The Android L Update For Nvidia Shield Portable Removes Features 117
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?
Right ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People are idiots. They keep buying shit from companies and even laud them despite the shit they pull. Case in point for this site: Valve. They took away your rights in court, requiring almost always unfair to the consumer arbitration. Then they denied access to games for those who refused the new agreement.
Yet everyone here thinks they can do no wrong.
I don't know how to fix it, but I do know it sucks for us all. :(
Re: (Score:2)
That's entertainment... Buyer beware...
You know what would be cool? If people who buy stuff formed an organization where they could rate products and post prices on a public forum. Probably best to have the government do it so it doesn't get bought out by some hedge fund guy and dismantled. Then we could have one stop window shopping and everything. So many problems can be avoided if we could only communicate more effectively.
Re: (Score:3)
and at that, only one of the three games returned... but in a new, horrible fashion. why... the... fuck... do these games... which worked on windows 3.1 on 386 PCs running at 16MHz.... REQUIRE A GODDAMN LOADING SCREEN NOW!? And they're apparently to large/complex to bundle with the OS anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GOOD -- because what else are receptionists supposed to use their computers for?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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. It's like showing your papers to a police officer every time you want to use a computer.
Also why I don't care much about upgrading my PC to run more Steam linux games.
*though per above theverge.com article, Solitaire is back as a built-in but Hearts is still on the store.
Try reading the post, dumbass. (Score:1)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
It's a trap to make you create an account*.
Perhaps, but it is a pretty gentle one...
Look, if you're going to use Windows 10, just get on with it and make a Microsoft account already, sooner or later you'll need one, wanted or otherwise...
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft removed the most played game of all time without warning. What makes you think this is even in the same ballpark?
Windows is an OS. The less bloatware and cruft is installed by default, the better. Let the consumer decide if they want Solitaire. Apparently it is available for download in Windows 10. At least, that is what I heard. I have Windows 7 and won't be updating until I have to. My Windows has Solitaire AND Spider Solitaire.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Customers Let Them (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You are correct. When companies crap all over their customers, the correct response would be to not buy the product, and let the company go out of business. But instead, people buy the product anyway and then gripe about it on the internet. Oooh! That will show them. No. They got your money. They don't read the internet. They assume crapping on their customers is the way the customers like it.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with that line of thinking is that you don't really have any other option. Even when there actually is competition in the market for the device you need, their ToS is around 100% guaranteed to be just as bad.
As a consumer, our options these days basically amount to "go back to 1800s lifestyle" or "bend over and enjoy it" because every piece of tech sold, up to and including your phone, car, stereo, etc, all come with these types of strings attached and there's a whole lot of jack all you can do
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with you about most of the products, but music is BS. Music is art. You don't need it and there are plenty of artists out there who don't act like total shit heads and are just trying to make a living. Go discover one and patronize them. Stop giving money to artists that treat their patrons like garbage.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with that line of thinking is that you don't really have any other option. Even when there actually is competition in the market for the device you need, their ToS is around 100% guaranteed to be just as bad. As a consumer, our options these days basically amount to "go back to 1800s lifestyle" or "bend over and enjoy it" because every piece of tech sold, up to and including your phone, car, stereo, etc, all come with these types of strings attached and there's a whole lot of jack all you can do about it.
The trouble is that we have convinced ourselves that we "need" these devices, when we really don't. I mean, a few people might have to have one for their job, but for the most part, is it "want". And the people that "want" these devices (teenagers, college students, etc) seem to care less about the invasion of privacy and BS EULAs that no sane person would ever agree with. So the rest of us are stuck either not having the device, which means we have no input, or buying the device anyway, which is interpret
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the difference is that enterprises pretend to care about security but in reality every member wants exceptions for themselves based on their power and position, so the end result is insecure and inconvenient. Nor are they wrong to want those exceptions, since security tends to get in the way of getting anything done, so anyone who actually cares about it will be outcompeted by som
Re: (Score:3)
No, the CEOs say that. The rich greedy bastard maximizing executive compensation say that.
The "entire" IT community sure as hell doesn't say that. Many many people have figured out the free market is a fucking fairy tale.
The IT community is not defined by the rich assholes who get heard more often. And I'm sorry, but listening to rich assholes is the fucking problem -- because wha
Re: (Score:2)
No, the CEOs say that. The rich greedy bastard maximizing executive compensation say that.
The "entire" IT community sure as hell doesn't say that. Many many people have figured out the free market is a fucking fairy tale.
The IT community is not defined by the rich assholes who get heard more often. And I'm sorry, but listening to rich assholes is the fucking problem -- because what they're telling us a self-serving lie.
There is no damned free market.
I agree with your sentiment but it has been my experience that the majority of workers in our industry are very much opposed to government interference of any kind. I am personally opposed to over regulation however I believe that our industry has gotten too much of a free pass over the years and indeed that is why the notion of a "software engineer" is a contradiction-in-terms.
Engineers are legally responsible for thier errors. Even the very small niches such as process control and biomedical the functiona
Re:Right ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Has anyone mentioned that these games were removed for compatibility reasons? Does that make a difference? I'd love to know how nvidia is supposed to fix 3rd party games if they simply don't work on the latest version of the OS? Do they not let people update? Or leave the games there, but just broken? I'm not sure there are any good answers here. Ideally, the developers would fix their own games, but there's probably very little financial incentive for them to do that at this point.
Why exactly is this a breaking update? That might be a good question to ask as well. This is sort of crappy for owners of those devices, but I'm not sure this is in quite the same league as what Sony did.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When there is bundled in software like this, money is involved. When money is involved, contracts are involved. With contracts, they should directly stipulate that the 3rd party software companies that have their software included must update their software for the life cycle of the device as a term of being allowed to be bundled in. Since this apparently wasn't the case, the OS bundler fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you feel that the poor, poor company should be let off scot free because they only stole from the public. Bless their tiny little corporate hearts.
NO. That is not how it work
Re: (Score:2)
they have a responsibility to pay the developer whatever is necessary to fix it
Says who? Last I checked the only responsibility we assign to corporations is "maximize profit," barring the odd edge case where a court requires them to do something above and beyond that (usually cleaning up some mess that they wrought and hoped nobody would notice.)
Its a pretty shitty deal for us normal citizens but unfortunately its the way the world works these days (and well, pretty much always.. money has never been far from power nor ever had much trouble getting its way regardless of the cost to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you bought a car and then, while under warranty, a firmware update was released for it that resolved safety issues but also disabled the A/C, would you accept that situation, or would you expect a feature you paid for to be re
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. As a SHIELD Porta
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a particular reason they need to push an OS update that breaks shit, especially seeing how the Shield is still a relatively new product?
It's kind of like Windows 10 being released and people find half of the games released last year don't work. Clearly, there's something wrong with that update, and architectural failings need to be criticized. The Android OS really should be mature at this point.
I'm getting sick of this. There was a time where things would work for 5-10 years with only occasiona
Re: Right ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part where the games are not compatible with 5.1? Unless the author of the games feel like updating them, what is Nvidia supposed to do? Would you have them leave the games and waste storage space -- makes sense -- SMH.
This is not even in the same REALM as what Sony did with the PS3. Sony had absolutely no reason to remove the functionality, and it wasn't optional. I have the SHEILD tablet and I have deliberately kept it on 4.4 because I can't STAND 5.x, and I have yet to come across anythi
Re: (Score:2)
This is not even in the same REALM as what Sony did with the PS3. Sony had absolutely no reason to remove the functionality
They thought they had a reason, they were worried about a Linux exploit leading to easy piracy. Sure there was only "proof of concept" stuff, but they were worried about what "might" happen and took preventative steps.
There were also issues with trying to keep OtherOS working properly, after they let their maintainer go. There was a video output compatibility issue with Linux in one of firmwares just prior to 3.21 . IIRC it was 3.10. And we mustn't forget that the partition schemes weren't optimal in th
Re: (Score:2)
Make them send you a check [engadget.com]. I only mention this particular instance because I received a (very small and clearly token [verizonwireless.com]) check for VZW crippling my Motorola V710 after advertising it as having fancy Bluetooth features.
Similarly, I bought a G1 and was subsequently disappointed by Google's handling of Android. Didn't get a check from that, though. Just stopped buying phones with Android on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Nvidia is actually progressive in this. They could just as easily leave you with a 2 year old brick having a useless version of Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it was too much trouble for you to visit the games on the Play store. They do NOT work with new ART runtime which is the only thing available in 5.x. *sigh*
Re: (Score:1)
ART wasn't ready.
it went from experimental to release without fixing the shit found in the experimental to get broken. some of them are "design decisions" true, but still crap from user point of view.
especially when the claimed performance increases are.. well, 50-100% ? nowhere to be benched. "apps start faster" which was never a problem to begin with..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solitaire is for chumps. All the cool kids know that 3D Pinball is where it's at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 y
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Update their software"? You really have no idea how consoles and computers used to work, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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...
it's a Hobson's choice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Will you come with me? Won't you come with me? Woooah what I want to know is will you come with me?
Do you want to lose customers? (Score:2)
Because this is how you lose customers.
why do people keep buying this crap? (Score:1)
Never buy Nvidia (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
From comments in TFA's page, the update for Tegra Note 7 has been released simultaneously as this one.
I wonder if it's even due to finding out Android 5.0 sucked, and they didn't want to inflict it on you. Or just greed, lack of budget.
Sadly as it is, they upgrading the OS on a mobile product from 2013 puts them on a short list of brands updating their crap.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's how it's still legal... (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I like the UK system. In the case of what Sony did you are due a refund based on how much you use that feature. If it's the only reason you bought a PS3 and now it's effectively useless to you (since you can't downgrade), you get 100% of your money back. If it's something you used along side playing games you can get say a 50% refund.
Deducted from that is an amount based on the amount of time you have owned the device. If you bought it the week before the surprise update the deduction is zero. If you bought
Brilliant riposte. Not. (Score:4, Interesting)
"...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?
Give me back my Zero Shutter Lag @ Galaxy Nexus! (Score:3)
> 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. [tu.cnst.su]
Is there any recourse?
Re: (Score:2)
What country are you in? In the UK you are due a partial refund at minimum.
Taking away features? (Score:2)
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.
Well, PS3 removed it's Linux ablity (Score:2)
While an uproar and custom upgrades they quickly died out.
wat (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.