> A failsafe firmware reset back to factory state.
This doesn't work if your threat model includes denying rollbacks to prevent exploiting bugs in old firmware. I'd love to be able to roll-back firmware on some of my devices to allow me to "jailbreak" them using old firmware.
In some cases your newer firmware may be blowing e-fuses that prevent old firmware from functioning. See the Nintendo Switch, for an example.
To be clear: I think this is anti-consumer and wrong, but manufacturers absolutely do it.
Edit: I also think it should be illegal, by way of consumer regulation. I don't think consumers should have option to waive their right to manufacturers not damaging hardware they own.
This doesn't get enough attention, waaaay too many of these issues are traced back to the vendor trying to "prevent" someone from using their product in a way that they don't like.
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.
Sibling mentioned CEC fixes— this one is huge. CEC is lovely in concept but I ended up having to disable it completely across my setup as there was just way too many bits of weird behaviour with devices turning themselves on and then switching the TV or AVR to their input apropos of nothing.
I feel like CEC tried way too hard to be magical instead of exposing enough control for the user to be able to block certain commands from problematic devices, or even just designate that device X will always be the boss in a particular setup.
Yup, game consoles are ground zero for this. I hit the button on the PS5 controller only to have the receiver and TV power on, then the PS4 wakes up for some reason and then switches the AVR to its input.
My Sony UHD player also seems to want to grab the input sometimes too, so maybe it's Sony that's the source of the problems haha.
And again, it's all just so maddening because it feels like it would go away if I could be like "Hey, AVR should never send power-on messages to its input devices." Because then I would just power on the device I actually want to use, it would turn on the AVR and TV, and we'd be golden.
> And again, it's all just so maddening because it feels like it would go away if I could be like "Hey, AVR should never send power-on messages to its input devices."
Yeah, that sounds a weird "feature" in the first place.
If I manually turn on the UHD player/Chromecast/PS5/whatever, it makes sense that the TV also turns on and switches to the respective input.
I could also sort of imagine that if I switched the TV to some input source, it might be convenient if the device connected to that input turns on. (Not by a lot, though. You need the device's remote/gamepad/whatever anyway to tell it what to do, so the one button press saved doesn't really buy you much.)
But what makes no sense for me is the TV turning on all input devices when it's being turned on itself. When would you ever want to have the PS4, the PS5 and the HD player running, let alone as the default behavior?
That sounds like a genuine bug in the TV.
(Also, you sound as if you have some sort of "2 <-> n" setup with n input and 2 output devices. I have no idea how CEC would even be supposed to behave in such a setup. Would an input device turn on both output devices?
I suspect the issue is largely with the receiver (a VSX-935), as that's seemingly the component sending a turn-on signal to its inputs.
If I could, I would have probably run everything to the TV and just done all the audio over eARC, but the TV is on the other end of a 50' HDMI cable, so I definitely need the receiver as an in-rack multiplexer.
I have a laptop, steamdeck, Nintendo Switch and chromecast all connected to an LG TV and all the ouput switching and remote pass-through works as expected. Maybe just a lucky combination ?
> 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.
Unfortunately there are soooo f..ing many devices out there that don't follow the specs, no wonder given how long and complex alone the Bluetooth specifications are, and HDMI/HDCP (which a soundbar with ARC support needs...) is even worse, and don't even try to get me started on CEC because that is an even bigger pile of dung, or stuff like GPUs that run HDMI over DVI, MHL or USB-C in DP mode and god knows what else people expect to "magically work" with a 5 dollar adapter they got off of Alibaba. And no, "audit products to follow the specs" isn't a foolproof solution either. That means that everyone has to deal with everyone else's quirks and at least the most popular devices and their manufacturers have to supply firmware updates to react upon reports of quirks.
I thought HDMI and DVI use the same signalling (at least the 'digital part' of DVI, was it DVI-D?), just over a different connector?
In my memory only the connectors competed for adoption, and Home Entertainment industry opted for HDMI and the PC-industry opted for DVI, while the signalling was not contested (besides DVI also being able to carry analog signalling with full spin-out, and HDMI carrying audio instead).
My memory might not serve me well here though.
I never thought HDMI would win :( but it makes sense I guess - Computers/their use changed :(
And the obvious solution is to isolate the device from the world. Most of my stereo is isolated from “the world”, and some parts are close to 30 years old. Why does a soundbar need contact with the internet?
