firmware – Techdirt (original) (raw)
Stories filed under: "firmware"
Tractor Owners Using Pirated Firmware To Dodge John Deere's Ham-Fisted Attempt To Monopolize Repair
from the you-don't-own-what-you-buy dept
We’ve been noting for a while how numerous states have been pushing so-called “right to repair” bills, which would make it easier for consumers to repair their own products and find replacement parts and tools. Not surprisingly, many tech companies have been working overtime to kill these bills. That includes Apple, which recently proclaimed that Nebraska’s right to repair bill would turn the state into a nefarious playground for hackers. Opposition also includes Sony and Microsoft, which both tend to enjoy a repair monopoly on their respective video game consoles.
Whether coming from Apple, Sony, or Microsoft, opposition to these bills usually focuses on the three (false) ideas: the bills will make users less safe, somehow “compromise” intellectual property, and open the door to cybersecurity theft.
But it’s easy to lose track of what started the recent groundswell of consumer support for these bills: the lowly tractor.
It was John Deere’s decision to implement a draconian lockdown on “unauthorized repairs” that has magically turned countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists. A lengthy EULA the company required customers to sign last October forbids the lion-share of repair or modification of tractors customers thought they owned, simultaneously banning these consumers from suing over “crop loss, lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of use of equipment ? arising from the performance or non-performance of any aspect of the software.”
Needless to say, most of the company’s customers weren’t particularly impressed by the restrictions, which let companies monopolize repair, but hurt farmers’ livelihoods by forcing them to visit only “authorized” repair shops that may be countless miles away from the farm. As a result, many of these folks have amusingly turned toward using unauthorized tractor firmware pirated and modified in Eastern Europe to free themselves of arbitrary, obnoxious and unnecessary restrictions on what they can do with gear they technically own:
“There’s software out there a guy can get his hands on if he looks for it,” one farmer and repair mechanic in Nebraska who uses cracked John Deere software told me. “I’m not a big business or anything, but let’s say you’ve got a guy here who has a tractor and something goes wrong with it?the nearest dealership is 40 miles away, but you’ve got me or a diesel shop a mile away. The only way we can fix things is illegally, which is what’s holding back free enterprise more than anything and hampers a farmer’s ability to get stuff done, too.”
As a result, tractor owners visit various forums to not only buy pirated and modified repair software, but the cables required to perform diagnostics and install updates. In 2015, we noted how the Library of Congress authorized some vehicle-focused exemptions allowing for this kind of legal tinkering, but saddled the exemptions will all manner of bizarre and unnecessary caveats. Right around that time, John Deere began requiring that farmers sign licensing agreements giving the company the right to sue for breach of contract (they haven’t yet).
Of course, if you ask the company why a “black market” specifically tailored for annoyed farmers has blossomed, you’re simply told there’s nothing to see here, there are no repair issues, and the company makes it perfectly easy for farmers to diagnose issues and repair their vehicles. But actual farmers and folks fighting for right to repair legislation say that’s simply not the case. For example, tractor owners who say they modify their tractors using anaerobic digesters to fuel them with pig methane, say they’re technically violating John Deere’s terms of service:
“They require buyers to accept an End User License Agreement that disallows all of the activities they say are allowed in their statement,” (Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of Repair.org) said. “Deere is a monopolist and has systematically taken over the role of equipment owner, despite having been paid fairly and fully for equipment. Their claims to control equipment post-purchase are inconsistent with all aspects of ownership including accounting, taxation, and transfer of products into the secondary market.”
These farmers also say they’re worried that if a company like John Deere is sold, they could wind up stuck without the ability to modify or repair older hardware they likely made a significant investment in. As a result, these annoyed farmers are the cornerstone of the right to repair push currently winding its way through the Nebraska, New York, Minnesota, Wyoming, Tennessee, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Illinois state legislatures. And the companies fighting these bills simply refuse to publicly acknowledge they’re doing so, which tells you everything you need to know about the “value” these restrictions actually provide.
Filed Under: 1201, dmca 1201, firmware, ownership, right to repair, tractors
Companies: john deere
FCC Demands TP-Link Support Open Source Third-Party Firmware On Its Routers
from the freedom-to-tinker dept
Wed, Aug 3rd 2016 12:58pm - Karl Bode
Last year, we noted how the FCC updated its rules governing routers in the 5 GHz band over safety concerns, stating that some illegally modified router radios operating in the unlicensed bands were interfering with terminal doppler weather radar (TDWR) at airports. The rule changes prohibited tinkering with just the RF capabilities of the devices. But engineers, the EFF, hobbyists and custom-firmware developers feared that because many routers have systems-on-a-chip (SOC) where the radio isn’t fully distinguishable from other hardware — vendors would take the lazy route and block third-party firmware entirely.
That only partially happened.
While the FCC told us explicitly that locking down third-party firmware was not its intent, router manufacturers like TP-Link did indeed take the lazy route — locking down its routers to prevent third-party firmware installs, then blaming the FCC for it. Fortunately other router manufacturers like Belkin/Linksys took the opposite tack, going so far as to use the new rules as a marketing opportunity, highlighting how they’d continue to support tinkerers (at least in regards to its WRT line of routers). Companies like Asus also stated they’d continue supporting the tinkering community.
Fast forward to this week, when the FCC took some interesting steps to try and force TP-Link’s hand on the subject. The regulator announced that it had reached a $200,000 settlement with TP-Link (pdf) for marketing routers to consumers that operated outside of FCC parameters. The FCC’s full consent decree (pdf) offers a bit more detail, noting that TP-Link effectively let some router models be modified to operate outside of accepted U.S. parameters via a toggle setting that let users pretend they lived in other countries, opening the door to potential interference.
Note that this settlement involved routers in the 2.4 GHz band, while the rule changes above governed the 5 GHz band. But in an interesting wrinkle, the FCC used the settlement to push TP-Link back toward supporting open source third-party firmware for 5 GHz devices:
“TP-Link has also agreed to take steps to support innovation in third-party router firmware by committing to investigate security solutions for certain 5 GHz band routers that would permit the use of third-party firmware while meeting the Commission?s security requirements and maintaining the integrity of critical radio parameters.”
The FCC stated the move was an attempt to balance RF safety and interference policy while supporting the freedom to tinker:
“The Commission?s equipment rules strike a careful balance of spurring innovation while protecting against harmful interference,? said Travis LeBlanc, Chief of the Enforcement Bureau. ?While manufacturers of Wi-Fi routers must ensure reasonable safeguards to protect radio parameters, users are otherwise free to customize their routers and we support TP-Link?s commitment to work with the opensource community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable third-party firmware on TP-Link routers.”
Note it’s not entirely clear just how hard the FCC will push to ensure TP-Link compliance, and what “steps” TP-Link has to take to return to supporting third-party open source firmware remains a little murky. It’s also likely that other router manufacturers will continue to take the lazy route and shut out tinkerers from installing third-party firmware. Still, it’s a solid signal from the FCC that it at least realizes the value in open source modifications (or the bad PR in hindering it), an increasingly rare position in an era where you often no longer actually own the hardware and devices you buy.
Filed Under: fcc, firmware, open source, routers, third party
Companies: tp-link
Sony Settlement Gives PS3 Owners $9 After Company Made Console Less Useful Via Firmware Update
from the just-renting dept
Thu, Jun 23rd 2016 06:32am - Karl Bode
We’ve noted countless times how in the modern computing era, you don’t really own what you think you own. You don’t really own the music or books that can arbitrarily disappear on your devices, and you no longer really own a wide variety of hardware that can be dramatically changed (often for the worse) via firmware update months or years after purchase. If you’re extra lucky, you’ll shell out $300 for a piece of hardware that one year later simply won’t work at all. With intelligent automobiles and the rise of the internet-of-not-so-smart things, that’s more true now than ever.
Case in point: back in 2010 we noted how Sony issued several firmware updates for its Playstation 3 gaming console that effectively made the console less useful. One specifically (PS3 software update 3.21) removed the console owner’s ability to load alternative operating systems like Linux. But tinkerers being tinkerers, some users found ways to use the feature to expand the console’s functionality in all kinds of creative ways. Fearing a loss of control and potential spike in piracy, Sony decided to make the console significantly less useful.
