Slashdot Mirror


Samsung TV Owners Furious After Software Update Leaves Sets Unusable (theguardian.com)

Thousands of owners of high-end Samsung TVs have complained after a software update left their recently acquired $1,800 sets with blank, unusable screens. From a report: The Guardian has been contacted by a number of owners complaining that the TVs they bought -- in some cases just two weeks ago -- have been rendered useless by an upgrade sent out by Samsung a week ago. Others have been posting furious messages on the company's community boards complaining that their new TVs are no longer working. The company has told customers it is working to fix the problem but so far, seven days on, nothing has been forthcoming. The problem appears to affect the latest models as owners of older Samsung TVs are not reporting the issue. The report doesn't identify the models that have been affected. But we scanned the forums and found that at least UE49MU7070, UE49MU7070TXXU, and MU6409 models are affected.

45 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. "Smart" TVs are stupid. by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even when they are working correctly.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by JohnFen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, and unambiguously so.

      Personally, if for some reason I was forced to have a "smart" TV, I would be very certain to make sure it never gets connected to the internet.

      There's also another relatively recent trend that plays into this: the idea that updates are always good and should be applied automatically. It was never the case that this was a safe practice. Updates need to be carefully evaluated before applying them.

    2. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      One problem with this is that a number of them refuse to let you "set up for the first time" without being given a network connection. And the fact that you can't ever undo an update is what makes it so dangerous to apply them, with a computer you have the option to reinstall, not so with a TV.

    3. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      I bet you used to own a combo TV/VCR. Saved an input...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My TV has youtube support.

      Oh wait, it doesn't anymore because youtube deccided to block the api and my tv didn't get an update for it. At least I got a free chromecast as compensation.

      You're putting yourself at the mercy of third parties with your tv. If hulu and pandora decide to change their api and your manufacturer doesn't push an update, because it's more then a year old, then I'll see you back crying about how unfair it is.

    5. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by peragrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I own a Samsung smart tv. At first I connected via wifi but then wanted a faster more reliable connection in my apartment sometimes ran a cable and switched to Ethernet. I realized that I wasn't using the smart tv functions so I ditched the Ethernet cable.

      Wifi off Ethernet unplugged no big deal. Except I noticed random connections from an unknown MAC address to my wifi router during a router upgrade. So I watched it. It would connect for a day and then disconnect for weeks. I got curious and enables wifi on my tv again and guess the MAC address that was used. So even in it's wifi off but tv on state it would attempt to connect to wifi.

      That's when I banned the MAC address on the router. No misc packets for you sneaky tv.

      Personally I prefer using a roku and hardwiring it to the router. Easy to disconnect, faster speeds for streaming.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

      with a computer you have the option to reinstall, not so with a TV

      It sounds like these people don't know how to do computers right then, because their TVs are computers. From a hardware perspective, aren't they basically just low-end iMacs (with worse mobos but better screens)? They simply fucked up the software.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    7. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Thelasko · · Score: 2

      I agree. I fell for it. I bought at Samsung smart TV in 2013. Now all of the apps are being removed remotely because the creators don't want to support the old hardware anymore.

      It's not better than having a separate box, it's worse!

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    8. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're putting yourself at the mercy of third parties with your tv. If hulu and pandora decide to change their api and your manufacturer doesn't push an update, because it's more then a year old, then I'll see you back crying about how unfair it is.

      Yep, I just had to replace my otherwise fully functional BD player, because Hulu had changed their API, and Sony no longer provided updates for this model.
      The really sucky thing is that a new shiny 4k BD player lacks a lot of functionality that the cheaper old one had, like analog audio/video out, storing authentication on USB (so when re-playing an already played BD, there's no delay while it contacts the mothership) and an information display. Heck, they've even skimped on the power cable, which can no longer be disconnected/replaced. And I'm sure that after 2 years, firmware/software updates will cease. Consumerism and planned obsolescence at its worst.

    9. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So what happens if that smart tv has built in wifi, and connects to some neighbour's unprotected open access hotspot?

