- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Illegally? I there some USA law that forbids corporation from doing that?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only thing this update “broke” was the ability to access the store, right? Sounds like an improvement to me. It’s interesting that everyone is cheering this on after gleefully shitting on Sony for forcing use of their digital library.
With both stories, the real issue is the illusion of digital ownership with drm’d media. Wasteful plastic discs don’t solve that problem, and neither does perpetual access to a proprietary copy. These people were given a chance at freedom, but instead are suing to be allowed to keep not owning their media.
Mine is jailbroken, running KOReader. I’ve been logged out of my Amazon account for 2 years now.
On the one hand… Of course all of that is true, but it is the same for most computing devices on the market. Computing hardware has never been supported forever, believing it would be is ridiculous.
On the other hand, fuck Amazon.
it’s about Amazon not having disclosed this artificial end of life at the time of the purchase
Critically, the case claims that Amazon did not disclose to consumers at the time of purchase that the devices’ core functionality—that is, continued access to digital content on the Kindle Store—and users’ ability to update software could be reduced or eliminated for any reason at any time without a full refund of the purchase price.
Has any other device? What’s the precedence for doing this over the norm?
They’re making an arbitrary claim, it’s really common for programs to use more recourses as they are updated.
Has any other device? What’s the precedence for doing this over the norm?
Of course… Phone manufacturers for example, include a minimum date they commit to make security and android updates. It is so common actually that it has become one of the benchmarks to compare when buying a new phone
Should a consumer reasonably expect any product to be supported forever and ever and ever just because they didn’t say they won’t?
It’s not like the device is actually bricked, it continues to work offline. I think it severely hurts this lawsuit’s credibility when they hyperbolize it to the point of being factually incorrect.
It’s just not being maintained to preserve forwards-compatibility, and that’s kind of inevitable. Nothing can truly last forever, forever is impossible. And if we can accept that there’s no such thing as forever, then it’s just a question of when to draw the line, when it’s finally okay to eventually drop support. And the question of when could be a valid question to ask, but it doesn’t sound like that’s the question this lawsuit is asking, it sounds like they just expect infinity.
That doesn’t sound any different than most similar electronic devices. No one ever advertises that the online services will be available forever, I doubt Amazon advertised they would work or be supported forever.
For a real world example that’s nearly identical… any Internet connected video game console that are now End of Life? The Nintendo eShop is no longer available on the 3DS and Wii U for instance.
As far as I can see, these Kindles still work with whatever they had loaded on them at the time, they just can’t connect and download new files from Amazon’s services. They still let you side load files directly on the devices. And you can always jailbreak it.
None of those options are any different than what is available on the 3DS and Wii U now.
core functionality—that is, continued access to digital content on the Kindle Store—
I would argue, and Amazon almost certainly will as well, that the core functionality is viewing books. Which they can still do just fine.
That doesn’t sound any different than most similar electronic devices.
Yes it does… Phones for example, come out with a known date for end of updates/support
Now putting all this aside, why on earth would any of you be simping for Amazon here is beyond me. Literally, if they do not commit to some reasonable support time, they could pull the plug on ANY device at ANY time for ANY reason
For example, if Amazon decides to sell you a very expensive Amazon TV, you buy it and after 6 months Amazon pulls the plug on it because sales were not as good as they expected, you would be left with a brick… and you are here defending this practice
Now putting all this aside, why on earth would any of you be simping for Amazon here is beyond me.
Pointing out how a lawsuit is fundamentally flawed isn’t simping or defending the corporation. It’s this kind of assumption that makes real online discourse impossible.
For example, if Amazon decides to sell you a very expensive Amazon TV, you buy it and after 6 months Amazon pulls the plug on it because sales were not as good as they expected, you would be left with a brick…
There are thousands of models of smart TVs that no longer receive updates, and guess what… They still work as TVs. Just like these Kindles still work as ereaders even without a working store. The store was not the only way to get books on them, and existing books are still there. They aren’t useless devices. Something I’ve pointed out numerous times but keeps getting ignored because that’s an inconvenient fact if you want to claim they “no longer work”.
If it was six months, that would be a very different situation. But the devices being discontinued are from 2012 and earlier, meaning they got at least 14 years of support. If 14 is not enough, what do you think a reasonable minimum should be?
If it was six months, that would be a very different situation.
I agree… but as it stands today, Amazon could have done this with a 6 months old device that simply did not sell as they wanted.
But the devices being discontinued are from 2012 and earlier, meaning they got at least 14 years of support.
It’s not “support”, Amazon locks their devices to their sources, once they cut them off the devices are basically useless for the majority of users who are not tech savvy enough
If 14 is not enough, what do you think a reasonable minimum should be?
Again, the law has to define what’s “reasonable” (and that is already a very shitty way of defining law but that’s how the US does it).
Is it reasonable for Nintendo to say “people did not expect tariff refunds therefore we don’t have to give them while WE did collect them”? well, if there is no case law that argues one way or the other, anything can be argued as “reasonable”
This lawsuit would help establish what is legally reasonable and if it does not take place, reasonable is whatever Amazon wants… and you seem to prefer that scenario?
They’re not ‘useless’ though, they continue to work offline, and that kind of hyperbole makes it hard to take this seriously.
I really am asking here, if 14 years isn’t enough, what minimum would be? I’m asking what you think is reasonable.
They’re not ‘useless’ though, they continue to work offline, and that kind of hyperbole makes it hard to take this seriously.
Yes, my TV also works offline… I cannot load any channels or watch anything new but it still works
I really am asking here, if 14 years isn’t enough, what minimum would be? I’m asking what you think is reasonable.
I already explained this… actually I already explained the other part as well…
There is an old saying that translates to something like “the worst kind of blindness is found in those who just do not want to see”
here it is again:
Again, the law has to define what’s “reasonable” (and that is already a very shitty way of defining law but that’s how the US does it).
