Slashdot Mirror
The Android L Update For Nvidia Shield Portable Removes Features
An anonymous reader writes: For those of us who still remember the Hobson's choice with the 3.21 update of the PS3 firmware, the most recent update to the Nvidia Shield Portable is eerily similar. The update, which is necessary to run recent games and apps that require Android 5.0 APIs, removes some features from the device, and removes the games that were bundled with the device, Sonic 4 Episode II and The Expendables: ReArmed. Nvidia has stressed that it is an optional update, but how many users have been told for months that the update was coming, some of whom may have bought the device after the update was announced, only to find out now they won't receive all the functionality they paid for? How is it still legal for these companies to advertise and sell a whole product but only deliver part of it?
Because they have all the power, can simply change the fucking terms of service as they see fit, and have the fucking politicians in their pockets to ensure they can get away with it.
Honestly, are you expecting a fair situation in which the consumer actually gets input on this shit?
You might as well ask a Ferengi for favorable financing terms. If he gives them to you, they're not favorable.
Why do we keep acting like we're surprised by any of this crap? Unless people start changing laws to shift the balance away from corporations, this is all you'll ever get.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Since its an OPTIONAL update... they arent forcefully removing any features that were on the original device. Its a device older than 2 years now, those that got lollipop on it are extremely lucky, live with it...
We sell things everyday knowing that 5 years down the line they'll be bricks. Something's going to change be it the fuses, the antenna, the frequencies, the laws, the people working on this stuff, the companies working on this stuff. You can't assume everything is going to stay the same for the lifetime of the product. We remove features from products because there isn't a good reason to support them or it's not cost-effective to support them. Imagine that feature that exposes the company to patent trolls and lawsuits.
The problem happens because tech runs at the speed of annoyance these days. A TV might be expected to work properly for 5 years. An operating system might have a shelf life of 1 or 2 years. An app might be released and abandoned within the space of 3 months. Heck, with kickstarters it's possible these things are sold and never actually work...ever. The standards in software are going downhill rapidly.
my friend, better take my advice. You know all the rules by now and the Fire from the Ice...
Because this is how you lose customers.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The real question is whether someday people will wake up and reverse this idiotic trend away from open whitebox PCs that YOU control towards closed locked down devices someone ELSE controls.
Until then, well, go ahead, keep moving to Android and iOS and other "appliance" devices. Just don't bitch when you reap what you sow. We all know where that ends, and you ain't seen nuttin' yet.
And yet any time someone suggestes stronger regulation the entire IT community comes out up in arms and shouts "free market".
The greatest strength of the IT industry is that it's essentially unregulated allowing it to be nimble and to take risks.
The greatest weakness of the IT industry is that it's essentially unregulated allowing companies to shit all over thier customers.
They are able to do that because customers let them. If you want to use app X, you give app X access to way more information than app X needs, because consumers fundamentally don't care enough that apps compete on the basis of privacy.
There's a little difference in the enterprise space, of course. But on the consumer side, people just don't care.
theirs nothing wrong with base android its pretty rock solid try a nexus device. much like windows venders crap all over it with shit code etc.
the standard in the market is iphone, ipad or a good android phone. yet people keep buying these fringe products that never make mass market penetration. stop being a beta tester and wait a few years and buy when it's somewhat mature. otherwise you're like one of the idiots who pre-order digital games on steam or one of the consoles and then complain how the game sucks or you can't play online because the servers are swamped
So sick of your games, I'll set your truck to flames And watch it blow up, blow up, (ha-ha-ha) tell me
Lucky you posted anonymously. The last person to make a song about vehicular property destruction went on to make almost a hundred million dollars.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
... and since Android is basically a distro of Linux, (minus the normal GNU utilities that come with one,) I'm going to say what we're all no doubt thinking, and that's that Linus Torvalds, (inventor of Linux,) said it best when he said:
"Nvidia has been the single worst company we've EVER dealt with... so Nvidia..."
