Flashing cameras, Costco, and doom for all retailers?

[Kawboy12R 0]

Oh the fearmongers and those who're making the situation out to be something it's not... It is one guy talking about flashing one camera with firmware that is 99.9% likely to match the hardware inside the camera. That falls within the definition of fair use for many people and, therefore, falls both within Costco's return policy and the moral code of many people. Costco doesn't have a policy prohibiting the updating of software or firmware on hardware they sell. Neither does QSee. I also bet that many of the people complaining have flashed a few cameras in the past and have used their best judgement to match camera models, equipment requirements, and directions with the filename they downloaded from the net somewhere. I also bet that some have had flashes fail due to mistakes or circumstances beyond their control and returned them as defective because a new camera shouldn't fail when they did everything they knew to make things work properly.

 

It is funny how some people see someone using their best judgement to improve their hardware as a disaster for other retailers. Would I return the cam myself to Costco if I bricked it without doing some due diligence? No. Would I do it if it happened after doing some major due diligence and there was a chance that it was either a defective cam that wouldn't take a flash or some other random legitimate reason for a flash to fail? Maybe, if there wasn't a "no flash" policy stated in the manual. Would I lose sleep over someone else with a few clues like Buellwinkle doing it after doing HIS due diligence, satisfying HIS moral watchdog, and the retailer's stated requirements? Nope, but it does cause me to question the motives of those who're complaining.

 

This whole thing seems more like a few people worried about covering their own butts or about Dahua becoming mainstream and more flexible (at the possible expense of what they sell) rather than being perfect watchdogs of morality preventing people from flashing completely random binary files to trash cameras just for kicks. Either that or some folks just don't like Buellwinkle. I've got no dog in this fight at all. I don't sell cams or install them for anybody else besides myself. I don't know Buellwinkle. I'm also not a Dahua fanboy or someone who wants to see QSee or Costco lose money. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

[thewireguys 3]

[SportPlumber 0]

, Nope, but it does cause me to question the motives of those who're complaining.

 

This whole thing seems more like a few people worried about covering their own butts or about Dahua becoming mainstream and more flexible (at the possible expense of what they sell) rather than being perfect watchdogs of morality preventing people from flashing completely random binary files to trash cameras just for kicks. Either that or some folks just don't like Buellwinkle. I've got no dog in this fight at all. I don't sell cams or install them for anybody else besides myself. I don't know Buellwinkle. I'm also not a Dahua fanboy or someone who wants to see QSee or Costco lose money. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

 

Clearly you have uncovered the conspiracy.

[vector18 1]

4 more LEDS!! " title="Applause" />

[Kawboy12R 0]

No, no conspiracy, just mainly things getting blown a bit out of proportion combined with a lack of empathy for the customer. Then, of course, comes the hyperbole, lazy snide remarks, and the people pretending to be the morality police threatening malicious acts. Pretty common forum activity on the whole, but a bit surprising coming from people who are trying to present themselves in a good light to promote their businesses.

[buellwinkle 0]

Has anyone flashed this camera yet with Dahua software? I wouldn't even know where to get this firmware. Someone sent me firmware and I bricked a genuine Dahua IPC-HFW2100N, so I'm certainly not going to try that file on the Q-See.

[hlemm 0]

Updating a products firmware and having it fail in the process is a product failure under normal use and maintenance. The customer has a right to return a product if a product failed under normal operation for which the product was designed.

 

Retailers and business which do not honer returns for these reasons are rather short sighted as the consequences they themselves are creating and the potential return and referral business they are losing.

 

Now if you use a product in a manner other then its designed use and it fails then that's a different scenario where a return could be reasonably denied. (Using a passenger elevator to move around fright, using a rubber mallet to break up concrete, using an indoor security camera outdoors, modifying equipment in a manner other then for which it was designed, are some examples where you did not use the product under its designated operating conditions or intended purposes / applications)

 

If a Manufacturer creates a product which fails under use for which it was designed for then they should accept the return. Large volume retailers have contracts that stipulate terms of returns and acceptance of faulty products and goodwill returns. The retailer creates for itself return business and a satisfied customer and the manufacturer absorbs the cost of replacing a defective product and takes it as a cost of doing business (a business expense).

[thewireguys 3]

This is what I am referring too

 

If you can get the Dahua firmware, nothing to lose in trying it. Just return the cameras to Costco if you brick them.

[vector18 1]

How many more LEDS do the Dahua's have over the Qsee?

[rayt 0]

How many more LEDS do the Dahua's have over the Qsee?

 

the dahua with 6mm lens has 30 leds, the qsee which has the 6mm lens has 30 leds.

 

the dahua with 3.6mm lens has 25 leds. it depends on which lens is equipped on the camera.

[Kawboy12R 0]

This is what I am referring too

 

If you can get the Dahua firmware, nothing to lose in trying it. Just return the cameras to Costco if you brick them.