Sony was ultimately sued via class action for the decision. After six years of litigation, Sony has agreed to settle the dispute by doling out a whopping 9toeachconsoleownerthatboughtaPS3basedonSony’spromisestoprovide“OtherOS”functionality,and9 to each console owner that bought a PS3 based on Sony’s promises to provide “Other OS” functionality, and 9toeachconsoleownerthatboughtaPS3basedonSony’spromisestoprovide“OtherOS”functionality,and55 to each PS3 user that managed to get Linux running on the console. Like most class actions it’s the attorneys who’ll reap the most benefits, Sony doling out $2.25 million in attorneys’ fees for the lawyers who brought suit (though it’s worth noting even this wouldn’t be possible today thanks to TOS mouse print banning class actions and requiring binding arbitration).
Sony’s lawyers at several points tried to claim that the update was “voluntary,” refusing to acknowledge that users that refused to install the firmware couldn’t actually use it for much of anything:
“…Sony said the update was voluntary. However, without updating, console owners couldn’t connect to the PlayStation Network, play any games online, play any games or Blu-ray movies that required the new firmware, play any files kept on a media server, or download any future updates. Before the settlement, Sony argued that its terms of service allowed it to remove the Other OS feature and that the functionality wasn’t that big of a deal for most console owners.”
Part of the settlement requires that PS3 owners show “some proof of their use of the Other OS functionality” — which after six years may not be all that easy for impacted users. While it’s nice to see PS3 owners get a little something after six years of litigation, the overall trend in technology remains one where consumers can’t tinker with the hardware they “own,” can’t be sure the hardware will adhere to day one marketing promises, have no guarantees that the gear will even work even one year down the line, and can’t sue if what they own is intentionally downgraded or crippled by the manufacturer. Progress!
Filed Under: class action, firmware, linux, playstation 3, ps3, settlement
Companies: sony
Despite New FCC Rules, Linksys, Asus Say They'll Still Support Third Party Router Firmware
from the apocalypse-averted dept
Mon, May 16th 2016 02:06pm - Karl Bode
The apocalypse for those who like to tinker with their router firmware may be postponed.
Last year we noted how the FCC updated router and RF device rules for safety reasons, stating that some illegally modified router radios operating in the unlicensed bands were interfering with terminal doppler weather radar (TDWR) at airports. The rule changes prohibited tinkering with the just the RF capabilities of devices. But some sloppy FCC language worried tinker advocates and custom-firmware developers, who feared that because many routers have systems-on-a-chip (SOC) where the radio isn’t fully distinguishable from other hardware — vendors would take the lazy route and block third-party firmware entirely.
And, at least with some companies, that’s exactly what happened. TP-Link for example stated that it would be preventing custom router firmware installations with gear built after June 2016, blaming the FCC for the decision while giving a half-assed statement about respecting the hobbyist community’s “creativity.” Again: the rules don’t mandate anything of the kind; TP-Link just decided to take the laziest, most economical route.
Fortunately, not all hardware vendors are following TP-Link’s lead. Linksys has announced that while it will lock down modifications on some router models, the company will continue to let enthusiasts tinker with its WRT lineup of hardware, which has been a hobbyist favorite for years. From its comments the company is well aware that while custom firmware flashers may comprise a minority of overall customers, they’re a vocal minority that companies really don’t want to piss off. As such, a company spokesman was quick to breathlessly praise third party custom firmware options:
“The real benefit of open source is not breaking the rules and doing something with malicious intent, the value of open source is being able to customize your router, to be able to do privacy browsing through Tor, being able to build an OpenVPN client, being able to strip down the firmware to do super lean, low-latency gaming,? La Duca said. ?It’s not about ?I’m going to go get OpenWrt to go and piss off the FCC.’ It’s about what you can do in expanding the capabilities of what we ship with.”
While it would be nice to see more models supported, it’s certainly a step in the right direction. It should be noted that (now Belkin-owned) Linksys said it wasn’t a very big deal to lock down the radio specifically, contrary to what some vendors have claimed:
“The hardware design of the WRT platform allows us to isolate the RF parameter data and secure it outside of the host firmware separately,” Linksys said in a written statement given to Ars. La Duca declined to get more specific about Linksys’s exact method. Even though this is about enabling open source, Linksys?s method is proprietary and provides a competitive advantage over other router makers that aren?t supporting open source, La Duca said.”
