent which employs an army of attorneys, has effectively unlimited amounts of money, will likely cost you ruinious sums of money, and for an outcome that's far from guaranteed. Or when you can't even enforce anything in court as you've already given up your right to spend all your money suing, as binding arbitration is the required and only mechanism to "resolve disputes." To make it extra fair, the corporation pays the arbitration firm for their "objective" decisions and not you. What could go wrong? Has it actually happened that someone went to court and the court told them no, you have to do binding arbitration? Or is it just something they put in the contract to scare you? Has anyone argued they didn't actually agree to what the country thinks they agreed to? You could start by just saying no, you didn't agree to that, and the company will have to prove you did. In the Gamer's Nexus video, he gets drunk before accepting the terms so that it isn't legal consent. A drunk person can't enter a contract. That’s great! Because then you’re left with the simple task of raising it up with the government. It’s actually the judiciary you’d bring it up with, I believe. The judiciary is a branch of government. But more crucially, some countries have better consumer protection agencies, eliminating the need for people to go through costly court battles for common sense stuff. Interestingly, in Brazil and I'm sure in some other legislations, those contracts are essentially void because there's a presumption the average person does not have the time, patience, or ability to understand every clause—so they are by definition unable to agree to their terms. I'd love to have a similar standard applied in the US but I'm not holding my breath. >There is absolutely no reason to read those contracts any more For another perspective, check out the comment you're replying to. At the very least, you can be sure they'll never change the terms of the agreement to be more beneficial for you, though. So just treat it as a best case scenario, knowing that it can get even worse. Just assume the worse then, save yourself some time. Well yeah, that's kinda the idea, but sometimes it's nice to know what 'the worst' will entail At this point every EULA or TOS change should begin with the heading: We Are Altering The Deal. Pray We Don't Alter It Any Further PS, my technical means are keeping my TV off the internet. Which doesnt work. LG tvs will scan for availible networks. Someone setting up a new router within range briefly disables encryption and "your" tv will jump on that network and transmit all the stored data. It is tinfoil hats time, at least for LG tvs. I guess you could remove the wifi antenna, or otherwise brick the wifi reception ability (faraday cage, lead block, etc). Or - just boycott LG. I'll never buy any of that corporate espionage nonsense, ever. Also: the US intelligence agencies used Echelon ages ago to monitor what vast swaths of innocent people were up to. I think it's sensible to presume they've got their hooks into these devices too. Give it a network, but don't allow that network to access the internet. If it can't phone home, it's not connected. A technical solution would presumably spoof the spaff but with E2EE and DoH is it possible? So then what, hacking firmware? I guess then TVs get a hard lifespan limit. I never understood why any of the smartness had to be built into the TV in the first place. Sure, it's useful for the first year, and then the seriously underpowered hardware they installed into it will have trouble with just about anything. I bought a Philips Ambilight OLED TV probably over 8 years now. Brilliant tv, great quality, I still see no reason to replace it at all. But its built in AndroidTV is garbage. Because it’s extremely profitable for them to serve ads and sell PI. Kind of like how the airline industry makes more money off credit card shenanigans than actual plane tickets. I hear you. This is exactly the reason why I have a digital signage display rather than a Smart TV. Similar boat - Panasonic glass fronted TV. Circa 2013. None of the smart works anymore. 1080p, but the picture far outstrips most other TVs I've owned to this day. I have zero plans to change it, and it's usefulness has outlasted the Chromecast that's connected to it. Yes, I put the first ads on Smart TVs. Apologies. It's so you buy a new one every few years instead of keeping the same TV for a decade or two. Capitalism cannot survive when products last a lifetime. If that’s true, then why is capitalism still around? Should it have died out in a previous generation in which many products did last a lifetime? It did. We are currently on the fourth or more reinvention of capitalism. It's like ethernet - every time networking technology changes, the new one is called the same thing as the old one. The current fiber-optic switched Ethernet has absolutely nothing in common with the original vampire-tapped coax with media attachment units clamped onto the cable and a serial-port-looking AUI interface running down from the ceiling to the computer. Same for capitalism. > Capitalism cannot survive when products last a lifetime. This is totally backwards; capitalism would do fine in such an environment (in the same way that evolution does fine in an environment where organisms live more than just a few seconds; the whole reason we have the notion of a "lifetime" is that our germ line comes from a long line of ancestral DNA that made organisms that outlasted their competition.) Individual companies might have to hustle to innovate or die, but that too is good for capitalism. Whoa! I think maybe I stepped on somebody's agenda? Both capitalism and evolution depend on the fact that over time, on average, less fit organisms/organizations are displaced by better alternatives. You may not like that, but down-voting anyone who points it out doesn't make it any less true. Because having the TV play from streaming apps out of the box is pretty useful. The problem is we've not enforced any strong