 

Precisely. He's advocating returning a product when it has a failure under normal use (consumers have been flashing their own firmware on many kinds of devices for over 30 years) when the product is under warranty to a store that prides itself on customer satisfaction. The guy isn't advocating flashing a Donkey Kong ROM image to the camera so he can watch gorillas on his monitor. There's an extremely reasonable expectation of success and no intention to harm Costco financially. It may even help Costco and QSee sell even more cameras or, if it fails through some unlikely difference between QSee-branded Dahuas and every other Dahua of the exact same model and the results are published, reduce the harm by keeping MORE people from bricking them needlessly. If Dahuas fail at an abnormally high rate when getting flashed then they'd better do something about it. IMHO, that would be a major weakness and a legit reason to either return a failed product or buy from another manufacturer.

[thewireguys 3]

Flash Qsee firmware all you want but don't you think if Dahua wanted you do flash their firmware on Dahua cameras (let alone Qsee cameras) they would have them for download on their site?

[Kawboy12R 0]

That's the only legitimate potential problem that I see. Not doing it, not the intent, but either obtaining the firmware or getting someone authorized to have it do the flashing. I have no knowledge of what Dahua techs are allowed to do with their firmware or why it isn't available for download from Dahua. It might be because they're too cheap to pay the bandwidth or figure that some folks are too dumb to keep from flashing 2MP firmware to their 1.3MP cams. There might be no restrictions on flashing any Dahua-manufactured cam, regardless of whose sticker is on it in North America.

[buellwinkle 0]

The manufacturer is Dahua, if they have a firmware upgrade, then it's legit. For example, if I buy an HP computer running MS Windows that's an OEM version installed by HP, in the same manner that Q-See installs an OEM version of Dahua software on it's cameras, and I apply a patch given to me by Microsoft and my computer no longer boots up, HP won't warranty it because I made changes to the computer that now made it not work, would one be dishonest in returning it to Costco?

[thewireguys 3]

So you don't think they could have different firmware for different distributors? The same way there is different versions of Andriod for different devices. Could it work yes but is it right to abuse there return policy so you can test it I think not.

[groovyman 0]

The manufacturer is Dahua, if they have a firmware upgrade, then it's legit. For example, if I buy an HP computer running MS Windows that's an OEM version installed by HP, in the same manner that Q-See installs an OEM version of Dahua software on it's cameras, and I apply a patch given to me by Microsoft and my computer no longer boots up, HP won't warranty it because I made changes to the computer that now made it not work, would one be dishonest in returning it to Costco?

You're not comparing apples to apples here. Using this Microsoft/HP, Dahua/QSee analogy:

Microsoft licenses (they don't sell, they license) Windows to HP, but does not provide the hardware to HP. HP provides support for Windows as well as the hardware. Yes, Microsoft comes out with updates every month and there's a chance one could disable Windows. When this happens, HP is still required to provide support for Windows (during the warranty period) and you're well within your right to return the product back to the place from where it was purchased (according to their return policy, of course).

 

Dahua sells the hardware, software and firmware to their resellers who brand it with their own name. Dahua does not provide direct updates to the end user like Microsoft does. If there are any updates, Dahua provides it to the reseller who, at their discretion, may provide it to the end user. The reseller is responsible for providing support to the end user, not Dahua who deals with the reseller only.

 

So, if you buy QSee product then try and update it with firmware obtained from a source other than QSee and you brick it, then it's solely your responsibility. It would be dishonest to return the product from where it was purchased. It's not fair to the retailer, the branding company, the manufacturer or the honest purchasers of the product who ultimately have to pay more because of dishonest people who can't see the error of their ways - or just don't care. Make all the excuses or justifications you want - it's wrong, plain & simple.

[ak357 0]

The manufacturer is Dahua, if they have a firmware upgrade, then it's legit. For example, if I buy an HP computer running MS Windows that's an OEM version installed by HP, in the same manner that Q-See installs an OEM version of Dahua software on it's cameras, and I apply a patch given to me by Microsoft and my computer no longer boots up, HP won't warranty it because I made changes to the computer that now made it not work, would one be dishonest in returning it to Costco?

You're not comparing apples to apples here. Using this Microsoft/HP, Dahua/QSee analogy:

Microsoft licenses (they don't sell, they license) Windows to HP, but does not provide the hardware to HP. HP provides support for Windows as well as the hardware. Yes, Microsoft comes out with updates every month and there's a chance one could disable Windows. When this happens, HP is still required to provide support for Windows (during the warranty period) and you're well within your right to return the product back to the place from where it was purchased (according to their return policy, of course).

