Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bug In Fire TV Screensaver Tears Through 250 GB Data Cap

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the should-have-stuck-to-xscreensaver dept.

Bug 349

jfruh (300774) writes Tech writer Tyler Hayes had never come close to hitting the 250 GB monthly bandwidth cap imposed by Cox Cable — until suddenly he was blowing right through it, eating up almost 80 GB a day. Using the Mac network utility little snitch, he eventually tracked down the culprit: a screensaver on his new Kindle Fire TV. A bug in the mosaic screensaver caused downloaded images to remain uncached.

cancel ×

349 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's 2014 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47367967)

Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?

Oh, that's right, greed.

Re:It's 2014 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47367993)

Canada here. I would kill for a 150gb cap..I have 80gb.

Re: It's 2014 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368127)

Only 10 GB? That's rough.

Re: It's 2014 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368319)

500 GB in Winterpeg.
MTS offers unlimited.

Re:It's 2014 (1)

master_kaos (1027308) | about 2 months ago | (#47368353)

Where you located? If in Ontario, check out teksavvy or start.ca. Also check out your provider, a lot of them recently have been offering unlimited for an extra $10-30 a month depending if you have stuff bundled with them or not.

Re:It's 2014 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368367)

start.ca, decent caps and unlimited 2-8am

Re:It's 2014 (5, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about 2 months ago | (#47368001)

Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?

Because we still have antiquated data lines and switches and whatnot that can only handle so much total bandwidth.

I don't care for caps either, but if they protect my paid-for bandwidth from abusers like Mr. Hayes (yes I know, it's not his fault, whatever it's still keeping me from streaming) then I'm ok with it to a degree.

Re:It's 2014 (3, Insightful)

RobertJ1729 (2640799) | about 2 months ago | (#47368055)

And why do we still have antiquated data lines and switches and whatnot when we are paying through the nose for internet access?

Re:It's 2014 (3, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | about 2 months ago | (#47368187)

Because of greed.

Re:It's 2014 (1, Informative)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47368241)

infrastructure's expensive.

Re:It's 2014 (5, Informative)

e3m4n (947977) | about 2 months ago | (#47368309)

you are already paying for this... SEVERAL times the goddamn major TELCO's lobbied congress for additional charges...

FEDERAL SUBSCRIBER LINE fees
UNIVERSAL SERVICES FUNDs
FEDERAL ACCESS fees

these all exist so the FCC can give ATT more money to build broadband to every home. Yes the USF predates the 1994 telecom act and later laws, but its constanty evolving. The FCC, right this minute, is considering USF charges on your internet connection as well.

the telcos got government permission to bill you and everyone else extra BILLIONS to build out an infrastructure that was supposed to provide 50Mbps connections to the homes. Instead they rolled out DSL (at the time 1.5mbps x 256kbps) which was a technology they already had and pocketed the rest. To this day you are still being charged these extra fee's for a buildout that was declared 'completed' years ago.

http://www.newnetworks.com/Sho... [newnetworks.com]

Re:It's 2014 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368473)

The Universal Services Fund doesn't pay for that kind of infrastructure. It's a fee levied so all schools and libraries can (hopefully) have equal telecommunications access. Those entities apply for funding to offset costs in poorer districts. It's not without problems, but they don't just fork over the money to the telcos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Rate [wikipedia.org]

Re:It's 2014 (0)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 2 months ago | (#47368681)

AT&T gets minimal benefit from the USF. The vast majority goes to medium and small rural telcos. AT&T would be ecstatic if USF were cancelled tomorrow.

Re:It's 2014 (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 months ago | (#47368347)

And why do we still have antiquated data lines and switches and whatnot when we are paying through the nose for internet access?

Government bans competition. You can't very well expect an agency that claims a "natural monopoly" to not consider other "natural monopolies" both wise and judicious.

Community fiber is still the answer - there are just so many hurdles that make it slow in coming.

Re:It's 2014 (2, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 months ago | (#47368571)

Government bans competition. You can't very well expect an agency that claims a "natural monopoly" to not consider other "natural monopolies" both wise and judicious.

Not true. Anyone can start an ISP as long as they are willing to pay for the infrastructure to deliver the last mile connection to their customers.

Community fiber is still the answer - there are just so many hurdles that make it slow in coming.

You just criticized both the government and lack of competition and your answer is to eliminate competition and let the government run it?

Re:It's 2014 (1)

Lobachevsky (465666) | about 2 months ago | (#47368715)

No, last mile requires city hall approval. Tough luck getting approved by folks who don't know you and don't care.

Re:It's 2014 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368593)

Where are the penalties for the companies that took billions from the government to upgrade their equipment (internet - which is what connects towers together for cellular networks), that then used the money for executive bonuses, blow and whores.

Re:It's 2014 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368203)

>that can only handle so much total bandwidth.

That has nothing to do with traffic.

Re:It's 2014 (2)

tokizr (1984172) | about 2 months ago | (#47368233)

It migh have in the sense that the data cap limits how much people actually browse/stream/etc, so they don't go over it. Which in turn reduces the total bandwidth.

Re:It's 2014 (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 2 months ago | (#47368609)

He has cox cable and probably the same plan I do. Cox's view is if you are going over the 250GB cap then they will work with you to find out why if it's your legitimate usage they'll ask you to upgrade {or help you install their security package if it's virus related} but they don't charge overages. {if you don't upgrade and constantly go over the cap they will suspend your account}

I have two rokus, two xboxes every tv streams media somehow and I have both netflix and hulu but only local stations on cable. Streaming entertainment is the default for my family of 5 and I don't usually go over 200GB. My monthly average is around 160GB

Re:It's 2014 (1)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 months ago | (#47368717)

I would have to agree with you. 250GB/month is a lot.

~8.3GB/day or ~347MB/hour or ~520MB/hour for 16 hours assuming you sleep 8 hours a day.

Your average Netflix 2 hour HD movie is about 1.6 to 1.8 gigs in size.

Don't get me wrong, I think monthly data caps are crap and shouldn't exists.

Why do we have screen savers? (5, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 months ago | (#47368059)

Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?

I would ask why we still have screen savers. Turning off the monitor automatically after a period of inactivity to save power I understand. Having it still draw power to put pretty images on the screen when you aren't using it is a pointless exercise. Screen burn-in is not a big problem these days, particularly if you have the monitor/tv turn off when not in active use.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (4, Informative)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 months ago | (#47368085)

Burn is a huge problem on plasma screens and there are still lots of those out there, there is NO WAY a set top box maker should be shipping something without a screen saver on by default!

It would be nice if they had settings to turn it off if you wanted and maybe even send a CEC power off to the TV if you like, but at the very least set top boxes still MUST have a screen saver. Now in another 10 years when most of the plasma TVs have been put out to pasture, it will be a different story.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368121)

LCD's can also burn in to some extend. It's non permanent, but a pixel can become lazy after displaying the same full on state (typically black) for a few hours. The afterimages go away after half an hour or so but it can still be annoying.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (1)

DocSavage64109 (799754) | about 2 months ago | (#47368181)

We get donated equipment where I work, and I have seen lcd monitors with burn in that is visible even while turned off!

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368189)

Yep, happened to my monitor too. Gnome3 keeps a big black bar at the top of the screen, and this was causing serious polarization on my monitor, I was really surprised when I booted up windows one day and saw a big bar of discoloration at the top of the screen. Stopped using Gnome3 ever since.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (2)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about 2 months ago | (#47368231)

Do you also see a huge bar at the bottom of the screen in Gnome 3? Or do you just not use Windows all that much

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368729)

When was the last version of Windows to have a black bar at the bottom?

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368199)

Burn-in hasn't been a real issue on plasma in nearly a decade. Even plasma screens that show static images for days on end can have the image retention removed by simply watching a couple hours of non-static content. If you have true burn-in, not just image retention, on a modern plasma TV then you bought a junk brand that uses junk panels.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368221)

Burn is a huge problem on plasma screens and there are still lots of those out there, there is NO WAY a set top box maker should be shipping something without a screen saver on by default!

No, the display should power down, not display some random crap.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368371)

Displaying random crap can sometimes "heal" LCD persistence.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 2 months ago | (#47368603)

DPMS or whatever the HDMI equivalent would seem to make far more sense.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 months ago | (#47368721)

It would be nice if they had settings to turn it off if you wanted and maybe even send a CEC power off to the TV if you like, but at the very least set top boxes still MUST have a screen saver.

My TV turns off after 5 minutes of no input, this is a factory setting I can override. (disable, change timeout...) If the device can't be configured to turn itself off or vblank instead of screen saving then it's crap.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | about 2 months ago | (#47368099)

This isn't a monitor, it's a TV. And burn-in is an issue if you have a plasma TV. I would almost argue it is worse than old CRTs. I find the problem happens when you're watching Netflix and the show ends and you are off doing something else or otherwise occupied while it sits at the menu on the Roku.

Does HDMI allow the video source to tell the TV to turn off the display after inactivity? I guess the device can turn off. I think TVs tend not to do that though. Instead, they power up the display and put a no signal message on the screen that often bounces around to prevent burn-in.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 months ago | (#47368607)

You can't have burn in when it's a blank black screen. Turn off the video signal to the monitor and let the power saver mode kick in.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368343)

Retro is in you know.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (1)

sremick (91371) | about 2 months ago | (#47368397)

Burn-in is also a problem on OLED screens (having experienced it first-hand). As we see more and more of these, the issue will regrow.

But I agree: auto power-off is preferable.

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (5, Interesting)

DraugTheWhopper (3525837) | about 2 months ago | (#47368601)

I would ask why we still have screen savers

Although it isn't a hard-and-fast rule, screensavers nowadays are less about preventing burn-in and more about utilizing idle displays. For example, on a Linux-based machine, it's not unusual to have screensaver options that let you display the system load and uptime. Photo screensavers are another prime example. If I'm in my home office for an hour at a time, but only using the computer for 10 minutes, why not have my otherwise idle screen act as a large digital photo frame? You are correct in asserting that power consumption is an issue, but display technology has come a long way, so my 24" monitor draws much less power than my 19" CRT. Reducing power usage is a wonderful slogan, but modern society has a very poor grasp on exactly how much power their devices consume compared to their microwave, water heater, air conditioning, dusk-to-dawn lighting, and other amenities. It's great to hear that your cell-phone charger now reduces it's power consumption by 95% when not in use, but do you have any idea how that compares to an running your AC and heat an extra day each fall/spring, microwaving your pre-cooked meal every other night? /rant

Re:Why do we have screen savers? (1)

houghi (78078) | about 2 months ago | (#47368635)

I have never used a screensaver in my life. I either turned off the monitor, or I want to use it. I also never let it go out by itself, as I have a need to do nothing with a screen for a longer period, while still be able to see it. I do understand that others might be too lazy to turn off their screens when they leave for more than say 15 minutes, so the auto-off of the monitor might be good for some.

The only places I have seen burned in screens is where a screensaver would be no good. e.g. data and callcenters where the same information will be shown all the time.

That all does not mean we do not should get rid of datacaps. One has nothing to do with the other and we can have both" No screensavers AND no datacaps. So your wuation should be (as is often the case) "I would ask why we ALSO still have screensavers."

Re:It's 2014 (4, Insightful)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 months ago | (#47368071)

More to the point, its 2014 - do we have to have screensavers?
The original reason for a screensaver was to prevent phosphor burn on the old monochrome CRT screens. They make no sense in this day of digital LED and LCD screens. These days the best screensaver is turn off the display, especially on mobile devices to save battery, but it would also be good for plugged in devices, tp save power (probably generated by burning some carbon containing fuel.

Re:It's 2014 (1)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about 2 months ago | (#47368259)

I've never ever had burn-in issues with my 19" Philips CRT bought in 2005. OTOH, I've had a pretty severe case of burn-in on a SGS2 AMOLED display, but the tech is much younger so it's not entirely unexpected.

Re:It's 2014 (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47368267)

why do we have mouse pads?

Re:It's 2014 (1)

netsavior (627338) | about 2 months ago | (#47368307)

because most Ikea furniture is incompatible with optical mice (even higher-end high DPI ones). at least that is why I still use them.

Re:It's 2014 (2)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47368407)

i didn't know ikea sold high-DPI furniture, even on the higher-end lines.

Re:It's 2014 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368341)

"we" do not, perhaps you do? then you might be able to answer the question yourself.

Re:It's 2014 (1)

master_kaos (1027308) | about 2 months ago | (#47368375)

Yeah I haven't used a mouse pad in over 10 years.... Just use it directly on the desk.

Re:It's 2014 (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47368427)

then why do people still buy them? I have a mousepad with my face on it.

Re:It's 2014 (1)

e3m4n (947977) | about 2 months ago | (#47368361)

the roku screensaver is effective and simple.. its the word ROKU moving from spot to spot on the screen every 10 seconds or so. I see no reason to have anything more elaborate. A blank screen could be confusing when switching inputs and you want confirmation that its working without having to go find the damn remote.. seeing that floating ROKU tells me I switched over to that input, or it tells me my harmony remote is confused and i need to use its 'help' button to get it back in sync with the input the TV is really on.

Re:It's 2014 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368391)

Because lots of people have plasmas? (At least until very recently, they were a much better deal in terms of picture quality per $.)

Re:It's 2014 (5, Insightful)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 2 months ago | (#47368389)

Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?

Oh, that's right, greed.

Why does a screensaver, on a TV no less, need the fucking internet?

Isn't that a battery powered device? (-1)

jandrese (485) | about 2 months ago | (#47367985)

He must have left his Kindle plugged in constantly. Sucking down 80GB over WiFi every day is a sure way to kill the battery.

Re:Isn't that a battery powered device? (2)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 2 months ago | (#47367995)

Kindle Fire TV is a set top box...

so yes, he did leave it plugged in constantly.

Re:Isn't that a battery powered device? (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 2 months ago | (#47368013)

Sorry, Fire TV, no Kindle in the name

Kindle Fire TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368003)

Not a tablet.

Re:Isn't that a battery powered device? (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about 2 months ago | (#47368007)

Fire TV is a set-top box.

Expect this to happen more constantly (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 2 months ago | (#47368015)

with several home appliances going IP. And this was just a bug, not a worm/virus.

Why can't (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 months ago | (#47368033)

I don't like caps. I don't think they should sell you bandwidth and than charge for data. I also understand the need for ISPs to over subscribe. Its simple economics most users are going to use very little of the bandwidth most of the time.

I suspect a lot of throughput is consumed by malfunctioning stuff that dumbly makes the same requests over and over and things like this. Why can't the ISPs just kill the caps and let customers know in a not so threatening letter, "hey I think you have a problem Did you know your port is lit up at 80% capacity 24-7 if you do that's find but if not there is probably something really wrong on your network"

Re:Why can't (1)

Warbothong (905464) | about 2 months ago | (#47368133)

Or just provide a usage-over-time graph, so customers can see there's a large base-line usage when they're not even at home.

I'm with Andrews & Arnold and I can see this usage data by logging into their Web site.

Re:Why can't (0, Flamebait)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47368271)

I'm with Andrews & Arnold and I can see this usage data by logging into their Web site.

why are you with two dudes

Re:Why can't (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 2 months ago | (#47368365)

Why do you presume that it's two dudes? Perhaps it's Julie Andrews [imdb.com] Charlotte Arnold [imdb.com] ...which would be an odd relationship to say the least.

Re:Why can't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368459)

What problem do you have with Warbothong being with two dudes?

Re:Why can't (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 months ago | (#47368173)

I don't think they should sell you bandwidth and than charge for data ... let customers know in a not so threatening letter, "hey I think you have a problem Did you know your port is lit up at 80%

Actually if they were charging by-the-bit then such a thing would be almost certainly be standard and required. The 250GB cap is sort of a bastard step child of not-charging-by-the-bit and not-charging-for-bandwidth - perhaps the worst of both worlds.

But, anyway, many ISP's have people with ports like that - they're usually doing heavy torrenting. The trouble here is that Amazon probably won't accept any responsibility for their error and the damage it caused.

And it's also astonishing that they didn't notice huge spikes on their end - does nobody buy these things?

Re:Why can't (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 2 months ago | (#47368287)

And it's also astonishing that they didn't notice huge spikes on their end - does nobody buy these things?

they just assumed usage was through the roof!

Re: Why can't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368191)

Because they should be common carriers and not be analyzing my traffic or writing me letters. Faggot.

