6 ms·

How it works constantly changes. When you bought it, it didn't share your internet. Now it does. I bought my mom a tv and a few months later she mentioned a

How it works constantly changes. When you bought it, it didn't share your internet. Now it does. I bought my mom a tv and a few months later she mentioned a new wifi network she didn't understand...turns out with an OTA update the TV now broadcasts its own Wifi network and lord knows what it does on it. I would not have bought it under those terms, the terms changed, and now I have to take a loss to replace the TV with something that doesn't do that. So instead, if the functionality of the device changes after the fact, the company who updated the app should be liable for cost to replace the device with a new one that doesn't have the new behaviour.

judge2020 5y ago
That's part of my A point. Regardless of how it technically functions, it has the ability to create and receive radio waves and thus might update itself without your knowledge or permission. As long as it technically doesn't lose functionality that's advertised, there's no problem in terms of consumer protection laws. > I would not have bought it under those terms, the terms changed, and now I have to take a loss to replace the TV with something that doesn't do that. Same as above: the terms didn't change and they aren't what it can do now; the terms are that this device might update functionality and that future change, if applied to your device, will be applied to your device under the current terms that allow it. If you don't like that, you don't have to use the device's software and you still have the right to hit the hardware you possess a hammer. As for if you ethically should be entitled to a refund, well, how do you determine the point where someone is entitled to grievances? What if someone buys a $1000 laptop for the purpose of playing high-end games, but in 10 years game developers start dropping support for the old architecture it uses or new games simply don't run well on it. Should they be entitled to a refund? What if, on surface devices, Windows moves the start menu to the middle (a la Windows 10X), and you didn't expect that - does Microsoft now have to refund or replace your product? Regarding: > turns out with an OTA update the TV now broadcasts its own Wifi network and lord knows what it does on it. That's probably a way to directly stream to the TV without a separate wifi network, or part of the setup experience (eg. connect to its wifi, type in your real wifi password, it shuts down the network then connects to your main wifi). They don't just throw extra wifi chips on their boards for no reason, so it's probably one of these.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  >As long as it technically doesn't lose functionality that's advertised, there's no problem in terms of consumer protection laws. Disagree. Starting a wifi network in my home I have no control over and can't disable was not part of the device feature set when I bought it, and I would not have bought it if it was. The functionality that was lost was my ability to control the wifi my own devices make. >Same as above: the terms didn't change and they aren't what it can do now; the terms are that this device might update functionality and that future change, if applied to your device, will be applied to your device under the current terms that allow it. If you don't like that, you don't have to use the device's software and you still have the right to hit the hardware you possess a hammer. Disagree. The terms changed because the terms never contained an uncontrollable wifi network in my home. Terms of use that allow unending changes with no thought to consideration (in the legal sense) aren't contracts of any merit. Contracts that allow one side to unendingly damage the other side without consideration have no merit, no matter what anyone says. If I hit it with a hammer I'm still out the money due to their changes to the device I purchased. I'm taking a loss due to changes in the terms that have no consideration and are different than the terms I agreed to. >As for if you ethically should be entitled to a refund, well, how do you determine the point where someone is entitled to grievances? There is no such thing as ethically being entitled to a refund. It's fantasy. >That's probably a way to directly stream to the TV The TV does it whether you're streaming or not. You can't disable it, there is no setting to turn it off. The TV is hardwired to the router and isn't streaming anything. Even if I was streaming to the TV, it would be on my own wifi network, on theirs. There's no reason for them to control a wifi network in my house, period. "Smart" devices are just devices that act against your interest interest because 'the terms of service you agreed to when you set it up had unlimited changes for one party'.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Your disagreement doesn't hold up in terms of false advertising in that the device advertised being able to play music with your voice, not 'granular control over the wifi and other RF waves emitted!'. > Contracts that allow one side to unendingly damage the other side without consideration have no merit, no matter what anyone says. You'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge of damages given you have the option to turn this off and Amazon gave warning to customers about this functionality well in advance (November 24, 2020 is when I received the email https://i.judge.sh/right/Armor/chrome_lbf9jmauwR.png https://i.judge.sh/right/Armor/chrome_lbf9jmauwR.png ). > The TV does it whether you're streaming or not. You can't disable it, there is no setting to turn it off. The TV is hardwired to the router and isn't streaming anything. Even if I was streaming to the TV, it would be on my own wifi network, on theirs. There's no reason for them to control a wifi network in my house, period. Probably just faulty engineering then, ie if !wifi.connected: wifi.enable_wifi_direct() And bad engineering isn't usually tackled by local consumer protection agencies when they can just let the market sort itself out. And this is what I mean by direct play: https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-direct https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-direct
airhead969 5y ago
Class-action lawsuit
aschatten 5y ago
This is why I want to have a “dumb” TV, I only want it to support high quality video and multiple inputs and have no brains at all. I can’t find any decent so far.