regulation against ads, downgrade rights or hack ability. I don't need "better performance" from the system built into my TV I just need it to run Kodi. > I find that they're often the only thing that will be truthful about a company's intentions. Really? Many years ago, I had to physically sign a license with Microsoft to obtain some software. The license was not consistent with the license included with the software. Both licenses effectively said they were the real license and that any other agreement you made with Microsoft was not valid. I don't think there was any nefarious intent. It was likely to avoid a situation where Microsoft employees offered terms that were not approved of by the company. Still, it goes to show that it can be awfully difficult to judge the intent of a company. Only good until the device starts using a neighbor's LG TV as access point, without telling you, for the sole purpose of upgrading itself and sending this "telemetry". Really? Well that is how Airtags work. Any iphone/ipad/mac nearby will act as a router for them[1] Given that we have already established that LG is a shady company, I wouldn't put it beyond them to try to use the same trick. [1]https://lifehacker.com/tech/how-apple-airtags-actually-work That is not how AirTags work. They do not reach out to Apple servers at all. AirTags broadcast an encrypted ID. Phones build lists of ID’s they’ve seen and send the list to Apple. There is no routing, no ability to send arbitrary data, no active communication of any sort. It’s not a mesh network. The link you posted makes that pretty clear. An Apple airtag probably doesn't but it is apparently possible to send some data at a very low rate (the article in [1] says a few bits per hour) over the find my network [2] That's functionally the exact same thing, and if they wanted to send data they could encode it in the "ID". uh, that is just all the iphones acting as a mesh network for airtag ID’s? it means you can’t block the tracking by doing anything yourself - you’d also need to block everyone else’s devices too. It's also how Amazon Sidewalk works for many Alexa-enabled devices Yeah and my worry is, TVs like this can use sidewalk to connect to when they are not provided with internet access by the user (either but plugging into ethernet or connecting WiFi). Leaving the TV with an always-available exfiltration channel for it's espionage of the user's viewing habits. This is a really bad thing for those of us who until now have just not connected our 'smart' shit to the internet. Where I live in the EU they don't do sidewalk otherwise I'd have to look at ways to fight it (disassociate connections or DDoS the devices providing sidewalk routing) We replaced our old TV recently with an LG and are really liking it. We do not let it on our network though and keep networking functionality disabled. It's basically a monitor for our Kubuntu Linux laptop sitting behind it. We stream with Chrome and use a mouse and the TV remote for audio. Once in a while we actually watch something on TV itself too. It'd be nice I guess if the built in TV app had DVR but if it does; I couldn't figure out how to make it work. No great loss there. I'm still nervously holding my breath for the first disclosure that a TV manufacturer is using Amazon's distributed Sidewalk Network (or perhaps mobile vehicles, cell-SIMs, LoRa) to remotely gather all that viewing data they've subsidized into your artificially-low TV purchase price . But they've been calling "crazy?" for decades. This exactly. Surely some sort of IoT mesh networking will allow exfiltration of data even without having configured your own device. I'm hopeful that there will be sufficient distrust that "jailbreaking" or "rooting" TV controller boards will be turnkey enough to move to something like OpenWrt or GrapheneOS but for TVs. >IoT mesh networking I'll bet there is already a manufacturer whose TVs can all communicate intratelevisually (non-standard proprietary frequencies) – and then, if even one of them is online... they're all relaying within their private intra-TV spyware meshnets to their various relays. ---- In unrelated news, my 2012 Sony Bravia is still fantastic, even if not for (4K) high-refresh games (the image quality remains fantastic for casual usage). This. Why would you even connect TV to the network? It is well known for like 5 years. Smsrt TVs go through your movies library, and upload screenshots and filenames to internet. Some will start showing ads after firmware upgrade. Watch the video the article is based on - not connecting to the internet doesn't keep you safe in many cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IFVTcM28KA "Watch this two hour long video" is not a particularly useful reply. If you think the TV can exfiltrate your data without an internet connection then you should be able to explain how it could do that in your own words. Just because you didn't allow it on your local WiFi doesn't mean it did not connect to the Internet. Your neighbors might have a guest WiFi it can use. Or maybe it has a built-in cell modem. Your data is valuable, there's reason to put effort into getting it. Wouldn't using a neighbor's Wi-Fi without anyone's permission or instruction violate CFAA or some other law? Also, wouldn't this be trivial to test by just setting up your own network and seeing if the TV connects? Xfinity (aka Comcast) routers broadcast a separate network for Comcast subscribers do use from their phone. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Comcast and TV manufacturer's could have an agreement that would allow TVs to connect. Using internet access doesn't seem to be illegal. If there's no password you can't even argue it was protected. Residential proxies are legal too (as they should be - fuck cloudflare). This is because they rooted the TV. They can just start a capture, record to RAM / storage, and retrieve it later when it is reconnected to the network. Otherwise if it's disconnected, it is still hard to exfiltrate the data somewhere.
