My blender manufacturer has retroactively revoked my ability to make smoothies, and my auto manufacturer says I am no longer able to transport groceries.
If you still have access to your purchased content, then there is no law suit, let alone a class action one. You Americans.
On second thoughts, I take that back. Thanks to you Americans, there probably will be a class action law suit. But I doubt that it will be successful. You still have access to your purchased content.
There will however be a new entry at https://killedbygoogle.com/ [killedbygoogle.com] , and that one will succeed.
I don't own a Roku set-top box ir a Samsung, LG,... smart TV and never have, so by Slashdot house rules this clearly makes me the entity best qualified to give a final, authoritative comment on the matter. [*]
Which is:
You're not only buying the content; you're buying a device with a specific feature, namely to access said content in a specific way. So, yes, class action waiting to happen. It's like somebody turned your blender into a set of knives plus a juice press overnight, and their defense is "you don't get to sue because you can still chop the carrots". Sorry doesn't work like that.
[*] I'm also not American, which means that your "+1 NotAmerican" bonus is powerless with me.
... more a case of better consumer protection legislation required.
Whilst I agree that a class action suit is probably quite likely, it should not be necessary for consumers to have to file a civil suite against a cavalier vendor/technologist in a situation like this. And no, in case anyone pipes up with, "But all that will happen is that vendors will display huge disclaimers all over the place", that's not a solution, because "reserving the right to alter a product or surface" after *purchase* can mater
a) you can still access any movies you purchased through YouTube. You've lost nothing.
b) the apps available on a smart tv or other device can change over time. Where on earth the expectation arises that any given app should be available in perpetuity I don't know, but it's certainly not a right enshrined in law. There is no case.
Where on earth the expectation arises that any given app should be available in perpetuity I don't know, but it's certainly not a right enshrined in law.
It's enshrined in convention. Normally, software is forever. Ok, so mplayer forks and now you play your movies with mpv, but really: same thing.
It's mainly with proprietary services, that we see the big exceptions. Let's not kid ourselves that anyone actually cares about Google's app (or Amazon's or Netflix's or Disney's app). The apps are only relevant bec
To expect a very specific app to be available forever is insane. Let's be real here. Google has 3 apps that essentially deliver similar content - just from different sources. They want to manage 1 app and use 1 IP for branding. You are going to sue them for merging their services and branding, and then telling you to install the new app for those services??? Same provider and same content, just 2 less apps that they wanted to manage for the same content delivery.
Are you talking in retrospect as if they can see the future? Apps evolve over time and business decisions change.
You post as if Youtube always had the ability to rent movies and tv shows. It didn't. They probably saw that people were uploading and searching for them on their platform, and google thought it would be a good decision to sell them there too. Premium content wasn't always on Youtube. They were added to evolve the services. Google Play Movies make no sense, since google is maintaining 2 feature a
People are saying Roku printed it on the box, said it in ads, etc. If that's true, then surely it was Roku's decision. And if Roku promised something pre-sale that they can't deliver post-sale, who cares why? That's Roku's problem, not the buyer's problem.
OTOH, a big part of me is tempted to mention a little consumer common sense: proprietary streaming was made to be broken. It can't be generally interoperable, because that would defeat the whole point! When yo
Set top boxes and such are marketed to the general public like those that bought DVD and VCRs that couldn't figure out how to fix the flash 12:00.... no way they would know what NFS, SMB/CIFS, DLNA, etc.is...
However I doubt the ROKU box guaranteed "for life" or even for region. For example I bought mine and it had a "Prime" button and it printed on the box... Prime was not available via ROKU in Canada... did the box support it? Yup, if I VPN it would work. Due to stupid rules it wasn't allowed in Canada fo
And my printer has revoked the ability to print since I've stopped subscribing to their ink service even thought it still has ink left in it.
Oh wait, this is exactly what HP is already doing.
You pay a fee to print a certain number of pages per month (eg $0.99 for 15 pages). HP sends you ink cartridges as needed. Unsurprisingly, you can't sign up for a $0.99 subscription, get an ink cartridge from HP that retails for $20, cancel your subscription, and keep using the full cartridge. If you aren't fond of the subscription model you're free to go and buy an ink cartridge at retail price and use it until it's empty or dried out.
You bought a blender that operates out of a service??? Are you renting your car with limitations??? Clearly you must not own either since you are comparing a service re-branding to actual physical goods.
If you are going to do that, then at least TRY and make a proper comparison. You blender manufacturer revoked your ability to use it... But then they gave you a new different blender for free, with the same features, to use instead. That's not uncommon when manufactures honer their warranty or issue a recall
Well that is the Tesla business model. You "buy" features that are installed in all Tesla vehicles in the factory and hope that Tesla never revokes them. They are showing other auto manufacturers how to do it.
A debugged program is one for which you have not yet found the conditions
that make it fail. -- Jerry Ogdin
In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This. It was sold with that capability clearly advertised on the actual box. Implied that it would be for the functional life of the product.
Class action waiting to happen. And hopefully this will sort out anyone else trying the same shit.
Re: In other news (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you still have access to your purchased content, then there is no law suit, let alone a class action one. You Americans.
