This also lets them clamp down more on youtube-downloader tools. When they rely on the TV's own browser engine, the client fingerprints can vary a lot between devices and firmware updates. This makes "pretend to be a random smart TV" an attractive way of implementing a download tool.
If they control the engine, they control the fingerprint, making it easier for them to detect and harder for 3rd party clients to spoof.
Regular Firefox running on a Linux computer works just fine.
I don’t need more surveillance in the guise of consumer tech in my life, much less if anything.
My “smart” TV has never seen the network, nor is it ever going to, it displays pixels from a device running software that respects the user, gets constant and regular security updates and that I control, that is its one and only job.
Do we really need a "next-generation living room web engine"? These smart TV OSes almost always suck ass, I wish all the TV manufacturers would just give up and ship simple panels with just basic volume and input selection control.
Or if you absolutely _must_ insist on shipping "smart" features, why do you still need to ship a full browser engine to show some text, rectangles, and images?
All apps on smart TVs are browser apps. Some, like Youtube, get special privileges (that is, can run their own app), but also need to run some kind of UI since TVs have no standard UI libraries. Youtube decided to run a stripped down version of Chrome (Cobalt). Others (IIRC Netflix) run their own renderer. Or do weird stuff, see Comcast and Lightning https://www.lightningjs.io/
TVs own interfaces are some bespoke one-off stuff that isn't exposed to other apps.
And this sucks because Raspberry PIs have more powerful hardware than even modern high-end TVs.
There's some exceptions to this rule. Google TV devices are Android under the hood and thus, the TV apps are Android apps distributed as apk's just like on smartphones (not web apps).
Most of those are webapps too (just packaged in APK) since it doesn't make sense for most app developers to build a special bespoke version for Android.
If you check YouTube version string you'll see Cobalt as well on Android.
People watch YouTube on their TV. Having an independent rendering engine makes the TV OS's garbage stuff go away from the perspective of YouTube's app.
This also lets them clamp down more on youtube-downloader tools. When they rely on the TV's own browser engine, the client fingerprints can vary a lot between devices and firmware updates. This makes "pretend to be a random smart TV" an attractive way of implementing a download tool.
If they control the engine, they control the fingerprint, making it easier for them to detect and harder for 3rd party clients to spoof.
Regular Firefox running on a Linux computer works just fine.
I don’t need more surveillance in the guise of consumer tech in my life, much less if anything.
My “smart” TV has never seen the network, nor is it ever going to, it displays pixels from a device running software that respects the user, gets constant and regular security updates and that I control, that is its one and only job.
> I don’t need more surveillance in the guise of consumer tech in my life, much less if anything.
Who said this is being done because you need it?
You're the product here. The shareholders demand growth.
Yep but I'm only the product if they get my money and/or data (and these days it's often the and term not the or).
I simply chose to opt out of that as far as is reasonable without living in a cave by candlelight, it gets harder ever year.
Oof, that screenshot is pretty dire UI.
Do we really need a "next-generation living room web engine"? These smart TV OSes almost always suck ass, I wish all the TV manufacturers would just give up and ship simple panels with just basic volume and input selection control.
Or if you absolutely _must_ insist on shipping "smart" features, why do you still need to ship a full browser engine to show some text, rectangles, and images?
All apps on smart TVs are browser apps. Some, like Youtube, get special privileges (that is, can run their own app), but also need to run some kind of UI since TVs have no standard UI libraries. Youtube decided to run a stripped down version of Chrome (Cobalt). Others (IIRC Netflix) run their own renderer. Or do weird stuff, see Comcast and Lightning https://www.lightningjs.io/
TVs own interfaces are some bespoke one-off stuff that isn't exposed to other apps.
And this sucks because Raspberry PIs have more powerful hardware than even modern high-end TVs.
There's some exceptions to this rule. Google TV devices are Android under the hood and thus, the TV apps are Android apps distributed as apk's just like on smartphones (not web apps).
Most of those are webapps too (just packaged in APK) since it doesn't make sense for most app developers to build a special bespoke version for Android.
If you check YouTube version string you'll see Cobalt as well on Android.
For some reason I forget Android TVs :) In my mind it's always Samsung, LG, Roku etc. :)
People watch YouTube on their TV. Having an independent rendering engine makes the TV OS's garbage stuff go away from the perspective of YouTube's app.
Cobalt existed mostly because low end TV SoCs choked on full Chromium, so it's less new spyware than the same app finally getting a browser that fits.
We definitely need more spyware from Google in our smart TVs, can’t wait!
[dead]