judge2020 5y ago

That's part of my A point. Regardless of how it technically functions, it has the ability to create and receive radio waves and thus might update itself without your knowledge or permission. As long as it technically doesn't lose functionality that's advertised, there's no problem in terms of consumer protection laws. > I would not have bought it under those terms, the terms changed, and now I have to take a loss to replace the TV with something that doesn't do that. Same as above: the terms didn't change and they aren't what it can do now; the terms are that this device might update functionality and that future change, if applied to your device, will be applied to your device under the current terms that allow it. If you don't like that, you don't have to use the device's software and you still have the right to hit the hardware you possess a hammer. As for if you ethically should be entitled to a refund, well, how do you determine the point where someone is entitled to grievances? What if someone buys a $1000 laptop for the purpose of playing high-end games, but in 10 years game developers start dropping support for the old architecture it uses or new games simply don't run well on it. Should they be entitled to a refund? What if, on surface devices, Windows moves the start menu to the middle (a la Windows 10X), and you didn't expect that - does Microsoft now have to refund or replace your product? Regarding: > turns out with an OTA update the TV now broadcasts its own Wifi network and lord knows what it does on it. That's probably a way to directly stream to the TV without a separate wifi network, or part of the setup experience (eg. connect to its wifi, type in your real wifi password, it shuts down the network then connects to your main wifi). They don't just throw extra wifi chips on their boards for no reason, so it's probably one of these.

LegitShady 5y ago
>As long as it technically doesn't lose functionality that's advertised, there's no problem in terms of consumer protection laws. Disagree. Starting a wifi network in my home I have no control over and can't disable was not part of the device feature set when I bought it, and I would not have bought it if it was. The functionality that was lost was my ability to control the wifi my own devices make. >Same as above: the terms didn't change and they aren't what it can do now; the terms are that this device might update functionality and that future change, if applied to your device, will be applied to your device under the current terms that allow it. If you don't like that, you don't have to use the device's software and you still have the right to hit the hardware you possess a hammer. Disagree. The terms changed because the terms never contained an uncontrollable wifi network in my home. Terms of use that allow unending changes with no thought to consideration (in the legal sense) aren't contracts of any merit. Contracts that allow one side to unendingly damage the other side without consideration have no merit, no matter what anyone says. If I hit it with a hammer I'm still out the money due to their changes to the device I purchased. I'm taking a loss due to changes in the terms that have no consideration and are different than the terms I agreed to. >As for if you ethically should be entitled to a refund, well, how do you determine the point where someone is entitled to grievances? There is no such thing as ethically being entitled to a refund. It's fantasy. >That's probably a way to directly stream to the TV The TV does it whether you're streaming or not. You can't disable it, there is no setting to turn it off. The TV is hardwired to the router and isn't streaming anything. Even if I was streaming to the TV, it would be on my own wifi network, on theirs. There's no reason for them to control a wifi network in my house, period. "Smart" devices are just devices that act against your interest interest because 'the terms of service you agreed to when you set it up had unlimited changes for one party'.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Your disagreement doesn't hold up in terms of false advertising in that the device advertised being able to play music with your voice, not 'granular control over the wifi and other RF waves emitted!'. > Contracts that allow one side to unendingly damage the other side without consideration have no merit, no matter what anyone says. You'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge of damages given you have the option to turn this off and Amazon gave warning to customers about this functionality well in advance (November 24, 2020 is when I received the email https://i.judge.sh/right/Armor/chrome_lbf9jmauwR.png https://i.judge.sh/right/Armor/chrome_lbf9jmauwR.png ). > The TV does it whether you're streaming or not. You can't disable it, there is no setting to turn it off. The TV is hardwired to the router and isn't streaming anything. Even if I was streaming to the TV, it would be on my own wifi network, on theirs. There's no reason for them to control a wifi network in my house, period. Probably just faulty engineering then, ie if !wifi.connected: wifi.enable_wifi_direct() And bad engineering isn't usually tackled by local consumer protection agencies when they can just let the market sort itself out. And this is what I mean by direct play: https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-direct https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-direct

airhead969 5y ago

Class-action lawsuit

aschatten 5y ago

This is why I want to have a “dumb” TV, I only want it to support high quality video and multiple inputs and have no brains at all. I can’t find any decent so far.