> backporting it to devices sold in the past (aren't there laws against this?)

This could also describe Sony's behavior with the Playstation 3. Early-model PS3's contained a feature called OtherOS which allowed you to run Linux on the console in a way officially supported by Sony.

Sony later decided to remove OtherOS support from the console in a firmware update. While technically optional, the firmware update was required to play online games on the console, or play subsequently produced game discs.

IMHO it's fine if a hardware manufacturer chooses to remove features from newer models. OTOH reaching out through the cloud to remove features and cripple models that people have already bought should constitute deliberate fraud against the consumer. You bought something which was advertised to do X, Y, and Z, the manufacturer deliberately removes the capability to do X after you've purchased it -- it seems like it should be totally illegal for them to do that.

If a car dealership owner decides to sell only cars without radios, that's their business decision, and it's not illegal for them to do business that way. If a car dealership owner decides to drive around town, breaking into cars people have already bought from him and removing their radios, he's going to jail and rightfully so.

Why should PS3's be any different?

Apparently, they are -- AFAIK Sony has suffered no legal consequences for its policy whatsoever.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otheros

> it seems like it should be totally illegal for them to do that.

In Australia, at least, it is.

It breaks one of the consumer guarantee[1] we're given by law (fit for purpose, as an advertised feature was removed), so you're entitled to a repair, replacement or refund. After some back-and-forth with my department store (who, understandably, didn't really understand what was going on) and Sony, I got mine refunded.

[1]: http://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees

What's the legal status of this?

I can't fathom why vendor locks are covered by the DMCA, but they are. (At least, that's what the Library of Congress says) so maybe this is covered too. Or not.

Maybe a bunch of customers could get together and launch a class action lawsuit?

(http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57572492-94/what-the-dmca-c...)

> Unfortunately, this would be very difficult for several reasons including the fact that wireless subscribers are no longer allowed to sue their carriers as part of a class lawsuit.

> The problem is the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility, in which the Court upheld the validity of class action waivers and arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, according to Michael Ashenbrener of Aschenbrener Law, a consumer advocacy law firm based in Chicago.

> "As a result of the Concepcion case, it is essentially impossible to sue a U.S. cell phone carrier in a class action," Aschenbrener explained in an e-mail. "Consequently, there is no effective check on the power of U.S. wireless companies."

Mobile phone companies suck, eh?

"As a result of the Concepcion case, it is essentially impossible to sue a U.S. cell phone carrier in a class action," Aschenbrener explained in an e-mail. "Consequently, there is no effective check on the power of U.S. wireless companies.""

So, this is a pretty inaccurate statement. It is more accurate to say "it is essentially impossible to sue them over contract disputes in class action lawsuits".

Additionally, you'd probably be better off filing 10000 arbitration actions than a class action lawsuit:

1. You can all do it in your spare time

2. You are not required to be lawyers to interact with the arbitrators.

3. AT&T is in no way set up to handle large scale arbitration

Heck, you could set up a firm to do nothing but manage arbitration claims against AT&T. Because it requires no licensing, you could let the moral equivalent of paralegals handle all of the work.

Class action lawsuits were meant to be about efficiency, not a tool for social change.

If AT&T doesn't want that efficiency, you should show them what the result is.

Except that it's probably prohibitively difficult to convince 10,000 people individually to go to the hassle of filing an arbitration action just to get a small amount of money. I could be wrong, but I don't see this being a realistic method of going after companies for contract violations at all.

You don't think you could get 10,000 people to sign up to a web app that offers them free money and demands only that they sign the equivalent of petitions?

Don't forget that filing an arbitration case almost always requires paying a fee of some kind.

1. You've just explained what exactly is wrong with class action lawsuits too - they claim to represent 10k people, but roughly all of those people actually aren't very involved at all, even though someone is claiming to represent them.

2. Unlike class actions, you can actually make it fairly easily to arbitrate, or you could compute the value of their claim, and then pay them half to do it for them.

Why do companies keep doing this crap? Is there some logical reason why they would do this?

And I say, "Don't buy from Samsung."

My own personal recommendation is to buy a Chinese phone. They're a lot more affordable, and work nearly just as well.

I wrote a bit about my phone, a Samsung Mega look-alike that I paid $200 for. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6494895

you are dead wrong.

a chinese tablet nowadays works better than a samsung one. the trick to buy anything chinese is to avoid the copy cats. do not buy anything that looks like a traditional brand knock off. buy something that has its own brand and your good.

also, my work provided newly released tab3 runs slower then my years old hacked hp touchpad btw. way slower!

Whic is interestingly what I indeed said further down in that link I posted about my experience with my new phablet.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6495854

Of course, you pay for quality. Things in China are cheaper, but they are also "cheaper". Caveat Emptor most certainly applies.

To make you buy another phone when you travel internationally.

I'm little perplexed on why Samsung is doing this. What is business reasoning behind this? They say it is because to stop resellers from buying handsets from one country or region where devices are cheaper and then selling them to consumers in another country, but Apple has the same problem too.

Probably because somebody somewhere within Samsung can quantify the money Samsung has "lost" by people buying through resellers but can't quantify the costs of implementing this short-sighted policy.