Apologies for condensing multiple replies into one in the following fashion, but this forum software’s quote function is possibly the worst I’ve ever used. If the formatting is hard to follow, I apologise in advance.> * * *
ottawaguy wrote:
It much more likely that they couldn’t get it released yesterday (for any number of reasons), so they probably pulled the thread and will re release on Monday or sometime next week.
- *> Here’s the thing: if there was a problem that was found with 1.03.42 after release, pulling it makes sense. However, if this was the case, they should have announced this fact. Given that the post title referred to it as a “very limited” beta, we can infer from this that there was no intention of leaving it up long enough for a large chunk of the beta userbase to obtain it.> Further to this: it doesn’t explain why the thread for reporting issues with 1.03.38 was closed at the same time, but it does lead one to wonder exactly what the thought process is (if any) regarding these releases.> * * *
Jackster wrote:
Let’s not also forget the rampant unofficial distribution of versions 1.03.39, .40, and .41. I also am one of the fortunate fellows who managed to grab .42 before the link was taken down. At this point, does this make .42 unofficial, if the link was taken down even though it was up for a few hours?
Sounds like the making of an X-File conspiracy to me…
Mulder?
- *> While I take your point regarding the unsanctioned spread of .39, .40, and .41, this is a different case in that whereas those versions were sent to specific people, .42 was made openly-available to the public - albeit for a very short period of time, and not one that put it out in wide distribution amongst the beta community.> While I understand that WD is probably not happy about the unofficial distribution of beta firmware that was delivered to a specific subset of users, if this is their method of combatting that problem then they’re taking a very poor approach to it.> * * *
RoofingGuy wrote:The warranty on my Gen1 WDTV HD was halfway up when it was deemed EOL… at least the Live and Live Plus are still getting updates, even if they’re not as quick as you’d like.
- *> I’m in complete agreement that having a piece of hardware be EOL’d before the warranty is up flat-out **bleep**. I’ve been there before, and beleive me, I feel your pain on that one.> However, this isn’t solely an issue of ‘as fast as I’d like’ - though that is a component of the problem, it’s only a minor component and not the whole by any means. The majority of the issue is the poor manner in which WD interacts with its userbase: one the one hand, they seem to want to give the impression of listening to their users via beta feedback, forum postings, and the Ideas Lab; on the other hand, their actions (or inactions) and communication (or lack thereof) in response to those outlets give a very contrary image to the one they seem to want to portray.> Couple this with their seemigly-glacial release schedule (assuming one exists) for stable firmware, and it leads to the impression that this device is something of a redheaded stepchild within WD as far as development is concerned. This perceived attitude (and I’m the first to admit that it is only a perception as I’m not privy to what’s going on within WD internally) ultimately trickles down to the users, and leads to the sorts of frustrations that I and others are voicing here.> > * * *
richUK wrote:
Are you fortunate - that remains to be seen!!. Did you get it via the published page ( which was not working for hours) or did you get it via the direct link that was posted on this thread? There may be lots of firmware files floating around on the WD site but just hunting for one with the same name does not make them the ‘official’ one.
Later: Just re-read the thread and I see that you downloaded the one that somebody assumed was the correct one. Well it got the same name so it must be OK - right!!! I wonder why they pulled it, hope there were not last minute problems with it.
- *> To clarify: I was not a recipient of the 1.03.42 beta; I only learned of its existence after it had been pulled. While I normally would have shrugged this off, the short public posting coupled with the closing of the 1.03.38 beta thread was something of a last straw in terms of frustration with WD’s level of communication and approach towards both the product and its users.> Just to reiterate: 95% of my issue here involves WD’s approach to the overall situation regarding the TV Live and variants; it is by no means confined solely to this beta release. In the nearly a year that this device has been on the market, both myself and others have voiced similar concerns and no apparent forward motion has been made by WD to improve the situation. How this would do anything other than compound the frustration that many of us are experiencing is unclear to me, but continuing in this manner is only exacerbating the issue.> > * * *
Jackster wrote:Exactly richUK! Even though I downloaded it, it doesn’t mean I will install it. But, in my humble opinion, it also throws into question WD’s distribution practices. If it’s that easy to find firmware on WD’s site, then WD is not exercising due diligence. I mean, through the same link in this thread, you can still download .39, .40 and .41 by simply changing the numbers in the address bar. Sheesh! They don’t even have these updates coming from an https:// site!
- *> This is an excellent point, and one which I’ve been meaning to bring up.> On the one hand, I can understand leaving old firmware versions (beta or stable) up in case someone needs to do a rollback. On the other hand, if this is indeed why they are still sitting on the server, why are they not publically-available? If the perception is that it would be confusing for end users to be presented with multiple versions of firmware (many of which would have been superseded by later releases), stick the older ones on a separate page dedicated to legacy firmware and with a big disclaimer at the top indicating that this is exactly what they are.> That they placed limited-distribution firmware on the same server as the wide-distribution firmware is one thing, and not necessarily bad in and of itself. That they did this in a manner that subverts the type of distribution they’re evidently seeking to achieve for it, however, is just dumb - and especially when changing one or two characters in a filename lets anyone who wants it grab it. It’s not like controlling access to web-based resources is a real mystery here - the only explanation that I can come up with for this is sheer laziness on behalf of the server admin.> But the fun part is how - when users who aren’t meant to have access to those updates do get ahold of them with next-to-no effort - WD’s staff chastise those same users for having them. While I have no problem saying that people who were not the intended recipients of that firmware should not be in posession of it, WD seems to want to berate them rather than take responsibility for their distribution methods and - as Jackster mentioned - exercise due diligence on their behalf from the outset.> This feeds back into poor communication, distribution practices, and community relations on WD’s behalf. And those are areas that - historically and right up to the present day - are evidently not things that they are interested in improving.> > With all of the above said: I have made two requests on this forum for upper management at WD to read the comments that are being posted here and take action to improve the situation. This is a third request.> However, I will put my money where my mouth is regarding this situation. One of my long-held suspicions is that poor project management is one of the root causes of both the developmental and community relations issues that have been seen in relation to these devices. If WD is open to discussing the possibility, I would be interested in taking an active role with them to improve this situation. Should WD be open to this idea, I can be contacted via the email address assigned to this account to discuss it further.
:smileyvery-happy: