Motorola Droid camera autofocus fixed in secrecy? (Update: it's a date-related self-correction)
Update: Sure enough, we can confirm from testing one of our own Droids that the issue has been resolved. The endless quest for the green focus box is over, and you can now finally begin scanning all your discount cards into Key Ring.
Update II: And things have turned surreal. Dan Morrill, from Google's Android team, has confirmed that there's a date-related bug in the Droid's camera software that leads to it having cycles of good and bad focus that depend on the date. Our own testing confirmed this, as backdating to the 11th of November returned those red bars of failure. Apparently, the cycles last 24.5 days, meaning that you'll have good focus all the way to December 11, when the real fix is expected to drop. So breathe easy, Gotham, there are no phantom updates, just an oddly date-sentient camera.
[Thanks, AlexL and Kaiser]
Read - Android Forums
Read - Howard Forums
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Alex @ Nov 17th 2009 7:46AM
Any chance you could post some samples now that it can autofocus properly?
Ben @ Nov 17th 2009 7:48AM
Clearly it repaired itself. Obviously you aren't giving the "robot phone" enough credit. ;)
Buster @ Nov 17th 2009 10:25AM
Working great on mine as of today, was just showing my cow-worker the issue yesterday then saw this post and tested it out.
Poke4Christ @ Nov 17th 2009 10:46AM
Anyone besides me unnerved by the fact that it was completely silent and there was no way for the user to know about or prevent it? Sure, it was good for the phone, but if this was my phone I don't want anyone having control over it to install something silently without even letting me know. I'm still holding out hope that (like desktop computers) we'll be able to have complete control over our phones without letting any outside body have any security rights or access to it through the network. IMHO, that is just not right and it brings into question the true ownership of the device. If we truly own it, then our networks shouldn't have any access rights to it.
lockstocked @ Nov 17th 2009 11:15AM
thats exactly what I was thinking. what else could they do to your phone? or rather what information could they easily peruse?
Mike @ Nov 17th 2009 1:17PM
Holy cow. Then go live on a militia compound and communicate by string-and-tin can or by carrier pigeon. Oh, wait, the pigeon could be shot down and tortured for information. And someone could tap into your string and steal your intel.
The carrier already has all your vital info from your contract. And they access your call info for billing. It's not like they went in and messed with your phone book or accessed your e-mail. They fixed a phone bug, and they saved you the effort of having to do it yourself. Were you not going to fix your camera to prevent Big Brother from getting inside your phone? Any fix you do involves the carrier tapping into your phone, whether you initiate it or the carrier initiates it.
You give your credit card to some anonymous waiter in a bar or restaurant who can copy your credit card number and do who knows what with it, and you're worried about phone updates? Say hi to Oliver Stone for me.
Poke4Christ @ Nov 17th 2009 1:52PM
Lockstocked: Thanks for the vote of support.
Mike: I'm not sure you really get the my point here. It's the difference between the phone and the network. Think of your computer at home. You pay someone for internet service and you own your computer that you use to access it. Would you want your internet provider having the ability to go into your computer and execute programs, change settings, or implement updates without your knowledge? Of course not. No company in the world would be able to get away with that. Yet it is considered ethically acceptable for almost the same practice to happen on phones which really aren't that different from your desktop. In fact, if you run android or the iPhone it has linux or Unix core. The same one used in Ubuntu or OS X respectively.
Your argument of what we send over that network service is valid, but it's not a valid counter-argument to what I'm saying. It's another category. With my computer at home I take on a level of risk every time I send an email, browse the web, or download a file. We all decide if that is an acceptable risk in some way.
However, when our network service provider has rights to access our hardware, that is something else entirely and is (though not currently recognized as such in the industry) completely unethical. Imagine if we could only purchase our internet enabled computers from our service provider. Imagine if we had to rely on them for any updates and were locked out of controlling and managing them ourselves. Imagine if they decided what we could and couldn't do with that computer. That's the reality we are living in with cell phones today and for some reason no one is raising hell. I'm starting to think I just might.
Lex Sky @ Nov 18th 2009 3:56AM
Poke4Christ, with a name like that you shouldn't be raising any type of hell.
They can see what u do on the internet and they can hear what u say over your phone. However they cannot control what you install/uninstall on your phone. Do a clean rom install if your so worried and find a fix on your own for any problem.
Just make sure to keep that tin foil between you and your phone, though.
stnkyminky @ Nov 17th 2009 10:59AM
@poke - then you shouldn't sign contracts with carriers and then use their towers.
Heath @ Nov 17th 2009 11:11AM
Huh, yesterday morning my Droid was unresponsive. It was like the battery was totally dead, even though I had charged it the night before. I finally got it working by taking out the battery for a second. I wonder if it was a coincidence?
Mia @ Nov 17th 2009 11:18AM
@stnkyminky seriously, you got his point, why water it down with the cad... when we buy the phones even when its subsidized up front, its suppose to be ours because by god, if we loose the phones we sure as heck will pay for it. the fact that the carrier or motorola sent the update through without even notifying the owner is not right and shows the true vulnerability to our personal security. You may not be so important "stnkyminky" but I reckon someone in the White House, or the military, or just high powered people who use their smart phones for everything could be compromised without some sort of warning to either accept or not accept an update...regardless of who's tower we are using.
Steve @ Nov 17th 2009 12:18PM
Mia, quit being thickheaded. Do you remember the whole Obama BlackBerry debacle? The government doesn't use consumer grade smartphones for their mission critical, ultra secure communications. The only smartphones you'll see in the White House are the Qualcomm QSec or the General Dynamics Sectera Edge. Manufacturers and carriers pushing updates to phones is nothing new, and they're not interested in whatever pointless communications you make on a daily basis. Take your tinfoil hat off, it's cutting off the circulation to your brain.
