Samsung Sued Over "Defective" Blu-ray Player 222
Anneka notes that, although both Netflix and Best Buy threw logs on HD DVD's funeral pyre today, things are not all going Blu-ray's way. A Connecticut man is suing Samsung, the maker that brought the first Blu-ray players to market, over its "defective" BD-P1200 player. The lawsuit seeks class-action status. The problem is that the Samsung BD-P1200 is a "Profile 1.0" player that can't play some Blu-ray discs and Samsung has no intention (or ability) to upgrade these players via firmware. Quoting Ars: "The meager requirements of the 1.0 profile mean that Blu-ray players which fail to implement the optional features won't be able to take advantage of picture-in-picture, which requires secondary decoders. 1.0 players are also unable to store local content, lacking the 256MB of storage mandated by the 1.1 profile. Profile 1.1 discs should still play on 1.0 players, however, but the extra features will not work."
There's a reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the problem is? (Score:1, Insightful)
Think of this another way: I have a MacBook with a Core Duo CPU. It's a 32-bit x86 processor with SSE3. It will run OSX 10.5 Leopard in 32-bit mode, but 64-bit features won't work, and 64-bit only applications won't run. Should I go and sue Apple for selling me a defective product? Should I demand they give me an update? It's not like a new EFI ROM will turn a 32-bit chip into a 64-bit one, either.
How I love the american legal system. (Score:4, Insightful)
These frivolous lawsuits need to stop. They really need to start tossing these people out on there asses or pressing some criminal negligence charges against them.
Blu-ray victory is a joke at this point (Score:1, Insightful)
Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless they're changing the name, ol' Joe is going to get upset when it doesn't work like it says on the box. Joe is used to auto recalls and static products, and I think BluRay forgot that in their little war to win the format.
Read before you complain (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing these companies getting a slap on the wrist for a changing definition of what Blu-Ray is by changing the profile but not making the differences obvious (it's a little tiny box on the back of a case).
That said, sounds like the guy has a case to me. Read this part:
It was defective. It sounds like the bought a DVD player (let's pretend) that wouldn't play a good percentage of DVDs. Not "doesn't play every neat feature". Not "doesn't support 12.16 theatrical sound". Just plain "won't play". They could fix it with a software update, but they don't seem to want to.
That part is bait-and-switch. He bought a player that should play any good Blu-Ray movie (possibly san-extras). It won't play many of them. Either all those movies are defective, or the player is. If it is the player, he was ripped off. At the very least, they should have replaced his player with something that would play movies.
Re:BluRay vs BluRay - Not created equal (Score:0, Insightful)
This lawsuit is so silly it's not really newsworthy. Probably some amateur lawyer who looks at the legal system as his own personal, free lottery ticket.
Re:I bet it gets thrown out (Score:2, Insightful)
It can't possibly win.
After reading the court papers [courthousenews.com], paragraph 5 states that the nature of the case is that Samsung was aware the player was defective, however if you look at the conditions provided by SONY, the system met ALL profile 1.0 standards and is not defective. Due to this wording alone the claim is damaged.
Paragraph 7 says that selling thie Blu-Ray player cause injury(not physical) to the plaintiff. What injury, the world knowing how much of an ass-hat he is? Obviously this is completely trumped up and any self respecting judge would not even consider ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
In the factual allegations, it is never stated that Samsung claimed that all Blu-Ray disc profiles would work on this system. Most of the 'factual' allegations are merely ripped from the Blu-Ray advertising that is put out by Sony, in regards to storage capacity and picture quality. I didn't see anything at all about picture in picture claims made by Samsung. If no claim was made by Samsung then I don't see a case.
Re:I bet it gets thrown out (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should it? If he bought something marked that it plays Blu-Ray it should play any media that is also marked Blu-Ray, regardless of when either was bought. Just because it was the first player to market doesn't make it exempt. If they change the spec they should change the marking to at least show that the two aren't compatible.
Re:Defective CD Players (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you see any of these logos [google.com] on the front or back paper inserts, on the OUTSIDE of the case (not inside, as in after opening the case,) SPECIFICALLY the one that says Compact Disc Digital Audio?
If you don't see the CDDA, then it's safe to assume that the CD does not follow the CDDA format, and therefore has DRM. CDDA does not have provisions for DRM, and any disc carrying DRM, or is 'enhanced' (extra data track after audio tracks included) may not display that logo on the case. The actual part that holds the disc in the case will just have the plain Compact Disc logo most often.
If you have any discs that display the CDDA logo and they have DRM or any 'enhancements' for our computer, the maker of that disc is in violation of the rules that Phillips set forth in specifying the format. You should immediately notify them of the breach of contract between the music company that made the discs and Phillips. And you should probably go ahead and lawyer up, because once you stir up the snake nest they're gonna come crawling and biting at your ankles.
Re:That's a problem with BD+ (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blu-ray victory is a joke at this point (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect the $150 players were the result of the retail channel seeing what was happening and deciding that the Xmas season was their last chance to unload inventory that was about to be worthless. Add in a little inside info paranoia and deliberate postponing of the studio shifting, etc to allow retails time to dump and things make a lot more sense.
