Why can't I firmware upgrade?

[eggzlot]

Why can’t Toyota add heated seats to my 2011 Camry?  You mean I need to buy a 2018 if I want that feature?   What a hoot. My car works.  I just want that one feature so I need to buy a new car?!?!?!?

[Pounce]

21 minutes ago, eggzlot said:

Why can’t Toyota add heated seats to my 2011 Camry?  You mean I need to buy a 2018 if I want that feature?   What a hoot. My car works.  I just want that one feature so I need to buy a new car?!?!?!?

http://roadwire.com/s.nl/it.A/id.168701/.f?sc=8&category=321243

[eggzlot]

4 minutes ago, Pounce said:

http://roadwire.com/s.nl/it.A/id.168701/.f?sc=8&category=321243

Well you can buy an hc250 just like you can buy that car seat heater - do not have to upgrade everything g  

 

Ok so how about auto lane departure?  Or if your older car had front airbags but not side air bags.  

The point is manufactures do not support older products for life.  At some point you need to upgrade.  As others said Apple and Google are not supporting 6 year old hardware.  

I have a 30 year pioneer turntable.  Auto arm.  It wore out.  Pioneer doesn’t make the part anymore.  Why not???  

[Pounce]

I think most people understand that hardware like chipsets and such have a lifespan. There are just a few ocd spectrum types that obsess about why chips cannot magically do things that weren't invented when they were soldered to a board and shipped around the world. Not to throw gas on a fire, but even if the hardware could actually run the needed firmware it's STILL the right of the company to EOL a product. A person doesn't have to like it.

Here we have a situation like natural selection hopefully working. You thin the herd. I'm sure there is one dealer than would be happy to lose a customer.

[RR61522]

1 minute ago, Pounce said:

Here we have a situation like natural selection hopefully working. You thin the herd. I'm sure there is one dealer than would be happy to lose a customer.

I'm sure there is too...

[wappinghigh]

Members of this forum can go on heaping personal abuse or they can actually think about the questions asked and provide useful propositions or actual technical answers to the questions.

 

After it was discovered the upgrade to the latest version of 2.10 wasn’t going thru I came on line here to find out why.

I got an answer to that. It took quite a few posts to get the actual answer but we got there. Turns out I’d missed the important bit in CY,s thread. Older controllers will block the upgrade and have to be removed from the project prior to running the upgrade.

 

But this then got me thinking why. Why would they do that? Usually in most platform upgrades that I have ever been involved with a sub device would just drop out in a software upgrade - the rest goes thru and a warning about the device not upgraded is delivered somehow. In essence the plane keeps flying or the machine still boots up - there is attempt to restore function of the entire platform.

 

So I followed up my initial question with another. Why would a company do that?

 

So we find the HC200 was blocking the upgrade from 2.9.1 to 2.10

 

Why?

 

The clue was again in CY’s thread. The software engineers appear to have *made* the HC200 block the upgrade. In essence it appears someone has directed them to force the upgrade to not preceded if those older controllers are present in the project.

 

I have bolded the important bits in CY’s post. The upgrade is allowed to proceed with the I/0 device “in the circuit” as Ilove puts it (and this remains on 2.9.1) but this is not the case with the HC200.

 

All this is proof of forced obsolescence. What other explanation is there?

 

Unlike users of the I/O unit, Users of the HC200 have not been given the choice of continuing to use their older HC200’s for the simple tasks of IR or serial control.

 

My further questions were why is that?

 

Given that one would assume the circuitry of the HC200 and I/O device would be about the same age and likely complexity what exactly is so different about the 2.9.1 software vs 2.10?

 

Nobody has actually answered the question.

 

One can only assume in all this that Control4 doesn’t wish their end users to keep their HC200’s or HC300’s in their project platforms for any reason other than Control4 forcing their redundancy.

 

Is there any other technical reason?

 

Thank you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ILoveC4]

My question is WHY does it matter? It is what it is. And the WHY was explained, you just don’t care to read it.