Mia @ Nov 17th 2009 12:29PM
ok...you got a slight laugh out of me...however name calling really isn't that kind is it? The point is, if the technology is their to send anything a company wants into a cellphone and nothing gives a update notice, then it has chances for abuse. The fact that you love Obama is not my problem. Your dismissive tone with fantasies about me wearing a tinfoil hat for your mental pleasure was not necessary. The moderator was the one who posed the question about "secrecy" to invite viewpoints. So really the question remains, who hurt you in your life that you would have to be so attacking in your banter back to a perfect stranger??? Peace out.
Bluecat @ Nov 17th 2009 9:19PM
ROFLMFA! Good one Mia.
Vux @ Nov 17th 2009 12:36PM
*** UPDATE #2 ***
This was *NOT* a silent over the air update.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/motorola-droid-camera-autofocus-fixed-in-secrecy/2#comments
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1591518
-----
AlexL @ Nov 17th 2009 9:13AM
Here's a crazy theory. What if there was no silent fix pushed out, but rather the autofocus code was broken because specific states of the clock was interfering with the operation of the autofocus code? So when a certain time/date passed, the issue no longer exists and the code became functional by itself. Sounds crazy I know, but not without precedent (something like this happened to first generation Zunes). Maybe someone can try setting the date to an earlier one and see if the autofocus magically breaks again.
-----
travisw @ Nov 17th 2009 11:15AM
Just changed the date back to 11/11 and got red boxes. Went back to 11/17 and got green boxes again. Could be something to it.
-----
Matt Cutts @ Nov 17th 2009 11:24AM
AlexL, is there an easy way to set the time or date or the Droid? I don't have one myself.
-----
Dan Morrill @ Nov 17th 2009 11:26AM
Yes, this is exactly what is happening.
There's a rounding-error bug in the camera driver's autofocus routine (which uses a timestamp) that causes autofocus to behave poorly on a 24.5-day cycle. That is, it'll work for 24.5 days, then have poor performance for 24.5 days, then work again.
The 17th is the start of a new "works correctly" cycle, so the devices will be fine for a while. A permanent fix is in the works.
-----
chronoquestion @ Nov 17th 2009 11:39AM
Same here tried the camera, works perfectly. Set date to 2 days camera stops working. Reset date back to today worked perfectly again.
--------------------------------------------------
Might want to update the story Vladislav
Poke4Christ @ Nov 17th 2009 1:55PM
This resolves the issue of this specific circumstance, but it doesn't resolve the issue of the real overall problem on network control (and the lack of control on our side) of our phones. For what I'm talking about, see my posts above.
Asia @ Nov 17th 2009 1:19PM
Who would have ever guessed that so many phone enthusiasts were also conspiracy theorists?
Po Panda @ Nov 17th 2009 3:49PM
Good Gawd! Enough already! And stop trying to bring Obama into all this! Life is hard enough without having to bear the thought that he is in charge of this cluster gaggle that we are in now... Good Griefus!
Po Panda @ Nov 17th 2009 3:51PM
Sorry Asia, that was meant for 'Mia'
Jacob @ Nov 17th 2009 1:32PM
BTW the wifi issue was fixed with this too.
waterdell @ Nov 17th 2009 1:54PM
Looks like it’s fixed now.
http://www.youmobile.org/blogs/entry/Motorola-Droid-AutoFocus-issue-fixed-
Mark @ Nov 17th 2009 1:55PM
Am I the only one that didn't have any noticeable issues with autofocus before?
Ben @ Nov 17th 2009 2:20PM
Mine took decent pictures before, just always had red bars, now they're green :).
I'm still going with the phone fixed itself ;).
ck1 @ Nov 17th 2009 3:22PM
Unbelievable (in the "I do believe it, but... Holy Smokes, Batman!" sense). To myself, a non-programmer, that there is a possibility of such unintended and dependency between seemingly disparate aspects of the OS is frightening. You know, the kind of fear that makes those of us with sub-400 IQs perfectly content to leave Android's programming up to the Goog. Or does that explain things??
jk--now, who can't wait for the NEW DROID to be revealed after December 11?
ck1 @ Nov 17th 2009 3:24PM
Sorry, meant "unintended dependency"
please forgive
RotaryDial @ Nov 17th 2009 3:22PM
The Droid has become SELF AWARE!!
Po Panda @ Nov 17th 2009 3:50PM
Watch out! Verizon is now SKY NET!!
Po Panda @ Nov 17th 2009 7:48PM
Maybe they should have named it, "Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101 Version 2.4" instead of just 'Droid'...
Pusta @ Nov 17th 2009 4:01PM
I for one welcome our self repairing cell phone overlords....
kahri @ Nov 17th 2009 5:18PM
1- OMG, my gadget now repairs itself! It's everything I ever wanted!
2- OMG, my gadget now repairs itself! It must be evil. get out of my head!
3- a bug in the software only affects it until a certain date. Oh well.
fastharryDOTcom @ Nov 17th 2009 6:52PM
So, a Phone that gets a period every 24 days and acts cranky.....BUT, a fix is in the works. Here's hoping Google is on top of a fix that can be used in "real life".....
Po Panda @ Nov 17th 2009 7:39PM
Female AI? Hmmm...
Martin @ Nov 18th 2009 7:51AM
Wow, a phone so advanced it has a menstrual cycle and exhibits PMS!!! SCARY!!!