Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Sued Over "Defective" Blu-ray Player

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the rush-to-market dept.

The Courts 222

Anneka notes that, although both Netflix and Best Buy threw logs on HD DVD's funeral pyre today, things are not all going Blu-ray's way. A Connecticut man is suing Samsung, the maker that brought the first Blu-ray players to market, over its "defective" BD-P1200 player. The lawsuit seeks class-action status. The problem is that the Samsung BD-P1200 is a "Profile 1.0" player that can't play some Blu-ray discs and Samsung has no intention (or ability) to upgrade these players via firmware. Quoting Ars: "The meager requirements of the 1.0 profile mean that Blu-ray players which fail to implement the optional features won't be able to take advantage of picture-in-picture, which requires secondary decoders. 1.0 players are also unable to store local content, lacking the 256MB of storage mandated by the 1.1 profile. Profile 1.1 discs should still play on 1.0 players, however, but the extra features will not work."

cancel ×

222 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

There's a reason... (4, Insightful)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#22385964)

There's a reason we call it the bleeding edge - because it cuts you. And you bleed. It's much like new software - I won't touch a new OS or game until it's had at least one patch or service pack.

Re:There's a reason... (0, Flamebait)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386588)

at least one patch ? try any free software project (and see your reasoning totally fails it).

Re:There's a reason... (1, Offtopic)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386718)

It only fails because most free software projects are in a constant state of development, thus my model has no initial stable release for which to base it upon. Then again, I meant to imply that I was only talking about major pieces of software, and sadly, free software occupies very little of that space for me.

Re:There's a reason... (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387124)

It only fails because most free software projects are in a constant state of development, thus my model has no initial stable release for which to base it upon. Then again, I meant to imply that I was only talking about major pieces of software, and sadly, free software occupies very little of that space for me.
Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl, and SLASH are free software. You are running all of them on Slashdot's server when you read this comment. I am running all of them, plus Firefox (also free) on my Windows PC, when I submit this comment.

Re:There's a reason... (0, Troll)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387216)

Exactly, no patches in Apache...

Re:There's a reason... (2, Insightful)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387638)

I'm "running them all"? No, Slashdot's servers are. Were I running servers, it might be a different story. Then again, which of Linux, Apache, MySQL, Perl, and SLASH can be called "bleeding edge"? All of them are very mature products, having gone through several release cycles. It's no wonder then, that they're being used, instead of the bleeding edge. Pointing out that they're being used doesn't show how I'm using Open Source, only that a website I'm on does. Not that it matters, because we're talking about bleeding-edge adoption, not open-source usage.

I recommend you read what the context of my post is before pointing out what's wrong about it.

Re:There's a reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22388486)

The parent poster's point was that free software projects tend to make releases only when the product is finished, in contrast to commercial vendors which tend to make releases to meet arbitrary marketing dates. Your assertion that free software doesn't have stable milestone releases is incorrect.

Re:There's a reason... (5, Insightful)

BosstonesOwn (794949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386622)

While I agree with you , I do feel for the folks who bought these players when they were $600 + , there is no reason that features should have been missing from the players when they came to market. HD-DVD doesn't have this problem , wonder why ?

These companies need to stop doing this. People need to stop accepting the planned obsolescence excuses and realize they are milking us. These players should not have "versions" or "profiles" make it a single deployment standard and stop trying to add features the competition already has. They should have added those in the beginning.

Im just getting tired of seeing folks who bought in early getting porked by companies like Sony and Microsoft. I understand software revisions. And I don't mind it, but why are vital things like a second decoder not in the spec to make it at least upgradeable. Or even just disabled until a special disc is put in to flash the firmware to activate it ? I am tired of us folks paying to be alpha and beta testers for the corporations.

Re:There's a reason... (2, Insightful)

ncohafmuta (577957) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386890)


I personally think this lawsuit is totally bogus. You can't sue a company for failure to provide features that you think SHOULD be in a particular revision.

Case in point, I'm wondering if the people that buy draft-N wireless gear now are going to cry fowl when the real N standard gets certified with extra features?

Re:There's a reason... (2, Informative)

BosstonesOwn (794949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387802)

While i agree the lawsuit is bogus , I think this does send a message. And that message is stop making the end user a beta tester.

You mention networking gear. It doesn't really hold up here. When people bought "pre-N" gear , and "draft-N" gear , they knew what they were getting themselves into. These blu-ray players were sold as blu-ray players. Meaning they would play all future blu-ray movies. Funny I have an old RCA dvd player that plays new dvds, yeah I guess I am expecting to much for it to not randomly reject blu-ray discs.

Look they sold this as a blu-ray player , one should expect it to play every blu-ray disc, be it new or old as long as the disc is in good condition. These things are flaking out on people and not playing some discs , blocking features ( which I admit is really the problem I hate. ) That and the fact that they are now adding more features while increasing the core of the device itself , meaning they are changing specs mid stream. Something that HD DVD knew would happen and put the specs out to combat , they wanted one set standard , it seems like the blu-ray standard is not a standard and an ever evolving mess.

Re:There's a reason... (1)

PJ1216 (1063738) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387482)

it wasn't planned obsolescence. it was still basically draft. they rushed the release to try and cut down the lead HD-DVD had for getting out early. plus sony needed to get the ps3 out as well. thats why they're quickly releasing new profiles and what not.

Re:There's a reason... (4, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388240)

Here I for one totally disagree.

For a start: my laptop has a 10Mbit Ethernet port. Now 100 Mb is standard, and 1 Gb available. Is there any reason why I should expect my laptop to get a free upgrade? I don't think so.
Do I have reason to expect it is compatible with 1Gb networks? Maybe. Albeit at a lower speed. Same for these BluRay players: they were up to standard when sold, and are now the newer disks still play - without the new features of course. Why should the old player get a free upgrade? No reason for that.
People should buy products (hardware, software, whatever) based on the CURRENT feature set. Not based on promised upgrades, that is a nice extra but not relevant.

Wouter.

Re:There's a reason... (1)

fangorious (1024903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388378)

HD-DVD doesn't have this problem , wonder why ?

There are a lot of HD-DVD players that limit you to 1080i.

Re:There's a reason... (1)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386938)

There's a reason there are standards: to ensure consumers can choose from a consistent set of purchasing options all adhering to some minimal functionality (the standard). Manufacturers who release products that imply adherence to some standard while in fact they fail to meet its requirements have no place in a healthy economy. If a company still wants to release such pseudo-products, they should label them clearly as not adhering to a standard with a big visible label on the front of the box.

Re:There's a reason... (1)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387228)

Thats the whole reason though we have standard formats for hardware, you know that its going to work, for sure. A CD that is Compact Disk certified will play in any CD player, from the oldest ones to the newest ones, with Blu-Ray though this just adds uncertainty that those that have the Blu-Ray label on them won't play in some Blu-Ray drives and this story will only make people stick with DVD.

Defective CD Players (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22385998)

If this guy wins, gets a court to punish a player manufacturer because it's not forward compatible with media all carrying the same media logo, then I want to see Sony get slammed for selling "CD" players that won't play CDs that I copied from the ones I bought as backup. And then I want to see Sony get slammed for selling "CDs" that won't play in some CD players because the Sony CDs have DRM that's not part of the "CD" spec.

Re:Defective CD Players (5, Informative)

MWoody (222806) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386302)

1) Recordable compact discs have their own logo and are considered a different, but analogous, media format. A player that will play compact discs, with no mention of recordable or rewritable versions in the packaging, doesn't have to play anything.

2) A DRM-crippled "CD" will not bear the Compact Disc logo, as it doesn't conform to the standard. It is a separate format that just happens to sometimes sort-of work in CD players.

Meanwhile, the movies mentioned in the article all come with a "blu-ray disc" logo on them, despite there being two distinctly different formats involved. That's misleading advertising, and I hope he wins his case. You can't create a so-called standard and then say "whoops, need to change a few things here, sucks to be you if you were an early adopter!" I understand that the bleeding edge sometimes cuts, but that's usually a result of bugs in the players or the manufacturing process, not because some idiot changed the specs of the format!

Re:Defective CD Players (1)

droopycom (470921) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386442)

The format was extended not completely changed.
Discs with the logo will still play. There is backward compatibility.

Are they also going to sue all the manufacturer of older HDMI devices ? Because you know, you might not be able to enjoy some of the newest feature that HDMI 1.3 brings if one of your device is only HDMI 1.2

This is just a plain stupid lawsuit....

HDMI (2, Interesting)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386620)

Meanwhile, the movies mentioned in the article all come with a "blu-ray disc" logo on them, despite there being two distinctly different formats involved. That's misleading advertising, and I hope he wins his case. You can't create a so-called standard and then say "whoops, need to change a few things here, sucks to be you if you were an early adopter!" I understand that the bleeding edge sometimes cuts, but that's usually a result of bugs in the players or the manufacturing process, not because some idiot changed the specs of the format!

If that's the case, then I await with glee for whenever they try to close the "analog hole" in HDMI-equipped TVs with DRM-crippled signals, as has been reported.

Re:Defective CD Players (1)

guywcole (984149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388192)

This gets into tricky questions.

What if there is a simple but not backwards-compatible way to improve the format? What if that improvement is DRM? In the first case, a lot of people would say, "you must update my player so I can read the new discs! I bought the player, now give me the support!" In the second case, a lot of people would say, "don't you dare update my player or put out official discs with that 'improvement'!"

This all comes down to how we are going to use standards: a concrete backbone which both solidifies and limits technological development, or a fluid platform that leads to some failures but a rapidly growing body of highly-technically-advanced media? The 1.0 vs. 1.1 vs. 2.0 thing is the creation of a fluid standard. I hope my paragraph above explains how this bleeding edge is a double-edged sword (three cheers for abused metaphors).

I think that content-distributors are only going to accept a fluid standard because DRM is wobbly and never stays on its feet for too long. I think the consumers are going to have to accept this but, through lawsuits like this one, insist that the version of the standard used be MUCH more prominent. The "1.1" needs to be right at the end of and just as a big as the " BLU-RAY " on the packaging of both the player and the media, even if it needs to say " BLU-RAY 1.1-2.0 " or " BLU-RAY 1.1 w/ 2.0 EXTRAS "

Just my two cents, no refunds.

Off topic: why is the parser throwing a space between my italic and bold tags?

Re:Defective CD Players (4, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386426)

"And then I want to see Sony get slammed for selling "CDs" that won't play in some CD players because the Sony CDs have DRM that's not part of the "CD" spec."

Do you see any of these logos [google.com] on the front or back paper inserts, on the OUTSIDE of the case (not inside, as in after opening the case,) SPECIFICALLY the one that says Compact Disc Digital Audio?

If you don't see the CDDA, then it's safe to assume that the CD does not follow the CDDA format, and therefore has DRM. CDDA does not have provisions for DRM, and any disc carrying DRM, or is 'enhanced' (extra data track after audio tracks included) may not display that logo on the case. The actual part that holds the disc in the case will just have the plain Compact Disc logo most often.

If you have any discs that display the CDDA logo and they have DRM or any 'enhancements' for our computer, the maker of that disc is in violation of the rules that Phillips set forth in specifying the format. You should immediately notify them of the breach of contract between the music company that made the discs and Phillips. And you should probably go ahead and lawyer up, because once you stir up the snake nest they're gonna come crawling and biting at your ankles.

Re:Defective CD Players (1)

LearnToSpell (694184) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388152)

If you have any discs that display the CDDA logo and they have DRM or any 'enhancements' for our computer, the maker of that disc is in violation of the rules that Phillips set forth in specifying the format. You should immediately notify them of the breach of contract between the music company that made the discs and Phillips. And you should probably go ahead and lawyer up, because once you stir up the snake nest they're gonna come crawling and biting at your ankles.

You may not have to, since Philips, to their credit, has been quite adamant that they'd be very aggressive about logo violations.

Re:Defective CD Players (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22386876)

If it weren't for Sony, you wouldn't even have compact discs.

Re:Defective CD Players (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22387342)

Or betamax. Or UMD.