You can be upset about it all you want to (I threw away an HC300c when it was time to jump to 2.10, and did it without lighting the world on fire) but it’s not going to change anything.

I didn’t feel bad getting ride of it because guess what? It was damn near 10 years old. That’s an eternity in the world of electronics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eggzlot]

42 minutes ago, wappinghigh said:

Members of this forum can go on heaping personal abuse or they can actually think about the questions asked and provide useful propositions or actual technical answers to the questions.

 

After it was discovered the upgrade to the latest version of 2.10 wasn’t going thru I came on line here to find out why.

I got an answer to that. It took quite a few posts to get the actual answer but we got there. Turns out I’d missed the important bit in CY,s thread. Older controllers will block the upgrade and have to be removed from the project prior to running the upgrade.

 

But this then got me thinking why. Why would they do that? Usually in most platform upgrades that I have ever been involved with a sub device would just drop out in a software upgrade - the rest goes thru and a warning about the device not upgraded is delivered somehow. In essence the plane keeps flying or the machine still boots up - there is attempt to restore function of the entire platform.

 

So I followed up my initial question with another. Why would a company do that?

 

So we find the HC200 was blocking the upgrade from 2.9.1 to 2.10

 

Why?

 

The clue was again in CY’s thread. The software engineers appear to have *made* the HC200 block the upgrade. In essence it appears someone has directed them to force the upgrade to not preceded if those older controllers are present in the project.

 

I have bolded the important bits in CY’s post. The upgrade is allowed to proceed with the I/0 device “in the circuit” as Ilove puts it (and this remains on 2.9.1) but this is not the case with the HC200.

 

All this this is proof of forced obsolescence. What other explanation is there?

 

Unlike users of the I/O unit, Users of the HC200 have not been given the choice of continuing to use their older HC200’s for the simple tasks of IR or serial control.

 

My further questions were why is that?

 

Given that one would assume the circuitry of the HC200 and I/O device would be about the same age and likely complexity what exactly is so different about the 2.9.1 software vs 2.10?

 

Nobody has actually answered the question.

 

One can only assume in all this that Control4 doesn’t wish their end users to keep their HC200’s or HC300’s in their project platforms for any reason other than Control4 forcing their redundancy.

 

Is there any other technical reason?

 

Thank you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because C4 wanted more money from you.  They figured your rants online cost them enough customers so they need to get some revenue from you.  They huddled in a room.   All of C4’s BoD, engineers and C-level executives.  They reviewed your setup and targeted your hc200 as payback. 

Did you post on Apple forums to ask Cook and the shareholders why your iPhone 4 isn’t running the latest iOS?

[wappinghigh]

My question is WHY does it matter? It is what it is. And the WHY was explained, you just don’t care to read it.  You can be upset about it all you want to (I threw away an HC300c when it was time to jump to 2.10, and did it without lighting the world on fire) but it’s not going to change anything.  I didn’t feel bad getting ride of it because guess what? It was damn near 10 years old. That’s an eternity in the world of electronics.   

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

With all due respect the “why” has not been explained.

 

It matters because it signals an overall approach to the management of an end users equipment.That the company concerned has not done their end customer research properly (that this device might still play an important role in people’s projects) or that the way we use this device in particular has not been passed back via the dealer channels. In this case the owner of the product is not able to, or has not been given the opportunity to continue to use that product in any other way. Yet they still own and operate it.

Furthermore that the presence of this device in a project appears to deliberately be hindering a customer from upgrading their *other* equipment.

In other words the message given to the customer is “you can’t upgrade your entire project unless you replace that HC200”

That’s why it matters.

Cheers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

[msgreenf]

With all due respect the “why” has not been explained. It matters because it signals an overall approach to the management of an end users equipment.That the company concerned has not done their end customer research properly (that this device might still play an important role in people’s projects) or that the way we use this device in particular has not been passed back via the dealer channels. In this case the owner of the product is not able to, or has not been given the opportunity to continue to use that product in any other way. Yet they still own and operate it.
Furthermore that the presence of this device in a project appears to deliberately be hindering a customer from upgrading their *other* equipment.
In other words the message given to the customer is “you can’t upgrade your entire project unless you replace that HC200”
That’s why it matters.
Cheers.
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
 
 
 
 

I am going to assume you have an iPhone. But the same question holds even more true for Android. Do you ask your phone manufacturer why they can't update your 6 yr old phone to the latest OS?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[wappinghigh]

Write or wrong that’s the message coming loud and clear to me about this firmware upgrade. Not from my dealer I might add... but by the entire experience itself.