Re:Why can't (3, Interesting)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 2 months ago | (#47368331)

When you grow up and buy a house, you're going to be shocked how other utilities work. They charge you for the capacity of your connection, then charge you for the amount of product you move through it. Water for example. My last house was around $62 to have the 1/2" connection. That's it. Just the potential to move water into my house. That cost went from about $35 for 1/4" to hundreds of dollars for larger pipes. Once I flushed a toilet, the usage meter started ticking and I paid $2.73 per 100 cubic feet of water. The usage rate was constant all the way from a 1/4" to 6" connection. That's how all the utilities were set up. A monthly fee for the connection based on capacity, a per-unit cost for the amount delivered. And, if you have a water leak, they rarely give you a warning. They just send a bill.

Cable and internet are the oddballs that charge a flat "connection" rate with no metered usage. That works for cable TV but not so much for internet which functions more like water or electricity. Trouble with internet is they'll cut you off for using "too much" of their product but don't give you a way to purchase more of it. I wouldn't mind the caps so much if they'd give an accurate measure of usage and the option to purchase additional product at $10 per hundred gigs or so. That seems reasonableish to me. But they don't want you paying for the product that you use. They want you paying for product that you don't use.

Re:Why can't (1, Troll)

hab136 (30884) | about 2 months ago | (#47368471)

Bandwidth isn't like water or electricity. You either use it in the moment or don't. You can't save it for later.

Not using bandwidth at 3am doesn't help the traffic jam at peak time (6pm). ISPs have to build enough infrastructure to handle peak times - they have to have larger pipes - but it doesn't actually matter how much bandwidth you use except for peak times. There's no good reason to meter traffic during non-peak times.

I'm not saying metering is a good idea - as I understand it, simply increasing bandwidth is often a cheaper option and better for users - but metering during non-peak times is just greed.

Re:Why can't (3, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 2 months ago | (#47368667)

Bandwidth isn't like water or electricity. You either use it in the moment or don't. You can't save it for later.

So, you don't have caches in your world?

It's really about data, not bandwidth. Just like your utilities connection is about water or electricity, not pipes or wires.

In fact, that's what this *article* is about--the TV should've saved data for later, but didn't.

Re:Why can't (1)

mlk (18543) | about 2 months ago | (#47368525)

I pay a flat rate for water as well. :/

Re:Why can't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368373)

I don't like caps. I don't think they should sell you bandwidth and than charge for data.

Yeah, I get this 200A breaker in the basement and then the power company has the gull of charging me per kWh too!!

Personally, I don't mind caps, provided they are fair priced. For example, at a collocation facility, you can get 1TB of data @ 10Gbps for about $20. So with markup for ISP, they should not be charging more than about $30/TB.

ISPs should be regulated like utilities because that's what they are.

Re:Why can't (1)

Jiro (131519) | about 2 months ago | (#47368549)

Hardware can use more electricity depending on how much you use it, but there are physicall limits as to how much more. Your TV isn't going to triple your electricity usage unless your usage pattern is such that you can expect that even before plugging in the TV. You certainly aren't going to find one TV tripling your electricity usage and a second TV not doing so solely because the first TV has a manufacturing defect.

Similar bug in iOS (0, Offtopic)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 months ago | (#47368035)

I have experienced a similar bug in my iOS devices. Everytime they do a small update to iOS, you're required to redownload the entire operating system, separately for each device you own. We have an iPad and 3 iPod touches (kids...) in the house, and every time Apple issues an Update to iOS we go through quite a lot of extra bandwidth. It's also annoying that we have to clear off 4GB on the device to install the update, as they only come with 12 GB of useable space to begin with.

I know that this isn't really a bug, but just goes to show you how little most device and app designers think like regular people. It's as if the people testing the devices just use the internet in the office and don't think about the consequences of using too much data, and that they only use the 64 GB versions of the devices where it's much less of a problem to clear off the required space for upgrades.

Re:Similar bug in iOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368129)

But does it consume tens of Gb each and every day?

Please stick to comparing like with like. OS Updates (of any kind) are totally different to an application sucking down huge amounts of data for no good reason.

Re:Similar bug in iOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368393)

A caching issue? check!
An updating service? check! (one updates software, the other data as images)

ofcourse they are similiar enough to bring up.

Re:Similar bug in iOS (1)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about 2 months ago | (#47368165)

Actually, OTA minor version updates are only deltas. The image is significantly smaller than if you update from iTunes on a computer; as that's a full image.