    10. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by hackwrench · · Score: 2

      And now you got to check to see if your router isn't lying to you and letting the TV on anyway. They like each other better than they like you for ruining their fun. You are dooming them to living death by not letting them serve you as intended.

    11. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by SnarkSide · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are stupid by design. The typical Samsung TV pushes updates without any option to decline. It just puts up a notice about the upgrade with an "OK" button. No ignore, cancel, or decline, no close, just "OK". I don't think they understand what consent is supposed to mean. Consent is not actual consent if there is no other available option. Samsung, I'd like your product team to eat broken glass, "OK".

    12. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Karlt1 · · Score: 2

      In theory I agree and I told myself I would never buy a smart TV. But, I found the TCL Roku TV to enticing to pass up. I trust Roku to make good software much more than I trust most TV manufacturers.

    13. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by ctilsie242 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's when it gets returned. Not working because it isn't given a connection to slurp from, is just the same as not working due to a manufacturing defect.

    14. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by ctilsie242 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I had to have a smart TV, probably the best matter of course would be having it have its own SSID and VLAN, with a connection going through a VPN so geolocation registers some other place, and so it can't find anything useful on the LAN it sits on.

      Ironic that modern IoT devices have to be treated as hostile network entities in order to have decent security.

    15. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's cool is the crap some older Vizio smart TV's pull. If you allow outbound DNS and NTP but block everything else (so that your TV clock works but it otherwise can't connect anywhere) then the TV assumes you have a full internet connection and proceeds to try to initiate contact with relevant servers. You'd expect this to fail since (since you are blocking these packets) and for it to periodically try again on some reasonable schedule.

      Only Vizio in their infinite wisdom decided the appropriate retry was to DNS lookup again and if it passes then to immediately try connecting. The result is around 200 packets per second from the TV constantly the entire time its on as it rapid fire retries connections infinitely.

      So if I can't buy Vizio anymore and now Samsung is out then WTF do I buy if I want a quality TV?

    16. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      There's also another relatively recent trend that plays into this: the idea that updates are always good and should be applied automatically. It was never the case that this was a safe practice. Updates need to be carefully evaluated before applying them.

      The problem is most people don't have the time/inclination/skill to evaluate updates. So the realistic possibilities for most end user devices are either updates get applied automatically or updates never get applied.

      The former leads to stuff breaking from time to time, the latter leads to unpatched vulnerabilities, incompatibility with updated versions of online services etc.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    17. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by omnichad · · Score: 2

      You could just disable networking and not have your clock set. What do you need it for anyway?

    18. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      They simply fucked up the software.

      Indeed. There are multiple levels of failure here. Obviously they failed to properly test the update on all their models. But they also failed to have a simple and easy "roll-back" to the previous version. There is no excuse for leaving their customers with no working TV for a week. For $1 they can include an extra 5GB of flash, so there is no reason to delete the old version until the new version is installed and working for a while.

    19. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by steveo777 · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing that all you did was deactivate the TV's wifi, or did you delete the wifi information and it still connected? That would be be pretty damned shady...

      I'd have filtered the MAC as well. HELLS no... But even then it's possible it's looking for open APs. :/

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    20. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by steveo777 · · Score: 2

      Can you even buy a new TV that isn't "Smart"? Five years ago I bought my LED TV and to get to the range of features I wanted there weren't any dumb TVs. They all had some kind of networking involved.

      We did use the apps a few times, but as soon as my game systems had the same features I unplugged the ethernet cable.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    21. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      What's bizarre is that these devices are all running 'stock' software from the factory. If they test the update at all, it ought to work the same on all of them, no?

      Then again, you're always hearing about how some iOS or Android update is causing problems for owners of some specific model of phone. Again, if these things are all on stock, shouldn't the update work on all of them? Maybe for phones it's a matter of various bits of their hardware or firmware only getting exercised if you're on a particular carrier in a particular location - or if you have a particular bluetooth device connected. TV's should be much easier...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    22. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      I didn't trust my Vizio not to connect itself to Wi-Fi without my asking, and it didn't provide a way to flat-out delete Wi-Fi networks. So I temporarily created a randomly-named guest network, connected my Vizio to that one, disabled Wi-Fi on the TV, then deleted that guest network. Now the TV has nothing to connect to even if it wanted to.

