SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the and-you-thought-you-owned-it dept.
DJI Spark drones will not fly after September 1 until users have applied a mandatory software update:
DJI Spark drones will not fly after 1 September unless owners apply a mandatory software update, the device's maker has warned. DJI said the update to the small drone's core software fixes some flight control issues suffered by the gadget.
The drone maker said it had warned owners about the deadline so they could avoid having their craft grounded. But the mandatory update has caused some owners to question the control DJI retains over their devices.
In a statement, DJI said the update would improve how the Spark manages power. It also helps it work with smart spectacles that give owners an immersive view of what the drone films. It added: "If the firmware of either the aircraft or the battery is not updated by September 1, Spark will not be able to take off."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:12PM (16 children)
Sonos will brick its speakers if you don't accept the new privacy policy [zdnet.com]. After you already paid for it.
(I thought I saw this already on SN but couldn't find it quickly).
This is a worrying trend. It does not seem okay to sell hardware without any clear restrictions and then later impose additional restrictions on the user to continue using that hardware. It seems somewhat reminiscent of the Sony playstation "other os" bricking, except that in that case, the hardware still should provide its core functionality. Both Sonos and DJI seem to have no problem selling you expensive hardware and then later, unilaterally, deciding to brick it unless you do what they say.
I have yet to hear about any refunds offered to owners who do not wish to update. That ought to be legally required.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:18PM (7 children)
Manufactures don't want you to own anything because they're sick of making stuff when they can rent stuff. That way they don't have to compete as much in the engineering department, a very expensive department. They can also try to reduce customer support by remotely pushing fixes before customers complain. So you get stuck with throw away trash connected to the cloud which you pay the privilege of $19.99/month to keep active. Don't like it? Too bad.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:29PM (6 children)
No, it's not "too bad". Don't like it? Don't buy it. This is the second time in two days I think we've seen a story here about some device requiring a mandatory software update. This should be a good lesson about why not to buy cloud-connected shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @02:13PM (2 children)
It is "too bad" for the people who already bought it and hopefully a lesson in why not to buy it. But hey, people are stupid so....
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 23 2017, @04:14PM (1 child)
When I'm looking for a small speaker to play music, I don't go reading audio magazines or tech sites. I would only know about this by pure random luck, and when you Look at their website: http://www.sonos.com/en-us/products/wireless-speakers [sonos.com] -- there isn't really anything about it. Personally, I would wonder about how the streaming is set up and the fact that it requires an phone/tablet app would make me immediately suspicious, but most people would simply think of it is a speaker, and not the mediating software platform in the middle of all this that makes it only seem like a simple speaker.
Anyway, most future buyers aren't stupid, they're just victims of deceptive advertising.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @05:51PM
they're ignorant and lazy. they just buy whatever closed shit gets put on the shelves then whinge like little babies when they are treated like the victims they allowed themselves to be because it was more convenient. They also fund these scumbags who are trying to victimize them, while people making open products routinely go out of business or practically starve to death. They also go around making excuses and shilling for their masters. Kind of like how you're making excuses for their lack of responsibility for their own actions. It's all very disgusting.
(Score: 5, Informative) by RamiK on Wednesday August 23 2017, @02:53PM
Yup. There's plenty of FOSS offers in the market: https://dronegarageblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/best-quadcopters-with-open-source-firmware/ [wordpress.com]
And not just toys. With 20kg payload and over an hour air-time, the AWuAV 3015E is getting ready for a crowd-funding campaign right about now( http://awuav.world/awuav-3015e/ [awuav.world] ) and should hopefully come-out with only one or two blobs for the LTE and wifi.
Really, if people are buying these closed-sourced turds they have it coming.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by JustNiz on Thursday August 24 2017, @12:40AM (1 child)
Trouble is, you only find out which suppliers are doing it after you bought the damn thing.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:36AM
Two points:
1) I haven't looked too closely into this particular product, but I'm fairly sure that it's quite apparent before you buy it that it's internet-connected, uses a phone app to control, etc.
2) You can usually return things for a short time after buying them. That's certainly the case with any big-box retailer, plus Amazon. When you open the box and find out it's like this, put it all back and take it back to the store for a refund. You can even cost the manufacturer money by telling them it doesn't work, so they'll process it as defective and send it back to the mfgr. Now the mfgr doesn't get your money at all, plus they pay for return shipping, plus they have to test it out to find it's not really defective (per their definition, not ours), and then they have to sell it as "refurbished" for a lower price to try to not take a complete loss on it.