 

Cheers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wappinghigh]

I am going to assume you have an iPhone. But the same question holds even more true for Android. Do you ask your phone manufacturer why they can't update your 6 yr old phone to the latest OS?  

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

I will make this point again. A failed upgrade or redundancy of a solitary device like an iPhone or device running Android as far as I know does not effect in any way the ongoing use of other devices from Apple or those running Android. Cheers

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gary Leeds UK]

Wapp the stuff is shit its end of line - My wife now talks to her sister in Canada via  iPad pro because the iPad mini  does not do video 

it cost me £700 for a 12 inch Ipad 

That's life

That's why we do not have VHS anymore - Betamax was better But lost big style 

 

[wappinghigh]

A PM has been sent to some of you why this issue “might matter”... If anybody else would care to find out why perhaps it “might matter” feel free to message me. Take care all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wappinghigh]

Wapp the stuff is shit its end of line - My wife now talks to her sister in Canada via  iPad pro because the iPad mini  does not do video 
it cost me £700 for a 12 inch Ipad 
That's life
That's why we do not have VHS anymore - Betamax was better But lost big style 
 

Gary I get that the HC200 is old gear. PM sent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dcovach]

Replace the HC200 with an HC250 (all bindings/connections too) and you're off to the races.  You'll be able to update to the most recent OS.  

[wappinghigh]

12 minutes ago, dcovach said:

Replace the HC200 with an HC250 (all bindings/connections too) and you're off to the races.  You'll be able to update to the most recent OS.  

Yes I now get that as well..

Would you like a PM describing (from an end users point of view ) some of the other possible  underlying issues?

[dcovach]

I like to read

[RyanE]

Wappinghigh does have a valid point, Control4's EOL process is a different situation than a manufacturer limiting support for a particular device to an 'endpoint OS' release.

In general, Control4 obsoletes devices when they are no longer able to participate in a project using a meaningful amount of their hardware.

Sometimes that means that a controller that's being EOLed may be due to the fact that audio / video hardware and codecs on that device can't handle the way things are done in the upcoming OS release (i.e. for new audio services, 'Advanced Audio', intercom, etc.).  It also can mean that a controller may be EOLed, while a Contact/Relay extender or an IO Extender will continue to be supported, even though they have similar hardware levels, because the controller won't be able to handle the A/V requirements, while the IO Extender or Contact/Relay extender doesn't support Audio at all.  The SpeakerPoint was supported long past the equivalent level of Controllers and touchscreens, for the same reason (it only did audio streaming).

In some cases, the amount of flash or RAM on a device won't support the updated 'full' OS release.  There is a *lot* more software running on these devices than when they were first provisioned.  That was the case with some of the early remotes.  They couldn't make it to ZigBee Pro, due to hardware limitations.  They were also fragile as he**... 

Control4 allowing a more limited controller to function in a 'downgraded capacity' (i.e. IR only for the HC200) would require creating a custom OS release for each device being 'downgraded', which is an amount of work of the same order of magnitude to creating a new product, not to mention creating a new set of tests specific to the 'new (old) product'.  It's expensive, both in time and resources which can be better used to create new products, services, and drivers.

Trimming down the number of supported SKUs on a particular OS update allows Control4 to only develop against and test 'current' products, not all the EOL products going back to the beginning of time, and is a much clearer messaging for dealers and end users (i.e. "you can use feature X on device Y, but not feature Z on device Y, and device L only supports feature Q").

The whole 'downgrade' idea is IMHO an engineering, management, and support nightmare.

I personally can't think of any cases where the reason something was being obsoleted was solely due to 'we need to push more boxes'.