So while one vendor used the FCC rule change as an opportunity to be lazy and cheap, others are using the news as an opportunity to embrace an important part of their community. And from the looks of thinks Linksys won’t be alone in the effort; representatives from Asus have been telling some hardware enthusiasts that they plan to continue supporting third-party open source firmware as a point of pride as well:
“As you may know, FCC requires all manufactures to prevent users from changing RF parameters. Not only manufactures’ firmware but 3rd party firmware need to follow this instruction. Some manufactures’ strategy is blocking all 3rd party firmware, and ASUS’s idea is still following GNU, opening the source code, and welcome 3rd party firmware. ASUS are co-working with developers such as Merlin and DDWRT to make sure 3rd party firmware’s power are the same as ASUS firmware and obey the regulations.”
None of this is to say these companies can’t go back on their word down the line (concerned users should keep the pressure up), but it’s refreshing to see at least a few vendors actually standing behind their communities’ right to tinker.
Filed Under: fcc, firmware, open source, routers
Companies: asus, linksys, tp-link
Router Company Lazily Blocks Open Source Router Firmware, Still Pretends To Value 'Creativity'
from the unintended-consequences dept
Mon, Mar 28th 2016 02:04pm - Karl Bode
Last fall, you might recall that the hardware tinkering community (and people who just like to fully use the devices they pay for) was up in arms over an FCC plan to lock down third-party custom firmware. After tinkering enthusiasts claimed the FCC was intentionally planning to prevent them from installing third-party router options like DD-WRT and Open-WRT, we asked the FCC about the new rules and were told that because modified routers had been interfering with terrestrial doppler weather radar (TDWR) at airports, the FCC wanted to ensure that just the radio portion of the router couldn’t be modified.
The FCC stated at the time that locking down the full, broader use of open source router firmware entirely was absolutely not their intent:
“Our rules do permit radios to be approved as Software Defined Radios (SDRs) where the compliance is ensured based on having secure software which cannot be modified. The (FCC’s) position is that versions of this open source software can be used as long as they do not add the functionality to modify the underlying operating characteristics of the RF parameters. It depends on the manufacturer to provide us the information at the time of application on how such controls are implemented.
The FCC also updated the guidance in question (pdf) and penned a blog post that tried to explain all this. But while the FCC may not have intended to block third-party firmware, many worried that because many routers have “system on chip” — where the CPU and radio exist in a single package — router vendors would “solve” the problem by just taking the cheapest and easiest path and locking down firmware entirely. And that’s precisely what appears to be happening — at least with one router manufacturer.
Gearmaker TP-Link recently posted a notice to the company’s website announcing that as of June of this year, it would be locking down firmware installations on its routers entirely. In a statement, the company blames the FCC for the fact it’s taking the lazy route and annoying its more technically-proficient customers:
“The FCC requires all manufacturers to prevent user from having any direct ability to change RF parameters (frequency limits, output power, country codes, etc.) In order to keep our products compliant with these implemented regulations, TP-LINK is distributing devices that feature country-specific firmware. Devices sold in the United States will have firmware and wireless settings that ensure compliance with local laws and regulations related to transmission power.”
Again, TP-Link could work with the community and developers to ensure users can mod everything but radio parameters, but it’s being cheap and lazy. The company’s statement then adds insult to injury by pretending it still values the community’s “creativity”:
“As a result of these necessary changes, users are not able to flash the current generation of open-source, third-party firmware. We are excited to see the creative ways members of the open-source community update the new firmware to meet their needs. However, TP-LINK does not offer any guarantees or technical support for customers attempting to flash any third-party firmware to their devices.”
So, hey kids, we’re locking down your ability to be creative starting this June, but go be creative! In one blow, TP-Link is not only alienating a large number of potential customers, but making networks less secure (since custom firmware tends to be more secure and updated more religiously among the tinkering faithful).
I’ve reached out to the FCC for comment, but wasn’t able to glean any more detail from the agency beyond what has already been said. And while the TP-Link lockdown may have not been the FCC’s plan or its fault directly, it may very well be a very ugly, unintended consequence. It’s a shame that an agency that has been a bit more consumer friendly in terms of opening up other hardware and beefing up broadband competition didn’t spend more time thinking this through.
Fortunately, TP-Link isn’t exactly a brand favorite for most router buyers anyway, and the company’s language leaves some wiggle room to suggest that while “the current generation” of open-source third-party firmware won’t work on routers made after June 1, future versions of this same firmware may. TP-Link also appears to be the only vendor doing this (so far at least, please correct me in the comments if this has changed). With any luck, a few competing router vendors will see this as an opportunity to not be lazy and alienate customers — but to compete by providing gear that still respects a user’s freedom to tinker.
Filed Under: dd-wrt, fcc, firmware, open source, open-wrt, router
Companies: tp-link
No, The FCC Is Not (Intentionally) Trying To Kill Third-Party Wi-Fi Router Firmware
from the unintended-consequences dept
Thu, Sep 3rd 2015 06:01am - Karl Bode
For a few months now a rumor has been circulating that the FCC is intentionally planning to ban third-party custom router firmware. Wi-Fi hobbyists (and people who just like a little more control over devices they own) have long used custom, open source firmware like DD-WRT or Open-WRT to bring some additional functionality to their devices, with the added bonus of replacing clunky router GUIs. Custom firmware is also handy in an age when companies like to force firmware upgrades that either eliminate useful functionality, or add cloud-features and phone-home mechanisms a user may not be comfortable with.
But at last July’s BattleMesh 8 event, Wi-Fi enthusiasts noticed the clunky wording of an FCC NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) discussing the FCC’s plan to modify the rules governing RF devices. The NPRM in question (pdf), like all NPRMs, is basically the FCC’s way of fielding questions about potential rule changes. It’s important to understand no rules have actually been passed yet before committing gadget-nerd seppuku.
It’s also important to note the FCC’s motivation here is primarily safety, not to be a bureaucratic hardware-enthusiast buzzkill factory. The FAA found some illegally modified equipment operating in the unlicensed bands was interfering with terrestrial doppler weather radar (TDWR) at airports, and pushed the FCC to update its rules governing radios accordingly. But with many routers having systems-on-a-chip (SOC) where the radio isn’t fully distinguishable from other hardware, Wi-Fi hobbyists are worried that a ban on modifying a device’s radio could result in a blanket ban on modifying the device:
“Like all government regulations, the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head, and the proposed rules effectively ban Open Source router firmware. The rules require all relevant devices to implement software security to ensure the radios of devices operating in this band cannot be modified. Because of the economics of cheap routers, nearly every router is designed around a System on Chip ? a CPU and radio in a single package. Banning the modification of one inevitably bans the modification of the other, and eliminates the possibility of installing proven Open Source firmware on any device.
And these concerns aren’t entirely unjustified, thanks to a few troubling phrases buried in both the NPRM itself, and previous FCC guidance (pdf), which asks vendors questions like:
“What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from ?flashing? and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.
So yes, it’s understandable that sloppy FCC engineer wording has some people nervous. But as folks like Stanford lawyer and software engineer Jonathan Mayer have noted, shitty wording during a conversation about potential rules does not automatically equate to shitty rules. Meanwhile, one needs to apply some common sense, and ask if an agency on a uncharacteristic pro-consumer tear — fresh from a battle over one of the most important open platform fights of our time (net neutrality) — would seriously think that banning all personal hardware freedom is a nifty follow up.
Curiously nobody seems to have asked the FCC what they think about all of this. So I asked, and the FCC offered me this admittedly clunky statement (note the underlined bit):
“(FCC rules) require that the devices must ensure that under all circumstances they comply with the rules. The majority of the devices have software that is used to control the functionality of the hardware for parameters which can be modified and in turn have an impact on the compliance of devices. Our rules do permit radios to be approved as Software Defined Radios (SDRs) where the compliance is ensured based on having secure software which cannot be modified. The (FCC’s) position is that versions of this open source software can be used as long as they do not add the functionality to modify the underlying operating characteristics of the RF parameters. It depends on the manufacturer to provide us the information at the time of application on how such controls are implemented. We are looking for manufacturers of routers to take more responsibility to ensure that the devices cannot be easily modified.”
So in essence the FCC is saying that third-party firmware is just fine, just as long as it’s not pushing the radio outside of legally-mandated parameters and causing a safety hazard. I also talked a little bit about the FCC’s plan with Public Knowledge lawyer and FCC wireless policy guru Harold Feld, who spends more time wading through FCC NPRMs and telecom policy wonkery than any expert I know. Feld agrees that killing custom firmware isn’t the FCC’s intentional goal. That said, he’s also quick to note there’s still reason for concern if the rules aren’t crystal clear:
“This is, of course, why the FCC does notices of proposed rulemaking and seeks comment from the parties and affected stakeholders. Especially on technical engineering matters like this, it isn’t a matter of something being baked already. The FCC is responding here to a real world issue: we had problems with illegally modified equipment interfering with terrestrial doppler weather radar (TDWR) at airports. Naturally the FAA freaked out, and the FCC responded to this actual real world concern.
But at the same time, we don’t want the FCC to accidentally write rules that are over-broad or subject to misinterpretation by companies. The real concern here is not some government conspiracy to wipe out open source or mandate encryption. The real worry is that major chip manufacturers will respond by saying “the easiest thing for us to do is lock down all the middleware rather than worry about where to draw the line.” That would potentially kill a lot of innovation and valuable uses.”
The nifty part? This being an open conversation, the FCC is fielding comments on the proposed rule changes. And if you’re a hardware owner looking to protect your right to modify devices you own, you can head here to comment on the NPRM at the FCC website. You can also file a comment in the Federal Register, but need to do so before midnight, September 8.
Update: It appears the FCC decided to begin Labor Day weekend backend system upgrades shortly after this story was posted, meaning their public comment system is offline until next week. Fortunately it appears that the comment deadline had previously been extended, and users concerned about the FCC’s upcoming rules regarding third party open source firmware have until October 9 to make their voices heard.
Filed Under: dd-wrt, fcc, firmware, open-wrt, router, wifi
You Don't Own What You Bought: Drone Maker Updates Firmware On All Drones To Stop Any Flights In DC
from the well-that's-not-very-nice dept
You may have heard the news recently about how a drunk employee of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (can’t make this crap up) accidentally flew a DJI Phantom II drone onto White House property, leading to a general collective freakout over the security implications of these personal helicopters. In response to this, President Obama has called for more drone regulations — which may or may not make sense — but it needs to be remembered that the FAA has been refusing to actually release any rules for quite some time.
But beyond the call for regulations, the drone’s maker, DJI has decided to do a little self-regulation in the form of automatically pushing out some new firmware that blocks the drone from flying in downtown DC:
“The updated firmware (V3.10) will be released in coming days and adds a No-Fly Zone centered on downtown Washington, DC and extends for a 25 kilometer (15.5 mile) radius in all directions. Phantom pilots in this area will not be able to take off from or fly into this airspace.”
Even if you think it’s perfectly reasonable to ban drone flights in downtown DC (a different discussion for a different day…), it should be very concerning that the company you bought your product from can magically make it that much less useful on demand without you being able to do a damn thing about it. What if you happen to live in that no-fly zone, and you bought it to use for personal reasons at a local park. You’re completely out of luck because an overreaction resulted in the company breaking something you thought you bought.
Sometimes, the fact that devices you buy can be updated on the fly has benefits — like the stories of Tesla upgrading its cars to make them better even long after people bought them. That’s neat. But, it still seems immensely troubling that something you bought can be turned into a paperweight (in certain areas) by the company you bought it from.
Filed Under: control, drm, drones, firmware, no fly zone, ownership, washington dc
Companies: dji
Amazon Fire TV Firmware Update Bricks Rooted Devices, Prevents Rollback To Previous Firmware Versions
from the oh,-when-I-must-have-said-I-wanted-to-'rent'-the-device dept
You can buy it but you can’t own it. Digital goods remind us of this fact all the time. But physical goods? Those should be ours. But somehow, they often aren’t, especially if the company behind the product is trying oh so hard to lock customers into a closed ecosystem.
Amazon’s entry into the streaming device market is the Fire TV, a dense black block that puts its Prime library on your TV, as well as providing access to other popular streaming services (Netflix, Hulu) and a (smallish) assortment of games. But what it won’t do — at least not anymore — is allow purchasers to root their devices in order to play media stored on USB devices or force it to play nice with Google’s Play Store to expand the limited selection of “native” games to justify shelling out $20-40 for the optional gamepad.
