Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbenson | Hacker News Reader

It depends. If the TV was advertised with a specific application, which I see often, then the loss of that application is a loss of advertised functionality.

The way I see it, if they used the availability of an app as a direct selling point, that makes them somewhat liable to it's continued functionality. If they didn't secure that contractually or with some level of assurance, they should not have advertised it.

View on HN

No, you received an implied license for the life of the television to operate it as a television. Samsung reserves the right to modify the software on said television as it so chooses.

I think without trying this opinion before a court, you have no idea.

Samsung may have reserved the right to modify the software, but I've literally seen smart tvs from Samsung that have a "Netflix" button on the physical remote.

They have shipped tv boxes that clearly and prominently display the Netflix app on the tv.

If the Netflix button on the remote no longer works, the tv is not doing what the user bought it to do and what it was advertised as being capable of.

I know you're just using Netflix as an example, but has anyone actually had that app pulled from their TV? I have an old 32 inch Vizio smart tv that I bought back in 2011 and all my big apps still work on it, albeit kind of slowly. Netflix, Prime, Vudu, all still available.

> I think without trying this opinion before a court, you have no idea.

But that's the point. Who is going to go to court with Samsung over a $1500 TV?

We don't actually own the devices we buy anymore. It's ... pathetic, but true.

It's not that simple. It really does matter how it was advertised (but it also matters whether the FTC is willing to make a case).[1]

1: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advert...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com