USB WIFI Compatibility List is Misleading

WD Legacy Products WD TV Live Hub Discussions
1

PSA

On the device compatibility list for the WD TV Live Hub found HERE it specifically says:

“The following devices have been tested and are known to be compatible with the _ WD TV Live Hub Media Center _ (using firmware 3.01.19)”

Note the firmware version listed is the current version (as of this posting) and on the list is the

New! Belkin N1 Wireless USB adapter F7D1102tt 1000tt

I purchased this exact device and revision based on the list stating that it works on this exact firmware version which my WD TV Live Hub is on and I can confirm that it does NOT work on this version of the firmware. I was however able to confirm its compatibility with a previous version of the firmware which I rolled back to. I assume this is something that can be rectified with a firmware update but in my opinion WD needs to modify the list until it is once again correct, either by removing items no longer compatible or by changing the firmware number.  I hope the release a patch for this issue soon, I wasted time and money buying and returning a few adapters which turns out would have worked if the list had not been misleading and/or the firmware not been flawed.

1 Like
2

The blame is not entirely WD’s. Occasionally a device that has worked on several earlier firmwares will no longer work with a new firmware for one reason or another. WD does not go back and retest approved devices to make sure they still work and relies on reports from users to correct any issues. Until such reports, they assume that a previously approved device will continue to work. As you found out, this can sometimes leave a gap in the approved hardware, but it would be unreasonable to expect WD to retroactively test every device with every new firmware iteration.

3

“The blame is not entirely WD’s” 

I get the rest of what you are saying but I’m having a hard time determining who else (besides the ones who make the product wrote the list and changed the firmware)  could be at fault.

My reasoning is that they chose to make a list of “compatible devices” with no disclaimer that they may have been tested on old firmware and may no longer work. I feel them directly stating that THIS device WILL work on THIS firmware, when it does not, is irresponsible for a company like WD. I would expect better, but that is just me. The thing that really got me was next to the one I decided to trust in it said “NEW” so how could I go wrong right? Its new so it was probably tested with the newest firmware right? I mean it specifically says compatible with this version of the firmware… I guess not.

If they would not be willing to retest the devices with each release I think they could at least add to the list the latest known compatible firmware in an additional column on the table.

4

Miami_Son wrote:

The blame is not entirely WD’s. Occasionally a device that has worked on several earlier firmwares will no longer work with a new firmware for one reason or another. WD does not go back and retest approved devices to make sure they still work and relies on reports from users to correct any issues. Until such reports, they assume that a previously approved device will continue to work. As you found out, this can sometimes leave a gap in the approved hardware, but it would be unreasonable to expect WD to retroactively test every device with every new firmware iteration.

Actually it’s called regression testing. Many product developers (SW & HW) create a suite of tests that are run prior to release of updates. The suite is both software and hardware inter-operability as well as looking for new and old bugs. Since WD’s bread and butter is in hard drives, I suspect the hub development team is a few guys in the corner thus testing is skimpy at best. Having your customers beta test your products can be risky a business decision but if the hub goes away due to customer frustration, it won’t hurt their bottom line.

I’ve seen people complain about WD adding a plethora of new features to the hub without fixing old problems. The thing is they have your money. Now they need to entice the guy who didn’t purchase last year to purchase this year. So the goal is to add as many bullet items to the product description as possible, not to make sure last year’s bullet items still work.

I tend to disagree with “the blame is not entirely WD’s”. Of course it is. They’ve just decided to do it that way. Am I happy with crossing my fingers the thing doesn’t crash everytime I press a button? Do I expect WD to make the box more stable for me? No to both. They don’t need satisfied customers, just new ones.

1 Like
5

Chip, this is not about WD testing thewir own products. This is about interoperability with someone elses product. How can you really hold a manufacturer responsible for that? There should be some disclaimer on the list, but expecting them to go back and test each previously approved wifi adapter with the WDTV every time they make a firmware revision is ludicrous. WD needs to be responsible for THEIR products and how they work, not those of some other company. The Hub isn’t even marketed as a wireless device. That is supports it with some 3rd party devices is a bonus.

6

I agree with Chip…   

If WD is going to publish a list of tested adapters, they ought to re-test them with those versions and keep the list accurately tied to the version specified at the top of the bulletin.

7

Miami_Son wrote:

Chip, this is not about WD testing their own products. This is about interoperability with someone elses product. How can you really hold a manufacturer responsible for that? There should be some disclaimer on the list, but expecting them to go back and test each previously approved wifi adapter with the WDTV every time they make a firmware revision is ludicrous. WD needs to be responsible for THEIR products and how they work, not those of some other company. The Hub isn’t even marketed as a wireless device. That is supports it with some 3rd party devices is a bonus.

