91–100 of 302 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "rounded corners" narrative needs to die. It wasn't just rounded corners. It was a combination of design features for a specific device that, among other things, included rounded corners.
Still way too broad...
The basic problem I see here is that you don't own the speakers you have bought. My moral point of view is: I bought the thing so I own it. I must be allowed to understand how it works and I decide what it does. I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) and no one else can do that without my order. Buying locked black boxes is bad (for the customers). Buying locked black boxes that change…
Agreed wholeheartedly. Google is acting like their hands are tied, and cannot possibly take any other action than to remove a feature from existing devices. If they do, they should be fully liable for fraud, having performed a bait and switch. That the switch happened a significant time after the purchase doesn't change the fact that Google misrepresented the capabilities of the product.
I don’t think getting sued and losing is bait and switch.
The basic problem I see here is that you don't own the speakers you have bought. My moral point of view is: I bought the thing so I own it. I must be allowed to understand how it works and I decide what it does. I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) and no one else can do that without my order. Buying locked black boxes is bad (for the customers). Buying locked black boxes that change…
The basic problem I see here is that you don't own the speakers you have bought. My moral point of view is: I bought the thing so I own it. I must be allowed to understand how it works and I decide what it does. I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) and no one else can do that without my order. Buying locked black boxes is bad (for the customers). Buying locked black boxes that change…
Except in this case it's Google's servers.
And Tesla, Toyota, Keurig and an increasing number of hardware manufacturers will continue to yoink features we think we "own"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still way too broad...
If it covers even a dozen different trivial choices then the end result is extremely narrow.
For example, these changes mean you'll no longer be able to control the volume of a group of speakers. Instead, you'll have to change the volume on each individually. It also means you'll no longer be able to use the volume buttons on your phone to control a speaker group. Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?
In my opinion, that's what has gone wrong with the system, i.e., not the theoretical criteria for patentability but its execution.
The basic problem I see here is that you don't own the speakers you have bought. My moral point of view is: I bought the thing so I own it. I must be allowed to understand how it works and I decide what it does. I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) and no one else can do that without my order. Buying locked black boxes is bad (for the customers). Buying locked black boxes that change…
What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? As computers are now everywhere and have to do with everything, it is becoming a real political issue to decide if people should be allowed to really modify their computers. Smartphones most certainly do not allow it. PCs do, but they'r…
The basic problem I see here is that you don't own the speakers you have bought. My moral point of view is: I bought the thing so I own it. I must be allowed to understand how it works and I decide what it does. I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) and no one else can do that without my order. Buying locked black boxes is bad (for the customers). Buying locked black boxes that change…
Does the moral situation change if I the seller make you agree not to tamper with the product before I sell it to you, and you do so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed wholeheartedly. Google is acting like their hands are tied, and cannot possibly take any other action than to remove a feature from existing devices. If they do, they should be fully liable for fraud, having performed a bait and switch. That the switch happened a significant time after the purchase doesn't change the fact that Google misrepresented the capabilities of the product.
> having performed a bait and switch I don’t think getting sued and losing is bait and switch.
The issue isn’t that they got sued and have to remove that feature from future speakers. The issue is that they removed the feature from devices they already sold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We may never know if Google used their special insider access with Sonos to steal technology or not. But the optics certainly don’t look good.
On the contrary, we already know, and the details in the suit prove it. Sonos engineers used packet sniffing. Google copied the precise techniques Sonos uses to set up and control speakers.
You didn't see it much in the consumer space at the time, but the professional music production studio space had to address these concepts back in the 90s.