Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Power Television

EU Probes TVs Over Energy Test Scores 93

Posted by samzenpus from the joining-the-club dept.
joesreviewss writes: The European Commission says it will follow up on evidence that Samsung and another TV-maker use software that alters their screens' power use during tests. The BBC reports: "One study indicates that some Samsung TVs nearly halve their power consumption when a standardised test is carried out. Another accuses a different unnamed manufacturer of adjusting the brightness of its sets when they "recognise" the test film involved. Samsung has denied any wrongdoing. It acknowledged that it used software that altered its televisions' performance during tests, but said this was the effect of a general energy efficiency feature that came into effect during normal use and had nothing to do with the testing process."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Probes TVs Over Energy Test Scores More

EU Probes TVs Over Energy Test Scores

Comments Filter:

  • When there are money, power or sex involved people are willing to lie and cheat.

    • That is not the news here. The news here is Samsung is faking its test scores. You can pretty summaries any news article as "When there are money, power or sex involved people are willing to lie and cheat." Or if you were summarizing to a 5 year old, just "people bad".

    • When there are money, power or sex involved people are willing to lie and cheat.

      When there's something you want involved, you have an incentive to cheat. That doesn't mean everyone will. But of course those who do very much want to pretend that's because they're fools, rather than just honest.

  • In other news, teachers awarded for teaching kids to perform at standardised tests.

    Seriously. As soon as there is a standardised test, it's going to get optimized for.

    • In other news, teachers awarded for teaching kids to perform at standardised tests.

      Seriously. As soon as there is a standardised test, it's going to get optimized for.

      I used to work at the national Vehicle Engineering Lab, and one of the main complaints that we would get is that we do not publish the tests that we do to decide if a custom vehicle or modification is legal. This is precisely why, people will conform to all the published standards yet find workarounds for the intent. Make a vehicle safe, and we'll allow it. Overpower it with no safety features and we won't. Sometimes, wise decision makers are better then well-defined laws.

      Of course, finding wise decision

      • Sometimes, wise decision makers are better then well-defined laws.

        Of course, the problem with government by unwritten rule is that the "wise decision makers" will then use that rule to punish their enemies simply for being their enemies.

        Look at the IRS, which targeted people and groups they didn't like for harassment. That's allegedly illegal, but nobody was ever punished for it because "wise decision makers" didn't think it was necessary.

        Look at the Secret Service, who did not like that a member of Congress was investigating them, so they leaked that a decade earlier,

        • Part of the reason we have written laws is that they're supposed to protect us from government by the whims of "wise decision makers."

          I agree with you completely. There is no form of rule which protects the people from the ruled, and also does not prescribe methods for causing harm legally.

          A good ruler would balance the needs of the people against his own ego and family interests. I can think of very few modern rulers who I would nominate as being fair and just, the King Hussein of Jordan comes to mind. He's not perfect, but he's doing a better job than any other ruler that I can think of in modern times. He does an outstanding job of p

          • All other modern leaders who were good for their respective nations are considered as monsters by other nations. Ahmadinejad and Hitler come to mind.

            Both of those guys were horrible for their own people. Hitler eventually led Germany to ruin, and Iran spent most of Ahmadinejad's rule isolated on the international stage.

            By contrast, I don't think Reagan or Bill Clinton are considered to be "monsters" internationally by anyone other than a group of fringe lunatics. (I'd also posit that both men are more well looked upon by the world at large than by citizens of their own country... ditto Margret Thatcher, actually.)

            My point is that it's ridiculous for

            • Both of those guys were horrible for their own people. Hitler eventually led Germany to ruin, and Iran spent most of Ahmadinejad's rule isolated on the international stage.

              Hitler got Germany out of the Treaty of Versailles. His mistake was commencing Operation Barbarossa. I'm Jewish and I lost a lot of family to that monster, but I realize that until Operation Barbarossa Hitler was doing what was best _for_Germany_.

              Due to Ahmadinejad, Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 15 years. He set the stage for the current negotiations, which allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon in 15 years without sanctions. He did what was best _for_Iran_ despite the short-term consequences.

              My poin

              • However, there is no single test. People modify vehicles, from passenger vehicles designed for street use to putting electric motors on skateboards, and we test if they are safe.