Is it reasonable for Nintendo to say “people did not expect tariff refunds therefore we don’t have to give them while WE did collect them”? well, if there is no case law that argues one way or the other, anything can be argued as “reasonable”
This lawsuit would help establish what is legally reasonable and if it does not take place, reasonable is whatever Amazon wants… and you seem to prefer that scenario?
The fundamental difference is that obsolete computing hardware used to be difficult for owners and third parties to toy with only due to its inherent complexity, not from malicious intent. This difficulty could be overcome, both in theory and in practice, and with time and effort and a sufficiently persistent community (often reflecting the scale of adoption of the device in question) the difficult parts quite frequently would get overcome eventually.
Especially since the DMCA, there’s been a huge increase in the efforts of companies to “secure” their products against “hacking” and tampering using sophisticated, often uncrackable encryption keys, reliance on remote always-online services which they provide for free (until they don’t, because it’s not like they thought about that during the product design and who could possibly expect them to support their products forever?!), and time-locked and sometimes even physically self-destructing components. These kind of designs now completely saturate the marketplace, and it’s also become illegal to even try to unlock them, thanks to the provisions of the DMCA and the lack of any workable exemption for right-to-repair or abandoned products no longer commercially viable.
Nobody expects a company to have to support their product forever. Of course that’s unreasonable. But it is reasonable to expect them not to design things that intentionally turn into e-waste the moment they stop supporting them. It is entirely reasonable to expect them to design an end-of-commercial-life strategy for the products they develop and sell. This is why copyrights that are allowed to expire become public domain instead of having all the books with expired copyrights burned. Because we, as a civilization, chose to have that happen, and we made it part of the copyright laws. Why do we allow electronics to remain proprietary and encrypted when they are no longer profitable? Why not require them to be opened to the public domain too? Would this not be in society’s best interests? It would not be in the interest of the companies interested in planned obsolescence, that’s for sure, but maybe it’s time to stop letting them decide. They have not been kind to us. Stop being kind to them.
But it is reasonable to expect them not to design things that intentionally turn into e-waste the moment they stop supporting them.
The Kindles still work. They still power on. They still have the books that were downloaded. You can still load new books manually.
They are not e-waste by any definition of the word. You just no longer have access to the Amazon store.
They have not been kind to us. Stop being kind to them.
I’m not being kind to them, I’m pointing out that the only thing that happened was owners lost access to an online store. Everything else about the device still works.
The lawsuit is straight up wrong on nearly every claim they make about the devices no longer working. They work just like they did before, just with no built-in store. It’s an ereader, and it still functions as an ereader.
I don’t have one, so I don’t know if the claims are true or not, it seems like you do and I’ll have to take your word for it. My comment is addressing the philosophy of how these devices are typically designed, I’m not in a position to argue about the merits of this specific instance.
This is the most correct take here in my opinion. Planned obsolescence is indeed bullshit. At a bare minimum the devices need to be able to support third party services and software if the primary source is going to be remotely or artificially disabled. Someone who purchases a device OWNS it, and should therefore be able to use it as they see fit.
They do. You can still load books onto them manually from a PC, you just can’t access the store from the device itself.
Planned obsolescence does suck, I’m with you on that. But these devices were supported for 14 years, and they do still remain usable even past this expiration date. If the goal is to fight against planned obsolescence, this just seems like the worst possible battle to pick for that fight.
I mean I can’t play my windows 98 games anymore, do people actually expect this stuff to be continued to be supported forever? That’s unrealistic.
Support? No. Work? Yes.
A tool you make and sell for a purpose has to complete that purpose until it is no longer physically able, with or without your presence.
Software can be replaced as long as the hardware works. But making the tool unusable just so people would buy your other shit is scummy.
It does work, you just can’t use the store from what the article said, the store likely uses more resources than the device has now.
So how many resources would you waste just explaining that to people everytime they call in and say the store is slow or not working.
I can’t play my windows 98 games anymore
That… sounds like a skill issue. And also isn’t relevant?
it’s about Amazon not having disclosed this artificial end of life at the time of the purchase
Critically, the case claims that Amazon did not disclose to consumers at the time of purchase that the devices’ core functionality—that is, continued access to digital content on the Kindle Store—and users’ ability to update software could be reduced or eliminated for any reason at any time without a full refund of the purchase price.
Did windows? Does any other electronic device?
This is how electronics work, as newer programs and updates use more resources, older devices can’t keep up. So what, just not bring in new features so older devices can continue to work? Hold everything else up?
Why is Amazon being held to arbitrary and different standards? It’s common knowledge that’s how stuff operates since the 90s….
Did windows?
Actually yes, you can see how long MS plans to support any of their releases
Source.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/
They have a full portal
As much as I hate amazon - those devices are really really old. I own two of those and both happily download from my calibre library now.
it’s about Amazon not having disclosed this artificial end of life at the time of the purchase
Critically, the case claims that Amazon did not disclose to consumers at the time of purchase that the devices’ core functionality—that is, continued access to digital content on the Kindle Store—and users’ ability to update software could be reduced or eliminated for any reason at any time without a full refund of the purchase price.
That depends on whether you consider store access “core functionality”. The devices still work, your existing purchases on the device are still there, and you can still load book onto them manually. And that doesn’t even get into jail breaking and alternate store options.
It’s an ereader, it still functions as an ereader, and you can still add new books, just not through the Amazon store. Sure seems like the “core functionality” is intact.
deleted by creator
As I said - I have 2 affected devices
yes, and you are saying it’s OK on Amazon’s side because they are old… but the point of the lawsuit is that, Amazon should have disclosed the time they expected those devices to be supported.
