Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Sued Over "Defective" Blu-ray Player

Posted by kdawson on from the rush-to-market dept.

Anneka notes that, although both Netflix and Best Buy threw logs on HD DVD's funeral pyre today, things are not all going Blu-ray's way. A Connecticut man is suing Samsung, the maker that brought the first Blu-ray players to market, over its "defective" BD-P1200 player. The lawsuit seeks class-action status. The problem is that the Samsung BD-P1200 is a "Profile 1.0" player that can't play some Blu-ray discs and Samsung has no intention (or ability) to upgrade these players via firmware. Quoting Ars: "The meager requirements of the 1.0 profile mean that Blu-ray players which fail to implement the optional features won't be able to take advantage of picture-in-picture, which requires secondary decoders. 1.0 players are also unable to store local content, lacking the 256MB of storage mandated by the 1.1 profile. Profile 1.1 discs should still play on 1.0 players, however, but the extra features will not work."

11 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Defective CD Players by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If this guy wins, gets a court to punish a player manufacturer because it's not forward compatible with media all carrying the same media logo, then I want to see Sony get slammed for selling "CD" players that won't play CDs that I copied from the ones I bought as backup. And then I want to see Sony get slammed for selling "CDs" that won't play in some CD players because the Sony CDs have DRM that's not part of the "CD" spec.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  2. I bet it gets thrown out by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No way a judge will allow this lawsuit, much less grant it class-action status. Imagine the precedent this would set. I could sue Motorola because my older cell phone doesn't have all the features that their latest ones have. I could sue Toyota because a newer year/model of my car has more features. Etc. etc.

    1. Re:I bet it gets thrown out by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So it may not be as simple of an issue as "profile 1.0 can't use spiffy new 1.1 features". It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."

      More accurately, Samsung put a player out onto the market that met the demands of the (currently unfinished) Blu-ray disc standard.

      Blu-ray was rushed to market before it was ready - HD DVD's release ensured the BDA couldn't wait until the standard was completed.

      The Blu-ray trade assosciation admitted as much at CES 2008, and then noted that only Sony's PS3 had any hope of being upgradeable to Profile 2.0, due in October. (I'm sure Sony was more than happy to hear that... and I'm betting it really annoys the other manufacturers in the BDA).

      In contrast, HD DVD was a polished, complete standard at the time of release, and the first HD DVD players can handle every feature of every disc made - including features that Blu-ray does not currently have.

      I'm officially format-neutral - I have both (Samsung's BD/HD DVD player).

      I think it's funny to hear various fanbois pitting it as a Microsoft vs. Sony thing - it's more Toshiba/NEC vs. Sony/Panasonic/Philips, which is more or less what almost happened with "regular" DVD, except this time, Sony & co. decided to push its product, instead of suffering the "disgrace" of following someone else's lead. Rivalries among Japanese companies are a lot like college sports - sometimes I have difficulty telling the difference between rivalry and a full-on holy war. And HD DVD vs Blu-ray is very similar - the battle was faught in the DVD forum for years, with Sony, Panasonic, and Philips doing everything possible to prevent HD DVD from happening.

      Many of the ignorant thing that the menu system used by HD DVD is Microsoft's - which is completely false. HD DVD uses "Advanced Content" - an open standard defined by Disney & Warner Brothers. The most popular implementation is Microsoft's HDi. In other words, HDi is to Advanced Content as Internet Explorer is to HTML. HDi is one implementation, and is from Microsoft; Advanced Content is the standard, and is from Disney and Warner. HDi is the most popular, much like how IE is the dominant web browser for HTML.

      In the end, HD DVD's release forced the BDA's hand - the BDA had to either give up entirely (no format war and only HD DVD) or release a product based on an incomplete standard. Not wanting to give up royalties, the BDA released a half-baked product.

      The part that's not forgivable is that the BD player makers had a very good idea what the final standard would be - things like internet connectivity, two decoders for picture-in-picture, built-in storage - you know, stuff that its HD DVD competitor does.

      All things told, I like that HD DVD is a "finished" standard - HD DVD owners are unlikely to get "burned" - even if the format fails, the discs will still play, after all. Blu-ray can't say that - early adopters are getting burned, and will continue to be burned until Profile 2.0 players are common, if not longer.

      As far as being "burned" by "losing" the format war - I remind readers that iTunes sold more movies than either HD DVD or Blu-ray in 2007. It's quite likely that both HD DVD and Blu-ray will "lose" in the end - though the discs will still play, and both discs are already rippable.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:I bet it gets thrown out by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So it may not be as simple of an issue as "profile 1.0 can't use spiffy new 1.1 features". It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."

      No,I'm more inclined to agree that the 1.0 spec was incomplete and a lot got added in 1.1 because they (the creators of the spec) wanted to get the devices to market.

      My now 8+ year old Toshiba DVD player is completely incapable of reading burned DVDs or playing MP3s -- something to do with laser wavelength I think. Heck, back in the day, a menu item of the original Aliens DVD borked the machine so badly, it was locked and required a firmware update. Basically killed the machine. (I won't bother finding a link, it's probably impossible at this point.) Required being sent to a service depot to be fixed.

      The problem with consumer electronics (especialy nowadays with roving standards) is if you buy an early version of "the new hotness", it doesn't take long to discover it's the "old and busted" very quickly. Something gets defined, pushed out to market, and then someone comes along and adds features you didn't know were coming.

