Flashing cameras, Costco, and doom for all retailers?

[groovyman 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.

Manufacturers have been doing this for years. The casing may look the same, but the guts could have slight or major differences.

 

Additionally, a manufacturer can have different revisions of the same model. Firmware intended for Rev A may not be suitable for Rev B. I work with alot of networking equipment and whenever I download firmware for a specific piece of equipment the manufacturer could have different firmware for different revisions. It can certainly be the case for cameras and DVRs as well, especially if the equipment is re-branded.

[groovyman 0]

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.

I agree. However the discussion focuses on upgrading with firmware obtained elsewhere, not from the company who's name is on the product. In situations like this there's a reasonable expectation that the firmware might not work and damage the product. So, in my opinion, if the upgrade results in damaged equipment the responsibility lies with the end user. The manufacturer, reseller & retailer should not be made party to that mistake.

[buellwinkle 0]

No warnings on the product that prohibits this and no safety precautions in the product that prevents this, so the onus on them to protect their product from damage which they could easily do.

 

You want a totally off the wall analogy, think McDonalds in the case of Liebeck vs. McDonalds where Liebeck was injured by McDonalds coffee because McDonalds made the coffee hot and she was not warned that it would be so. McDonalds could have prevented this by serving cold coffee or warning the customer, but chose to do neither. The average person would say that coffee is traditionally served hot and Liebeck should have known better, yet the court saw otherwise.

 

So in theory, we can sue Q-See for damages caused to us by a camera bricked by Dahua firmware because they didn't make any attempts to warn me or prevent me from this damage. Hence, I contest that the least of their worries is having the product returned. Maybe Liebeck tried to return the hot cup of coffee but the cashier refused leading to an aware of $160,000 to Leibeck not to mention all the legal costs and bad publicity to McDonalds.

 

Yes, McDonalds and Q-See are in different lines of business, I know, you don't have to post that this is different. But tort law applies to all products, not just coffee and cameras. So if Q-See refused to fix the problem, they could open themselves up for a class action lawsuit. Frankly, I would not think twice about trying this in court.

 

Another example is Axis. DropCam provided their own firmware on an Axis camera that they sold as cloud based surveillance. A customer on another forum complained that they couldn't do what they wanted. Axis provided Axis firmware to fix the issue but then it was no longer able to work with Dropcam. Axis stood behind their product even though it was an OEM version they sold without firmware to Dropcam. Axis is a stand up company, Costco is a standup company, Dahua, not so sure, maybe.

[thewireguys 3]

So in your eyes it's everyone elses fault when you try to experiment with firmware that wasn't designed for that distributor and you would have no problem suing Dahua if the camera was bricked.

[buellwinkle 0]

Yes, I blame Dahua totally, 100%. Why would I sue, Costco will take it back, but if they didn't, sure, small claims court, they would likely side with the consumer, not a retailer for not taking back something they said they would take back unconditionally.

[groovyman 0]

No warnings on the product that prohibits this

QSee places the following warning in their firmware update readme files:

CAUTION: Updating the firmware incorrectly or using an update on the wrong DVR can permanently damage the chipset on the DVR and make it unusable. Please verify that this update is written for your model and follow the instructions. Also, updates are written to either resolve performance issues or to add features to the DVR. Since any update could fail and cause problems, if you are not experiencing the issue the update was written to resolve, or you do not need the feature that is added by the update, please do not run the update.

 

The following is also stated concerning warranties:

Liability Exclusions:

Any product malfunction, abnormalities in operation or damage caused by following reasons are not within the free service scope of our company. Please select payable service.

(1) Equipment damage caused by improper operation

 

and no safety precautions in the product that prevents this, so the onus on them to protect their product from damage which they could easily do.

Oy vey That statement is a keeper though.

[groovyman 0]

I think I'll go pour some sugar in my gas tank then sue GM for not protecting their product against my stupidity.

[folgersoldier 0]

Most devices today check the firmware themselves to see if it is a compatible file before updating it. Most of the time you have an issue with an incorrect firmware file is if you have the correct file and it is corrupted or if you are using something other than the manufacturers software to flash the firmware, besides not letting it finish, power issues etc. This thread caught my eye as I have purchased two dahua IP camera systems over the last month. I would be pretty surprised if their is nothing in their software that checks this.

 

Just curious why do you want to flash them? Are the Q-see cameras not working with the Dahua NVR's?

[rayt 0]

I think I'll go pour some sugar in my gas tank then sue GM for not protecting their product against my stupidity.

gas cap area says unleaded gasoline only. they are well protected.

 

but on the side note, if the firmware is wrong for the camera, and fails a crc check some other check, it shouldn't take it, there is a good chance that q-see. considering that q-see does customize the firmware ever so slightly, theres a good chance it will just say invalid firmware, but no way to tell until someone gives it a try.

Most devices today check the firmware themselves to see if it is a compatible file before updating it. Most of the time you have an issue with an incorrect firmware file is if you have the correct file and it is corrupted or if you are using something other than the manufacturers software to flash the firmware, besides not letting it finish, power issues etc. This thread caught my eye as I have purchased two dahua IP camera systems over the last month. I would be pretty surprised if their is nothing in their software that checks this.

 

Just curious why do you want to flash them? Are the Q-see cameras not working with the Dahua NVR's?

i believe currently q-see cameras will only work with the q-see nvr, and nothing else.

[buellwinkle 0]

QSee places the following warning in their firmware update readme files:

CAUTION: Updating the firmware incorrectly or using an update on the wrong DVR can permanently damage the chipset on the DVR and make it unusable. Please verify that this update is written for your model and follow the instructions. Also, updates are written to either resolve performance issues or to add features to the DVR. Since any update could fail and cause problems, if you are not experiencing the issue the update was written to resolve, or you do not need the feature that is added by the update, please do not run the update.

 

The following is also stated concerning warranties:

Liability Exclusions:

Any product malfunction, abnormalities in operation or damage caused by following reasons are not within the free service scope of our company. Please select payable service.

(1) Equipment damage caused by improper operation

 

and no safety precautions in the product that prevents this, so the onus on them to protect their product from damage which they could easily do.

Oy vey That statement is a keeper though.

 

It says DVR, not IP camera, so not applicable. Also, what's "improper operation", very subjective. I could argue that they purposely hid the HTTP port number so that people would not make configuration changes to the camera via the web interface and that may be construed as "improper operation". Heck, I had to run port scanning software used for hacking just to find what the port number is. So to me, that's more of "improper operation" than installing a firmware release you found on the 'net. Even using the cameras outside their NVR may be construed as "improper operation".

 

Has anyone tried to install the Q-See firmware on a Dahua IPC-HFW2100? That way you can use it with the Q-See NVR. Or update the firmware on the Q-See NVR with Dahua firmware.

 

This argument can easily go on for years. Please, someone do it and put this argument to bed.

[groovyman 0]

C'mon - you're not enjoying this? I am. But, you're right. Neither side is going to budge, cases have been made, let the chips fall where they may. On to other topics.