                I don't understand this part at all. If you have different classifications, and every vehicle has to past the test for their classification (and it's obvious how to figure out what classification your vehicle belongs in) you should publish ALL the tests. If your real goal is to allow manufacturers to pass the certification by making safe vehicles, you should publish your internal test procedures. If you don't do so, people will wonder whether your real goal is to harass manufacturers you don't like for what

  • Government sets absurd limits then companies cheat ...film at 11.

    • Not limits, it is rating. You will simply be rated lower for consuming more energy. You have no reason to cheat... Film at 11.

      • But if company A is honest and company B cheats, then company A will be at a disadvantage until company B gets caught. If everyone cheats, then they are at a level playing field, even after getting caught (what if it turns out that all car and TV manufacturers cheat?).

        • I think that you hit the nail on the head! There is unfortunately no incentive to be honest. It's the same as in politics. If you are honest then you get no votes because you make no promises (that you know that you cannot honour) and when they find out that your opponent lied then they assume that everyone lies which rubs off on you.

          Or sports for that matter, what good is it to compete without steroids when all that will happen is that people will assume that you take it anyway and if you don't you will ha

        • You're acting like people actually read the energy use sticker on their TV. Most people can't even find it under the size 300 font sticker on the front which says OMG Ultra-HD! 4K! SPECIAL! BUY ME NOW!

          It makes sense in retrospect but I didn't actually realise TVs were energy tested. It made more sense to do it to fridges and things which are always on and can't be switched off easily. That's about the only time I look at ratings.

          • The companies cheat anyway, so the number on the product is meaningless (ranked first merely for topicality)

            People buy a [thing] for its inherent qualities. A TV is chosen for its picture quality, size, features and price first. Energy consumption? The only person I've ever known to choose a TV based on energy consumption was a guy with a boat who wanted to keep his house battery consumption down.

            Maybe if all products were essentially equal, energy consumption would matter. You could argue that fridges

          • I do not know how it is whee you live, but in my country the energy class (A-G with some really efficient devices getting multiple As) is displayed on a sticker on the device and the sticker is quite large.

            Also, isn't power consumption the reason plasma is less popular than LCD? It seems to me that plasma has better picture quality, but uses more power.

            • I didn't say it's not on the device. I said no one gives a shit.

              Plasma wasn't just a bit energy inefficient. It was HUGELY energy inefficient consuming more than double the power of a typical LCD and in some cases triple.
              By comparison most LCD TVs differ only slightly in consumption these days maybe +/- 20% and the ones that score highest score lowest on other features such as total brightness.

              It comes down to the similar comparison of energy efficient light bulbs. People buy energy efficient bulbs over inc

              • The sad thing is that for a lot of people the image quality does not matter. What matters is the thickness, weight, features (fullHD, 4K, 3D , but not for everyone) and power consumption. The number of TVs set to stretch a 4:3 source proves it.

                • I wouldn't draw that conclusion at all. Plasma had a major advantage over the LCD screens of the time, but those times changed before the end of Plasma's popularity. At the time LCDs had poor viewing angles poor brightness, and ghosting. These days I'd happily take an LCD.

                  At least a decent one. Cheap shit is still cheap shit, and cheap Plasmas outperformed cheap LCDs right to the end which didn't help the idea that LCDs sucked.

              • People buy energy efficient bulbs over incandescent when they need to save power, but few if any people actually then look closely at the package to see which one ends up with the best lm/w.

                You forget one important thing: fixures are limited by how much power (heat) they can handle, so the more efficient the light is, the brighter light you get.

                • Yeah and what's written on the box? "40watt equivalent". People in general don't sit down and compare the exact spec on all the boxes trying to squeeze 50lm more out of a fitting.

            • Also, isn't power consumption the reason plasma is less popular than LCD? It seems to me that plasma has better picture quality, but uses more power.

              That was one of the reasons. I think potential burn in (though really image retention, since it's not permanent burn in) is the other major cause.

              Plasmas at the time were LARGER, CHEAPER, and looked better. I think it's only now that we're getting into gigantic TVs (70 inch and above), that plasma can't do.. I also think it can't do 4K, or not easily. Those

              • I bought a plasma because I wanted image quality comparable to that of a CRT. As for 4K - no point in that until the source material can handle it. Last time I checked, BluRay was still 1080.