I bet it gets thrown out (2, Interesting)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386000)

No way a judge will allow this lawsuit, much less grant it class-action status. Imagine the precedent this would set. I could sue Motorola because my older cell phone doesn't have all the features that their latest ones have. I could sue Toyota because a newer year/model of my car has more features. Etc. etc.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (5, Informative)

Draknor (745036) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386102)

Just to clarify, according to TFA some movies won't play:

At issue are some significant title-compatibility problems with the player. In his complaint, plaintiff Bob McGovern says that a number of movies he purchased after buying his BD-P1200 wouldn't play on the device.
...
As one of our readers pointed out via e-mail, the P1200 has a checkered reputation when it comes to hardware reliability.


So it may not be as simple of an issue as "profile 1.0 can't use spiffy new 1.1 features". It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (0)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386248)

So it may not be as simple of an issue as "profile 1.0 can't use spiffy new 1.1 features". It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."

Except that means that this is a case of "I want to be an early adopter but I don't want to pay the price." Sorry buddy (to the litigant, not the parent), but that comes with being an early adopter.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (5, Insightful)

themacks (1197889) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386394)

...but that comes with being an early adopter.


Why should it? If he bought something marked that it plays Blu-Ray it should play any media that is also marked Blu-Ray, regardless of when either was bought. Just because it was the first player to market doesn't make it exempt. If they change the spec they should change the marking to at least show that the two aren't compatible.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387156)

If he bought something marked that it plays Blu-Ray it should play any media that is also marked Blu-Ray, regardless of when either was bought.
And any BD title authored against BD 1.1 should gracefully degrade in BD 1.0 players.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22386324)

It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."
And to make things worse, this product was released less than a year ago [cnet.com] (April 2007) at $800 ($500 today)... and Samsung won't provide enough support for it to simply play Profile 1.1 discs like it's supposed to.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (4, Informative)

Sethb (9355) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387190)

I have one of these players, and we're not upset about Profile 1.1 vs 1.0, we're upset that it's a total crapshoot whether or not a given movie will play on your player. I got mine in September, this isn't a device that's three years old, either, but it has been plagued with bugs. I rented Weeds from Netflix, and the disc would play fine ONCE, but not a second time (confirmed with others on AVSForum). Rise of the Silver Surfer didn't work for a month or two after release. Deja Vu would constantly hang during playback. Pirates of the Carribean 3 didn't work until last week, nor did Little Miss Sunshine. 3:10 to Yuma still doesn't work, and last week I sat down to watch Across the Universe to find that you're left at the menu screen, but with no cursor to start the movie, and you can't even skip to a chapter or work-around the issue.

Samsung needs to figure out what the hell is wrong with their firmware and correct it so that it'll actually play movies, and they need to be more transparent about what's going on. They rarely acknowledge issues, and never document what fixes are in new firmware revisions as they're released. Perhaps they could give some test units to the shops that are authoring Blu-Ray discs, or, you know, get an advance copy of the disc so that firmware can be ready on the day the movie hits the streets. Follow this thread [avsforum.com] at AVSForum for more info.

The PS3 (1)

Nazmun (590998) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387938)

I'm still surprised to see people not buy the cheaper $399 ps3 over these players. It has far better hardware then these standalone players (hard drive, etc.). Everyone for the love of god don't make this mistake. I've been telling people to get the ps3 for the last 6 months if they want a blu-ray player, until standalone 2.0 players that come out at half the cost of a ps3 (doubtful it will happen anytime soon) there is no reason to get a standalone.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (1)

bhatji (311418) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387246)

Samsung does seem to have such a history, I had bought a cell phone that broke down within a short time (it was a bleeding edge then - some 5+ years ago) ... I wasn't able to get them to do anything about it. Needless to say, I haven't purchased a single Samsung device since then.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (3, Interesting)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387754)

So it may not be as simple of an issue as "profile 1.0 can't use spiffy new 1.1 features". It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."

More accurately, Samsung put a player out onto the market that met the demands of the (currently unfinished) Blu-ray disc standard.

Blu-ray was rushed to market before it was ready - HD DVD's release ensured the BDA couldn't wait until the standard was completed.

The Blu-ray trade assosciation admitted as much at CES 2008, and then noted that only Sony's PS3 had any hope of being upgradeable to Profile 2.0, due in October. (I'm sure Sony was more than happy to hear that... and I'm betting it really annoys the other manufacturers in the BDA).

In contrast, HD DVD was a polished, complete standard at the time of release, and the first HD DVD players can handle every feature of every disc made - including features that Blu-ray does not currently have.

I'm officially format-neutral - I have both (Samsung's BD/HD DVD player).

I think it's funny to hear various fanbois pitting it as a Microsoft vs. Sony thing - it's more Toshiba/NEC vs. Sony/Panasonic/Philips, which is more or less what almost happened with "regular" DVD, except this time, Sony & co. decided to push its product, instead of suffering the "disgrace" of following someone else's lead. Rivalries among Japanese companies are a lot like college sports - sometimes I have difficulty telling the difference between rivalry and a full-on holy war. And HD DVD vs Blu-ray is very similar - the battle was faught in the DVD forum for years, with Sony, Panasonic, and Philips doing everything possible to prevent HD DVD from happening.

Many of the ignorant thing that the menu system used by HD DVD is Microsoft's - which is completely false. HD DVD uses "Advanced Content" - an open standard defined by Disney & Warner Brothers. The most popular implementation is Microsoft's HDi. In other words, HDi is to Advanced Content as Internet Explorer is to HTML. HDi is one implementation, and is from Microsoft; Advanced Content is the standard, and is from Disney and Warner. HDi is the most popular, much like how IE is the dominant web browser for HTML.

In the end, HD DVD's release forced the BDA's hand - the BDA had to either give up entirely (no format war and only HD DVD) or release a product based on an incomplete standard. Not wanting to give up royalties, the BDA released a half-baked product.

The part that's not forgivable is that the BD player makers had a very good idea what the final standard would be - things like internet connectivity, two decoders for picture-in-picture, built-in storage - you know, stuff that its HD DVD competitor does.