 

Dahua sells the hardware, software and firmware to their resellers who brand it with their own name. Dahua does not provide direct updates to the end user like Microsoft does. If there are any updates, Dahua provides it to the reseller who, at their discretion, may provide it to the end user. The reseller is responsible for providing support to the end user, not Dahua who deals with the reseller only.

 

So, if you buy QSee product then try and update it with firmware obtained from a source other than QSee and you brick it, then it's solely your responsibility. It would be dishonest to return the product from where it was purchased. It's not fair to the retailer, the branding company, the manufacturer or the honest purchasers of the product who ultimately have to pay more because of dishonest people who can't see the error of their ways - or just don't care. Make all the excuses or justifications you want - it's wrong, plain & simple.

 

+1

Could not say better my self !

[buellwinkle 0]

I dissagree, the manufacturer of the camera provides a firmware provided by the the author and owner of the firmware. You are right, it's not like Microsoft and HP where HP has no control over what Microsoft does yet they are liable. In this case, Dahua has full control over their hardware and software. The camera would end up going from Costco to Q-See and then back to Dahua nnyway and if they don't know how to flash the camera back to stock, then there's something wrong. If Q-See was that interested in protecting their camera from un-authorized updates, they could put in code to check to see if this is an official Q-See product and reject generic Dahua updates.

 

They went through the trouble of making the port number 85 on purpose so people would not use them independantly for their NVR's, so if you use it with another NVR, is that in violation too of what Q-See has intended? Afterall, having access to the web interface means you can change parameters and maybe they don't even want you do that.

[rayt 0]

I dissagree, the manufacturer of the camera provides a firmware provided by the the author and owner of the firmware. You are right, it's not like Microsoft and HP where HP has no control over what Microsoft does yet they are liable. In this case, Dahua has full control over their hardware and software. The camera would end up going from Costco to Q-See and then back to Dahua nnyway and if they don't know how to flash the camera back to stock, then there's something wrong. If Q-See was that interested in protecting their camera from un-authorized updates, they could put in code to check to see if this is an official Q-See product and reject generic Dahua updates.

 

They went through the trouble of making the port number 85 on purpose so people would not use them independantly for their NVR's, so if you use it with another NVR, is that in violation too of what Q-See has intended? Afterall, having access to the web interface means you can change parameters and maybe they don't even want you do that.

 

sent you a email, Time to brick some cameras.

[vin2install 0]

Yes manufacturers can fix it, but it wastes their time and money doing so (shipping, testing, fixing etc. If you don't know what you are doing and you brick the camera with an unauthorized firmware, you shouldn't be doing it.

[buellwinkle 0]

sent you a email, Time to brick some cameras.

 

Would love to brick one but just left for the week on business.

[rayt 0]

sent you a email, Time to brick some cameras.

 

Would love to brick one but just left for the week on business.

 

ok i will brick my costco camera when it arrives, but the distributor gave it to me, and i trust them.

[Kawboy12R 0]

So you don't think they could have different firmware for different distributors? The same way there is different versions of Andriod for different devices. Could it work yes but is it right to abuse there return policy so you can test it I think not.

 

Different firmware for different distributors? Apparently. Different hardware for different distributors? Doubt it. Reasonable chance for success? Definitely. Abuse of the return policy if the person did it in good faith without malicious intent to destroy a product? No. Does it involve a small degree of experimentation with unofficially distributed firmware? Yes. Would I return a cam *I* had bricked? Depends on how sure I was that it should've worked. Would I condemn someone else for not throwing out a cam that they did their due diligence on and availed themselves of a retailer's return policy? Nope.

 

All kinds of items get returned as unworking to box stores, department stores, etc. Many of these are simply because the people failed to read the directions or misunderstood what exactly the product does when purchasing it. This is part of their business model. Anybody who buys something has a right to try it out and see if it they like it. If it doesn't "click" for them, even if the item is changed or damaged in the course of them trying it out, they get to return it subject to the conditions in the store's return policy. Some even state that the item must be in mint condition and in its original packaging so they can resell it if the item functioned properly. Costco doesn't. Guess what? They're still making a killing.

[thewireguys 3]

I get it now you just want to stick it to the man. " title="Applause" />

[Kawboy12R 0]

Not at all. I'm not a malicious person. I've been a Costco member for years and buy a few thousand dollars a year from them. The only thing I've ever returned there so far was one flashlight that, ahem, "failed to flash" right out of the box. I simply see flashing firmware as a normal expected use of a product with upgradeable firmware. If it fails when someone does it then I see nothing wrong with returning the defective product as long as it wasn't done with the sole intention of bricking the camera to cause harm to Costco and/or QSee.

 

The morality is in the intent to harm. Besides buellwinkle's sarcastic or satirical post about getting together with another member to brick some cameras, the only direct intent to harm evident in this thread was YOUR (hopefully tongue in cheek) thoroughly unprofessional attempt to find out if I had a webstore so that you could intentionally harm ME.