"bug"

cryohellinc:

"bug"

"troll"

Planed obsolescence now is called "bug". No one knows, no one will ever know... and things will eventually be forgotten..

Aura89:

"troll"

Oh, but of course it was a bug in the firmware and companies involved would never ever do anything such as that.

cryohellinc:

Oh, but of course it was a bug in the firmware and companies involved would never ever do anything such as that.

And then they fix it, months in advance of the bug even occuring? Sounds illogical.

cryohellinc:

Oh, but of course it was a bug in the firmware and companies involved would never ever do anything such as that.

Unless you have proof, there's no point throwing around accusations. That's what a conspiracy theorist does, and there's no point in conspiracy theories anywhere. You either have proof, or you don't. And if you want to get proof, then get the proof, then post it on the internet or wherever it is needed. Logically, this is a bug. Illogically, it is planned obsolescence and purposeful. "Oh hey, lets create a planned failure point in our product, that way when it dies, people will think "I loved that product that just died on me! Lets get another one from the same manufacturer so it can die too!" but wait, lets fix it as well so our plan to get more sales doesn't happen!" https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/weirdalfoil_2322.jpg ^ This is not necessary or needed. Only makes you look like a fool, and derail topics/conversations.

Aura89:

Unless you have proof, there's no point throwing around accusations. That's what a conspiracy theorist does, and there's no point in conspiracy theories anywhere. You either have proof, or you don't. And if you want to get proof, then get the proof, then post it on the internet or wherever it is needed. Logically, this is a bug. Illogically, it is planned obsolescence and purposeful.

So, where is your proof? (No, personal "logic" is not a proof) People calling every yet unproven theory a "conspiracy" and making fun of others for lack of hard evidence, while at the same time failing to provide any hard evidence that debunks the theory (like... space photos showing the earth is not flat) are so funny... they even think they are somewhat superior to those they make fun of. U now, even in the legal/justice system, attorneys and detectives must first form a theory (a conspiracy?) and then work to get proof, they won't magically stumble unto proof and only after, formulate the theories (might happen but is unlikely). Now, attorneys don't go into forums posting their yet unproven theories, right, but people here are not justice officials, we just share our thoughts, some even try to ask or find information that can prove or debunk their theories. Even if they don't, making fun of other people "gut feeling" without providing any irrefutable proof is quite silly in itself.

cryohellinc:

Oh, but of course it was a bug in the firmware and companies involved would never ever do anything such as that.

It is well known fact that printers never stopped printing after certain amount of printed pages and required new cartridges even if "bugged" ones were not half-empty... It is also known that HP never made any printers... I have no idea why would people think that HP of all companies wants their SSDs to stop working after specified amount of power-on time. Nothing similar ever happened before.

I worked for one of the mentioned companies in manufacturing for more years than I care to remember, a dodgie firmware with planned obsolescence is nothing in the grand scheme of things.. The fact it effects both DELL and HPE could mean they are innocent or both of them have no morals and sandisk was just doing what was asked. Firmware parameters are strictly controlled and supplied by the customer, that's why a "15K 800GB DP SAS" drive can be made by any number of HDD suppliers but still have the same PN. They all need to perform the same so they can be mixed in a raid array inside a server and support certain RAID 'smart' features. Corporations have money to burn and OEM's are more than happy to burn them to get at the money..

TieSKey:

So, where is your proof? (No, personal "logic" is not a proof)

I'm not the one claiming anything, so the fact you think someone needs proof to not claim something is downright sad.

Aura89:

Unless you have proof, there's no point throwing around accusations. That's what a conspiracy theorist does, and there's no point in conspiracy theories anywhere. You either have proof, or you don't. And if you want to get proof, then get the proof, then post it on the internet or wherever it is needed. Logically, this is a bug. Illogically, it is planned obsolescence and purposeful. "Oh hey, lets create a planned failure point in our product, that way when it dies, people will think "I loved that product that just died on me! Lets get another one from the same manufacturer so it can die too!" but wait, lets fix it as well so our plan to get more sales doesn't happen!" ^ This is not necessary or needed. Only makes you look like a fool, and derail topics/conversations.

