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?
When there is bundled in software like this, money is involved. When money is involved, contracts are involved. With contracts, they should directly stipulate that the 3rd party software companies that have their software included must update their software for the life cycle of the device as a term of being allowed to be bundled in. Since this apparently wasn't the case, the OS bundler fucked up.
"...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?