That kinda defeats the point of having a device. Sure it works in some cases but we're talking about a soundbar here and that has to interact with other devices. It's whole purpose is to interact with other devices.
Even if it doesn't need to contact the internet you're still going to want it to connect through cables. There's good reason to connect through bluetooth.
But why should it contact over the internet? Well it sure is nice to be able to stream music from my NAS. There's utility in that. There's also utility in the parent company updating firmware to support new audio codecs. Or to support new algorithms. If my device is gaining more utility, that's a great thing! And of course, if it is connected wirelessly in any way (including bluetooth) I sure as hell would like updates with respect to security.
Without this, the thing becomes e-waste. The environment moves. Time marches on. No thing can exist in isolation, no matter how hard you try. Again, software rots, not because the software changes, but because the world does.
But that's not the problem here. The problem is abuse of that power. It isn't for the benefit of the customer. The problem is managers pushing to release before things are ready. The need for speed with no direction. To not even consider in the calculus of decision making the tremendous costs of when things go wrong. And how this lesson is never learned despite facing the problem time and time again. Issues like this now cost tons of engineering hours, tons of lawyer hours, and ultimately will cost tons in rebates and refunds. How many weeks of work is that equivalent to? Sure, it doesn't always result in catastrophic failure like this, sometimes it results in smaller failures, sometimes small enough they can be brushed off. But those are still costs that no one considers. That's the problem here.
In my case, my stereo is connected to an inexpensive Airplay adapter.
So I do get all the advantages of a connected device, but if the adapter is bricked, I can easily replace just that small device. And more likely, when there’s a new standard, most of my equipment is unaffected.
No, you are missing my point. In the same way as we do (or at least should do) when we develop software, we isolate the volatile parts from the stable ones. The loudspeakers have looked the same for decades. No revolutionary changes in amplifiers in a long time. The same with DACs. That means that when a software update bricks my adapter, or a new much better standard comes along, or I decide to leave the Apple ecosystem, I only need to replace one small part of my stereo system, not all of it.
This should be done internally to the device. I do agree that nothing you do should affect how speaker sure input is processed. But if you want those other features it's much more convenient to integrate them on device or rather place them within the housing as there's lots of empty space.
With electronics you can still isolate functionality like in software how we wrap things into functions. But like software sometimes we need to break that for optimization. Think like Apple M chips. They do it in the most annoying way, but integration is helpful. Ideally in a speaker though you should be able to fuck everything up and still allow for raw input.
As for the Apple thing, well that's a bigger issue because we really should be using open protocols and fuck walled gardens. Walled gardens are part of the problem we're talking about
At least in theory these Samsung sound bars are supposed to adapt to the listening environment to more accurately render the intended surround sound. They also have various non-trivial inputs (including wireless ones) as well as support for additional real speakers and subwoofers which again might need changes for compatibility.
Of course they could be designed to be simpler and have whatever input device is used (e.g. the TV) handle fancy features like mobile phone support.
Sure, you could do everything through a static circuit and require things being fed with speaker wire. But if you add a microcontroller you're going to be able to do much more, get better sound quality, and protect your equipment. Do your speakers have batteries? Do they plug into wall? Either way you can better control power levels. Do you want to boost bass? Fix corrupted signals? Do you want to process signals from anything other than a bare wire?
Sure, you don't need a microcontroller in a speaker. But we also don't need them in our cars. You don't need them in your fucking kettle. But personally, I find them useful and considering how cheap they are it's worth the basically $0 increased price.
See my other argument. The issue isn't that there's a microcontroller in the speaker. The issue is bricking the device. Don't confuse the means in which a bad actor operates with the bad actor themselves. You'll never stop the bad actor by just banning everything tool they abuse. You'll end up with nothing.
Imagine your signal comes in degraded. Some extra noise on the wire because it is passing next to a faulty wire in your walls or something. You can then do a FFT (example) and pull out the noise and rebalance the signal. Maybe an easy way to think of this is with radio since you're very used to dealing with static in that domain but fundamentally there's nothing different than signal coming through a wire other than the technicalities of the medium through which it's transmitted.
There's much more signal processing you can do besides FFT btw and many can improve signal quality and thus sound quality. Even something like a built in equalizer. Sure, you can do this all with hardware by creating all the right filters but you can do more in a smaller package with a computer
Innocuous product features like streaming music, integration with Alexa/Google, connecting to TV and other speakers via wifi. Oh and collecting analytics data and selling to ad networks...
Modern soundbar are bugged Bluetooth enabled, also with ship with interfacing protocols, while legacy bluetooth/wifi drivers are ok, protocols just break
Also, time-to-market pressures can result in initial shipments having (minor but not showstopping) firmware bugs. Post-sale firmware upgrades can be beneficial for the customer.
It’s the norm because people rather buy one single product that does it all.
The alternative to an all-in-one sound bar is having regular 5.1 speakers, a nice receiver, a nice streaming box, and maybe a dumber TV and you will have absolutely the best setup but it’s a lot of putting pieces together, more space usage, and either money (if you want it right away) or a lot of waiting (if you want to get it used).
I had a Yamaha that had a dtsx firmware addition upgrade after it shipped. Not sure if it wasnt ready at product ship, or some way to avoid licensing fees, but I dont know how they would track who upgraded as it wasnt network enabled.
Sennheiser Max has a full computer and os running inside, they can upgrade it quite a bit. Biggest limitation on the device is HDMI 2.0 preventing 20gbps video passthrough of hdmi 2.1, however they should be able to add new audio codecs.
I actually picked up a Samsung soundbar for my mom this past Christmas and there were quite a few negative reviews. Usually around the soundbar dropping its connection. However diving deeper on them seems to revealed that the issue was resolved with an update. It's not super smart though and needs a USB drive or phone app to update. So it has prevented this situation from happening.
Considering the soundbar connects to a TV, console, phone, etc that are constantly releasing new versions and upgrades it makes sense to build in the function to something as simple as a soundbar to fix bugs and compatibility issues.
Samsung doesn't have the greatest track record with updates though so obviously you don't want to jump the gun on these. Hopefully not a Galaxy Watch 4 situation where they need to be mailed to Samsung to be reset because they didn't think about this during the design phase.
More hardware is sold at cost or at a loss, compensated with ads. I don't like the model either, but that's how it is.
If price isn't the only factor for some, it is for many who would otherwise not buy these things. Sellers picked up on that long ago.
Other comments wish to see regulations, they can't outwit those marketing tricksters. For profit enterprise can, and will offer more alternatives with bigger stamps about privacy, ad-less certified and whatnot.
While I agree with your broad statement, I have a TCL (with built-in Roku) TV that has a bug in the sound processing. Either it becomes very quiet, drops out completely, or comes in and out with a lot of stuttering. Happens irregularly, typically though not always weeks apart (though on no schedule I've identified), solved with a reboot of the TV (which of course can't just be done by turning it off and back on - you have to select "restart system" from the menus).
I owned it for at least six months before this occurred the first time.
In theory, I could do a USB update of the firmware and hope that fixes it. In practice, they want my serial number to let me download it. No thanks, I'll pass, even though it's never been connected to WiFi or Ethernet and never will be. I'll just reset it every once in a while.
> they want my serial number to let me download it.
Out of curiosity, why is that a problem to you? Granted, it is strange; I went through the process for my TCL Roku who's wifi stopped working (still not fixed, and now a second, 3yo TCL Roku has bricked itself. nice!)
I don't care in principle, but it's not just that. You have to give your serial, you have to boot the TV to the update, which then sends a challenge-response to their servers that must be correctly answered (you use your computer for this, so the TV isn't actually on the internet) for the upgrade to proceed.
I don't know what's in that data. And if I don't know what's in it, I'm not inclined to proceed; you might need my serial number to know if you're giving me the right software, but you don't need challenge/response for that. They sold me a cheap TV in hopes of collecting info on everything I watch, whether via Roku or just screen analysis. No thanks, and I have no interest in making it easier for them to break into my WiFi. I'm sure it would connect itself automatically to an open WiFi.
It's a little paranoid, but they really are out to get us (or at least our data).
A lot of consumer products ship with half-baked software and/or firmware. I wish Polk would fix the bug(s) that cause my soundbar to freeze and need a reboot several times per week. But it's an old product that's not longer sold, so I'm probably SOL.