As far as Control4 forcing you to update, you are certainly *not* required to stop using EOLed devices, but you *are* limited as to what 'final' OS release those devices will operate in.

I'll also point out that *every* lighting device I've installed in my house is still supported, none have been obsoleted.

RyanE

 

P.S.  My standard disclaimer applies.  These are my thoughts on when and why Control4 obsoletes hardware, I don't speak officially for Control4.

 

[wappinghigh]

1 hour ago, RyanE said:

Wappinghigh does have a valid point, Control4's EOL process is a different situation than a manufacturer limiting support for a particular device to an 'endpoint OS' release.

In general, Control4 obsoletes devices when they are no longer able to participate in a project using a meaningful amount of their hardware.

Sometimes that means that a controller that's being EOLed may be due to the fact that audio / video hardware and codecs on that device can't handle the way things are done in the upcoming OS release (i.e. for new audio services, 'Advanced Audio', intercom, etc.).  It also can mean that a controller may be EOLed, while a Contact/Relay extender or an IO Extender will continue to be supported, even though they have similar hardware levels, because the controller won't be able to handle the A/V requirements, while the IO Extender or Contact/Relay extender doesn't support Audio at all.  The SpeakerPoint was supported long past the equivalent level of Controllers and touchscreens, for the same reason (it only did audio streaming).

In some cases, the amount of flash or RAM on a device won't support the updated 'full' OS release.  There is a *lot* more software running on these devices than when they were first provisioned.  That was the case with some of the early remotes.  They couldn't make it to ZigBee Pro, due to hardware limitations.  They were also fragile as he**... 

Control4 allowing a more limited controller to function in a 'downgraded capacity' (i.e. IR only for the HC200) would require creating a custom OS release for each device being 'downgraded', which is an amount of work of the same order of magnitude to creating a new product, not to mention creating a new set of tests specific to the 'new (old) product'.  It's expensive, both in time and resources which can be better used to create new products, services, and drivers.

Trimming down the number of supported SKUs on a particular OS update allows Control4 to only develop against and test 'current' products, not all the EOL products going back to the beginning of time, and is a much clearer messaging for dealers and end users (i.e. "you can use feature X on device Y, but not feature Z on device Y, and device L only supports feature Q").

The whole 'downgrade' idea is IMHO an engineering, management, and support nightmare.

I personally can't think of any cases where the reason something was being obsoleted was solely due to 'we need to push more boxes'.

As far as Control4 forcing you to update, you are certainly *not* required to stop using EOLed devices, but you *are* limited as to what 'final' OS release those devices will operate in.

I'll also point out that *every* lighting device I've installed in my house is still supported, none have been obsoleted.

RyanE

 

P.S.  My standard disclaimer applies.  These are my thoughts on when and why Control4 obsoletes hardware, I don't speak officially for Control4.

 

Ryan thanks for that fantastic and detailed reply.

[prabeau]

phew

[wappinghigh]

If you guys can’t see how this in my opinion is an attempt to lock you all into the platform for eternity I can’t help you! The stupid thing from the corporate point of view (also my opinion) is it actually forces people who really “get it” to stay on a lower firmware and thereby gives them only *more* of an incentive to look for an alternative product!!!!! This is what we call in my part of the world an OWN GOAL!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

[wappinghigh]

^ and what’s worse for the dealers is they have probably thought it’s “great” and gone along with it as they sell a few more minor controllers and touch screens... ! So they have been “hoodwinked” all along as well !!! That’s no doubt why the message hasn’t got back to C4 central that users like me are unhappy about the situation. That’s why this ludicrous firmware process still sits there as it is some 9 months on!!! But go figure. I thought communication and feedback on how some end users like me really “think” had improved for this company!!!! (All IMHO)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

[Pounce]

I think I missed it. What are you unhappy about specifically?

[wappinghigh]

Lol.

 

I actually want the important parts of my project and house to be on the latest firmware. (Silly me)

 

But when I go to upgrade it- I just simply want it to ....well

 

You know.

 

“Upgrade”!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk