Dutch consumer group sues Samsung over Android updates (OSNews) [LWN.net]

Dutch consumer group sues Samsung over Android updates (OSNews)

Posted Jan 22, 2016 1:40 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (guest, #24648)
Parent article: Dutch consumer group sues Samsung over Android updates (OSNews)

If the Consumentenbond prevails in their lawsuit, then I envision Samsung (and other device manufacturers) building a software self-destruct mechanism into the phone that is invoked automatically two years after the phone is first activated with a properly-provisioned SIM card (i.e. date of sale as mentioned in the article).

Having a bricked two year-old smart phone in one's possession would be incentive enough to buy a new one. Or so it would seem...

I applaud the Consumentenbond's actions here; it's just that I don't see this ending nicely for consumers either way.

Side note: My personal experience with a Galaxy S3 purchased in December 2012 was that it didn't receive updates after around April 2015 (estimated; I don't remember exactly when)—I can't say for sure if this was intentional forced obsolescence on Samsung's / Android's fault, or a software bug exposed by a failed update occurring about that time (the phone stopped updating all apps installed, not just the Android system, and plus the phone behaved erratically, draining the battery in one or two hours). I've since replaced / upgraded.

to post comments

Dutch consumer group sues Samsung over Android updates (OSNews)

Posted Jan 22, 2016 12:36 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (1 responses)

If the Consumentenbond prevails in their lawsuit, then I envision Samsung (and other device manufacturers) building a software self-destruct mechanism into the phone that is invoked automatically two years after the phone is first activated with a properly-provisioned SIM card (i.e. date of sale as mentioned in the article).

That will just land them in even more trouble, because there will be a need to indicate the device's "forced obsolescence" which the manufacturers will probably not do. Can you sell a phone that lasts for two years for the same price as one which lasts, say, five years? And even if they do note the limited lifespan (probably in small print), it may be ruled that this contradicts reasonable expectations, anyway.

Dutch consumer group sues Samsung over Android updates (OSNews)

Posted Jan 24, 2016 23:18 UTC (Sun) by pr1268 (guest, #24648) [Link]

That will just land them in even more trouble, because there will be a need to indicate the device's "forced obsolescence" which the manufacturers will probably not do.

If the forced obsolescence were imposed, then I'm certain that {Android | service provider} would have to give ample notice to the consumer, assuming the device manufacturer would not. If not by law¹, then certainly so as to not sully their good name with a horrible user experience.

Interesting side note: Two years is the "magic number" that has historically been the duration of subsidized phone contracts in the USA—but all the major providers here have moved away from that model to a "lease-to-buy" plan. Which lasts for... yep, two years².

¹ I'm certain it's enshrined in contract law about customer notification of expiration of service agreements after a pre-determined finite time period. At least in the USA.

² Apparently, that's the maximum time over which you can spread the lease payments; Verizon (and T-Mobile, and I believe AT&T) will allow you to purchase the phone outright, or even pay off the balance anytime during the lease period.