4 ms·

Kind of, yes. Terminology used in Australian consumer law is that devices must be "fit for purpose" and of "acceptable quality", especially in regards to other

Kind of, yes. Terminology used in Australian consumer law is that devices must be "fit for purpose" and of "acceptable quality", especially in regards to other similar products. A software update changing the product in a significant and negative way after purchase definitely would be grounds for a "remedy".

paulcole 2y ago
It's a TV! It plays video. How is that not "fit for purpose" and of "acceptable quality." Honestly just seems nuts to me for the law to be so vague. Why don't they just say, "Refund under any circumstance the customer feels inconvenienced and upset" and be done with it? I find that much more honest and easier to follow than what you're describing. Caveat emptor and all.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  I think you're being unreasonable. "Acceptable quality" is whatever a reasonable person accepts an argument for. If Roku doesn't want to run afoul of these laws perhaps they should make these kinds of features optional instead of forcing them on people? I remember back in the day when a software update removed my ability to play FM radio on my phone and that was certainly frustrating for me. I personally continued using the phone but I could see how someone who purchased the phone for that feature would be dismayed at its sudden removal. The whole point of these laws is to prevent manufacturers from squeezing people by making products that fail early, or that are difficult to use. If you don't understand why this is important then I'd question how much life experience you really have.
  - paulcole 2y ago
    > If Roku doesn't want to run afoul of these laws perhaps they should make these kinds of features optional instead of forcing them on people? Maybe they don't care about running afoul of these laws? Or feel that they are on solid ground? > The whole point of these laws is to prevent manufacturers from squeezing people by making products that fail early, or that are difficult to use. But neither of those things happened in this case did they? The TV still TVs (it didn't fail early) and it's not suddenly more difficult to use. The person just dislikes the update. > I personally continued using the phone but I could see how someone who purchased the phone for that feature would be dismayed at its sudden removal. I guess this is where we differ. Somebody feeling dismayed does not mean the company owes them a refund (in my opinion) and governments should not (in my opinion) be writing laws that protect people from being dismayed with their purchases.
    - thfuran 2y ago
      I can understand not caring about motion smoothing, but I cannot fathom being totally okay with manufacturers being able to retroactively change features of a product after you've purchased it and without your consent. Would you not mind if your car got an over the air update and suddenly had a governor at 70 mph and half the acceleration? Would you be okay with your airpods suddenly deciding that they can only pair with sufficiently new apple devices? Any change that would materially affect the purchase price or decision to purchase absolutely must not be imposed unconditionally after purchase. It's fraud with extra steps.
      - paulcole 2y ago
        > I cannot fathom being totally okay with manufacturers being able to retroactively change features of a product after you've purchased it and without your consent. I can! It's a thing that presumably I was happy with for some amount of time. Things change. > Would you be okay with your airpods suddenly deciding that they can only pair with sufficiently new apple devices Yes! It's a risk of buying something. I can evaluate that risk and I can make different buying decisions in the future if I get burned.
        thfuran 2y ago
        Are you okay with a bait and switch executed on a shorter time frame? How about a third party breaking into your house and breaking your things, or is that only alright when the original manufacturer does it?
        paulcole 2y ago
        > Are you okay with a bait and switch executed on a shorter time frame If I pay for it, I’m OK with it. If I decide I’m not OK with it, I’ll either not buy it or learn my lesson and make a different decision in the future. > How about a third party breaking into your house and breaking your things, or is that only alright when the original manufacturer does it? Why don’t you take a wild guess here?

paulcole 2y ago

It's a TV! It plays video. How is that not "fit for purpose" and of "acceptable quality." Honestly just seems nuts to me for the law to be so vague. Why don't they just say, "Refund under any circumstance the customer feels inconvenienced and upset" and be done with it? I find that much more honest and easier to follow than what you're describing. Caveat emptor and all.

throwway120385 2y ago
I think you're being unreasonable. "Acceptable quality" is whatever a reasonable person accepts an argument for. If Roku doesn't want to run afoul of these laws perhaps they should make these kinds of features optional instead of forcing them on people? I remember back in the day when a software update removed my ability to play FM radio on my phone and that was certainly frustrating for me. I personally continued using the phone but I could see how someone who purchased the phone for that feature would be dismayed at its sudden removal. The whole point of these laws is to prevent manufacturers from squeezing people by making products that fail early, or that are difficult to use. If you don't understand why this is important then I'd question how much life experience you really have.
- paulcole 2y ago
  > If Roku doesn't want to run afoul of these laws perhaps they should make these kinds of features optional instead of forcing them on people? Maybe they don't care about running afoul of these laws? Or feel that they are on solid ground? > The whole point of these laws is to prevent manufacturers from squeezing people by making products that fail early, or that are difficult to use. But neither of those things happened in this case did they? The TV still TVs (it didn't fail early) and it's not suddenly more difficult to use. The person just dislikes the update. > I personally continued using the phone but I could see how someone who purchased the phone for that feature would be dismayed at its sudden removal. I guess this is where we differ. Somebody feeling dismayed does not mean the company owes them a refund (in my opinion) and governments should not (in my opinion) be writing laws that protect people from being dismayed with their purchases.
  - thfuran 2y ago
    I can understand not caring about motion smoothing, but I cannot fathom being totally okay with manufacturers being able to retroactively change features of a product after you've purchased it and without your consent. Would you not mind if your car got an over the air update and suddenly had a governor at 70 mph and half the acceleration? Would you be okay with your airpods suddenly deciding that they can only pair with sufficiently new apple devices? Any change that would materially affect the purchase price or decision to purchase absolutely must not be imposed unconditionally after purchase. It's fraud with extra steps.
    - paulcole 2y ago
      > I cannot fathom being totally okay with manufacturers being able to retroactively change features of a product after you've purchased it and without your consent. I can! It's a thing that presumably I was happy with for some amount of time. Things change. > Would you be okay with your airpods suddenly deciding that they can only pair with sufficiently new apple devices Yes! It's a risk of buying something. I can evaluate that risk and I can make different buying decisions in the future if I get burned.
      - thfuran 2y ago
        Are you okay with a bait and switch executed on a shorter time frame? How about a third party breaking into your house and breaking your things, or is that only alright when the original manufacturer does it?
        paulcole 2y ago
        > Are you okay with a bait and switch executed on a shorter time frame If I pay for it, I’m OK with it. If I decide I’m not OK with it, I’ll either not buy it or learn my lesson and make a different decision in the future. > How about a third party breaking into your house and breaking your things, or is that only alright when the original manufacturer does it? Why don’t you take a wild guess here?