Firmware Update Kindle Paperwhite Update Warning

[Rizla]

I spent hours last night trying to fix this, more time today demanding that Amazon downgrade my version again, and filing a complain against their underhanded tactics, to no avail.

Originally Posted by flandroid

(heh, 'demanding,' hoho, 'underhanded)

Nothing wrong with "demanding" in that sentence. You are making yourself look rather silly.

[flandroid]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Nothing wrong with "demanding" in that sentence. You are making yourself look rather silly.

Among native speakers of English, 'demanding' tends to carry an unpleasant/entitled/authoritative weight that's generally uncalled for in polite company, unless you're in court or in the military. My experience is that asking for something will get you much farther than demanding it. (even if the answer is 'no,' you'll get a nicer 'no')

As a fun experiment, next time you're dealing with someone and have a particular outcome in mind, DEMAND it rather than ask for it and come back with your observations.

[conan50]

Somehow I think down the road we are going to have a real battle keeping control over our own devices and hardware. I'm not convinced that Amazon really thinks we own these devices. My own experience was that my two Kindle Fire tablets went from interesting ads on the screen lock pages originally to gaudy and obnoxious as time went on. My choice was to get rid of the tablets. But with Amazon becoming the defacto e-bookstore on the Internet, I don't think concern and caution regarding any update from them is out of line. My two cents.

[flandroid]

Did you buy a Kindle Fire because it was the best tablet available, hardware- and software-wise? Or was the price point a concern? Similarly-specced tablets without a leash to a particular company's ecosystem cost considerably more. Where is that deficit going to be made up? Is Amazon just going to give you that extra hundred bucks, extra gigabyte, extra gigahertz, out of gratitude? It owes you no goodwill, it merely owes you a product that is delivered as described. Which it delivers on. Business, not charity. TANSTAAFL, and all that.

Edit: to tie it back to the original topic at hand:

• consumer buys device, uses it in a way which is outside the device's intended and promised scope
• device manufacturer pushes update to device, update reverts user's device back to performing as promised and intended, possibly offering usability and security improvements at the same time
• user throws a fit, cries to heavens, earth and Amazon, saying 'give back to me that which I was never promised'
• other, well-adjusted, impossibly-handsome user (hi, yours truly), says 'actually...'
• intermission, refreshments

[dpbmobi]

I've read the comments above with interest. I was not rude with the Amazon customer service representatives, because that rarely gets you anywhere, but I made it clear how I felt. And, believe me, if you don't demand change, you're not going to get it. I knew that they weren't going to do anything to resolve this issue, but I thought one more complaint might shift the attitude a tiny bit when dealing with the next irate customer. Who knows?

If nothing else, I will be very grateful to this wonderful site and the people who run it if one person has seen the original posting and disabled their wireless option. That was my intention, which is why I put it up as a warning. If I had known about the stealth attack, I never would have allowed my friend to check on her purchases. My recollection is that before this Amazon notified me of updates, and left it up to me to take advantage of them or not. This was different.

I strongly agree with those who cite the "your device, your rules" approach to hardware. My Kindle was out of warranty, and I did not want or request customer assistance with the software I installed. I always alter the OS on my computers to suit my needs, and understand that I do so at my own risk. It's usually a matter of compensating for some shortcoming in the technology, in this case a reading device that doesn't support ePub books.

But I'm afraid that those who say this interference with personal technology devices is just the beginning are right as well. Amazon, along with other high-tech corporations, is a de facto monopoly, if not strictly one by law. It is best judged by its behavior: price-fixing and differential pricing, content removal, silent upgrades, copyright infringement, tax evasion, anti-labor campaigns. These abuses are well-documented in Wikipedia articles and in the mainstream press.

I'm very, very grateful to those who helped me get back my ePub option and dial back this software-from-hell. It's great to be reading again. I'm afraid I'm going to have to post other questions concerning fonts and so forth, but I'll do all the research I can before bothering others.

Next stop, Kobo.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by flandroid

I thought I spoke my points fairly and was, in fact, disagreeing with the opinion (or two opinions, I suppose, eventually). I don't think I insulted anyone, I suppose 'tantrum' is up for debate but I can't imagine the phone conversation with Amazon was particularly level-headed. I'm standing by it.

"tantrum" is not up for debate, it simply is. Insulting, that is.

And you don't actually know what happened in that phone call, you are merely assuming.
Either way, you should still not be judging.

EDIT: refreshing the page before hitting "submit reply" is critical also, I was right.

You might, and I wouldn't consider it an insult, though apparently you would, as you're holding similar sentiment in my replies as such. You might even be committing an infraction against the bit of the posting guidelines you quoted, only you're doing it more passive-aggressively than I might have.

Why, yes -- I was aware that you don't consider it a problem. Just like I don't consider it a problem if someone, ah, doesn't know the "Conditions imposed on the use of a product". Or they do know, but disagree.
That was my point. As well as the fact that there is actual ignorance, and ignorance-which-might-just-be-a-difference-of-opinion.

Originally Posted by Anthem

It's kinda like turning a lawn mower into a helicopter, and then complaining when the company recalls a certain component of the lawn mower that, thanks to what you have done, will bork your helicopter modification.

No, it's kind of like complaining when the company sneaks into your house in the middle of the night and replaces a component that has an updated version.

