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."

43 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. There's a reason... by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a reason we call it the bleeding edge - because it cuts you. And you bleed. It's much like new software - I won't touch a new OS or game until it's had at least one patch or service pack.

    1. Re:There's a reason... by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I agree with you , I do feel for the folks who bought these players when they were $600 + , there is no reason that features should have been missing from the players when they came to market. HD-DVD doesn't have this problem , wonder why ?

      These companies need to stop doing this. People need to stop accepting the planned obsolescence excuses and realize they are milking us. These players should not have "versions" or "profiles" make it a single deployment standard and stop trying to add features the competition already has. They should have added those in the beginning.

      Im just getting tired of seeing folks who bought in early getting porked by companies like Sony and Microsoft. I understand software revisions. And I don't mind it, but why are vital things like a second decoder not in the spec to make it at least upgradeable. Or even just disabled until a special disc is put in to flash the firmware to activate it ? I am tired of us folks paying to be alpha and beta testers for the corporations.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    2. Re:There's a reason... by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It only fails because most free software projects are in a constant state of development, thus my model has no initial stable release for which to base it upon. Then again, I meant to imply that I was only talking about major pieces of software, and sadly, free software occupies very little of that space for me. Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl, and SLASH are free software. You are running all of them on Slashdot's server when you read this comment. I am running all of them, plus Firefox (also free) on my Windows PC, when I submit this comment.
    3. Re:There's a reason... by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm "running them all"? No, Slashdot's servers are. Were I running servers, it might be a different story. Then again, which of Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl, and SLASH can be called "bleeding edge"? All of them are very mature products, having gone through several release cycles. It's no wonder then, that they're being used, instead of the bleeding edge. Pointing out that they're being used doesn't show how I'm using Open Source, only that a website I'm on does. Not that it matters, because we're talking about bleeding-edge adoption, not open-source usage.

      I recommend you read what the context of my post is before pointing out what's wrong about it.

    4. Re:There's a reason... by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 2, Informative

      While i agree the lawsuit is bogus , I think this does send a message. And that message is stop making the end user a beta tester.

      You mention networking gear. It doesn't really hold up here. When people bought "pre-N" gear , and "draft-N" gear , they knew what they were getting themselves into. These blu-ray players were sold as blu-ray players. Meaning they would play all future blu-ray movies. Funny I have an old RCA dvd player that plays new dvds, yeah I guess I am expecting to much for it to not randomly reject blu-ray discs.

      Look they sold this as a blu-ray player , one should expect it to play every blu-ray disc, be it new or old as long as the disc is in good condition. These things are flaking out on people and not playing some discs , blocking features ( which I admit is really the problem I hate. ) That and the fact that they are now adding more features while increasing the core of the device itself , meaning they are changing specs mid stream. Something that HD DVD knew would happen and put the specs out to combat , they wanted one set standard , it seems like the blu-ray standard is not a standard and an ever evolving mess.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    5. Re:There's a reason... by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here I for one totally disagree.

      For a start: my laptop has a 10Mbit Ethernet port. Now 100 Mb is standard, and 1 Gb available. Is there any reason why I should expect my laptop to get a free upgrade? I don't think so.
      Do I have reason to expect it is compatible with 1Gb networks? Maybe. Albeit at a lower speed. Same for these BluRay players: they were up to standard when sold, and are now the newer disks still play - without the new features of course. Why should the old player get a free upgrade? No reason for that.
      People should buy products (hardware, software, whatever) based on the CURRENT feature set. Not based on promised upgrades, that is a nice extra but not relevant.

      Wouter.

    6. Re:There's a reason... by penix1 · · Score: 2, Informative
      From TFA:

      As we pointed out in our coverage of the 2.0 spec, there's no upgrade path for older players due to the changed hardware requirementsa simple firmware update will not suffice.


      Ummm...Even the summary, which is usually wrong in most cases, points out that it will play Blu-ray disks but lacks some of the special features found only in players that support the new standard. What this guy is bitching about is two different things. First, the fact that he can't upgrade (via a flash ROM or something) to the new standard. What he fails to understand is the new standard also requires different configurations of hardware that his player doesn't have (there's a reason it is called a NEW standard). This is the bogus part of the suit.

      Second, he is bitching about the BD-P1200 in particular which does have a reputation for being a crap player even with the old specification and Samsung's refusal to address that issue. This is what that part of the suit boils down to:

      With HD DVD players hitting store shelves in April 2006, the Blu-ray Disc Association was feeling the pressure to get their products out as quickly. Samsung was first to market with a Blu-ray player, releasing the BD-P1200's predecessor, the BD-P1000, in June 2006 after a delay of a month or so. Like the first-generation P1000, the P1200 supported the original Blu-ray 1.0 profile. For a while, Samsung had the Blu-ray market to itself as Sony and Pioneer players were delayed even further. The competitive pressure from HD DVD was arguably the reason for approving Profile 1.0, even though it limited the potential of the first players and ensured that they'd never be compatible with future profiles.


      That is the angle he needs to play up. Samsung's willingness to make a quick buck at consumer expense in compatibility. If it can be proved that Samsung did this with full knowledge that they weren't going to support the player after the 2.0 spec release, WITHOUT informing the customer about it, then willful fraud comes to my IANAL mind.
      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    7. Re:There's a reason... by Eivind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or more precisely: If you don't like stuff breaking on you -- stop VOLUNTEERING as a beta-tester.

      Everyone who hasn't been living under a rock KNOWS that buying the latest-and-greatest new bleeding-edge standard before it is established in the marketplace means:

      a) There's a significant chance that it'll be obsolete in 3 years because some other standard ends up owning the game.

      b) There's a 100% chance that you're paying a MUCH higher price for a MUCH poorer product, compared to those who wait a bit.

      c) There's a significant chance that your product has bugs, shortcomings, problems.

      d) There's a significant chance that the standard will fluctuate, so by the time it solidifies, your gadget is no longer fully compatible.

      It's not as if any of this is news. Furthermore, much of it is unavoidable: If a producer elected not to bring products to market until these things had settles, they'd be handing their market-share to the competitors.

      If you don't like this deal, there's a simple cure: Wait a year or two *THEN* buy any random high-def video-player. It'll cost 1/3rd what it costs now, or less, it'll work better and it'll support the stable version of the standard.

    8. Re:There's a reason... by monsted · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, these players fail to play *new features* on new discs. The original movie format should work just fine, but things like Picture-in-Picture and the persistent storage thing doesn't. This only means that some extras are unavailable. Thus, his player does what he paid for, but doesn't do what someone with a newer player paid for.

      In the end, we'll probably see Sony screw it up in another way to make his older player break completely, but that's a different story. BD+ will probably be on the receiving end of a lot of curses...

    9. Re:There's a reason... by cb95amc · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would put that comparison more in line with VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray.....Those standards evolved over many years, not a matter of months.

      Its not like the manufacturers didn't know this was coming.....That was one of the problems with Blu-Ray, it was rushed to market to compete with HD-DVD (and for the PS3) and they hadn't finalized the standards...

      Don't forget we still have BD Live compatible players to come (Profile 2.0), which will mandate an Ethernet connection and more local storage (1GB) for downloadable content.

    10. Re:There's a reason... by pisto_grih · · Score: 2

      Just for once I'd like to see people stop lambasting Sony in this thread when its a Samsung product.

    11. Re:There's a reason... by samkass · · Score: 3, Informative

      When 2.0 comes out on disks, those will not play on any current player

      This is false, according to all the information I've read. The movies will play. But the "extra" features will lack capability.

      As for Blu-ray's reputed "more" space, show me a dual layer disk.

      Half of all current Blu-Ray movies are dual-layer. The first was "Click" a year and a half ago. Hitachi has a 4-layer Blu-ray disc they claim play in current players, and TDK has prototyped an 8-layer Blu-ray disc.

      As to the codecs, HD DVD supports more advanced codecs.

      It's true that some of the sound codecs are optional on Blu-ray players but mandatory on HD DVD players. That being said, on Blu-ray they are required to have substantially higher throughput if supported. For video, they both support exactly the same codecs (MPEG2, MPEG4/AAC, and VC-1). In addition, Blu-Ray requires the player support almost 50% more throughput-- that, combined with the higher capacity, means that Blu-ray discs can be compressed less and therefore have much higher quality audio and video. That's why a side-by-side comparison of the two almost universally favors Blu-ray on all the AV sites.

