[fortran77]

Is this really the best way they could come up with? I do understand the problem though. And why did they change the pattern between firmware versions? Were they getting false hits, or was it just too hard to do?

This is a lightbulb! Who is the intended audience. The Internet of Things really isn't ready for the general public.

[seren]

As a software guy working on embedded systems, working with HW guys, more often than not the SW is always considered "free" while the cost of the BOM is always scrutinized to the cent.

I am pretty sure in this instance the initial design had a reset button, and someone had the great idea to remove it to gain a few cents.

Be sure that the people working are sure this is a really poor design, but often cost considerations trump common sense.

[bdamm]

My bets are that the firmware developers never had a problem because they're JTAG'd, simulated, or running insecure firmware with a built-in back door, and it wasn't until late in the product cycle where the need was even discovered (likely by a QA team.) At that point, this is the best they could come up with.

[seren]

This could also be possible and more charitable for the poor HW guys I have denigrated, but at some point, someone (Product Manager?) has decided to go ahead with that weird pattern, which seems a bit odd.

[pkaye]

This got a lot of attention on the internet for its sheer complexity recently. The second pattern is the older one and a little more complicated than the first. The problem is there is no place to put a reset switch on the bulb while it is plugged in. However I've seen similar things with resetting stuff like key remote on cars.

[Dylan16807]

Unless something is deeply wrong with the design, the intended audience is "almost nobody".

How often have you had to reset a device to factory default? I've only done it as part of changing the OS on a router.