Re:Similar bug in iOS (1)

MrP- (45616) | about 2 months ago | (#47368169)

Hmm that doesn't make sense. iOS updates are delta updates and have been since they first introduced the feature where you can update on the device itself.

Only when doing complete version upgrades (e.g. iOS 6 to iOS 7) does it download the entire OS. Or if you download updates via iTunes instead of on the device.

I just updated my iPhone 5S yesterday from 7.1.1 to 7.1.2 and it was just a 32mb download.

Re:Similar bug in iOS (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 months ago | (#47368217)

Haven't really looked into it too closely, but for some reason it requires that I have 4 GB free to do the update. And the download time for the download part of the update definitely seems like it takes longer than doing a 32 MB download. Perhaps the behavior is different on iPod touch and iPad because they aren't downloading the files from the cellular network, and therefore they assume they can use lots of bandwidth.

Re:Similar bug in iOS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368223)

Jeebus man, configure a squid proxy and stop whining.

Re:Similar bug in iOS (0)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 months ago | (#47368291)

Yes. That is just such an appropriate thing to suggest to an Apple user.

"You know that company you use because you are a n00b or just lazy? You now need to become a network admin to deal with the stupid stuff they do."

Re:Similar bug in iOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368285)

Can't you use usb, or an SDcard ?
Oh Apple, sorry for your loss.

Re:Similar bug in iOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368329)

Apple is junk... we've been telling you this for years. Get rid of your apple junk & get something decent.

Re:Similar bug in iOS (2)

frinkster (149158) | about 2 months ago | (#47368339)

I have experienced a similar bug in my iOS devices. Everytime they do a small update to iOS, you're required to redownload the entire operating system, separately for each device you own.

As others have mentioned, the full download occurs only if you update via iTunes and not on the devices themselves.

However, if you buy the OS X Server app from the App Store, it includes a "caching server" that provides a local cache for all Apple downloadable content. It's US$20, so that's a big bummer. But you only have to buy it once and if you have to pay for all that extra bandwidth it might be worthwhile, not to mention all the other "features" you get with the Server app.

I'd like to see Apple make the server app free - it's reasonable to keep it a separate app - or if not, to roll the caching feature into a future iTunes release.

A bug today, a feature tomorrow... (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 2 months ago | (#47368049)

Once we're all paying "by the byte" for metered service, that is.

Latency (1)

robstout (2873439) | about 2 months ago | (#47368119)

Assuming that the rate is constant, that's 7.5 Mbps for image files. Just how large are these imaages, and how much bandiwdth does he have where he wouldn't notice the slowdown?

Re:Latency (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 2 months ago | (#47368163)

Obviously the software is downloading far more than necessary. You can stream 1080p in fairly nice quality with that kind of bandwidth. Unless his screen saver runs at a few frames per second it seems like overkill.

Re:Latency (1)

mlk (18543) | about 2 months ago | (#47368543)

By running the screensaver on The Cloud we can save each home device from having to process the images.

Not a bug (0)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 2 months ago | (#47368195)

Feature working as expected :-)

If some idiot leaves a space heater running 24/7.. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368207)

Do you blame the power companies for charging per Kilowatt hour or do you blame the person who left the heater running for the massive bill that will follow? Do you feel that person shouldn't have to pay the power company because it was just an innocent mistake and the utility is just being too greedy?

Re:If some idiot leaves a space heater running 24/ (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368323)

I would blame the company that made the Space heater if it had a timer that was supposed to shut it off and it failed to do so.

Re:If some idiot leaves a space heater running 24/ (4, Insightful)

ThomasBHardy (827616) | about 2 months ago | (#47368429)

I have a hard time equating the cost center of a power company generating finite amounts of power that is sold to users with the "mostly fixed and generally stable" cost of maintaining connectivity for the IPSs.

You do realize that we're not "consuming 1s and 0s that the ISP has to go out and manufacture, right?

I'm not suggesting that every person should have the ability to have unlimited speed and unlimited capacity(bandwidth), but lets not paint a picture of US IPSs as working tirelessly to upgrade infrastructure and provide lower cost, improved service. It's not a competitive market, driving towards improvement. It's in their best interest to raise prices any way they can, such as through caps. It's Not in their interest to spend billions on new infrastructure to improve services and lower consumer costs, because they have no true competition driving market forces to make them improve.