All things told, I like that HD DVD is a "finished" standard - HD DVD owners are unlikely to get "burned" - even if the format fails, the discs will still play, after all. Blu-ray can't say that - early adopters are getting burned, and will continue to be burned until Profile 2.0 players are common, if not longer.

As far as being "burned" by "losing" the format war - I remind readers that iTunes sold more movies than either HD DVD or Blu-ray in 2007. It's quite likely that both HD DVD and Blu-ray will "lose" in the end - though the discs will still play, and both discs are already rippable.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (2, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388004)

So it may not be as simple of an issue as "profile 1.0 can't use spiffy new 1.1 features". It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."

No,I'm more inclined to agree that the 1.0 spec was incomplete and a lot got added in 1.1 because they (the creators of the spec) wanted to get the devices to market.

My now 8+ year old Toshiba DVD player is completely incapable of reading burned DVDs or playing MP3s -- something to do with laser wavelength I think. Heck, back in the day, a menu item of the original Aliens DVD borked the machine so badly, it was locked and required a firmware update. Basically killed the machine. (I won't bother finding a link, it's probably impossible at this point.) Required being sent to a service depot to be fixed.

The problem with consumer electronics (especialy nowadays with roving standards) is if you buy an early version of "the new hotness", it doesn't take long to discover it's the "old and busted" very quickly. Something gets defined, pushed out to market, and then someone comes along and adds features you didn't know were coming.

We seem to release a half-assed version of the spec, and then the first generation devices get left behind. What we need is finalized specs in the first place. I've lost faith in any format which isn't at least 3 years old -- standards holders are in a hurry to get manufacturers to release product and then change the rules.

I believe Samsung likely released a good product, and then the wing nuts at Sony decided to add some feature creep. It's not a bug if you never knew it was gonna be a requirement. For the same reason that HDMI suddenly became important to HD-TV (and screwed people with older sets), modern "specs" start out as a best guess and then gets refined.

Let's face it, new standards/tech represents a huge gamble -- in this case, the house changed the rules of the game, and some people lost.

Cheers

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (2, Informative)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388418)

Off topic -

I've probably got the same Toshiba DVD player as you, and have found a fix for burned disks. Basically you need to change the "BitSetting" feild in your DVD burner so that the disks get marked as "DVD-ROM" instead of "DVD-R" or "DVD-R/W". This has fixed nearly all of my issues.

There's several different bitsetting programs around depending upon the drive manufactuerer - try google.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386224)

That depends. Could the firmware be upgraded so that the player could work with the latest data format? If so, then the guy should be able to get the upgrade. If the player doesn't have a second decoder, could caching with a lower framebuffer size combined with a pixel zoom be used to emulate this functionality?

A lot of the times, the limitations of hardware are down to the way the firmware compiler is implemented. You can work around a lot of these compiler limitations by rearranging your code (loop unrolling if for-next loops aren't permitted, using the modulus operator if Boolean operations aren't permitted).

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (1)

AP2k (991160) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386386)

Sure, there is no problem updating firmware. Firmware gets upgraded all the time on loads of products. The problem is that the hardware for the newer BD players might not be in the older ones. I'm no expert on BD, but I do know that you cant upgrade a 4-cylinder engine into an 8-cylinder engine by just plugging in a new ECU (the firmware).

I would hope that Samsung has a valid reason that they cannot possibly upgrade. At least they arent sending its customers up a creek from sheer apathy.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (2, Insightful)

Major League Gamer (1222016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386344)

It can't possibly win.

After reading the court papers [courthousenews.com] , paragraph 5 states that the nature of the case is that Samsung was aware the player was defective, however if you look at the conditions provided by SONY, the system met ALL profile 1.0 standards and is not defective. Due to this wording alone the claim is damaged.

Paragraph 7 says that selling thie Blu-Ray player cause injury(not physical) to the plaintiff. What injury, the world knowing how much of an ass-hat he is? Obviously this is completely trumped up and any self respecting judge would not even consider ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

In the factual allegations, it is never stated that Samsung claimed that all Blu-Ray disc profiles would work on this system. Most of the 'factual' allegations are merely ripped from the Blu-Ray advertising that is put out by Sony, in regards to storage capacity and picture quality. I didn't see anything at all about picture in picture claims made by Samsung. If no claim was made by Samsung then I don't see a case.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22387164)

youre not a lawyer -- so shut the fuck up, cuz you sound like an ignorant asshat. IAAL BTW. it has merit. profies are irrelevant. there is economic injury here. its defective cuz it doesnt play disks with the blueray logo. pip is irrelevant.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (0, Offtopic)

Major League Gamer (1222016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387546)

First, you have no idea what I do for a living. Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups. Second, if you were capable of reading you'd see a fundamental flaw in the wording of the suit. Third, you clearly are the "ignorant asshat" cuz.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388016)

No, you're wrong (though you bring up points that Samsung's lawyers will probably bring up).

A judge or a jury (especially a jury) doesn't have to accept your definition of a defective Blu-Ray disc. If the judge or jury decides that the whole standards issue wasn't made sufficiently clear to the purchaser, or decides that it's a red herring (which many posters suggest is the case, i.e. the player doesn't even meet 1.0 standards), then paragraph 5 of the pleadings covers that. If I were the plaintiff I'd bring in a stack of discs and a handful of players and just keep trying different discs in different players, and demonstrate that the discs don't play. The Defence will look like dissembling liars when they try to explain the subtleties of different versions, standards, etc.

The injury that the Plaintiff has suffered is that he has spent money on a Player and disc that allegedly don't work as advertised. If you don't like the term Injury, read Damages instead, it's basically the same thing. He may be claiming other emotional or mental injuries, and as ridiculous as that seems, he'll probably get some money if he can find a psychiatrist to say he's scarred mentally for life because he couldn't watch his favourite movie.

I would also note that many, many pleadings in a Statement of Claim are of course boilerplate, in other words, you throw in every possible argument you can think of, and every damage you could possibly suffer, even if you haven't yet gotten evidence for these, in case such evidence shows up in the future.