Everyone knew that only one would survive and at the first hint that the market was picking a winner the desire not to be left holding a big stack of dead inventory created a huge bandwagon effect. If I had to guess it was the PS3 finally starting to sell as the price dropped. It became obvious there was soon going to be far more BD players just on the strength of the PS3, one studio flips camps (actually just stopped doing both) and it snowballed. At this point I doubt even Sony can manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Me, I haven't even bought a HD set yet and haven't owned a console since the 2600. Waiting for the pricing to plateau out, no sense getting in a hurry to go HD just to be able to pick from a few dozen crap/blockbuster titles.
Re:There's a reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
These companies need to stop doing this. People need to stop accepting the planned obsolescence excuses and realize they are milking us. These players should not have "versions" or "profiles" make it a single deployment standard and stop trying to add features the competition already has. They should have added those in the beginning.
Im just getting tired of seeing folks who bought in early getting porked by companies like Sony and Microsoft. I understand software revisions. And I don't mind it, but why are vital things like a second decoder not in the spec to make it at least upgradeable. Or even just disabled until a special disc is put in to flash the firmware to activate it ? I am tired of us folks paying to be alpha and beta testers for the corporations.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There's a reason... (Score:1, Insightful)
I personally think this lawsuit is totally bogus. You can't sue a company for failure to provide features that you think SHOULD be in a particular revision.
Case in point, I'm wondering if the people that buy draft-N wireless gear now are going to cry fowl when the real N standard gets certified with extra features?
Re:There's a reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another reason (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:There's a reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
I recommend you read what the context of my post is before pointing out what's wrong about it.
Re:There's a reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
For a start: my laptop has a 10Mbit Ethernet port. Now 100 Mb is standard, and 1 Gb available. Is there any reason why I should expect my laptop to get a free upgrade? I don't think so.
Do I have reason to expect it is compatible with 1Gb networks? Maybe. Albeit at a lower speed. Same for these BluRay players: they were up to standard when sold, and are now the newer disks still play - without the new features of course. Why should the old player get a free upgrade? No reason for that.
People should buy products (hardware, software, whatever) based on the CURRENT feature set. Not based on promised upgrades, that is a nice extra but not relevant.
Wouter.
Re:There's a reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more like saying that your nic is rejecting cat6 because it is newer then cat5e. It's just not right.
Re:A software update can't add missing hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
The article mentions that there isn't enough RAM for a paticular decoder to operate. There isn't a single software upgrade that can get past the lack of the physical memory. The boards in most of the players isn't laid out where memory can be just plugged in. A small run to produce new boards and the labor cost of a recall for a board swap is cost prohibitive. The early production run did not have the 2nd decoder built-in because the spec was probably still being finalized. There were no discs out at that time to even verify the decoder would work if it was installed at that time.
This is much like the early days of UHF TV (I'm old enough to remember) when the FCC mandated 82 channel reception. Many sets shipped with UHF tuners that didn't function. Several years later, the failure was noticed when the first UHF sets went live.
This is why I didn't buy a flatscreen with a tuner before the local broadcasters were on the air. I waited until after the signal was established.
If the company was ethical, they should have a trade-in program instead of expecting the end user to bite the entire cost of replacement.
Re:There's a reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone who hasn't been living under a rock KNOWS that buying the latest-and-greatest new bleeding-edge standard before it is established in the marketplace means:
a) There's a significant chance that it'll be obsolete in 3 years because some other standard ends up owning the game.
b) There's a 100% chance that you're paying a MUCH higher price for a MUCH poorer product, compared to those who wait a bit.
c) There's a significant chance that your product has bugs, shortcomings, problems.
d) There's a significant chance that the standard will fluctuate, so by the time it solidifies, your gadget is no longer fully compatible.
It's not as if any of this is news. Furthermore, much of it is unavoidable: If a producer elected not to bring products to market until these things had settles, they'd be handing their market-share to the competitors.
If you don't like this deal, there's a simple cure: Wait a year or two *THEN* buy any random high-def video-player. It'll cost 1/3rd what it costs now, or less, it'll work better and it'll support the stable version of the standard.
Re:There's a reason... (Score:1, Insightful)
What if you bought your Xbox 360 or PS3 and they suddenly decided to add a new feature halfway through the life cycle that meant only people who bought the newest hardware could play modern games? It's still a 360/PS3, but now it can't play modern games that use the same brand name on the box?
How is your average consumer going to understand this? I bet there's a lot of people out there who don't 'get' HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray already, what hope is there of HD-DVD/Blu-Ray 1.0/Blu-Ray 1.1/Blu-Ray 2.0? They seem to be shooting themselves in the foot and yet, as always, they're positioning themselves as the winner of the long game despite their decisions.
Just once I'd like to see some hubris go Sony's way and they have a crashing failure for their approach to these things.
Re:There's a reason... (Score:1, Insightful)