(Score: 3, Offtopic) by Knowledge Troll on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:34PM (6 children)
I'm just wondering if you see the situation with the speaker and the aircraft as being equivalent because one change is for spying on you and one is to stop something from falling out of the sky.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday August 23 2017, @02:53PM (4 children)
The equivalence I see is that both companies have promised in the news that folks who have bought their devices will not be able to use them unless they accept the updates the company is planning to roll out.
I.e.: both companies seem to think it's okay for them to decide that the hardware you bought no longer should function.
That is a problem. Irrespective of the reasons for them to decide so.
Now, one company *claims* that this is for safety concerns. However, this is the same company that earlier pushed a mandatory update that decides where you get to fly [gizmodo.com]:
It's easy to come up with an example where someone who bought a drone finds that after the update, he can't use it for his normal use any more. I don't think it's okay for any company to unilaterally require updates that fundamentally change parameters of how you get to use the hardware you bought, or brick your hardware alternatively. At the very least, DJI and Sonos both should be offering to buy back the hardware - at full retail price.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:45PM (3 children)
To be fair, that was ALSO a regulatory compliance issue that was primarily tied back to safety. Do-not-fly zones for drones are primarily determined by safety concerns.
It's harder to come up with an example where that 'normal use' was actually LEGAL though; given the geo-fencing was regulatory.
Not that I agree with DJI here. I think its complete bullshit. But it is also the reality of the IoT. EVERY single product that is IoT enabled, that runs via an app or via a vendor controlled server is susceptible to this. That is the nature of the beast. You always require the vendors approval and support to use your device. As long as customers WANT app enabled devices, this is what they will get. Its sad, but it does seem to be what the majority of people want.
Our only real hope for a better future is to embrace it, and regulate it with a new "first sale doctrine" regulation that puts specific consumer friendly obligations on manufacturers that provide internet enabled devices. I can see Europe doing it... I have little hope for the USA.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:42AM
Our only real hope for a better future is to embrace it, and regulate it with a new "first sale doctrine" regulation that puts specific consumer friendly obligations on manufacturers that provide internet enabled devices. I can see Europe doing it... I have little hope for the USA.
We do have a workaround here in the USA: liberal return policies. It's a limited workaround though: you can usually only return stuff to the store for a pretty limited time, like 30 days, and up to 90 if they're really generous, though depending on where you go you might be able to return it afterwards if you kept all the packing materials, and go without a receipt and just get store credit. Anyway, when you buy something and find out it's like that, return it! If everyone did this, the mfgr would go out of business with all the costs the retailers put on them for returned merchandise.
Of course, what's going to happen is stupid Americans are going to buy this crap, throw away the boxes, use it for a little while, then a few months later things are going to go bad and then they'll be fucked, and go out and buy something else just like it with the same problems.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." - H. L. Mencken
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mykl on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:44AM (1 child)
I have to agree with parent here. The motivations behind DJI and Sonos respectively are completely different. One is ensuring safety and compliance with regulatory requirements (due to the fact that there are so many jerks who deliberately fly their drones in dangerous places like airports), while the other is just a bag of dicks wanting to own you.
A poor analogy, but you could say that this is like a mandatory car recall (these exist in other countries, not sure about USA), without the need to actually recall the device.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:17PM
If I trusted the companies to be completely forthwith about their motivations, then you'd be correct.
Without diving into the update itself, I have to trust their word that this is the equivalent of a recall. Which would be much easier to swallow if this wasn't an update from a company who had previously forced updates enabling geofencing onto products no longer in their ownership.
So now, I'm not so sure. All I know is that they require you to update the product you already "own" or else it'll be an expensive light-weight paperweight.
(I'm not saying geofencing is bad. I am saying that taking my money and then crippling core functionality of the stuff I bought is very shady - even if it is for legal reasons or state-mandated. At the very least, offer me a choice between full refund or the update.)
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 23 2017, @04:15PM
Unfettered power to do good is unfettered power to do evil.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday August 23 2017, @05:25PM
> I have yet to hear about any refunds offered to owners who do not wish to update. That ought to be legally required.
Many people won't have heard about this. The toy will refuse to fly. A lawsuit will happen. Lawyers will make lots of money. Companies will react with more EULAs.
Europeans will strike down abusive clauses. Americans will sue again. Lawyers will make lots of money.
Eventually, the fad will take a hit, since most of those drones are boring to fly, unless they are for racing or have nerf guns attached.