      Blu-ray is largely old technology with a new specification that makes them incompatible with everything else out there.

      To be fair, that more accurately describes HD DVD. That's why HD DVD players are easier to produce.

      --
      E pluribus unum
  2. 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

    1. Re:Defective CD Players by MWoody · · Score: 5, Informative

      1) Recordable compact discs have their own logo and are considered a different, but analogous, media format. A player that will play compact discs, with no mention of recordable or rewritable versions in the packaging, doesn't have to play anything.

      2) A DRM-crippled "CD" will not bear the Compact Disc logo, as it doesn't conform to the standard. It is a separate format that just happens to sometimes sort-of work in CD players.

      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!

    2. Re:Defective CD Players by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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."

      Do you see any of these logos on the front or back paper inserts, on the OUTSIDE of the case (not inside, as in after opening the case,) SPECIFICALLY the one that says Compact Disc Digital Audio?

      If you don't see the CDDA, then it's safe to assume that the CD does not follow the CDDA format, and therefore has DRM. CDDA does not have provisions for DRM, and any disc carrying DRM, or is 'enhanced' (extra data track after audio tracks included) may not display that logo on the case. The actual part that holds the disc in the case will just have the plain Compact Disc logo most often.

      If you have any discs that display the CDDA logo and they have DRM or any 'enhancements' for our computer, the maker of that disc is in violation of the rules that Phillips set forth in specifying the format. You should immediately notify them of the breach of contract between the music company that made the discs and Phillips. And you should probably go ahead and lawyer up, because once you stir up the snake nest they're gonna come crawling and biting at your ankles.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  3. 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 Draknor · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just to clarify, according to TFA some movies won't play:

      At issue are some significant title-compatibility problems with the player. In his complaint, plaintiff Bob McGovern says that a number of movies he purchased after buying his BD-P1200 wouldn't play on the device.
      ...
      As one of our readers pointed out via e-mail, the P1200 has a checkered reputation when it comes to hardware reliability.

      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."

    2. Re:I bet it gets thrown out by Major+League+Gamer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It can't possibly win.

      After reading the court papers, paragraph 5 states that the nature of the case is that Samsung was aware the player was defective, however if you look at the conditions provided by SONY, the system met ALL profile 1.0 standards and is not defective. Due to this wording alone the claim is damaged.

      Paragraph 7 says that selling thie Blu-Ray player cause injury(not physical) to the plaintiff. What injury, the world knowing how much of an ass-hat he is? Obviously this is completely trumped up and any self respecting judge would not even consider ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

      In the factual allegations, it is never stated that Samsung claimed that all Blu-Ray disc profiles would work on this system. Most of the 'factual' allegations are merely ripped from the Blu-Ray advertising that is put out by Sony, in regards to storage capacity and picture quality. I didn't see anything at all about picture in picture claims made by Samsung. If no claim was made by Samsung then I don't see a case.

    3. Re:I bet it gets thrown out by themacks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...but that comes with being an early adopter.

      Why should it? If he bought something marked that it plays Blu-Ray it should play any media that is also marked Blu-Ray, regardless of when either was bought. Just because it was the first player to market doesn't make it exempt. If they change the spec they should change the marking to at least show that the two aren't compatible.
      --
      i read about it in a blog once
    4. Re:I bet it gets thrown out by Sethb · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have one of these players, and we're not upset about Profile 1.1 vs 1.0, we're upset that it's a total crapshoot whether or not a given movie will play on your player. I got mine in September, this isn't a device that's three years old, either, but it has been plagued with bugs. I rented Weeds from Netflix, and the disc would play fine ONCE, but not a second time (confirmed with others on AVSForum). Rise of the Silver Surfer didn't work for a month or two after release. Deja Vu would constantly hang during playback. Pirates of the Carribean 3 didn't work until last week, nor did Little Miss Sunshine. 3:10 to Yuma still doesn't work, and last week I sat down to watch Across the Universe to find that you're left at the menu screen, but with no cursor to start the movie, and you can't even skip to a chapter or work-around the issue.