      I mean, I know I'm missing out on its shitty, ancient, unmaintained versions of the Netflix and Hulu apps, but I think i'll manage.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    23. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by HiThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And to evaluate properly you need a test system that you can expose to the update. When you only have one system, that doesn't work so well.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    24. Re:"Smart" TVs are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they test the update at all, it ought to work the same on all of them, no?

      Hell, no. Even within the exact same model a production run is constantly changing as "cost accountants" source components from different suppliers based on price. In theory they're only supposed to use compatible components, but practice inevitably proves this wrong again and again.

      The exact same problem occurs in car manufacturing as well. On top of that component suppliers (e.g.: ZF) are constantly tweaking their products while supplying them to OEMs with the exact same SKUs.

  2. Monitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I put together a panel to monitor the situation, we recommend you screen all updates before applying.

  3. Re:That sucks... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    Presumably they worked when purchased so they paid 1800 for a TV that Samsung converted to a paperweight. I have to wonder, don't they test these updates on real sets?

  4. Why? Just why? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like my electronic toys. Have a lot of fun playing with them, but why all this integration? Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with, get turned into weird hybrids that have operating systems, computer parts, and memory?

    Is it a matter of people not understanding what they're getting anymore? Is it a matter of perceived value? Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.

    1. Re:Why? Just why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      To vertically integrate parallel consumer content streams to enhance end user metric marketability.

    2. Re:Why? Just why? by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.

      It's astounding how many people engage in this reasoning. Pretty much the entirety of business history has amply shown that more expensive does not automatically mean better, and sometimes means worse.

      It is impossible to judge quality by the price tag.

    3. Re:Why? Just why? by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You need to put a seizure warning on this comment. I started twitching a little.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:Why? Just why? by ThinkingThinker · · Score: 2

      To vertically integrate parallel consumer content streams to enhance end user metric marketability.

      Do you have a program that assembles random words into a sentence?

    5. Re:Why? Just why? by msauve · · Score: 2

      "Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with"

      So, do you limit those signals to baseband video (e.g. HDMI)? Because those are called monitors, not TVs. Or do you include OTA DTV signals? If you include DTV signals, why would you exclude digital signals received via WiFi or Ethernet?I suspect that more people stream content than get it OTA.

      Oh, and TVs have had "operating systems, computer parts, and memory" ever since the switch to DTV, over 8 years ago.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:Why? Just why? by Aaden42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know we're all nerds here, but most of the market doesn't like having multiple devices & wires to configure. Given a choice between a TV that "has Netflix on it," versus attaching and configuring a separate Roku, AppleTV, or Chrome-ish stick, the vast majority of consumers will plug the TV into power, connect to their WiFi, and be much happier than if they'd had to deal with yet another box with yet another remote and more wires.

      Offering (and choosing to purchase) the integrated model is a rational choice. *Not* offering a plain dumb screen option is annoying to us nerds, but we're kind of a purchasing minority for this stuff.

      Inadequate QA on updates and bricking TV's is lousy business, but again it's a minority of customers who are capable of recognizing that the smart TV caused a greater problem than a separate device. Even that is debatable given the number of users who just use streaming at this point. If an update bricked their Roku and left their TV functional but with no available signal to watch... I guess mailing the bricked Roku back for service is easier, and it's cheaper to replace outright, but that's about it.

    7. Re:Why? Just why? by Jason1729 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do you have a program that assembles random words into a sentence?

      I hope not...that's the last marketable skill people with MBA's have. If we automate it, imagine the horror when those people disperse into the rest of society.

    8. Re:Why? Just why? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      I like my electronic toys. Have a lot of fun playing with them, but why all this integration? Why have televisions, something that should be nothing but a passive interface for signals to be made visible with, get turned into weird hybrids that have operating systems, computer parts, and memory?

      Is it a matter of people not understanding what they're getting anymore? Is it a matter of perceived value? Oh, my TV is three hundred dollars more expensive than yours! That must mean it's better. Somehow.