Techdirt reader techflaws sends in this link to Amazon’s Fire TV firmware updates, hosted at AFTVNews, a site dedicated to (and run by) Fire TV aficionados. Alongside the expected bug fixes and features list is the following warning:
“Self destruct” eFuse added to kernel which gets triggered if an older bootloader is used. This means Fire TVs that update to stock 51.1.4.1_user_514013920 can never be downgraded, even if a method to root them is discovered.
So, if you try to make Amazon’s Fire TV behave the way you want it to, your device will be irrecoverably bricked. The tripped eFuse won’t even let you roll it back to when it worked. For most Amazon TV purchasers, this update came and went without any noticeable effect. But for those making the most of their purchases, this came as a shock. After all, the Fire TV runs a modified version of Android, itself an ostensibly open system. Not only that, but Amazon seemed to encourage this sort of experimentation and modification by making the source code freely available. But its updated firmware took away all of that, locking the gate of its ecosystem and tossing the key — along with some previously working devices — into the proverbial sewer grate.
Rbox, a very active member of XDA Forums, was the one who first made others aware of the issue, finally narrowing it down to malicious firmware. Intentionally malicious firmware.
From what I can tell, they did 2 things. First, they added an extra service to the kernel ramdisk that blows an efuse which prevents the old bootloader from working. Second, they modified the bootchain to use that fuse (or maybe a second, I’m not sure) to prevent downgrades. So once a box gets 51.1.4.1 stock, it can never be downgraded.
So, while there are workarounds available now (as well as custom firmware developed by the enthusiasts at XDA Forums), there’s been nothing official released by Amazon. The message is clear: play within the walls of our garden or GTFO. With most users opting for automatic updates, the firmware has made the final decision for them. Those who wish to stay rooted will have to do without any critical updates, added content selection, security fixes, etc. that Amazon may provide if they’re not fortunate enough to find fixes that work from third parties who are kind enough to unbrick devices that have been forcibly neutered by the proprietor of the walled garden.
Notably, this decision hits hardest the people Amazon should most want on its side: the diehard hobbyists who push the limits of prefab products and show developers the possibilities inherent in their offerings. Equally terrible, it sends the message to purchasers that they don’t own their purchases. Car manufacturers (there are exceptions, of course) don’t send street teams by to tear off the ridiculous spoiler and neon undercarriage you bolted onto your stock sedan, no matter how ridiculous it makes their product look. They don’t remove the tachometer you forced into the dashboard array when you bring it in for an oil change. But for some reason, certain companies still think that they can force your purchased products to play by their rules, long after turning the products over to their new “owners.”
Filed Under: bricks, fire tv, firmware, ownership, physical goods
Companies: amazon
Buy Your Kindle At Waterstones? You're Now Locked Into One Screensaver… The Waterstones Logo
from the Waterstones-hopes-you-love-Waterstones-as-much-as-Waterstones-loves-Waterstones dept
There’s no better way to treat your paying customers than by taking away some functionality. Most people would consider the previous statement to be completely full of shit, but when you look at it from the perspective of a proud bookstore chain that seemingly adores its own tasteful logo, it all begins to… Nope. It’s not working. The thought process involved in the following debacle seems to have short circuited somewhere between the marketing team and the IT squad, resulting in this bit of branding stupidity.
Remember how Waterstones was going to sell the Kindle and take a sales commission on the hardware and any ebooks bought from that device? Apparently they decided that the subtle but positive relationship of simply making money off the Kindle wasn’t good enough; now they’ve turned the Kindles they sell into billboards.
The Kindles sold by Waterstones got a firmware update in early November. This update wasn’t rolled out to all the Kindles, and for good reason. According to a couple different users (this story has also been confirmed by Waterstones) the only change in the update was a new screensaver.
I have not yet seen it myself, but the Kindle owners are reporting that all the screensavers have been replaced by a Waterstones logo. Furthermore, there’s no way to disable or replace that screensaver, so every time these Kindle owners pick up their device they will be reminded where they purchased it.
Advertising on the Kindle is nothing new. The ad-supported version is available at a discount if the buyer’s willing to put up with being advertised at in exchange for a price break. But, as The Digital Reader points out, Waterstones-branded Kindles aren’t discounted.
Instead, as thanks for purchasing a portable Amazon ecosystem from a brick-and-mortar, Waterstones’ customers are now locked into a single screensaver that will constantly remind them who they need to contact for a full refund… which, unbelievably, Waterstones is actually offering.