And lastly, Samsung, by putting out a Blu Ray player, is warranting that it will work with Blu-Ray discs. The issue for the Plaintiff isn't that he's not getting his picture-in-picture feature, he's alleging that there are several discs that don't work at all, and Samsung isn't fixing this problem. Samsung doesn't even have to make an explicit claim, just building a player and throwing the BluRay logo on it is sufficient to open themselves up to liability.

Re:I bet it gets thrown out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22386644)

It's one thing to add new features but if I buy a bluray player to play bluray discs I darn well expect it to play the discs even if I don't get all the new bells and whistles. I think this has more to do with the content owners changing the encryption keys thereby requiring all bluray players firmware to be updated. I had to do this to my father's bluray player to get it to play the new titles. Why a company would sell a bluray player without the ability to update firmware is beyond me. I think they owe this guy the cost of in my opinion useless player. Knowing the nature of bluray discs and it's encryption key technology I feel Samsung should of known better.

And the problem is? (1, Insightful)

_merlin (160982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386010)

I don't see the problem. It's a Profile 1.0 player, and it gives the user all Profile 1.0 features. It does what it says on the box. It will play Profile 1.1 discs - you can still see the video and hear the audio. Since Profile 1.1 requires additional hardware (like the 256MB local storage), it isn't possible to update a Profile 1.0 player with new firmware.

Think of this another way: I have a MacBook with a Core Duo CPU. It's a 32-bit x86 processor with SSE3. It will run OSX 10.5 Leopard in 32-bit mode, but 64-bit features won't work, and 64-bit only applications won't run. Should I go and sue Apple for selling me a defective product? Should I demand they give me an update? It's not like a new EFI ROM will turn a 32-bit chip into a 64-bit one, either.

Re:And the problem is? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22386192)

It will play Profile 1.1 discs - you can still see the video and hear the audio.
Except it doesn't, and Samsung refuses to provide an update to fix this - which is why the guy is suing.

He isn't expecting the extra features - he just wanted to have the discs play in the first place. According to the lawsuit, the player refuses to even read them.

The problem has nothing to do with Profile 1.1 - it's a flaw with BD+ [wired.com] .

He got screwed over by DRM. I would have thought Slashdot would be more sympathetic to someone screwed over by DRM than to instead blame him for buying "too early" whereby "too early" is apparently six months ago.

That's a problem with BD+ (2, Interesting)

_merlin (160982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386328)

If he has problems with BD+ discs, why doesn't he sue the people selling and distributing these defective discs? If the discs are being sold as BluRay discs, they should play in a BluRay Profile 1.0 player. It isn't the manufacturers fault that some crappy new copy protection doesn't work with their player. Would you sue the manufacturer of a CD player because some copy protected discs won't play, or would you go for the people selling the dodgy copy-protected discs but still calling them CDs? I know I'd go after the people purveying the misrepresented discs.

Re:That's a problem with BD+ (2, Insightful)

toleraen (831634) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386494)

Bad analogy. Not that this one is much better, but this would be like buying a TV that claims it plays digital broadcasts, but then doesn't play ATSC broadcasts. If the manufacturer didn't implement the BD+ properly in their player, it's not the content providers fault that the player doesn't process the BD+. Just like it's not your local NBC broadcaster's fault that your TV doesn't properly display ATSC, even though it might work with DVB/T just fine.

Re:That's a problem with BD+ (1)

_merlin (160982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387794)

BD+ is bullshit copy protection that was devised after the BluRay standard was published. It's supposed to work with existing BluRay players, but it doesn't. BD+ discs violate the BluRay standard, in the same way that copy-protected CDs violate the relevant standard. Samsung hasn't failed to implement BD+ properly, and were in no position to since it hadn't been "invented" at the time this player went on sale. I think people should just avoid these defective BD+ discs, and if they're going to sue anyone, make it the people selling the defective discs with the BluRay logo on them.

Re:And the problem is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22386200)

It will play Profile 1.1 discs

Except that it doesn't, at least for one title according to the article, though I'm having a hard time getting amazon to tell me what "Weeds" disc they were talking about or what profile it's supposed to require.

Re:And the problem is? (4, Funny)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386446)

Think of this another way: I have a MacBook with a Core Duo CPU. It's a 32-bit x86 processor with SSE3. It will run OSX 10.5 Leopard in 32-bit mode, but 64-bit features won't work, and 64-bit only applications won't run. Should I go and sue Apple for selling me a defective product?

Yes.

Re:And the problem is? (1)

Nyall (646782) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386766)

Well since you mentioned apple:
http://www.macworld.com/article/3272/2002/01/g3osx.html [macworld.com]

OS X for the G3 did not support DVD playback or openGL hardware acceleration that was available with OS9.

Re:And the problem is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22386910)

Should I go and sue Apple for selling me a defective product?
Yes! Sue that rotten Apple for every penny!

Confirms my belief... (1)

Major League Gamer (1222016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386040)

Far too many people from Connecticut think they are entitled to far more than they deserve. Before you slag me, I am from Connecticut. I see it every day.

Anyone who jumps into a new technology should expect things to change. This goes double for competitive technologies. People like this guy would probably be suing Sony if HD-DVD won out in the end. Stupid.

Re:Confirms my belief... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22387154)

Far too many people from Connecticut think they are entitled to far more than they deserve.

Of course they do. They're Americans.

How I love the american legal system. (3, Insightful)

Kazrath (822492) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386046)

How is this a fault of a manufacturer? Especially one that is not the creator of the Blue-Ray disk. Samsung made a hardware platform with a current drive and the technology improved and the old system cannot be upgraded. Why not sue every HDD manufacturer then? My old IDE drive won't work with my new motherboard. I cannot get firmware updates and the connectors are all wrong!

These frivolous lawsuits need to stop. They really need to start tossing these people out on there asses or pressing some criminal negligence charges against them.

Re:How I love the american legal system. (1, Interesting)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386590)

American legal system is similar to British one, I think - based on "common laws" and precendents, deliberately vague.

Pro: Flexible (not autistic like computer codes) and provides safety valve for the prevalent sentiment of the time.
Con: Fashion of the time dictates what it means.