The problem usually aren't vendors. The problem usually are rightsholders - the movie/TV series industry still didn't get the Spotify memo, and the console game industry... well it's hard to say they don't have a point insisting on serious DRM given how rampant piracy becomes once there's an easy-enough root method available.
IoT integrations like Alexa come with numerous security requirements that are often good ideas in theory but lead to hacky workarounds to meet certification requirements
Spotify made 1 billion $ of profit in 2024. Hard to call that unprofitable.
My point is, it (and Youtube) killed piracy for the most part when it comes to music. Trading CDs full of mp3s used to be a sport in school a decade or two ago, these days why would anyone even want to invest the time when Spotify has everything anyway at a price point school kids can afford it?
Netflix used to become the same thing for movies, but the greed of studios killed it and now it's more expensive to have the large stream services than cable TV.
> the movie/TV series industry still didn't get the Spotify memo
I'm not sure that's really a memo I'd like them to get. We don't need more subscription services where you don't get to own you content and everything can be taken away at any time.
In what way? Console makers wouldn't gain anything by weakening DRM and making devices rootable. It's not like they are making that much money from device sales.
Of course then you have MS which basically just turned XBox into a cheap but totally locked down gaming PC (since there are very few Xbox exclusives these days).
Not always. There's a time and a place for including end users in your threat model. These would include scholastic and carceral settings, where in both cases the end user may, as an example, desire access to resources that have been deemed inappropriate.
I disagree that a software in a school setting should see students as adversaries. Cheating is a much higher level problem that is better dealt with education and negative reinforcement. After all, those students will need to become participants in a society where we definitely don't want this level of mutual distrust around every corner.
But in any case, students are usually NOT the customer here even if they are the end user.
Yup! Depends on what's a higher priority: Preventing catastrophic destruction of the device, OR, "protecting" some IP from ultra-small-scale piracy, even though ultimately anyone bent on piracy will be able to pirate anyway.
Clearly the latter is heavily preferred by most companies.
even with that "requirement" add special minimal recovery that can be booted with special buttons sequence by bootloader and allows some form of flashing signed firmware.
this should be especially trivial when your device have some usb ports.
you can keep all requirements of only newer or the same version of firmware to flash, with all refuse checks.
if you mess up, you can allow consumers to flash fix using regular pendrive
Sometimes they do it because it’s contractually required if they want to get access to proprietary standards, for example to allow them to play copy-protected content.
Copyright and patent have morphed into evils that drive anti-consumer and anti-competitive behavior, and have driven a “subscription” model that allows rent seekers to achieve their wildest dreams.
Big part of the UBNT vs Cambium dispute. IIRC UBNT won in court, but just to prevent the Cambium firmware being installed on their hardware the next few firmware versions fixed it so that it cant be easily reverted.
Whats worse is that a lot of the affected hardware was near or EOL anyway, so Cambium was simply helping rescue devices headed for the scrap heap.
I think the correct way to do this is to allow a rollback to the immediately previous working version. Before updating, write current firmware to failsafe data storage, then do the update. Then a firmware reset sends you back to the last good version. I'm pretty sure this is already done by many hardware and software manufacturers, such as me.
Is that applicable here? We're talking about speakers. For most/low security devices, a firmware rollback, or a firmware-download mode, are fine. In this case, it would probably have prevented millions in losses, with the risk being a...jailbroken speaker?
This practice should simply be illegal or at least make the manufacturer liable for a full refund plus interest. We shouldn't let manufacturers brick devices that we own.
Android systems can do this today. After an orderly shutdown of new software, then it can mark the new stuff as good and not allow older software to boot.
The funny part is the Samsung update that bricked a10 phones was a update to smart things, so it couldn't use the Android A/B capability to roll back lol
This doesn't work if your threat model includes denying rollbacks to prevent exploiting bugs in old firmware. I'd love to be able to roll-back firmware on some of my devices to allow me to "jailbreak" them using old firmware.
In some cases your newer firmware may be blowing e-fuses that prevent old firmware from functioning. See the Nintendo Switch, for an example.
To be clear: I think this is anti-consumer and wrong, but manufacturers absolutely do it.
Edit: I also think it should be illegal, by way of consumer regulation. I don't think consumers should have option to waive their right to manufacturers not damaging hardware they own.