      Samsung needs to figure out what the hell is wrong with their firmware and correct it so that it'll actually play movies, and they need to be more transparent about what's going on. They rarely acknowledge issues, and never document what fixes are in new firmware revisions as they're released. Perhaps they could give some test units to the shops that are authoring Blu-Ray discs, or, you know, get an advance copy of the disc so that firmware can be ready on the day the movie hits the streets. Follow this thread at AVSForum for more info.

      --
      When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Re:I bet it gets thrown out by aXis100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Off topic -

      I've probably got the same Toshiba DVD player as you, and have found a fix for burned disks. Basically you need to change the "BitSetting" feild in your DVD burner so that the disks get marked as "DVD-ROM" instead of "DVD-R" or "DVD-R/W". This has fixed nearly all of my issues.

      There's several different bitsetting programs around depending upon the drive manufactuerer - try google.

  4. How I love the american legal system. by Kazrath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is this a fault of a manufacturer? Especially one that is not the creator of the Blue-Ray disk. Samsung made a hardware platform with a current drive and the technology improved and the old system cannot be upgraded. Why not sue every HDD manufacturer then? My old IDE drive won't work with my new motherboard. I cannot get firmware updates and the connectors are all wrong!

    These frivolous lawsuits need to stop. They really need to start tossing these people out on there asses or pressing some criminal negligence charges against them.

  5. BluRay vs BluRay - Not created equal by Wizarth · · Score: 3, Informative

    I understand the point of people saying "It's Profile 1.0, not Profile 1.1, it does what it says on the box". But most customers won't look at that. They just see the BluRay logo, see the adverts for BluRay (which no doubt show off the features included in Profile 1.1) then want to know why their BluRay player can't do what the advertisement told them.

    At the least, it's misleading advertising. The Profile 1.0 player being defective is a bit of a stretch, but it's not unfounded.

  6. Devil's Advocate by Tuor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One important thing to remember is Joe Consumer doesn't know or care about 1.0, 1.1, etc.

    Unless they're changing the name, ol' Joe is going to get upset when it doesn't work like it says on the box. Joe is used to auto recalls and static products, and I think BluRay forgot that in their little war to win the format.

    --
    I love my computer -- You make me feel alright (Bad Religion)
  7. Read before you complain by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing these companies getting a slap on the wrist for a changing definition of what Blu-Ray is by changing the profile but not making the differences obvious (it's a little tiny box on the back of a case).

    That said, sounds like the guy has a case to me. Read this part:

    At issue are some significant title-compatibility problems with the player. In his complaint, plaintiff Bob McGovern says that a number of movies he purchased after buying his BD-P1200 wouldn't play on the device. He also accuses Samsung of failing to offer firmware updates to remedy the problem, saying that the consumer electronics giant "does not intend to provide future firmware updates or otherwise repair" the problematic player.

    As one of our readers pointed out via e-mail, the P1200 has a checkered reputation when it comes to hardware reliability. A massive thread in the AV Science forum is filled with numerous complaints about the player. "I have had the BDP 1200 for 7 weeks. Not a finished product," reads one post. "Should not have been brought to the market until it was fully beta tested. Would not play Blu-ray Weeds. Was told needed updated software."

    It was defective. It sounds like the bought a DVD player (let's pretend) that wouldn't play a good percentage of DVDs. Not "doesn't play every neat feature". Not "doesn't support 12.16 theatrical sound". Just plain "won't play". They could fix it with a software update, but they don't seem to want to.

    That part is bait-and-switch. He bought a player that should play any good Blu-Ray movie (possibly san-extras). It won't play many of them. Either all those movies are defective, or the player is. If it is the player, he was ripped off. At the very least, they should have replaced his player with something that would play movies.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  8. Re:And the problem is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It will play Profile 1.1 discs - you can still see the video and hear the audio. Except it doesn't, and Samsung refuses to provide an update to fix this - which is why the guy is suing.

    He isn't expecting the extra features - he just wanted to have the discs play in the first place. According to the lawsuit, the player refuses to even read them.

    The problem has nothing to do with Profile 1.1 - it's a flaw with BD+.

    He got screwed over by DRM. I would have thought Slashdot would be more sympathetic to someone screwed over by DRM than to instead blame him for buying "too early" whereby "too early" is apparently six months ago.
  9. 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.