Can't determine what is "frivolous" until it goes to the trial. Precedent is a precedent only if the judge/jury agrees.

It cracks me up when a Westerner lectures to developing countries that they have no "rule of laws" - it's almost "the shits here ain't like the shits I'm used to, and that's bullshit!!"

perfect (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386062)

Apparently Samsung went to the Microsoft school of enraging their early adopters.

BTW if you are one of the early buyers of my game, I will not shit on your face.  In fact, I will do my best to be friendly, supportive, and civil!

BluRay vs BluRay - Not created equal (3, Informative)

Wizarth (785742) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386092)

I understand the point of people saying "It's Profile 1.0, not Profile 1.1, it does what it says on the box". But most customers won't look at that. They just see the BluRay logo, see the adverts for BluRay (which no doubt show off the features included in Profile 1.1) then want to know why their BluRay player can't do what the advertisement told them.

At the least, it's misleading advertising. The Profile 1.0 player being defective is a bit of a stretch, but it's not unfounded.

Re:BluRay vs BluRay - Not created equal (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386314)

PS2 games carry the DVD logo and they wont work on just any DVD player!

This lawsuit is so silly it's not really newsworthy. Probably some amateur lawyer who looks at the legal system as his own personal, free lottery ticket.

Re:BluRay vs BluRay - Not created equal (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386420)

The sad thing is, he's probably right.

DVD-Video != DVD-ROM (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387208)

PS2 games carry the DVD logo and they wont work on just any DVD player!
That's because PlayStation 2 games use the "ROM" profile, not the "VIDEO" profile. Look below the DVD logo on the packaging of a DVD-Video or DVD-ROM disc to see which profile it uses.

Blu-ray victory is a joke at this point (1, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386122)

The only market segment decided so far are people who are willing and able to pay $600 for a high-def player or a game console. Apparently HD-DVD captured an even smaller mind share, but $150 players are only a recent phenomenon and it's effect on the market remains to be see. If and when Blu Ray players are available for under a hundred bucks and titles are around $25 we can talk about having a winner.

Re:Blu-ray victory is a joke at this point (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386576)

> ..but $150 players are only a recent phenomenon and it's effect on the market remains to be seen.

I suspect the $150 players were the result of the retail channel seeing what was happening and deciding that the Xmas season was their last chance to unload inventory that was about to be worthless. Add in a little inside info paranoia and deliberate postponing of the studio shifting, etc to allow retails time to dump and things make a lot more sense.

Everyone knew that only one would survive and at the first hint that the market was picking a winner the desire not to be left holding a big stack of dead inventory created a huge bandwagon effect. If I had to guess it was the PS3 finally starting to sell as the price dropped. It became obvious there was soon going to be far more BD players just on the strength of the PS3, one studio flips camps (actually just stopped doing both) and it snowballed. At this point I doubt even Sony can manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Me, I haven't even bought a HD set yet and haven't owned a console since the 2600. Waiting for the pricing to plateau out, no sense getting in a hurry to go HD just to be able to pick from a few dozen crap/blockbuster titles. :)

Re:Blu-ray victory is a joke at this point (1)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388424)

Me, I haven't even bought a HD set yet and haven't owned a console since the 2600.
And don't we all look to someone so enthusiastic about the gadget industry that they haven't bought a game system since the Atari 2600 .
(/snark)

My best recall on what 'everybody knew' would happen in the high-def format wars wasn't any sureness that only one could win. Like with the early days of DVD+ and DVD-, there was a lot of shrugging and guessing that we'd probably soon enough see dual-format players, some specialists saying there were insurmountable technical barriers. Lots of fanboy scribbling and uncertainty and speculation. Someone can correct me if they remember hordes of techies saying otherwise with blu vs. HD.

Sorry for mocking you... your comment did make me chuckle at one bit of market irony I might of otherwise overlooked -- when you mentioned Samsung was dumping doomed-format players, it hit me that selling out desperately is a big factor in how Sony snatched a format victory here.

Fact Check (3, Informative)

dank zappingly (975064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387300)

You've gotta be kidding. Who modded this guy up? I know that anti-Sony opinions are popular here, but this is just insane. The PS3 has not cost $600 since June of 2007. Welcome to 2008. PS3 is currently selling for $400 or $500 depending on the model. You can buy a regular Blu Ray player for $350. Blu Rays are available for less than $25. Take a look at Amazon.com. HD-DVD players are selling for $150 because no one wants to buy a player that is already obsolete.

Devil's Advocate (3, Insightful)

Tuor (9414) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386136)

One important thing to remember is Joe Consumer doesn't know or care about 1.0, 1.1, etc.

Unless they're changing the name, ol' Joe is going to get upset when it doesn't work like it says on the box. Joe is used to auto recalls and static products, and I think BluRay forgot that in their little war to win the format.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386638)

I have to go with Joe on this one.

Profile 2.0 (1)

JungleBoy (7578) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386150)

My favorite part about this "profile" stuff is that the PS3 is the ONLY hardware capable of meeting the profile 2.0 requirements (with a software update). Sony must love that, "Awe gee whiz, looks like our PS3 is the only REAL Blue-Ray player." I wonder if we'll ever see Blue-Ray profile 2.0 players get as cheap as DVD players? Not if Sony can help it.

Re:Profile 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22386810)

Actually the PS3 is only a Profile 1.1 player right now.

Sony announced at the last CES that they were working on updating the PS3's firmware to support profile 2.0.

This announcement came alongside the unveiling of two profile 2.0 players from other manufacturers that were scheduled to be released this year.

As an added bonus, the low end PS3 is currently ~$400, and will probably see another round or two of price cuts during 2008 (due to shrunk BluRay drives, smaller cell die, or at the very least, Holiday Season '09), so the price of a BluRay player seems to keep coming down (although not as fast as obsolete HD-DVD players).

Sure Sony wants the PS4 to be cost effective as a BluRay player also, you noticed they tied the fate of the console (in large measure) to the fate of the format? Guess what? It might pay off.

I think ... (1)

SlashDev (627697) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386172)

... he owns Sansung stock. Buy after lawsuit annoucement, sell after lawsuit is rejected in court.