Aura89:

I'm not the one claiming anything, so the fact you think someone needs proof to not claim something is downright sad.

Hmmm, don't have proof - my argument is wrong. You don't have proof either - your argument is right, and you don't need to prove anything. That sounds foolish to me. Counter [spoiler]https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/weirdalfoil_2322.jpg [/spoiler]

HeavyHemi:

Simple logic would tell you they would not design a bug where the failure mode was obvious and identical for 100% of the product. That's like playing Russian Roulette with no empty cylinder. That observation is irrelevant to what any other company or entity may have done. Which you know, is irrelevant.

Sure, 100% is too obvious, however, there are countless examples from various industries. Concept of "designed to fail" where after a certain amount of cycles equipment would break is spread across our world and isn't something new. Manufacturers would always try to implement it. It's a risk that is hard to prove (depending on a product of course) and many are willing to take it.

HeavyHemi:

I worked in the industry for decades, was the ATE manager for on of the top 5 semi firms on the planet. This claim "a dodgie firmware with planned obsolescence is nothing...." is nonsensical.

If it's nonsensical how come this isn't the first time we've seen drives dying from a pre-specified number of hours? SSD's 'usually' have 'over provisioning' chips which gets used as issues arise and bad sectors are listed in the 'defective-sector table', once the spare capacity is used up the drives 'should' fail into read only mode, not die totally! There is absolutely no reason to set a die date by hours? That's nonsensical! << unless it can help generate a future sale 🙂 40,000 hours is just short of the usual 5 year extended life support contracts, extending support afterwards costs soo much, buying new hardware is more cost & tax efficient. Most corporations decommission their hardware before 5 years, as there is no 'depreciation of assets' tax benefits left and the hardware ends up on ebay and therefore someone else's issue. OEM's should be forced to show how many refunds and discounts (against future orders obviously) they give to customers as hush money for failing to deliver the quality the customer paid over the odds for.

Ne1l:

If it's nonsensical how come this isn't the first time we've seen drives dying from a pre-specified number of hours? SSD's 'usually' have 'over provisioning' chips which gets used as issues arise and bad sectors are listed in the 'defective-sector table', once the spare capacity is used up the drives 'should' fail into read only mode, not die totally! There is absolutely no reason to set a die date by hours? That's nonsensical! << unless it can help generate a future sale 🙂 40,000 hours is just short of the usual 5 year extended life support contracts, extending support afterwards costs soo much, buying new hardware is more cost & tax efficient. Most corporations decommission their hardware before 5 years, as there is no 'depreciation of assets' tax benefits left and the hardware ends up on ebay and therefore someone else's issue. OEM's should be forced to show how many refunds and discounts (against future orders obviously) they give to customers as hush money for failing to deliver the quality the customer paid over the odds for.

Yeah they probably should give refunds/discounts, regardless of first time or not. This is a LOT of trouble if you have a lot of these servers. And the downside is potentially catastrophic

Reardan:

Yeah they probably should give refunds/discounts, regardless of first time or not. This is a LOT of trouble if you have a lot of these servers. And the downside is potentially catastrophic

They get out of giving refunds on minor issues (to them); if you have a support contract then as part of that agreement you must install *** CRITICAL *** updates, you snooze you lose. Example of a *** critical *** update: https://support.hpe.com/hpsc/swd/public/detail?swItemId=MTX_cc50fd630ff3498a843c2ea723#tab4 - OEM's are loving that fact they can blame Intel for customers experiencing reduced performance on old hardware (spectre meltdown microcode changes) so they can sell them shiny new hardware.

40,000 hours = 1,666 days and 16 hours (or) 1,666.667 days Fascinating.

cryohellinc:

Hmmm, don't have proof - my argument is wrong. You don't have proof either - your argument is right, and you don't need to prove anything. That sounds foolish to me.

Not sure how people don't understand you need proof to validify a claim, you don't need proof to not. It's about the oddest arguement i've ever heard. I'm not making an arguement. I'm not making a claim. I have no proof because there's zero reason to have proof for a lack of a claim. Really can't get more simple then that. You on the other hand decided to make a claim with zero proof. That's called a conspiracy theory. Here let me put it in a way even the simplest person could understand. If you bring someone to court claiming they stole from you, it's up to YOU to prove it. If you don't have proof, your court claim is lost and you'll likely have to pay for their court fees. What do they have to prove? Absolutely nothing. They only have to prove their innocence if you HAVE proof. And if during this court case you stated this long story about how they stole from you, but then the lawyer (me in this instance) asked you for proof, you don't get to say "well, prove it didn't happen!". No, that's not how anything works, you don't prove something didn't happen, you prove that it did, and the people claiming it are the ones to do it. The world may be going crazy right now, but left is still left and right is still right, and having to prove a lack of a claim still makes zero sense. ....Unless you want me to claim you're biased @cryohellinc because you and i have worked in the past for a competitor to Dell and HP and the only reason you're making these statements is because you still work for them and are trying to drive business over to the company you work for and that it completely lines up with your personality that i know you have since again, i know you and have worked for you.... Oh, want me to prove the statement i just said? No, you prove that it's not true. Lets all go back to the salem witch trials since that apparently is where you wish to be.

Aura89:

Not sure how people don't understand you need proof to validify a claim, you don't need proof to not. It's about the oddest arguement i've ever heard. I'm not making an arguement. I'm not making a claim. I have no proof because there's zero reason to have proof for a lack of a claim. Really can't get more simple then that. You on the other hand decided to make a claim with zero proof. That's called a conspiracy theory. Here let me put it in a way even the simplest person could understand. If you bring someone to court claiming they stole from you, it's up to YOU to prove it. If you don't have proof, your court claim is lost and you'll likely have to pay for their court fees. What do they have to prove? Absolutely nothing. They only have to prove their innocence if you HAVE proof. And if during this court case you stated this long story about how they stole from you, but then the lawyer (me in this instance) asked you for proof, you don't get to say "well, prove it didn't happen!". No, that's not how anything works, you don't prove something didn't happen, you prove that it did, and the people claiming it are the ones to do it. The world may be going crazy right now, but left is still left and right is still right, and having to prove a lack of a claim still makes zero sense. ....Unless you want me to claim you're biased @cryohellinc because you and i have worked in the past for a competitor to Dell and HP and the only reason you're making these statements is because you still work for them and are trying to drive business over to the company you work for and that it completely lines up with your personality that i know you have since again, i know you and have worked for you.... Oh, want me to prove the statement i just said? No, you prove that it's not true. Lets all go back to the salem witch trials since that apparently is where you wish to be.

I'm too tired after work to even dwell into this, but what the hell are you smoking? Instead, let me send you this, so that "even the simplest person could understand". Good starting point for a future research into the topic.

cryohellinc:

I'm too tired after work to even dwell into this, but what the hell are you smoking? Instead, let me send you this, so that "even the simplest person could understand". Good starting point for a future research into the topic.

So it's planned obsolesce, but only with a few of their drives, at a very specific amount of time and they came out on their own, admitted they found the issue and released a patch that instantly fixes it. Seems like a weird way to obsolete a subset of products. Seems more like it might just be a bug.

There's a lot of OEM defenders here 🙂 Simple question: Why would an SSD FW ever need to contain an expire date measured in hours? Even if Sandisk accidentally left it in there for testing to see what would happen, why 40k hours and not just set it for 10 hours or 1? very fi$hy indeed..., and considering each OEM issues their own FW, totally inexcusable.

HeavyHemi:

You should learn how to counter a fact based logical argument, mine, instead of just posting more noise. I made precise logical points.

Your argument is based on them not fixing it and getting caught.., my argument explained why they needed to issue a new FW - if the hardware died 5 years an 1 month they wouldn't get caught and the original hardware owner would still be happy, so sales won't be effected and a new FW might not have been released I was just pointing out that from what I saw from the inside, your 'give them the benefit of the doubt' is sweet but somewhat naive ;-)