- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
No carrier will ever give a release date for any update. There are a lot of sue happy people and it all started with AT&T being sued for MMS on the iPhone, shortly followed by the Samsung Behold II, and Motorola Cliq. There are a lot more devices, but those to actually ended up in court. From that day I have NEVER seen anything about any update other than rumors, and leaks from any carrier/maunfacturer in the US. As long as they are quiet, and give a vague response(like potentially Q4, and is subject to change) they can't get sued.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Except for the Spectrum - the press releases from LG and VZW indicated ICS in the 2nd QTR. It was very specific in that regard. It is advertisement which is actionable because it is material and fraudulent.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
What Stef7 said. And actually what Tidbits said too. There have been some high profile lawsuits as a result of software promises which is why most phones now won't state a release time or even period. But as Stef7 pointed out, there were press releases from both companies that did just that regarding the Spectrum. Which means that the cases Tidbits mentioned have set a decent precedent in the consumer's favor regarding this issue. I had another phone which was rumored to get an upgrade and had the ambiguous "upgradeable" language. When the time from the rumors came and went I said "Well, sounds like the grapevine had it wrong" and I just kept seeking more info to verify the information. Here, there's no grapevine. Right from the source and at the time of the release of the phone it was "upgrade available first half of 2012." There's absolutely a reason to pursue this, as the language listed under key features promised "available" and a time frame. Making matters worse, while later press releases changed the language to "upgradeable" there was never anything that refuted or corrected the original press release. This phone even made it on a later release confirming it was on the list to get it (albeit without the time frame).
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Regardless they never gave a hard date. They only gave an intent to deliver which you can't sue for. All they would have to show in court is the progress and it will be done with. Verizon can only relay what Samsung has told them if the OEM changes the date they change the date. I do believe OEM take a lot of time(too much) on their not so good selling items. The hardware is too similar to take the kind of time they take to even submit an update.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Tidbits, respectfully, I do not agree with your assertions.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Of course not, but I have court documents that backs up my claims for since the release of the the Cliq. People also forget the "within" reason clause. By all means waste money and time and take it to court and you'll find out what I mean. The one you will be most closely tied to... Would be the AT&T Thrill which had a better case(a tighter hard date than first 1/2 of 2012), but 8 months later they got the update, and all the court cases that were going on during that point went nowhere.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I don't doubt that. However, the period is specific enough. It is false advertisement. And it is illegal. Trying to sue VZW isn't likely to get a single individual much. Neither is trying to file a class action lawsuit. On the other hand - this practice is likely going to influence future consumer protection mechanisms.
I'm not suggesting people sue VZW, just that VZW and LG have an obligation to correct the situation.
People have been reporting elsewhere that they are getting replacement devices, even Samsung GSIIIs because of BBB claims and being educated about the situation to the extent it is possible. That is a fact.
I personally haven't decided what I'm going to do. I'm still expecting VZW to step up publically and make good as a way of showing they really do care about the very group that builds their business and keeps it strong.
The more interesting thing is: what is VZW going to do about this business model big picture going forward. People are getting more and more savvy. And so are the OEMs.
Some things change, and some things stay the same. We'll see if and how VZW differentiates itself from the other providers w.r.t. missed obligations to updates and upgrades.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I actually know that threats AND cancellations of service make companies fidgety and get things done. I'm going to close my family account in December and go back to where I came from or with someone like cricket as ALL providers are apparently bad.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
stef7 wrote:
I don't doubt that. However, the period is specific enough. It is false advertisement. And it is illegal.
Only false advertisement if Verizon deliberately lied. Try proving that. If I'm promoting a concert with a certain performer and then at the last minute he cancels, that is not false advertisement. If I promote a concert for a certain performer and I never had the performer lined up to begin with then that IS false advertisement.