Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung Q990D unresponsive after 1020 firmware update

us.community.samsung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 580 posts

Re: Samsung Q990D unresponsive after 1020 firmware update

#381

Post by jajko »

I have those, desperately checking if they don't auto-update... whfff, luckily no.

I never patch such devices as long as they work, the only exception is phone and desktop. Those idiotic phone apps to tweak some minor stuff - thank you but I couldn't care less, I install maybe 1 new app to my phone a year and no, it won't be due to buying some effin' loudspeakers.

There is simply 0 real gain for me and always non-zero risk. Even those I hate updating, but grokking they are too important to leave some known hackable surface open.

Re: Samsung Q990D unresponsive after 1020 firmware update

#382

Post by fullstop »

nelblu wrote: post #298
krunck wrote: post #209

I hate smart TVs. Why put all the functionality in one device when a small part of it is going to become obsolete real soon while the TV part will continue to work for a decade or more. I buy dumb TVs and a separate "smart" component like Roku that can be replaced as easily as a shoelace.

My strategy is to buy cheapest TV on the market (which is usually an ad loaded Crapware like hisense) and then never ever connect it to the internet but use HDMI to plug into a dedicated computer. Basically all I need in a TV apart from the display is an HDMi. It works amazing, been using like this over 10 years now.

I have a Hisense, and the one that I got (65U8G) isn't full of crapware and has a great picture. I played the panel lottery and won.

They do, of course, sell some very low-end sets.

Re: Samsung Q990D unresponsive after 1020 firmware update

#383

Post by [deleted] »

godelski wrote: post #220
koolba wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why else would a soundbar need updates anyway? It either performs its well defined functions when you bought it or they sold you a device that doesn’t input/output sound. Updates for these types of things always fall into three categories. Either they’re gimping some unanticipated usage, they’re trying to insert ads, or they’re trying to gather more usage data.

> Why else would a soundbar need updates anyway? No matter the device, software rots. Not because the device changes, not because the software changes, but because the world does

[deleted]

Re: Samsung Q990D unresponsive after 1020 firmware update

#385

Post by boricj »

fragmede wrote: post #375
boricj wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm working on embedded systems and I've seen and heard some horror stories just on the device's side. Piles and piles of pre- and post-reboot shell scripts filled with race conditions against the system's services and themselves. When these break, if you're lucky a factory reset is enough to fix the system, if you're unlucky they become field bricks. I'm trying to buck the trend though and on the new embedded system…

add a watchdog timer to reboot automatically on failed upgrade as well.

We already have a watchdog timer. We could automatically trigger a factory reset after N bootloops following an upgrade, but it's up to the end-user to decide to flip the switch so we won't go there.

I kept the summary short and simple, partly because that product isn't out yet and also because I don't want to bury the lead with a lot of extraneous details that we do take into consideration, but are irrelevant to the big picture idea of an upgrade method that factory resets the card and restores its state with a codepath shared with the end-user save/reset and configuration mechanisms.

Re: Samsung Q990D unresponsive after 1020 firmware update

#386

Post by fullstop »

_2d30 wrote: post #252
krunck wrote: post #209

I hate smart TVs. Why put all the functionality in one device when a small part of it is going to become obsolete real soon while the TV part will continue to work for a decade or more. I buy dumb TVs and a separate "smart" component like Roku that can be replaced as easily as a shoelace.

Yes I’m always very surprised that people deal with the awful software that are on the TVs. I use an Apple TV which, while a relatively expensive solution, has a clean interface and integrates well with the rest of my hardware. Plus rarely are there ads being shoved in your face in the OS/Home Screen. Apps can still do as they like of course.

The software on mine is pretty good, but I find myself using a PS5 for media streaming these days.

Re: Samsung Q990D unresponsive after 1020 firmware update

#387

Post by wvenable »

rd11235 wrote: post #217

Good motivation for a PSA: This happens more and more often, and there is a fairly easy + popular workaround (which also comes with 99% ad blocking as a bonus). Just either set up pi-hole locally OR use a hosted DNS service that does essentially the same thing. Main idea: Ads, updates, etc. typically (not always) need to resolve hosts before connecting to servers. Simply resolve these hosts to 0.0.0.0 instead of a re…

> This happens more and more often, and there is a fairly easy + popular workaround (which also comes with 99% ad blocking as a bonus). Just either set up pi-hole locally OR use a hosted DNS service that does essentially the same thing.

DNS over HTTPS is going to render this method ineffectual eventually. Smart devices are going to stop trusting anything on the local network.

Re: Samsung Q990D unresponsive after 1020 firmware update

#388

Post by TrainedMonkey »

observationist wrote: post #342
tmpz22 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t radio silence increase damages to customers and result in increased liability?

That's logical reasoning, not corporation reasoning. Nobody involved in the decision making cares about the customers. They only care about the potential hit to the bottom line, and if that's perceived as callous silence, they don't care. Unless, of course, they decide that appearing to care and being responsive results in less of a hit. Silences like these are strategic and dependably predictable - engaging with cus…

> They only care about the potential hit to the bottom line, and if that's perceived as callous silence, they don't care.

I don't think that is true. I think people care a lot... just not about the consumers. People care about themselves - they also don't want to be fired. So the decision is punted up the chain, all the way to executives. And executives want to mitigate the damage to themselves first, their orgs second, maybe consumers third.

Re: Samsung Q990D unresponsive after 1020 firmware update

#389

Post by Y_Y »

mikepurvis wrote: post #353
N19PEDL2 wrote: post #348

Perhaps a stupid question, but why they don’t test the firmware updates internally before releasing them?

They almost certainly do, but there's always ways that the test jig differs from the units in the field, for example: - The test jig is probably pristine, so no hundreds of hours of telemetry data clogging up the internal storage. - The test jig might be on ethernet whereas a lot of users would be using wifi. - The test jig probably targets specific A -> B upgrades rather than testing progressive upgrade across every…

The test jig should be in expected conditions. We have simulated tests, and we have tests that run on the devices on my desk, but we also have a real world setup for consumer devices in a separate building that could be mistaken for the real deployment environment. That's not feasible for every company, but it's certainly feasible for Samsung. It doesn't mean you'll catch everything, but it does address some of your points.

Re: Samsung Q990D unresponsive after 1020 firmware update

#390

Post by gr4vityWall »

davkan wrote: post #307
gr4vityWall wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually did work with customer support in my very first job :) We had a limited IT crew, so programmers on-site would often go to the users' office to help with software and hardware issues. My anecdote is the opposed of yours: they were interested in knowing why something wasn't working, but only as long as you're willing to be patient, talk slowly, and explain any unknown concepts to them, if required. Insulting…

Fair enough. Many of my end users were indeed eager or at least willing to learn as you say. A non-insignificant portion were not though, and those are the ones I'm speaking of. But that was also a professional environment. Your interested users had some obligation to the company and the support of professionals like yourself to guide them. Additionally, I don't think these people are stupid, and I'm not demeaning th…

> I don't think these people are stupid, and I'm not demeaning them.

Sorry if it sounded like I was implying you thought that, or called them stupid, I didn't mean it that way. That statement wasn't trying to 'refute' anything you said either - it was just expanding on my anecdote of what I saw that it worked or not, whether in a professional environment or somewhere else.

Now, replying to your recent post,

> It's the job of these companies to ensure their technology can be used safely without consideration by the end user.

I think we just hard disagree here. I believe ultimately the user is/should be on control of how their own computer is used.

Post reply on HN