Re:If some idiot leaves a space heater running 24/ (2)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | about 2 months ago | (#47368617)

Probable old school Slashdot troll, but what the hey, I'll bite. I won't even mention their complete refusal to upgrade our decaying infrastructer because that would just be too easy. When you consume a Kilowatt you are consuming an actual resource. This is a unit of energy that requires a certain amount of fuel to generate. There is actually a potential compounding effect with it's usage since the power company has to plan to over produce in order to prevent potential brown outs. So a rising trend in power usage over a long enough period of time will cause a shift in the power generated by the plant. This is why we except that the do-do running the space heater will except the monetary penalty involved with being a moron.

On the other hand a Kilobyte is an abstraction that is used to quantify data, it is not finite resource. This is not a commodity and the cost of it's existence is covered in the static overhead of the entire operation. There is hardly anything (as far as the ISP is concerned) consumed by its use, and if it is not used then it is not wasted and it's existence adds nothing to their cost of operation.

Too infinity... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368229)

Too many gadgets.

My 13yo son is just discovering fishing, Despite not fishing myself, I think that the patience (and fine-motor skills) that he will learn from that will have a more positive impact on his life than the never-ending quest for more gadgets and more stimulation from the visual media.

No more bread and circuses!!!

Never allow unrestricted access by random apps (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368235)

What really blows my mind is how people willingly give applications and devices unfettered access to their internet connection. Not only can they eat through bandwidth, but it can be used for malicious purposes. How to you know that such apps aren't touching some URL that involve CP? You won't know until the feds come bashing down your door.

80 GB of images... (1)

ThisIsAnonymous (1146121) | about 2 months ago | (#47368239)

That's a lot of image in one day...so I'll assume we mean high resolution porn images...

QA QA? (1)

Coditor (2849497) | about 2 months ago | (#47368247)

We don't need no stinking QA on that screensaver. What could possibly go wrong?

I am sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47368269)

A mistake, I am sure.

The problem with the state of streaming (1)

Revek (133289) | about 2 months ago | (#47368437)

They always seem to focus on the wrong things. Content providers are so worried that someone might watch something they payed for once, more than once. Must you buy a DVD to do this. People accept that they can watch a dvd more than once but don't require the same for streaming services. Here is a unit that is supposed to cache content and it gets it wrong. Netflix and others account for 2/3 of our bandwidth at times. They(netflix) do offer some type of appliance that will locally cache things at our headend but it still uses a major amount of bandwidth itself. Streaming is inefficient. This is obvious and correctable but no one seems to be looking in that direction. I hate the cloud concept since it doesn't accurately represent the topology of the internet. However to continue its reign on the masses imagination I give you this addtion. Steaming companies don't utilize the reservoirs owned by the people they are raining on to mitigate their impact on the environment. In the old days that would trigger government regulation. Today?

This comes to less than 7 Megabits (0)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 months ago | (#47368615)

7 Megabits is not much on a 50 Megabit connection; it's less than 15%. I say... perhaps the more bugs like this in popular consumer devices, the better. Better still if the 'bug' can't be blocked by the SPs without breaking the device.

It will help accelerate the rate at which residential ISPs have to start getting rid of stupid data caps ---- and start delivering more of the promised capacity.

Tech writer Tyler Hayes had never come close to hitting the 250 GB monthly bandwidth cap imposed by Cox Cable — until suddenly he was blowing right through it, eating up almost 80 GB a day.

Little Snitch (3, Informative)

mindstormpt (728974) | about 2 months ago | (#47368629)

The summary is obviously wrong: Little Snitch, as a local traffic monitor, was only used to rule out his Mac being the culprit. He got to the Fire TV by trial and error.

No screen saver (1)

p51d007 (656414) | about 2 months ago | (#47368679)

Another reason I don't use "screen savers", live wallpapers or any of that other "make it look pretty" garbage...OVERHEAD. Live wallpapers eat up GPU resources & CPU resources, screen savers aren't really "needed" these days like they were in the old CRT monitor days. I use a black wallpaper, no screen saver, set my monitor to sleep mode after 20 minutes of non use. Cuts down on CPU/GPU overhead. Also, I keep my desktop icons in a folder, cuts down on screen refresh and keeps the desktop nice and tidy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?