    1. Re:That's a problem with BD+ by toleraen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bad analogy. Not that this one is much better, but this would be like buying a TV that claims it plays digital broadcasts, but then doesn't play ATSC broadcasts. If the manufacturer didn't implement the BD+ properly in their player, it's not the content providers fault that the player doesn't process the BD+. Just like it's not your local NBC broadcaster's fault that your TV doesn't properly display ATSC, even though it might work with DVB/T just fine.

  10. Re:And the problem is? by Trogre · · Score: 4, Funny

    Think of this another way: I have a MacBook with a Core Duo CPU. It's a 32-bit x86 processor with SSE3. It will run OSX 10.5 Leopard in 32-bit mode, but 64-bit features won't work, and 64-bit only applications won't run. Should I go and sue Apple for selling me a defective product?

    Yes.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  11. 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.

  12. Hooray Format wars by Khyber · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ensuring good lawsuitarity since VHS vs BetaMax.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  13. Re:Blu-ray victory is a joke at this point by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > ..but $150 players are only a recent phenomenon and it's effect on the market remains to be seen.

    I suspect the $150 players were the result of the retail channel seeing what was happening and deciding that the Xmas season was their last chance to unload inventory that was about to be worthless. Add in a little inside info paranoia and deliberate postponing of the studio shifting, etc to allow retails time to dump and things make a lot more sense.

    Everyone knew that only one would survive and at the first hint that the market was picking a winner the desire not to be left holding a big stack of dead inventory created a huge bandwagon effect. If I had to guess it was the PS3 finally starting to sell as the price dropped. It became obvious there was soon going to be far more BD players just on the strength of the PS3, one studio flips camps (actually just stopped doing both) and it snowballed. At this point I doubt even Sony can manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Me, I haven't even bought a HD set yet and haven't owned a console since the 2600. Waiting for the pricing to plateau out, no sense getting in a hurry to go HD just to be able to pick from a few dozen crap/blockbuster titles. :)

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  14. Is it just me? by Colourspace · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or are we nearing the day when Sony finally 'wins' a format war?

    1. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think it matters. Unless a new format comes out that is just as cheap and powerful we all lose due to DRM.

  15. 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.

  16. 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
  17. DVD-Video != DVD-ROM by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    PS2 games carry the DVD logo and they wont work on just any DVD player! That's because PlayStation 2 games use the "ROM" profile, not the "VIDEO" profile. Look below the DVD logo on the packaging of a DVD-Video or DVD-ROM disc to see which profile it uses.
  18. Fact Check by dank+zappingly · · Score: 3, Informative

    You've gotta be kidding. Who modded this guy up? I know that anti-Sony opinions are popular here, but this is just insane. The PS3 has not cost $600 since June of 2007. Welcome to 2008. PS3 is currently selling for $400 or $500 depending on the model. You can buy a regular Blu Ray player for $350. Blu Rays are available for less than $25. Take a look at Amazon.com. HD-DVD players are selling for $150 because no one wants to buy a player that is already obsolete.

  19. 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.
  20. Re:A software update can't add missing hardware by Technician · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And I don't mind it, but why are vital things like a second decoder not in the spec to make it at least upgradeable. Or even just disabled until a special disc is put in to flash the firmware to activate it ?

    The article mentions that there isn't enough RAM for a paticular decoder to operate. There isn't a single software upgrade that can get past the lack of the physical memory. The boards in most of the players isn't laid out where memory can be just plugged in. A small run to produce new boards and the labor cost of a recall for a board swap is cost prohibitive. The early production run did not have the 2nd decoder built-in because the spec was probably still being finalized. There were no discs out at that time to even verify the decoder would work if it was installed at that time.

    This is much like the early days of UHF TV (I'm old enough to remember) when the FCC mandated 82 channel reception. Many sets shipped with UHF tuners that didn't function. Several years later, the failure was noticed when the first UHF sets went live.

    This is why I didn't buy a flatscreen with a tuner before the local broadcasters were on the air. I waited until after the signal was established.

    If the company was ethical, they should have a trade-in program instead of expecting the end user to bite the entire cost of replacement.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  21. 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.