Ah, you know the rest!
Last year I bought the Nvidia Note 7 tablet based on the promise (from what I thought was a trustworthy company) that Android 5 would be released for it "real soon". That promised slipped to February 2015. When February 2015 came and went and there was still no Android 5 update available, Nvidia simply stopped responding to people who were asking about their promised update. They seem quite glad to screw the customer. I've bought a number of Nvidia products in the past for myself and friends, but I'll never buy another.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Here's how it's still legal...
The people who put on the PS3 3.2.1 lawsuit failed to hold forth a legal theory under which Sony was liable. Therefore, there is no case law in which a party was enjoined from doing what nVidia is now doing.
This is not to say that there is *not* a legal theory; only that the PS3 class action idiots failed to put one forth. I can think of several theories that would apply; several of them bear on the insistence these companies have on treating intellectual property as real property:
(1) An easement is a non-possessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it. Sounds like a software license, doesn't it? In this particular case, the right to run the old software on the nVidia device -- or the right to run "Other OS" on a PS3 device -- would be either an implied easement (based on the practices and customs of use for a property), or an "easement by necessity", or easement by prior use.
(1)(a) The strongest claim for an implied easement in the case of a firmware update would be for persons who have had prior use of the easement (in the PS3 case, it means that you must have loaded an "other OS"; in the nVidia case, it means you must have periodically used or relied upon the features being removed).
(1)(b) The next strongest claim for an implied easement would be the intent of the parties; what was the intent nVidia had, when they shipped the features being removed in the update? What was the intent of the person purchasing the device, prior to the removal of the feature, and their expectation of non-removal, if any? Similarly, in the PS3 case, what was the intent of Sony in offering "Other OS"? Was it to drive sales, such that they received benefit from it? What was the intent of the person when they purchased the PS3? Was it only to run "Other OS" (in which case, not updating the firmware is not an issue), or was it use of both the "Other OS" feature *and* the features that would be removed as a result of *not* updating the firmware?
(1)(c) An Easement by necessity could be established in the PS3 case for "Other OS"; like a land-locked parcel without access to a public way, necessity may be established if there was no other way to reach the parcel *and* there was some original intent to provide access to the parcel. This argument would only be likely to be usable by someone who had in fact used "Other OS" on a periodic or regular basis. Given that I do not have the entire laundry list of features that currently exist which will and/or will not be lost when the nVidia update is declined, I can't state for a certainty one way or another whether this could apply in the nVidia case as well.
(1)(d) An Easement by prior use. You would be unlikely to be able to establish this in the PS3 or nVidia cases, given that three of the five elements to establish such an easement are not present: (i) common ownership, (ii) severance, (iii) continued use after severance. It bears mentioning, however, because the threshold for the definition of "necessity" is more lenient than in (1)(c), and a clever lawyer could /potentially/ construct an argument.
OK, what other theories are there?
(2) "Intentionally blocked view"; if your neighbor intentionally and with forethought, built a fence, or plants trees/bamboo that subsequently block your view, and thereby devalued your property or your enjoyment thereof; the legal term for this varies, but it's often called a "spite fence".
(2)(a) The "spite fence" argument, is clearly applicable in the Sony PS3 case, since you would lose access to existing features of the device should you *not* install the firmware update, and lose access to existing features if you *do* install the update could likely be easily construed by the court, especially with a little prompting as "malicious intent" -- a key factor required for judgement on your behalf. Again, I don't know if you could make an "either or" case with the nVidia update -- bu I expect you c
It's so rock solid that games had to be removed from the shield because they didn't work in 5.1. :golfclap.gif:
> How is it still legal for these companies to advertise and sell a whole product but only deliver part of it?
I completely agree. I bought a Galaxy Nexus from Google, and highly enjoyed the Zero Shutter Lag functionality, which was prominently advertised as a major feature of the device. Come Nexus 4, and the software updates to my Galaxy Nexus, and the feature is now gone, and it takes several seconds to take pictures.
