this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

Internet of Shit

427 readers
2 users here now

Rules:

1. What to post?
2. Behave.

Act like a nice human being.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/21524474

Smart display will soon default to showing ads after three hours.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Wait, they were charging $2 a month to unlock the ability to turn your device into a smart picture frame when idle? Something that doesn't even require to be online and that you could easily convert an old tablet to do for free?

If you were stupid enough to give your money away for a subscription fee for that, then the "service" being discontinued is the best thing that could have happened to you.

Also this sort of practice should be made illegal.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why illegal? Makes more sense than to buy an extra device, not just ecologically. Hardly anyone is able to convert a tablet, most people are simply too dumb, to put it simply

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I meant illegal to force a subscription fee to use something that doesn't require any external service to function. Also illegal to turn something that someone had already bought to display pictures in his house into an advertising billboard without their consent.

This is why you don't buy shit that is will not work unless it is unnecessarily connected to the internet.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

Then make that illegal: Unnecessary Internet connections.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I don't understand why people buy this crap in the first place

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It would be a shame if people hacked their devices and loaded whatever they wanted on them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No!

That means people are still buying and using the device. This is a case for returning the product to Amazon/the store you brought it from citing the product is no longer fit for purpose because of changes made by the seller/manufacturer. If you live in a sensible country (sorry US) this should work.

This only stops if there is a clear and attributable loss of sales/increase in returns.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah I mean I wouldn't buy one and I would encourage others not to. But if you already have it and can't return it, make it your device, not theirs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The class action suit against Sony for removing Linux from the PS3 really showed them.

What was the payout, $5 per owner?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Its not about getting money. Its about, in that case Sony geting a clear "this decision cost us money".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

While I agree with you, they consider it the cost of doing business. That's why the Ford Pinto was allowed to go to market when Ford knew it was deadly. They ran the numbers and decided they would make more money selling the car as is and paying the lawsuit.

We really need to start making the payouts (and thereby the actual cost of such class action lawsuits) more expensive. I believe class action suits are capped and I'm really starting to think that's what we should be targeting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

That class action judgment was essentially a fee.

Fines that don't take a significant proportion of a corporation's yearly income until they unfuck whatever they did are just fees, they're not effective.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fuck Amazon, but also fuck journalists who abuse words: bricking is not a synonym for "removing"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right? Bricking is literally making (its only usage) a brick out of it. You would think journalists are good with using words...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Well, we decided that we don't want to pay for journalism anymore and would much rather just have everything be funded by ad views because "information should be free". So no, journalists aren't good with words anymore because nobody wants to pay for it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Hahaha I payed for their info and it got worse and worse until I stopped reading them at all.