      Because they were going to anyways.

      My TV (about 10 years old now) has a 166MHz processor and runs LInux. The only reason it has a processor is for controlling the display - the onscreen menus, configurations, etc. It even has basic "smart TV" features that I've never tried (it has a 10/100 Ethernet port), though with a 166MHz processor, I don't expect much.

      These days, a TV SoC has benefited from the smartphone revolution - instead of a 166MHz processor, you can get 1GHz+ in single/dual/quad core configurations. And they don't cost a whole lot more than going with a "basic' controller. In fact, once it's all said and done, the advanced SoC most likely is cheaper

      So now you've got a processor that's way more powerful than you need because sticking in a slower one costs more money in the end. What do you do with it? You add smart features because well, it can add value - either in increased sales (consumer has a choice of buying a smart TV or a dumb one for the same price) or the "value add" in increased price and margin (will the consumer pay $100 more to pick up a smart TV than a dumb one?).

      That's the reason why. Low to midrange controller processors just aren't cost effective.

    9. Re:Why? Just why? by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      TVs have always had tuners in them, they were never pure display devices.

      In the mid 2000s governments started switching off traditional analog TV in favour of complex compressed digital systems to support more channels and/or free up bandwidth for other uses (TV used a LOT of prime radio spectrum). In the run up to this there was understandably a push to implement digital TV reception in TV sets. That basically meant a computer system with a digital tuner and a MPEG2 decoder. Newer broadcast HDTV standards required H.264 decoding so that got thrown in too a few years later.

      So TVs prior to "smart TVs" already had a computer system to drive the digital TV menus, they already had a decoder for H.264. Why not throw on some network ports and a bit of extra ram and add a bunch of functionality for relatively little extra cost.

      At least I suspect that was what was going through the minds of the people who built these things.

      The problem of course is that the internet is a very different world from the broadcast reception world. Broadcasters are trusted so you don't have to worry too much about security. Broadcasters also accept that any new technology will have to be rolled out slowly and/or in a backwards compatible way to avoid pissing off users too much.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  5. Smart TV done Stupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "right" way to do it (if it must be done) is to have an internal HDMI connection to which you connect an android stick, or whatever, for televisions which have the smart TV option. There is no need to even use a real HDMI port, you can use something much cheaper like a simple header connector. And then hide that behind a trap door, or at least make it easy to get far enough into the case to replace it. I know you save a few pence per TV set by putting it all on one PCB, but odds are good that they're going to have to take back these sets and reflash them at service centers via JTAG or similar because they didn't take that route.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Smart TV done Stupid by JBMcB · · Score: 2

      Great idea. Only thing I'd change is to have an internal HDMI connector (since it's already a standard and HDMI ports are cheap) along with an internal USB port for power, or if you just want to stick a USB drive full of stuff in the back of your TV instead. I'd also require the HDMI port to have CEC so you can control the stick with your TV remote.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  6. And this is exactly why by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

    my last TV purchase was a dumb TV.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  7. Samsung TV's are junk, don't buy them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since I bought my Samsung, I've received many system updates to them. Never any new features, but the performance and reliability have tanked. My TV boot loops most every time I try to start it after having not started for a while. Whoever works on the operating system for Samsung are complete idiots.

  8. Re:WTF is wrong with people by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Funny

    You've never heard of a universal remote?

    I tried using a Universal remote once. People in alpha centauri were not amused to be muted.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  9. Well by jon3k · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is Samsung, at least they didn't explode.

  10. Re:That sucks... by JohnFen · · Score: 2

    whether it is a relatively rare issue that is being blown out of proportion.

    I'm not so sure about "blown out of proportion", even if it is rare. It serves to highlight the risk and folly of buying a "smart" TV -- or, for that matter, any expensive thing that includes a computer you have little control over, that depends on third-party services, and that and that you don't intend to replace very often (I'm looking at you, automobiles).

  11. Re: Auto Updates by JohnFen · · Score: 2

    what if they just made it so without connection it won't boot or it needs to phone home occasionally.

    Then it goes back to the store.