Maybe they could get creative via Bluetooth, but then you would need a cooperating device in proximity of the device. I think the main risk is that if you - or your kids, or your spouse, or a guest, or someone you give/sell the TV to - do connect the TV to the Internet for even a moment years from now, then all those logs you wanted to keep away from LG are likely to delivered. > This. Why would you even connect TV to the network? I happen to have a NAS with family pictures I like to display. I can (and do) firewall that thing, but then you hit other issues like the apps you need to show pictures and movies in the first place not to install/run. I've yet to hear of a reasonable recipe to isolate and secure such connected TVs. And don't get me started on Chromecast or other Android dongles, I've no reason to expect better treatment from Google. Some open source hacked-together box, then? Apple TV is the best one.
No ads, full OS updates for a long time. The better Roku hardware I would say is a second best - you can block the as servers fairly easily and then you do have to disable all the crap on the homescreen. There are ads for ATV content. No, there really aren't. I turn on the device, the app in the upper left is selected and showing some content from that. The device sits idle, I get drone footage of landscapes. If I accidentally bump the wrong button on the remote and get sent into the Apple TV (streaming service) app, sure it advertises producte, but in general there are no ads. In comparison, Google TV's homescreen is giant ads for content on services I don't subscribe to, Roku is at least as bad, Amazon is worse, and Samsung and LG......oof. And the Nvidia Shield is also hot garbage in this regard. I suppose my next device is an Apple TV or some kind of home brew Linux box. The shield was great until Google forced ads into it, switched to Apple TV back then and no complaints since. The shield is vastly superior to the Apple TV. You aren't trapped in Apples wall garden and can install any apps on it. Android TV comes with an awful launcher, but that is easily replaced. There's no sponsor block on Apple TV and there never will be. No, it's not. Let's start with the disclaimer that I work for Google, not the Android TV team, all words my own, etc. The Shield at launch was an amazing product - premium UX and hardware, premium price point. Google changed the experience to an ad-loaded mess without providing an opt out for those who had spent hundreds of dollars on the Shield. I was dogfooder, a huge advocate of the product, and someone who had convinced others to buy the Shield and Android TV devices. That UX revamp and how the team treated their customers (internal and external) turned me off the product for life. I tried the various competitors (XBox, Roku, Amazon) before landing on Apple TV. I now own two Apple TV devices - both of which are still getting updates many years after I bought them - and will continue using them for as long as the product line is maintained. People in this thread have talked about Apple's clean beautiful ad-free UX, but the apps themselves are far better. Apple sets customer-friendly App Store requirements *and enforces them*. That means: * The back button always works. It will bring you back to the home page of the app and then to the system launcher. It will not get stuck in an endless loop of "are you sure you want to quit?" and just dismissing that dialog like multiple Android apps do * No loud obtrusive sounds on app startup (YouTube, Netflix) * The apps are first-class priorities for developers. Circa 2019, the Paramount+ app was an inconsistent mess where subtitles were broken on some platforms. The Plex app wouldn't transcode certain formats on the XBox, and so on. None of these issues are a problem on Apple TV. Not every app is perfect (Dropout, I love your content, but your app is awful), but none of them are worse than on any competing platform. Apple TV is a truly incredible product and ecosystem and one that feels like a joy to use. That's not the case for Android TV (now Google TV, I think?) even with a custom launcher.