      We seem to release a half-assed version of the spec, and then the first generation devices get left behind. What we need is finalized specs in the first place. I've lost faith in any format which isn't at least 3 years old -- standards holders are in a hurry to get manufacturers to release product and then change the rules.

      I believe Samsung likely released a good product, and then the wing nuts at Sony decided to add some feature creep. It's not a bug if you never knew it was gonna be a requirement. For the same reason that HDMI suddenly became important to HD-TV (and screwed people with older sets), modern "specs" start out as a best guess and then gets refined.

      Let's face it, new standards/tech represents a huge gamble -- in this case, the house changed the rules of the game, and some people lost.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. That's a problem with BD+ by _merlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If he has problems with BD+ discs, why doesn't he sue the people selling and distributing these defective discs? If the discs are being sold as BluRay discs, they should play in a BluRay Profile 1.0 player. It isn't the manufacturers fault that some crappy new copy protection doesn't work with their player. Would you sue the manufacturer of a CD player because some copy protected discs won't play, or would you go for the people selling the dodgy copy-protected discs but still calling them CDs? I know I'd go after the people purveying the misrepresented discs.

  4. It's more than Profile 1.1 with the Samsung by Princess+Aurora · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This lawsuit is not over that Profile 1.1 content will not play on this Profile 1.0 player. The Samsung in question has much worse compatibility problems--some discs don't play at all. Before the first Profile 1.1 discs came out, the Samsung refused to play BD+ discs such as Fantastic Four 2 and The Day After Tomorrow. It took Samsung something like a month to issue a firmware update to fix this issue (other manufacturers who had issues had updates out in a week or so). Furthermore, even after that update, new discs continue not to play. The problem mostly is limited to Java-enabled discs, which are in the Profile 1.0 specification.

    We're not even talking about Profile 1.1 discs either. Some standard releases refuse to play, and Samsung's support has been sluggish. Problems with the PS3 and Panasonic players have been addressed within a week or two of problems occurring. There are a number of discs that have been out for months that still don't play, even with the latest firmware:
    Pirates of the Caribbean 3 (12/3/07)
    Blade Runner (12/18/07)
    Pixar Shorts (11/6/07)

    That's over a month and a half with no fix! The profile 1.1 discs (3:10 to Yuma and Sunshine) don't play the movie successfully. They sputter and freeze. This problem isn't observed on other Profile 1.0 players from Panasonic, Sony, and Pioneer. The Samsung player really is defective.

  5. Re:How I love the american legal system. by oldhack · · Score: 1, Interesting
    American legal system is similar to British one, I think - based on "common laws" and precendents, deliberately vague.

    Pro: Flexible (not autistic like computer codes) and provides safety valve for the prevalent sentiment of the time.
    Con: Fashion of the time dictates what it means.

    Can't determine what is "frivolous" until it goes to the trial. Precedent is a precedent only if the judge/jury agrees.

    It cracks me up when a Westerner lectures to developing countries that they have no "rule of laws" - it's almost "the shits here ain't like the shits I'm used to, and that's bullshit!!"

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  6. HDMI by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Meanwhile, the movies mentioned in the article all come with a "blu-ray disc" logo on them, despite there being two distinctly different formats involved. That's misleading advertising, and I hope he wins his case. You can't create a so-called standard and then say "whoops, need to change a few things here, sucks to be you if you were an early adopter!" I understand that the bleeding edge sometimes cuts, but that's usually a result of bugs in the players or the manufacturing process, not because some idiot changed the specs of the format!

    If that's the case, then I await with glee for whenever they try to close the "analog hole" in HDMI-equipped TVs with DRM-crippled signals, as has been reported.

  7. Movie menu crap sucks by catmistake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've never seen a BluRay title... but I imagine the menuing system is like DVDs' on crack. When I put a movie in my player, I want to watch a movie, not wait 2 minutes through menu animation and 8 min through previews... I'd pay more for no-nonsense "movie-only" titles. You know how when you go to get milk at the supermarket you have to walk past miles of stuff you don't want? Marketing is a profound waste of the consumer's time, and all that extra stuff on movie discs is just like the maze at your local grocery. You fools! You are letting them charge us for showing us stuff they want us to buy.

    --
    The Admin and the Engineer
  8. Re:Dont early adopters by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And the poor late adopters that buy Used HDTV's from 3-4 years ago.

    m tv dont have HDCP, it's a 1080i set. Bluray and HDDVD is useless as nither will output anything but 480p out the Component output. In fact this is mentioned in EVERY HDDDVD and BluRay players manual.

    "720p and 1080i output is disabled on component out on discs that have the copy protection flag set." EVERY SINGLE DISK HAS THIS FLAG SET!

    I'm not buying it. If I ever buy one it will be whatever is easiest to rip with anydvd.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  9. Re:Purpose by Eivind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But this player still plays any and all discs labeled "blue-ray" (unless the disc or player is broken)

    What happens is that if the disc contains v2.0 features, you won't see -those-, you will still be able to play the disc and see the movie, but you may miss out on some of the advanced features, such as the possibility of PiP (let's say the director commenting upon the film from a separate video-track in a corner of the picture)

    I don't see the problem. You bought a blue-ray player, it plays blue-ray discs. This is the primary function.

    There are some bells and whistles that it don't have, on account of being a v1 player and thus not implementing the additional stuff that came in v2, all of which is, however, optional.