A class action lawsuit alleges that Amazon unfairly ‘bricked’ older Kindle devices by removing access to digital content and discontinuing software support.
If it was six months, that would be a very different situation. But the devices being discontinued are from 2012 and earlier, meaning they got at least 14 years of support. If 14 is not enough, what do you think a reasonable minimum should be?
If it was six months, that would be a very different situation.
I agree… but as it stands today, Amazon could have done this with a 6 months old device that simply did not sell as they wanted.
But the devices being discontinued are from 2012 and earlier, meaning they got at least 14 years of support.
It’s not “support”, Amazon locks their devices to their sources, once they cut them off the devices are basically useless for the majority of users who are not tech savvy enough
If 14 is not enough, what do you think a reasonable minimum should be?
Again, the law has to define what’s “reasonable” (and that is already a very shitty way of defining law but that’s how the US does it).
Is it reasonable for Nintendo to say “people did not expect tariff refunds therefore we don’t have to give them while WE did collect them”? well, if there is no case law that argues one way or the other, anything can be argued as “reasonable”
This lawsuit would help establish what is legally reasonable and if it does not take place, reasonable is whatever Amazon wants… and you seem to prefer that scenario?
They’re not ‘useless’ though, they continue to work offline, and that kind of hyperbole makes it hard to take this seriously.
Yes, my TV also works offline… I cannot load any channels or watch anything new but it still works
I really am asking here, if 14 years isn’t enough, what minimum would be? I’m asking what you think is reasonable.
I already explained this… actually I already explained the other part as well…
There is an old saying that translates to something like “the worst kind of blindness is found in those who just do not want to see”
here it is again:
Again, the law has to define what’s “reasonable” (and that is already a very shitty way of defining law but that’s how the US does it).
Is it reasonable for Nintendo to say “people did not expect tariff refunds therefore we don’t have to give them while WE did collect them”? well, if there is no case law that argues one way or the other, anything can be argued as “reasonable”
This lawsuit would help establish what is legally reasonable and if it does not take place, reasonable is whatever Amazon wants… and you seem to prefer that scenario?
It’s a pretty simple question, I dunno why you couldn’t give a straight answer. I think it’s going to be hard to win this kind of battle if you can’t give a direct answer.
The issue is that my personal opinion does not matter here; the whole point of the lawsuit is to find what is “reasonable” as per the law.
Now, if you are just looking to chat. Here it goes:
For a company with the resources of Amazon, I’d say it’s reasonable that they never cut off their own products as long as they continue in the branch of business these products are intended to serve. In this case, if amazon will continue selling and distributing digital eBooks, then they should continue supporting their old hardware with the service.
If for a technical reason this cannot be accomplished; for example, if the new standard of eBooks is incompatible with the old hardware AND an update is not technically feasible (TECHNICALLY feasible, not “it cost me money”); then Amazon should jailbreak the old devices, for free, so the customers that bought it could more easily find alternatives
PS: please note that a personal option, or making it “simple” or “direct”, are artificially imposed barriers to “win” here imposed by you. My point continues to be that it is reasonable for this lawsuit to take place precisely so that a definition of “reasonable” can be recorded in case law
If you want to set a precedent, you have to first pick a battle you can actually win. Your inability to answer the question comes across as a tacit admission that 14 years isn’t unreasonable, in which case I don’t see this fight as winnable.
If it was six months, that would be a very different situation. But the devices being discontinued are from 2012 and earlier, meaning they got at least 14 years of support. If 14 is not enough, what do you think a reasonable minimum should be?
I agree… but as it stands today, Amazon could have done this with a 6 months old device that simply did not sell as they wanted.
It’s not “support”, Amazon locks their devices to their sources, once they cut them off the devices are basically useless for the majority of users who are not tech savvy enough
Again, the law has to define what’s “reasonable” (and that is already a very shitty way of defining law but that’s how the US does it).
Is it reasonable for Nintendo to say “people did not expect tariff refunds therefore we don’t have to give them while WE did collect them”? well, if there is no case law that argues one way or the other, anything can be argued as “reasonable”
This lawsuit would help establish what is legally reasonable and if it does not take place, reasonable is whatever Amazon wants… and you seem to prefer that scenario?
They’re not ‘useless’ though, they continue to work offline, and that kind of hyperbole makes it hard to take this seriously.
I really am asking here, if 14 years isn’t enough, what minimum would be? I’m asking what you think is reasonable.
Yes, my TV also works offline… I cannot load any channels or watch anything new but it still works
I already explained this… actually I already explained the other part as well…
There is an old saying that translates to something like “the worst kind of blindness is found in those who just do not want to see”
here it is again:
Again, the law has to define what’s “reasonable” (and that is already a very shitty way of defining law but that’s how the US does it).
Is it reasonable for Nintendo to say “people did not expect tariff refunds therefore we don’t have to give them while WE did collect them”? well, if there is no case law that argues one way or the other, anything can be argued as “reasonable”
This lawsuit would help establish what is legally reasonable and if it does not take place, reasonable is whatever Amazon wants… and you seem to prefer that scenario?
That did not answer my question.
then I can’t help you
It’s a pretty simple question, I dunno why you couldn’t give a straight answer. I think it’s going to be hard to win this kind of battle if you can’t give a direct answer.
The issue is that my personal opinion does not matter here; the whole point of the lawsuit is to find what is “reasonable” as per the law.
Now, if you are just looking to chat. Here it goes:
For a company with the resources of Amazon, I’d say it’s reasonable that they never cut off their own products as long as they continue in the branch of business these products are intended to serve. In this case, if amazon will continue selling and distributing digital eBooks, then they should continue supporting their old hardware with the service.
If for a technical reason this cannot be accomplished; for example, if the new standard of eBooks is incompatible with the old hardware AND an update is not technically feasible (TECHNICALLY feasible, not “it cost me money”); then Amazon should jailbreak the old devices, for free, so the customers that bought it could more easily find alternatives
PS: please note that a personal option, or making it “simple” or “direct”, are artificially imposed barriers to “win” here imposed by you. My point continues to be that it is reasonable for this lawsuit to take place precisely so that a definition of “reasonable” can be recorded in case law
If you want to set a precedent, you have to first pick a battle you can actually win. Your inability to answer the question comes across as a tacit admission that 14 years isn’t unreasonable, in which case I don’t see this fight as winnable.