Animats - 5 hours ago
gchamonlive - 2 hours ago
buzer - 3 hours ago
tagrun - 2 hours ago
lanerobertlane - 3 hours ago
empyrrhicist - 5 hours ago
bjt - 4 hours ago
claaams - 3 hours ago
mitxela - 3 hours ago
selcuka - an hour ago
jgalt212 - 3 hours ago
colechristensen - 3 hours ago
Obscurity4340 - 5 hours ago
bayindirh - 2 hours ago
charcircuit - 4 hours ago
HPsquared - 3 hours ago
phony-account - 5 hours ago
Akronymus - 3 hours ago
mitxela - 2 hours ago
MetaWhirledPeas - 5 hours ago
Terr_ - 2 hours ago
korzinka - 15 hours ago
rpdillon - 10 hours ago
sbarre - 6 hours ago
JoshTriplett - 4 hours ago
bigstrat2003 - 6 minutes ago
computably - 6 hours ago
paulryanrogers - 3 hours ago
andrepd - 5 hours ago
osullivj - 4 hours ago
sbarre - 4 hours ago
selcuka - an hour ago
EA-3167 - 7 hours ago
andrepd - 5 hours ago
throw-qqqqq - 4 hours ago
EA-3167 - 5 hours ago
joquarky - 6 hours ago
toss1 - 4 hours ago
josuepeq - 9 hours ago
vikarti - 4 minutes ago
Lerc - 7 hours ago
scoot - 9 hours ago
flexagoon - an hour ago
switchbak - 8 hours ago
FireBeyond - 3 hours ago
mitxela - 2 hours ago
devmor - 9 hours ago
tosti - 5 hours ago
mitxela - 2 hours ago
Sophira - 14 hours ago
imglorp - 12 hours ago
kolinko - 10 hours ago
hvb2 - 8 hours ago
washelterskelte - 7 hours ago
mitxela - 2 hours ago
nobody9999 - 6 hours ago
mitxela - 2 hours ago
hatefulheart - 8 hours ago
layer8 - 8 hours ago
soraminazuki - 8 hours ago
airstrike - 12 hours ago
oh_my_goodness - 8 hours ago
DaSHacka - 12 hours ago
pnt12 - 12 hours ago
DaSHacka - 11 hours ago
georgemcbay - 6 hours ago
imglorp - 10 hours ago
sandworm101 - 9 hours ago
switchbak - 8 hours ago
c22 - 9 hours ago
kwarcode - 6 hours ago
skerit - 11 hours ago
WD-42 - 10 hours ago
asnelt - 7 hours ago
_puk - 8 hours ago
unrented7977 - 10 hours ago
drdeca - 8 hours ago
mitxela - 3 hours ago
MarkusQ - 10 hours ago
MarkusQ - 5 hours ago
XorNot - 4 hours ago
II2II - 7 hours ago
snvzz - 13 hours ago
recurseP - 13 hours ago
otikik - 12 hours ago
brookst - 12 hours ago
sllabres - 2 hours ago
mitxela - 2 hours ago
lazide - 4 hours ago
antonkochubey - 12 hours ago
wolvoleo - 6 hours ago
newsoftheday - 10 hours ago
ProllyInfamous - 9 hours ago
opello - 7 hours ago
ProllyInfamous - 5 hours ago
throw93947309 - 14 hours ago
wavesplash - 12 hours ago
account42 - 11 hours ago
jandrese - 9 hours ago
dataflow - 9 hours ago
bubblemoth - 7 hours ago
mitxela - 2 hours ago
p0lychromatic - 12 hours ago
nerevarthelame - an hour ago
ezst - 14 hours ago
theshrike79 - 12 hours ago
Melatonic - 2 hours ago
roboror - 10 hours ago
Arainach - 9 hours ago
switchbak - 8 hours ago
dahdum - 5 hours ago
Larrikin - 5 hours ago
Arainach - 4 hours ago