If he had stock... (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386268)

he'd be trying to nail them with Sarbaney-Oxley for leading investors to think they have better products and a better market position than they do.

Read before you complain (5, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386178)

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing these companies getting a slap on the wrist for a changing definition of what Blu-Ray is by changing the profile but not making the differences obvious (it's a little tiny box on the back of a case).

That said, sounds like the guy has a case to me. Read this part:

At issue are some significant title-compatibility problems with the player. In his complaint, plaintiff Bob McGovern says that a number of movies he purchased after buying his BD-P1200 wouldn't play on the device. He also accuses Samsung of failing to offer firmware updates to remedy the problem, saying that the consumer electronics giant "does not intend to provide future firmware updates or otherwise repair" the problematic player.

As one of our readers pointed out via e-mail, the P1200 has a checkered reputation when it comes to hardware reliability. A massive thread in the AV Science forum is filled with numerous complaints about the player. "I have had the BDP 1200 for 7 weeks. Not a finished product," reads one post. "Should not have been brought to the market until it was fully beta tested. Would not play Blu-ray Weeds. Was told needed updated software."

It was defective. It sounds like the bought a DVD player (let's pretend) that wouldn't play a good percentage of DVDs. Not "doesn't play every neat feature". Not "doesn't support 12.16 theatrical sound". Just plain "won't play". They could fix it with a software update, but they don't seem to want to.

That part is bait-and-switch. He bought a player that should play any good Blu-Ray movie (possibly san-extras). It won't play many of them. Either all those movies are defective, or the player is. If it is the player, he was ripped off. At the very least, they should have replaced his player with something that would play movies.

Re:Read before you complain (1)

Major League Gamer (1222016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386406)

Actually, if you google, you'll find several articles state that Samsung HAS offered a firmware update for this 'issue' and it has worked. Although if you believe the claims of Mr. McGovern, he says they didn't even try to fix it.

Re:Read before you complain (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386880)

Samsung Blu-Ray players are crap, probably the worst of the lot. What I see are complaints of problems that are greater than the rest of them combined. And Samsung was the slowest of the lot to make a patch. Their BRP should not be sold in my opinion.

Not Bait and Switch (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387474)

Bait and switch is when one product is advertised, and when you go to buy the product, the seller of said product refuses to sell you the product advertised and and instead tries to sell you a product that cost more, or has a higher profit margin.

Re:Read before you complain (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388034)

I see where you're coming from, but oh, around 1996 or 1997 or so we (some of us) were having this very same conversation about DVD players.

Anyone remember the early days of DVD? Certain manufacturer's players wouldn't handle certain style manufactured dual-layer discs (among other things). I remember the fiasco with nearly all high-end Sony players and the movie "The Matrix" causing a lock-up at the menu.... and guess what? Some of those players didn't have the ability to update their firmware either. It was a configuration nightmare, so to speak. Now, I'm not saying this Samsung player is top-notch and the world truly has a gem of a player on their hands... but as for problematic DVD players in the past, we've seen this before.... just thought I'd remind everyone. :) (I'm probably the 24th person to do so in the last 3 minutes... sorry for the redundancy.)

But it truly begs the question.. why be an early adopter _again_? My Sony DVD I got with 5 "free DVD" movies (from a list of crap that wouldn't sell) had troubles early on with quite a few WB DVDs... but eventually it began working on more movies, before it crapped the bed. (Sony.. heh.)

Extra features ? Bah ! (0)

The Sith Lord (111494) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386352)

Who really gives a damn about "bonus features" anyway ?

I mean, if you fork out for some serious hi-def gear, you'd want to see the whole image anyway, without some PiP cluttering up the screen.
It's a gimmick at best, and probably something you'd use once, if at all.

Re:Extra features ? Bah ! (1)

Boogaroo (604901) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386750)

I understand what you're saying, remember the TV's with picture in picture? I used it once and never again.

However, what if things like interviews and commentaries started using the picture in picture feature to work? What then?
(Of course I'm making things up, but I dont' think its too far out of the realm of possibility.)

Re:Extra features ? Bah ! (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388492)

This already has examples in HD-DVD. The behind the scenes plays in PiP for 300.

Didn't do his homework (1)

mcmaddog (732436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386370)

This guy decided to make a major expense purchase and didn't do proper research to see if it was adequate for his needs. I've been looking forward to a Blu-Ray player, but waiting until prices come down more and maybe profile 2.0 players to become available.

It's more than Profile 1.1 with the Samsung (5, Interesting)

Princess Aurora (1134535) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386470)

This lawsuit is not over that Profile 1.1 content will not play on this Profile 1.0 player. The Samsung in question has much worse compatibility problems--some discs don't play at all. Before the first Profile 1.1 discs came out, the Samsung refused to play BD+ discs such as Fantastic Four 2 and The Day After Tomorrow. It took Samsung something like a month to issue a firmware update to fix this issue (other manufacturers who had issues had updates out in a week or so). Furthermore, even after that update, new discs continue not to play. The problem mostly is limited to Java-enabled discs, which are in the Profile 1.0 specification.

We're not even talking about Profile 1.1 discs either. Some standard releases refuse to play, and Samsung's support has been sluggish. Problems with the PS3 and Panasonic players have been addressed within a week or two of problems occurring. There are a number of discs that have been out for months that still don't play, even with the latest firmware:
Pirates of the Caribbean 3 (12/3/07)
Blade Runner (12/18/07)
Pixar Shorts (11/6/07)

That's over a month and a half with no fix! The profile 1.1 discs (3:10 to Yuma and Sunshine) don't play the movie successfully. They sputter and freeze. This problem isn't observed on other Profile 1.0 players from Panasonic, Sony, and Pioneer. The Samsung player really is defective.

Re:It's more than Profile 1.1 with the Samsung (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386832)

and seriously, since when should I have to worry about firmware updates when buying a piece of A/V equipment? Utterly Redonculous.

Hooray Format wars (2, Funny)

Khyber (864651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386476)

Ensuring good lawsuitarity since VHS vs BetaMax.

Is it just me? (4, Funny)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386584)

Or are we nearing the day when Sony finally 'wins' a format war?

