4 ms·

People bought devices that did not show the ads. Now Google has forced those ads onto those devices. So, hindsight being 20/20, this is yet another abuse.

LegitShady 5y ago
You're not wrong, but what should be the narrative to any future devices like this is: "They change it after selling it to you for the worse, don't buy their products." When that becomes the reputation the problem will solve itself when they stop selling them from bad reputation.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  It's still vandalistic destruction of property Google doesn't own. Google and their hardware partners owe refunds to all these customers.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are implicit expectations during a purchase that shouldn't ideally be violated. But I'm curious if you truly believe this, or if it's just hyperbole. In this "fully my property, not a service I'm using" framework, would an update that patches a security vulnerability be "altruism"? Would refusal on Google's part to patch vulnerabilities be a completely acceptable refusal to futz with someone's property? This is a serious question; my perspective is that "I thought I was buying unchanging property" is disingenuous unless you're similarly surprised by app updates and maintenance (let alone feature development). The expectation of these updates makes it pretty clear to me that this resembles a service more than a static product that Google has ability to "vandalize" (or responsibility to maintain).
    - fartcannon 5y ago
      They should be legally required to supply security patches and legally required not to reduce the functionality of the device. If they can't do that, then they need to stay out of the space.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  And how much billions is the marketing budget to get that narrative successful ? /s
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    mostly memes
swebs 5y ago
After a certain point, you have to start noticing patterns.

LegitShady 5y ago

You're not wrong, but what should be the narrative to any future devices like this is: "They change it after selling it to you for the worse, don't buy their products." When that becomes the reputation the problem will solve itself when they stop selling them from bad reputation.

alisonkisk 5y ago
It's still vandalistic destruction of property Google doesn't own. Google and their hardware partners owe refunds to all these customers.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are implicit expectations during a purchase that shouldn't ideally be violated. But I'm curious if you truly believe this, or if it's just hyperbole. In this "fully my property, not a service I'm using" framework, would an update that patches a security vulnerability be "altruism"? Would refusal on Google's part to patch vulnerabilities be a completely acceptable refusal to futz with someone's property? This is a serious question; my perspective is that "I thought I was buying unchanging property" is disingenuous unless you're similarly surprised by app updates and maintenance (let alone feature development). The expectation of these updates makes it pretty clear to me that this resembles a service more than a static product that Google has ability to "vandalize" (or responsibility to maintain).
  - fartcannon 5y ago
    They should be legally required to supply security patches and legally required not to reduce the functionality of the device. If they can't do that, then they need to stay out of the space.
johnchristopher 5y ago
And how much billions is the marketing budget to get that narrative successful ? /s
- LegitShady 5y ago
  mostly memes

swebs 5y ago

After a certain point, you have to start noticing patterns.