On second thoughts, I take that back. Thanks to you Americans, there probably will be a class action law suit. But I doubt that it will be successful. You still have access to your purchased content.
There will however be a new entry at https://killedbygoogle.com/ [killedbygoogle.com] , and that one will succeed.
Re: In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't own a Roku set-top box ir a Samsung, LG, ... smart TV and never have, so by Slashdot house rules this clearly makes me the entity best qualified to give a final, authoritative comment on the matter. [*]
Which is:
You're not only buying the content; you're buying a device with a specific feature, namely to access said content in a specific way. So, yes, class action waiting to happen. It's like somebody turned your blender into a set of knives plus a juice press overnight, and their defense is "you don't get to sue because you can still chop the carrots". Sorry doesn't work like that.
[*] I'm also not American, which means that your "+1 NotAmerican" bonus is powerless with me.
Not so much Class Action... (Score:3)
Whilst I agree that a class action suit is probably quite likely, it should not be necessary for consumers to have to file a civil suite against a cavalier vendor/technologist in a situation like this. And no, in case anyone pipes up with, "But all that will happen is that vendors will display huge disclaimers all over the place", that's not a solution, because "reserving the right to alter a product or surface" after *purchase* can mater
Re: (Score:1)
Zero chance of a class action lawsuit succeeding.
a) you can still access any movies you purchased through YouTube. You've lost nothing.
b) the apps available on a smart tv or other device can change over time. Where on earth the expectation arises that any given app should be available in perpetuity I don't know, but it's certainly not a right enshrined in law. There is no case.
Re: (Score:0)
It's enshrined in convention. Normally, software is forever. Ok, so mplayer forks and now you play your movies with mpv, but really: same thing.
It's mainly with proprietary services, that we see the big exceptions. Let's not kid ourselves that anyone actually cares about Google's app (or Amazon's or Netflix's or Disney's app). The apps are only relevant bec
Just use the Youtube app as specified. (Score:3, Insightful)
To expect a very specific app to be available forever is insane. Let's be real here. Google has 3 apps that essentially deliver similar content - just from different sources. They want to manage 1 app and use 1 IP for branding. You are going to sue them for merging their services and branding, and then telling you to install the new app for those services??? Same provider and same content, just 2 less apps that they wanted to manage for the same content delivery.
What's the class action lawsuit supposed to d
Re: (Score:2)
The stuff you are saying is bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking in retrospect as if they can see the future? Apps evolve over time and business decisions change.
You post as if Youtube always had the ability to rent movies and tv shows. It didn't. They probably saw that people were uploading and searching for them on their platform, and google thought it would be a good decision to sell them there too. Premium content wasn't always on Youtube. They were added to evolve the services. Google Play Movies make no sense, since google is maintaining 2 feature a
Re: (Score:2)
This. It was sold with that capability clearly advertised on the actual box. Implied that it would be for the functional life of the product.
Class action waiting to happen. And hopefully this will sort out anyone else trying the same shit.
What functionality advertised clearly on the box was removed that you feel is worthy of a class action?
Re: (Score:1)
Who do you sue? ROKU? It wasn't their decision. They can't stop it. Google? Was it Google that promised lifetime support on ROKU?
However this means I will not be using google as all I have is a ROKU and Apple TV box.
Re: (Score:2)
People are saying Roku printed it on the box, said it in ads, etc. If that's true, then surely it was Roku's decision. And if Roku promised something pre-sale that they can't deliver post-sale, who cares why? That's Roku's problem, not the buyer's problem.
OTOH, a big part of me is tempted to mention a little consumer common sense: proprietary streaming was made to be broken. It can't be generally interoperable, because that would defeat the whole point! When yo
Re: (Score:1)
Set top boxes and such are marketed to the general public like those that bought DVD and VCRs that couldn't figure out how to fix the flash 12:00.... no way they would know what NFS, SMB/CIFS, DLNA, etc.is...
However I doubt the ROKU box guaranteed "for life" or even for region. For example I bought mine and it had a "Prime" button and it printed on the box... Prime was not available via ROKU in Canada... did the box support it? Yup, if I VPN it would work. Due to stupid rules it wasn't allowed in Canada fo
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how HP's Instant Ink program works?
You pay a fee to print a certain number of pages per month (eg $0.99 for 15 pages). HP sends you ink cartridges as needed. Unsurprisingly, you can't sign up for a $0.99 subscription, get an ink cartridge from HP that retails for $20, cancel your subscription, and keep using the full cartridge. If you aren't fond of the subscription model you're free to go and buy an ink cartridge at retail price and use it until it's empty or dried out.
If you want to compl
Re: (Score:2)
You bought a blender that operates out of a service??? Are you renting your car with limitations??? Clearly you must not own either since you are comparing a service re-branding to actual physical goods.
If you are going to do that, then at least TRY and make a proper comparison. You blender manufacturer revoked your ability to use it... But then they gave you a new different blender for free, with the same features, to use instead. That's not uncommon when manufactures honer their warranty or issue a recall
Re: (Score:1)
Are you renting your car with limitations???
Well that is the Tesla business model. You "buy" features that are installed in all Tesla vehicles in the factory and hope that Tesla never revokes them. They are showing other auto manufacturers how to do it.