Re:Is it just me? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22386746)

I don't think it matters. Unless a new format comes out that is just as cheap and powerful we all lose due to DRM.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22386782)

It's got to be hard losing them all? :-)

That and, if you prefer, you could say that Microsoft lost this one.

Re:Is it just me? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386974)

Yeah, it sucked that they lost the format war over the original audio CD and the cassette tape...

Oh wait... Sony/Philips WON those..

Movie menu crap sucks (2, Interesting)

catmistake (814204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22386992)

I've never seen a BluRay title... but I imagine the menuing system is like DVDs' on crack. When I put a movie in my player, I want to watch a movie, not wait 2 minutes through menu animation and 8 min through previews... I'd pay more for no-nonsense "movie-only" titles. You know how when you go to get milk at the supermarket you have to walk past miles of stuff you don't want? Marketing is a profound waste of the consumer's time, and all that extra stuff on movie discs is just like the maze at your local grocery. You fools! You are letting them charge us for showing us stuff they want us to buy.

Here's a much better summary (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387034)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080211-samsung-sued-over-defective-first-gen-blu-ray-players.html [arstechnica.com]

If you Google for BD-P1200 Lawsuit, you'll see the profile 1.0 vs 1.1 is not the issue. I'm guessing Samsung released this thing, and now the software patches are eating them alive keeping up with the changing spec (and probably a bad design to begin with). Based on the scant information, I'm guessing Samsung realized at some point they couldn't patch their player to fix all the incompatibilities. Perhaps it was at end of life, so they figured they'd just ignore the complaints.

I don't think this is a "first adopter you have to expect this" situation. It sounds like a bad design. If Samsung had any corporate integrity, they'd replace these players with ones that actually work. I'm not a fan of lawsuits, but Samsung basically said "screw you" to their customers, so it's natural somebody would screw them right back.

Dont early adopters (1)

Private.Tucker (843252) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387078)

Don't early adopters always get burned? That's the price you pay to be first.

Re:Dont early adopters (2, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387350)

And the poor late adopters that buy Used HDTV's from 3-4 years ago.

m tv dont have HDCP, it's a 1080i set. Bluray and HDDVD is useless as nither will output anything but 480p out the Component output. In fact this is mentioned in EVERY HDDDVD and BluRay players manual.

"720p and 1080i output is disabled on component out on discs that have the copy protection flag set." EVERY SINGLE DISK HAS THIS FLAG SET!

I'm not buying it. If I ever buy one it will be whatever is easiest to rip with anydvd.

loved the tag (1)

peektwice (726616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387170)

I loved the defectivebyaccident [slashdot.org] tag.
Funny, but I think you give them (the Blu-Ray camp) too much credit. It was not accidental.

Unless they promised firmware upgrades... (1)

daggre (631200) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387306)

There's simply no case here. Hardware advances, flash memory becomes cheaper, there's just nothing here unless they promised they would have 1.1 compliance in the 1.0 players. I feel for the early adopters, and I think that the BluRay 1.0 spec was too easy on manufacturers (one of the few areas HD-DVD had it right from the beginning) but the electronics market has always been prone to "early retirement". I can guarantee this guy would have sued Samsung if HD-DVD had won the format war because Samsung had not accurately predicted the future. In the interest of customer service though, Samsung should offer a trade-up program to their early adopters with little or even no cost to upgrade to a 1.1 player, simply because these guys can go from Samsung resenters to Samsung evangelists, and a lot of the hardware should be recoverable (especially the diode which is hugely expensive). They could even make an in-house upgrade kit and just retrofit the old players. Hell they only sold like 5,000 of them just take the hit and play the good guy Samsung. It's just good business. It's NOT legally liable though.

In other news... (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387318)

Slashdot was sued for "duplicating" Ars Technica posting titles.

He shoulda read the owner's manual (1)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387372)

My neighbor had both players and I put my bets on HDDVD (only because I picked up a normally advertised $300 player for $150 -- floor model). For Christmas, him and his wife actually bought the wife and I a Samsung BD-P1400. I read the entire owner's manual front to back (does anyone do that anymore). Comes out they have a big huge fat disclaimer in there on how the format can change and they won't guarantee it will play future revisions.

The only thing I don't like, even though the Samsung upscales normal DVD's to close to it's 1080p output, it "stops" randomly while playing them. My Toshiba HDDVD's output is only 1080i (and even tho the upscale for standard DVDs is only close to that). At least it doesn't stop randomly.

I realize too this may be a firmware issue, but still an annoyance. Some cat5 to the ethernet jack in the back should allow internet firmware updates.

Yet another reason (2, Insightful)

willbry (1209876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387412)

to NOT be an early adopter of new technology. No Blu-Ray or HD DVD here, just a sweet 1080p with a quality DVD upconvert player (http://dvdupconvert.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com] ) so I can enjoy my existing DVD collection.

Return it to Samsung, through their window (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387470)

Early adopters always get screwed, but it seems to me that the High-Def thing has been particularly bad. The first Audio CD players didn't refuse to play later CDs. Here we have HD-ready TVs that aren't HD ready, Blue Ray players that don't play Blue Ray discs, and HD-DVD players that now are only good as boat anchors.

Not that I'm promoting violence against the consumer electronics industry, but I'd return the Samsung player to Samsung, by finding one of their buildings in the nearest corporate park, and chucking the player through one of their plate-glass windows.

If enough people did that, sooner or later they'd get the hint that you do not screw your customer base.

Insanity (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22387882)

Blu-Ray Lawyer: "Your honor, I move that this case be dismissed by reason of insanity."

Judge: "Please explain."

Blu-Ray Lawyer: "The plaintiff purchased the product in question when it was untested, unproven, excessively priced, and played a format that was at risk of going the way of the Dodo. Clearly he is insane."

Judge: "That is insane. Case dismissed!"

Plaintiff: "I'm Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs!"

Lets not (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 6 years ago | (#22388514)

mention the HDMI - DRM fluster fsk were you have to have a router with a internet connection to play media you have legally purchased if you dont have the right version of the DRM firmware on your player.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?