Technology

hideshow 26 child comments

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (20 children)

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.

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago

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

parent

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 0 points 1 month ago* (16 children)

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.

hideshow 16 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (15 children)

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

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] missingno@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago (13 children)

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?

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (12 children)

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?

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[–] missingno@fedia.io 1 point 1 month ago (11 children)

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.

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)

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?

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] missingno@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago (9 children)

That did not answer my question.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

then I can't help you

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] missingno@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

It's a pretty simple question, I dunno why you couldn't give a straight answer. I think it's going to be hard to win this kind of battle if you can't give a direct answer.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (6 children)

The issue is that my personal opinion does not matter here; the whole point of the lawsuit is to find what is "reasonable" as per the law.

Now, if you are just looking to chat. Here it goes:

For a company with the resources of Amazon, I'd say it's reasonable that they never cut off their own products as long as they continue in the branch of business these products are intended to serve. In this case, if amazon will continue selling and distributing digital eBooks, then they should continue supporting their old hardware with the service.

If for a technical reason this cannot be accomplished; for example, if the new standard of eBooks is incompatible with the old hardware AND an update is not technically feasible (TECHNICALLY feasible, not "it cost me money"); then Amazon should jailbreak the old devices, for free, so the customers that bought it could more easily find alternatives

PS: please note that a personal option, or making it "simple" or "direct", are artificially imposed barriers to "win" here imposed by you. My point continues to be that it is reasonable for this lawsuit to take place precisely so that a definition of "reasonable" can be recorded in case law

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] missingno@fedia.io 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

If you want to set a precedent, you have to first pick a battle you can actually win. Your inability to answer the question comes across as a tacit admission that 14 years isn't unreasonable, in which case I don't see this fight as winnable.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

If you want to set a precedent, you have to first pick a battle you can actually win

And who decides that, you?

Your inability to answer the question

I just answered your question in detail... and my hesitation does not come from anything you said, it comes from the suspicion, now confirmed, you were just going to attack my personal position to justify yours.

It seems you still do not understand how the legal system works

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] missingno@fedia.io 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I don't think that trying to argue that 14 years isn't enough is a winnable battle. I don't think expecting support to be forever and ever to be a precedent that will ever be set.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

I don’t think that trying to argue that 14 years isn’t enough is a winnable battle

THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING CLAIMED! Fuck man, if you want to have a conversation here the least you can do is read the fucking article

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] missingno@fedia.io 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

So 14 years is enough then?

parent

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago

sorry man, you are trolling or just too dumb to participate

parent

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 1 point 1 month ago

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".

parent

[–] missingno@fedia.io 0 points 1 month ago*

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.

parent

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

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.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 1 point 1 month ago

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.

parent

[–] freshcow@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] missingno@fedia.io 1 point 1 month ago

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.