I’m missing the fine distinction here regarding interoperability vs. testing. The hub plugs into TVs, USB drives, networks, etc. Those attached products are not made by WD. Each type of hardware I/F can have a wide range of operating modes. The hub also supports a very wide variety of file formats with all sorts of subtle container formats. It’s amazing it works as well as it does given all of the HW/SW combinations involved.

That said, on every new FW release, WD doesn’t simply recompile their code and upload to their web server. They at least physically plug the hub into multiple reference TVs, drives, networks, etc and check for interoperability (i.e. is their code going to break it) . Same for file formats. Do they include their list of WIFI adapters? Hard to tell but that’s no different than a TV. If they list as working with a device then they have some owness to make sure that’s the case. Blame is the wrong word. Ownership is probably a better choice.

I’ve been involved with SW/HW releases similar to this and we literally did have a room full of TVs we’d test with. Also as customers identified problem models, we’d purchase those particular sets and include them in the regression pool. It’s called quality control. I suspect WD has outstanding QC on their disk drive FW as you can’t reflash in the field. The hub has a smaller team, much more varied operating environment, and a very fluid set of requirements. Bugs are sure to abound here (and they do). Frustrating for customers? (yes). Expected? (yes!).

Every company has a disclaimer that they aren’t responsible for any harm resulting from use of their product. No need to separately identify a list of WIFI adapters.They’re covered under their general disclaimer.

8

Miami_Son wrote:

Chip, this is not about WD testing their own products. This is about interoperability with someone elses product. How can you really hold a manufacturer responsible for that? There should be some disclaimer on the list, but expecting them to go back and test each previously approved wifi adapter with the WDTV every time they make a firmware revision is ludicrous. WD needs to be responsible for THEIR products and how they work, not those of some other company. The Hub isn’t even marketed as a wireless device. That is supports it with some 3rd party devices is a bonus.

You say “This is about interoperability with someone elses product. How can you really hold a manufacturer responsible for that?”

well the answer is…

WD chose take on the task of publishing a list of compatible devices and the responsibilities that go along with it.

As I said previously if they will not re-test the devices they should list what firmware each device has been confirmed working on.

Again WD is a big company, they are not some small working out of a garage business… They have (from what I have seen) a good solid reputation for being reliable, as a customer I assume they were reliable with the list that specifically states that their product WILL work with this wifi adapter. I trusted them and they had misleading and false information published on their website and it cost me money because of it. I am not looking for restitution but I feel like the issue should be addressed in some way so that others don’t make similar mistakes.

9

That list is provided as a courtesy. It does not come with the device. Should they also test every USB drive available? There are standards for USB wireless adapters. It is up to the manufacturers to make their individual devices comply with the standards. WD is responsible only to make sure the port is compatible with the standards. How can they be liable for the devices that plug into it? If you look at the list you’ll see that there are some devices that are approved only with an earlier revision and some only with a later one. That means the device manufacturer changed something that made the same device compatible/incompatible with the Live Hub. DO we really want WD taking time from fixing their own firmware bugs to go back and retest every device on the list every time that manufacturer releases a new revision or firmware for its product? I want WD to concentrate on fixing the things that need fixing or that they broke with their latest firmware, not doing another company’s R&D for them.

Would you rather there was no list at all and we were left to guess what might work? I looked at the list, found a device and bought it from a store with a liberal return policy in case it didn’t work.

10

" The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from." Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Unfortunately standards compliance doesn’t insure interoperability. Also non-complying products by large industry suppliers can’t be ignored. For example if Sony produced the first 10 million TVs using HDMI ports that were no-so-compliant, later HDMI products may need to support that variance. Other vendors simply can’t tell customers, we got it right and Sony has it wrong. Those purchasing from “other” vendors will make use of liberal return policies. Believe me, it happens a lot. The first guy out sets the “standard”.

That’s why vendors test for interoperablity to some baseline level. Regardless, WD could do better with internal and external testing. It’s a niche device that’s pretty slick anyway. It works enough most of the time on a FW version. The world isn’t perfect.

11

Miami_Son wrote:

That list is provided as a courtesy. It does not come with the device. Should they also test every USB drive available? There are standards for USB wireless adapters. It is up to the manufacturers to make their individual devices comply with the standards. WD is responsible only to make sure the port is compatible with the standards. How can they be liable for the devices that plug into it? If you look at the list you’ll see that there are some devices that are approved only with an earlier revision and some only with a later one. That means the device manufacturer changed something that made the same device compatible/incompatible with the Live Hub. DO we really want WD taking time from fixing their own firmware bugs to go back and retest every device on the list every time that manufacturer releases a new revision or firmware for its product? I want WD to concentrate on fixing the things that need fixing or that they broke with their latest firmware, not doing another company’s R&D for them.

 

Would you rather there was no list at all and we were left to guess what might work? I looked at the list, found a device and bought it from a store with a liberal return policy in case it didn’t work.

You are missing the point, WD has posted FALSE information for their customers to read and that is not okay. They need to do something about it.

Ill break it down.

“Should they also test every USB drive available?” 

No. What does that have to do with the list of wifi adapters? This statement seems to be unrelated and non constructive.

They don’t test every wifi adapter and they are not expected to do that either, so what was your point here?

“It is up to the manufacturers to make their individual devices comply with the standards. WD is responsible only to make sure the port is compatible with the standards.”

I agree only as of the latest firmware the port is NOT. They broke the compatibility with several standard wifi adapters including ones on their list.

“How can they be liable for the devices that plug into it?”

they are not but when they made a list claiming device A works on firmware B they assumed some responsibility for their claims.

“If you look at the list you’ll see that there are some devices that are approved only with an earlier revision and some only with a later one.”

I bought the exact revision the list says is compatible with the current firmware and it is not. but it is on a previous firmware.

“DO we really want WD taking time from fixing their own firmware bugs to go back and retest every device on the list every time that manufacturer releases a new revision or firmware for its product?”

No but they need to list what firmware the devices WERE tested on, then we can chose to gamble and see if it works still or not, but to outright claim a device works on a particular firmware when it does not is irresponsible for them as a company.

“I want WD to concentrate on fixing the things that need fixing or that they broke with their latest firmware, not doing another company’s R&D for them.”

This would not being another companies R&D and I am not suggesting they should I am only suggesting they not post false information.

“I looked at the list, found a device and bought it from a store with a liberal return policy in case it didn’t work.” 

That is fine for you, maybe you were satisfied with what you could find at such a store but that is not the case for everyone and therefore it is important that the list not have flat out false information.

The bottom line is the list has information that is false and there is no reason to support having false information on there. I don’t know why you think that it is OK for them to distribute misleading information.

12

PyRO1 wrote:> You are missing the point, WD has posted FALSE information for their customers to read and that is not okay. They need to do something about it.

 

Ill break it down.

 

Sorry to hear you’re having problems with your adapter but unfortuantely many WD hub users have had to compromise and run older FW for one reason or another. The USB list you are referring to is no different than the SW feature list for the hub. Guess what? Some of those features are broken on newer firmware. As I mentioned, it’s a complicated system.

WD is free to publish any information about their products. Unless you can prove this false information was intended to decieve, it’s simply incorrect because of a FW problem. They are liable for damages no greater than the cost of the hub. (check the laywer fine print). Since that change resulted in “damage” (i.e. you purchased a product that no longer works) you’d have to prove that for any compensation. Obviosuly you’re not going to do that.

So you’re welcome to rant on about what WD did and should do but it’s just more effective to:

  1. Report the issue

  2. Roll back to a FW that works for you now

  3. Stop using the hub if it’s really that big of an issue.

Since you probably purchased just 1 hub, you’re not going to dictate how WD does business. That’s the way it goes.

13


 

So you’re welcome to rant on about what WD did and should do but it’s just more effective to:

  1. Report the issue
  1. Roll back to a FW that works for you now
  1. Stop using the hub if it’s really that big of an issue.

 

Since you probably purchased just 1 hub, you’re not going to dictate how WD does business. That’s the way it goes.

I am not interested in ranting or holding WD reliable for “damages” that’s not what this thread was intended to be. I simply wanted to bring attention to this situation so people could be informed. The list is somewhat inaccurate and since WD doesn’t mention on the list’s page that some of the listed items may no longer be compatible I decided to mention it here. If people know that the list is not a guarantee they can try purchasing a wifi device at a store with a “liberal return policy” to be safe. I made the mistake of taking the list as fact since it was published by WD and I trusted that it was accurate and I bought from a retailer with a less liberal return policy. I though I would try to either inform people here about the situation and maybe someone from WD would see it and look into it. (I do not know if they monitor the community forum or not, nor do I know if the mods here have any influence on such matters.)

I realize the thread took a different turn after someone began to say that there was nothing wrong with the list and I disagreed with them and I explained why.

14

Did you try contacting WD directly about this? That would have been time better spent. Yours is the first I’ve seen of such a complaint and there is no way for us to know if it is a truly valid complaint or something else.

15

TonyPh12345 wrote:

I agree with Chip…   

 

If WD is going to publish a list of tested adapters, they ought to re-test them with those versions and keep the list accurately tied to the version specified at the top of the bulletin.

Or, what would also have been better in hindsight, as an alternate to all that testing, would have been to not keep altering the page to specify the newest release.

Leave it as “these were tested with this [original] version”.  Then when support is added in future firmwares, add further lists specific to those firmwares (culled from the release notes).

Then they wouldn’t have the issue of an update breaking compatability, or someone buying a newly-released adaptor and trying it on an out-of-the-box device that they haven’t (or don’t want to) updated.

Sure, in a perfect world, updates wouldn’t break any compatabilities, but at least there’d be the (semi-lame) “well, we never said it was tested with that version…” answer until the bug is fixed.  And folks would know what they could and couldn’t roll back to in order to get it working in the interim.