Is there any recourse?
If you don't like the terms that are being peddled by proprietary software/hardware vendors consider using Free software on an open platform.
That is the whole point of the GPL. It specifically takes away the ability of a corporation to restrict your software. That's why, from the SOFTWARE'S PERSPECTIVE, it is more free than under any other license.
You don't own proprietary software. It owns you. I have boxes of old, useless, proprietary, software in my basement to illustrate the point.
A false advertising claim. Do you still have a copy of the ad describing the feature? Would you have still bought that phone if it didn't have that feature?
Taking away features is a reason not to buy it, and at this point I won't, ever.
Not even used from one of the poor saps that paid the original price for something that the manufacturer purposely devalued.
Hell, I still have yellow dog as the alternative OS on my PS3 so you can depend on ME not accepting whatever bullshit they want to push.
What country are you in? In the UK you are due a partial refund at minimum.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"How is it still legal for these companies to advertise and sell a whole product but only deliver part of it?"
Because it isn't.
You can send back the device as having been broken by the update. Get a full refund.
Hmm? Oh, yes, this is in Europe, that comie pinko place where the government is all up in your grill and oppressing us with our lack of freedoms from being told that we're fucked by corporations who then use government force to oppress us, but that's not the *corporation's* fault, that's the fault of *government*.
Even over there in the dumb old USA you can still return it to be fixed. And when you get a return of the item with the fault still on it, you still have the broken item. Return it. Then repeat until they or you give up.
Oh, and stop fucking yourselves with your ridiculous lack of laws on corporations and businesses, you frigging dumbasses.
The problem isn't RUNNING Win8/10, but getting SOLITARE on Win8/10, which you CANNOT GET unless you make an account.
Here it is again, TRY not to miss it this time, you fucking moron:
"its not included but still a free download via the store."
"It's a trap to make you create an account*. I can imagine installing Windows 8 or 10 if needed but creating an account to run a desktop OS is something offensive."
While an uproar and custom upgrades they quickly died out.
"...only that the PS3 class action idiots failed to put one forth."
if they only had someone as brilliant as you on the team.
(sarcasm, you fuckwit. You're actually a complete fuckwit, fuckwit).
Brilliant riposte. Not.
The judge went out of his way to state what type of argument he would accept.
Three times.
He gave as broad a hint as he could possibly have given, by dismissing all but the path to the argument for which he would rule in favor.
He put a big red sign in front of it, and then he tied a bow around it for the plaintiff.
He came dangerously close to judicial misconduct in so doing.
Then he left the door open from February, 2011, when he did all the pointing in his ruling, until December 2011, at which point it was clear that the hint was not being taken, and only then did he dismiss the last count of the class.
And *STILL* the PS3 plaintiffs failed to make the case the judge all but asked them to make.
Pardon me, but JESUS F*ING CHRIST, CAN YOU NOT TAKE A JUDICIAL HINT IN *TEN* MONTHS?!?!?
A lawyer would have to either be incompetent, guilty of malpractice, or outright corrupt to not make the argument the judge wanted them to make, after the number of times the judge tried to hit them over the head with a two by four, and tell them how to make their case, and then gave them TEN MONTHS to avoid getting a new judge, rather than a judge who had, effectively, promised to take the argument, if made, and rule in favor of the plaintiff!
Who is the "f*ckwit" here, again?
Why, yes, when you exploit bugs in the underlying OS, your application breaks when those bugs are fixed. In this case, the bugs exploited were design flaws in Dalvik; ART was designed differently; not necessarily better, just with a different set of design flaws.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"The update, which is necessary to run recent games and apps that require Android 5.0 APIs..."
followed by:
"Nvidia has stressed that it is an optional update..."
So let me get this straight... Nvidia says the update which is mandatory to play newer games and possibly older games that are updated is not mandatory for their device specifically designed for gaming... Whadafuq