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.
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
Your arguments aren't valid. I have old computers and old game consoles from THIRTY YEARS AGO that still work fine and their parent companies will never be able to remove any feature or brick them.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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
Updates that are required to support titles released for the device in the future are not optional, assuming you use the device for it's intended purpose. I know they call it "optional" but it's a fucking farce.
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.
These computers don't have encryption, networking, security, html standards, online services, youtube API or even drivers to worry about.
With all these issues, a computer "appliance" from the 2000s can be rendered useless, hell you might have more chance using a PC from 1991 to browse the web with a reasonably recent DOS version of Lynx (albeit without many features)
Wake me up when your 30 year old computer can play GTA5. Until then, the comparison makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Modern pcs and consoles are orders and orders of magnitude more complex than a rustbucket from 30 years ago.
That's not the point. The point is that the PC bought 30 years ago can still do all the things that it could do when it was bought 30 years ago. Your modern PC won't be able to play GTA5 online in 30 years, and probably not in 5 years. In 30 years, you may not be able to play GTA5 at all if you bought it from one of these phone home license shops, because they will probably go out of business.
By buying temporary licenses for games, you don't get to play the game as long or as many times as you want, and yet you have to pay full price for the game. This is the same sort of thing phone manufacturers do when they release an update such as this one. They sold you a phone with feature X, then removed feature X without reimbursing you for the cost of that feature or consulting you or asking if you agreed to do so. Making it an "optional" upgrade that oh by the way fixes lots of issues and security vulnerabilities that leave your phone open to hacking, does not make it any better.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
"An operating system might have a shelf life of 1 or 2 years." Unless you're Microsoft with a solid long-term OS. How many people still run XP? How many people still run 7? Why? Because these pieces of software were designed from the get go to be long term solutions. Other companies simply are not willing to make such an investment in keeping their tech around in the same way.
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
> 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?
Oh yeah, I got burned by this way back with their Tegra 2 chips. Never buying another nVidia mobile chip again.
I read the internet for the articles.
A TV might be expected to work properly for 5 years.
5 years? Lord, you have low expectations...
I expect a TV I buy to work for decades...
An operating system might have a shelf life of 1 or 2 years.
I expect 10 years of reasonable use out of an OS, 1 or 2 years is not NEARLY enough...
Android K uses a different runtime (Dalvik) than L does (Android RunTime, ART). I updated my phone, and some applications stopped working. Apparently, the same thing is the case with these games. So, Nvidia could have always left the games on, in a broken and non-functional state, but what would the point of that be? Nvidia should've found a way to explain the situation and give their customers an informed choice. It sucks that they didn't.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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
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?
"Update their software"? You really have no idea how consoles and computers used to work, do you?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.
They sold you a phone with feature X, then removed feature X without reimbursing you for the cost of that feature or consulting you or asking if you agreed to do so.
If you don't like this, why did you buy a device someone else can remove features from without your consultation?
Well, I think that the reason for the discussion is that people DIDN'T think that the company could remove the features, and now they have, and people are pissed.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
No updates. There was no Internet back then.
Today's hardware and OS are not relevant to the discussion. The games still work on the original consoles and computer hardware from those days running MS-DOS.
I fucking paid for them and they still fucking work even if some of the publishers no longer fucking exist.
Does that answer your questions?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
What a shame that we're both modded Troll! Please.
At this point it's blatant naked moderation abuse. And we're just arguing about boring technical and business issues.
I just hope that the person who modded me down buys Nvidia products. That will be revenge enough.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
"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