Thank you for your email regarding your Kindle Paperwhite from Waterstones.
I am sorry you are disappointed by the addition of a Waterstones screensaver after the recent software update to Kindle. It is our view that this screensaver does not constitute advertising and differs substantially to the advertising-supported Kindles available to the US market. The Waterstones screensaver is a non-dynamic, static image that will change infrequently and not advertise any specific product, offer or website.
It is not possible to remove the Waterstones screensaver to replace it with the former Amazon screensaver. We apologise that this change was made without consultation, and hope it does not detract from or alter your reading experience. However, if you feel it does, please let us know and we will arrange for the return of the device and a full refund.
I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.
Yours sincerely,
********** Customer Service Team Waterstones.com
This should do some serious damage to what was already a rather sketchy hookup. Back in September, Waterstones’ CEO James Daunt made the following ostensibly cheerful statement announcing its partnership with Amazon.
“There are substantial difficulties for us around working with our major competitor,” Daunt said at the Independent Publishers Guild Digital Quarterly Meeting on Tuesday, according to The Bookseller. “But we think we have an agreement which protects some of the most significant bear traps that sit there, and there are some major upsides for us.”
Notably, Daunt didn’t say that the agreement protects Waterstones from “significant bear traps.” Instead, his Freudian slippage states that the traps themselves will be unharmed, even if, as it appears, Waterstones has to trigger the traps on its own.
The deal was never advantageous, what with Waterstones making the most money when purchasers bought ebooks using its in-store wifi network. It’s hard to believe this strategy of getting customers into the physical store in hopes that they'd spend part of the time shopping on their Kindles has paid off. Perhaps the always-on “W” is meant to remind customers where they purchased their Kindles and why not go have a look around the bookstore a bit then.
On the plus side, Waterstones customers were threatened with warned about promised some additional bonuses for their branded Kindles during this rollout announcement:
At yesterday’s IPG event, Daunt revealed a few more details about Waterstones’ Amazon partnership. “Waterstones-specific Kindle screensavers, bestseller lists and a Read For Free offer are among the plans,” The Bookseller reports.
That’s a pretty frickin’ specific screensaver, Daunt. Shame it changes so “infrequently” as to be completely undetectable.
Filed Under: firmware, kindle, logo
Companies: amazon, waterstones
You Don't Own What You Buy, Part 15,332: Cisco Forces Questionable New Firmware On Routers
from the not-cool dept
One of the things that we keep learning in a connected, digital age, is that what you think you “bought” you often don’t really own. Companies who sell you products seem to feel a certain freedom to unilaterally change the terms of your purchase, after the fact. I’m reminded of Sony removing key features on the PS3, though there are plenty of other examples. A new one is the story of Cisco, pushing out a firmware update to routers without customer approval and (even worse) having that firmware update block people from logging in directly to their own routers. Apparently, if you don’t like it… er… too bad.
Cisco has started automatically pushing the company’s new “Cloud Connect” firmware update to consumer routers — without customer approval. Annoyed users note that the update won’t let consumers directly log into their routers anymore — they have to register for a new Cloud Connect account. The only way to revert to directly accessing the device you paid for? You have to unplug it from the Internet.
Oh, and registering for such an account means you have to agree to give up your data so that Cisco can sell it. As per the terms:
…we may keep track of certain information related to your use of the Service, including but not limited to the status and health of your network and networked products; which apps relating to the Service you are using; which features you are using within the Service infrastructure; network traffic (e.g., megabytes per hour); Internet history; how frequently you encounter errors on the Service system and other related information (“Other Information”). We use this Other Information to help us quickly and efficiently respond to inquiries and requests, and to enhance or administer our overall Service for our customers.
We may also use this Other Information for traffic analysis (for example, determining when the most customers are using the Service) and to determine which features within the Service are most or least effective or useful to you. In addition, we may periodically transmit system information to our servers in order to optimize your overall experience with the Service. We may share aggregated and anonymous user experience information with service providers, contractors or other third parties…
Seems like a good way to drive people into buying routers from other companies. I can see how a “cloud service” could have value, but it should be presented to users as a choice, where the actual benefit to them (if there is one) is clearly presented. Instead, this rollout seems designed solely to benefit Cisco and its partners, rather than the people who bought (or so they thought) their routers.