Originally Posted by flandroid

Speaking only for myself, I'm fine with people being able to buy a second-hand Kindle on eBay without worrying that the browser has been modified to add a keylogger; others may disagree. The manufacturer has every right to protect its users (and itself) from wrongful or malicious use of the hardware, especially to avoid circumstances such as those described by Anthem above, or worse. But especially in these cases, where the provider and the device are inextricably linked by branding, allowing modified software to run could be a legal/publicity/financial nightmare -- user buys a hacked Kindle, runs to CNN yelling 'Amazon let Russian hackers steal my identity,' pitchforks outside Amazon HQ.

Just curious Does the same thing apply to the average Android smartphone or Windows computer?


Answer: Don't buy used devices unless you know what you are doing. Used devices fundamentally aren't as delivered by the manufacturer, for a variety of hardware- and software-related reasons.


And I note that you say you jailbroke your Kindle, despite believing that people shouldn't modify them?

Originally Posted by flandroid

Did you buy a Kindle Fire because it was the best tablet available, hardware- and software-wise? Or was the price point a concern? Similarly-specced tablets without a leash to a particular company's ecosystem cost considerably more. Where is that deficit going to be made up? Is Amazon just going to give you that extra hundred bucks, extra gigabyte, extra gigahertz, out of gratitude? It owes you no goodwill, it merely owes you a product that is delivered as described. Which it delivers on. Business, not charity. TANSTAAFL, and all that.

That deficit is made up when you buy things through the integrated store. But if you shoved it in a drawer and never turned it on, Amazon would not be making money.
Mandatory updates and device lockdown do not make a company money, sales do.

Amazon sells devices at near-cost, as an incentive for you to buy from them.

Edit: to tie it back to the original topic at hand:

• consumer buys device, uses it in a way which is outside the device's intended and promised scope
• device manufacturer pushes update to device, update reverts user's device back to performing as promised and intended, possibly offering usability and security improvements at the same time
• user throws a fit, cries to heavens, earth and Amazon, saying 'bring back to me that which I was never promised'
• other user (hi, yours truly), says 'actually...'
• intermission, refreshments

That is one way of looking at it.

Personally, I find that using my Kindle in a way outside its intended scope makes it work better.
If not, I wouldn't have bothered messing with it -- what, do you think I waste my time trying to de-optimize my Kindle???


To get back to the original topic :

• Consumer buys device, modifies personal property to suit user's needs.
• Device manufacturer pushes update to device, device is no longer as promised or intended, nor is device as delivered and subsequently modified. Device is, in fact, some third entity entirely, which manufacturer blithely promises is "better". Maybe it is. That is a subjective opinion.
• User is upset. Calls manufacturer, complains, says "stop preventing me from using my device the way I want to. You don't own it anymore."
• Other user argues that first user should not be allowed to modify his device, perhaps because manufacturer owns trademark and branding of device. Accuses first user of throwing tantrums.
• Argumentation and hullabaloo.
• Other user continues disparaging the idea of anyone doing as he has done.

You would expect to control which updates your computer gets, why should your Kindle be any different?
(And Microsoft did try to take away that ability in Windows 10. And desktop users had a cow. MS backed down, released a tool to block selected updates. At no point was their trademark under dispute.)

[Steerider]

Originally Posted by Anthem

The problem with this is that the last few decades have shown us that if you don't at least "nudge" your users to upgrade they often become forgetful, fearful, or downright cantankerous with the upgrade process. Or ignore it completely.

And yet, what happened here is they didn't "nudge" me at all. They took control of the device without warning while I was trying to use it.

They should have asked first. At minimum they could have let me wait a day – or even a week. And THEN if I didn't update maybe they could have pushed it. This was not some vital security update (unless they're lying to us as well.)

[Steerider]

I'm for the most part with eschwartz on this one. It reminds me of a science research team that needed a powerful computer array, so they bought a bunch of Xboxes and installed Linux. Microsoft sells them at somewhat of a loss because the profit comes in selling games. Nonetheless, Microsoft did not RENT the devices, they SOLD them, and rightfully had no say in what somebody did with them after the fact.

Ditto an ill-fated company called Digital Convergence, who handed out thousands of free CueCat bar code scanners, then complained when people modified them to operate as normal scanners. Sorry guys, once you hand it out it's not yours any more. (The company did not survive their poorly-planned campaign.)

[Kasrielle]

Long story short - is there a way to adjust my settings, either on my device or on the amazon site, so my kindle does not automatically update when I take it off airplane mode?

[mandy314]

@Kasrielle
There was an easy way to block the execution of updates on a Kindle (PW1) reported some time ago: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=219986 - that worked on non-jailbroken devices iirc.

In short: create an empty folder named "update.bin.tmp.partial" (without the quotes) in the root directory - updates will be downloaded but not executed. Does it work on latest firmwares and/or on newer devices than a PW1? I don't know and can't test it.
All credits to richy1989

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by flandroid

Among native speakers of English, 'demanding' tends to carry an unpleasant/entitled/authoritative weight that's generally uncalled for in polite company, unless you're in court or in the military. My experience is that asking for something will get you much farther than demanding it. (even if the answer is 'no,' you'll get a nicer 'no')

As a fun experiment, next time you're dealing with someone and have a particular outcome in mind, DEMAND it rather than ask for it and come back with your observations.

That's debatable. Lol.

[eschwartz]

@mandy314,
The rigged filename trick has been "fixed" by Amazon in the recent firmware. I think fw>=5.6.0, though it may have applied to one or two slightly older firmwares? Can't remember.

@Kasrielle,
Currently the only reliable way is to either keep your WiFi off, add a 3+ GB file to the root of the userstore (so the update physically has no room to download), or install the BackDoorLock hack, which *should* block updates, but might itself need an update the last I heard.

Needless to say, Amazon themselves certainly won't offer you any method.