                • At the time you were right to, these days LCDs are better than Plasmas were.

                  There are already quickly growing libraries of 4k on Netflix, Amazon, even Youtube has 4k content. Also if you use your TV for something other than videos like another computer monitor, running picture slideshows etc you also get the full benefit.

                  I'm not saying you're not right. I don't see the value in it right now either. But the library has grown considerably since the last time there was a 4k related discussion on Slashdot and i

          • Americans dont read those. We are not conscious about energy usage or fuel usage. Everyone else does.

            • Americans dont read those. We are not conscious about energy usage or fuel usage. Everyone else does.

              This practice is actually quite universal unless you're running your house from batteries. Americans may have a reputation for being worse, but they're really not.

    • And it already impacts the quality of the devices. I have a plasma TV (bought a plasma because of better black levels) and it limits the white level if there is too much white on the screen, I guess to reduce the power consumption (whichi s actually very similar to a LCD TV of the same size). The thing is, I do not really care about the power consumption - as long as the breaker does not trip, I'm fine, after all, I do not watch TV that often. That, combined with some other quirks (huge input lag, unless se

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How dare these energy-efficiency wonks want some kind of better world for our kids. How *dare* they!

      • How dare these energy-efficiency wonks want some kind of better world for our kids. How *dare* they!

        They *don't* want a better world for our kids.

        They want us to use less electricity, because they want to cut generating capacity, because they won't let us us nuclear -- which even the president of Greenpeace has stated is the best option, given our energy needs -- and the only other options to meet demand during time when "green" energy is not being productive (and we don't have full capacity for it built, in any case, and building it will take electricity) are fossil fuels.

        But they don't want us to use fo

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

          "which even the president of Greenpeace has stated is the best option, given our energy needs"
          No he did not.
          One of the former founders of Greenpeace said it not the current president of Greenpeace.
          BTW I support nuclear power but when posting facts one should make sure that they are facts otherwise the entire post becomes suspect.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by amorsen ( 7485 )

          You're being ridiculous. I am an energy-efficiency wonk. You can build as many nuclear power plants as you want, as long as they can compete with other forms of clean energy on price.

          Once we have switched to zero-carbon electricity or at least made polluting forms of energy pay appropriate taxes to offset the damage they do, you can use as much energy as you want. That is between you and your wallet. But until then, your electricity consumption is partially paid for by me. Do not waste MY money.

          • You're being ridiculous. I am an energy-efficiency wonk. You can build as many nuclear power plants as you want, as long as they can compete with other forms of clean energy on price.

            They can, as long as you take knee-jerk anti-nuclear stonewalling out of the equation. The primary costs in any nuclear plant are legal opposition by people who are antinuclear, and moving regulatory goalposts causing redesigns during construction, which re-triggers all the legal opposition (again). If you replace a T-31-A valve with a T-31-B valve in a design, you are pretty much required to re-do the entire "environmental impact" study, even if the valve in question is in the water faucet in the employe

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by amorsen ( 7485 )

              So you think that deregulating nuclear power can yield 50% cost savings or more (since we are removing the primary cost)? Good luck with that.

  • Auto companies in general, German auto companies in particular have a good record of compliance. Despite all the complaints you hear about ignition switches, double saddle gas tanks, unintended accelerations or tire failure at cruise speeds ... auto companies follow the law most of the time, are better monitored and take corrective action. Yes, it is infuriating what they do at times. But their track record of compliance, disclosure of information etc are quite good.

    In the electronics industry it is time h

  • But only the diesel ones

  • Get people all upset about asian tv makers so we can go light on VW and save those jobs.

  • Volkswagens spewing filth: Not good.

    TV sets spewing filth: I'm OK with this.

  • The European Commission says it will follow up on evidence that Samsung and another TV-maker use software that alters their screens' power use during tests.

    When Samsung gets busted, they'll say they had no idea they did that... and they're probably right because it's probably something they stole from Sony haha

  • On the plus side, Samsung TVs still meet mandated limits for NOx emissions no matter what mode they are in.

Slashdot Top Deals

This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian

Close