Google Sued For Nexus One Suckiness
from the people-sue-for-anything dept
Eric Goldman points us to the news that Google has been sued, in a class action lawsuit, over problems with the Nexus One, the Android phone (made by HTC) that Google released directly, in an attempt to get others to release better Android-powered phones. As with many new products, there were some bugs, and Google (and T-Mobile, on which the Nexus One worked) didn't quite know how to handle customer support for the device -- a pretty massive mistake. However, is it really against the law to sell a product with a few bugs and to to have really dismally crappy customer service? It seems like a stretch. You can make the argument that the product didn't do what was promised, but, like so many class action lawsuits, this one seems like a case of "gee, can we squeeze a bunch of money out of this company?"
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: class action, nexus one
Companies: google, t-mobile
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Market works how?
Google advertising product with throughput of X and uptime of Y but delivering less than X and Y: GOOD?
Misleading practices, like failure to disclose bugs and serious software flaws, is withholding information from the market. This makes the market less efficient by preventing consumers from making informed decisions.
How is this in any way acceptable? It's market inefficiency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Market works how?
Maybe you are talking about the hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Market works how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Market works how?
I'm not calling for consumer protection. I just want full disclosure. Of course the class-action lawsuit is pointless. But maybe (just maybe) it will convince Google to disclaim their flaws (or better yet, release a stable product).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Market works how?
Now, since we do not actually have products that meet the advertised specs, another player in the market is competition - and that is the only thing that can fix the market at this point.
The only real consumer protection is their ability to go elsewhere when a product is terrible. Enabling more competition is very consumer-friendly. If class action lawsuits can lay waste to companies that produce inferior products, all they will do is reduce the number of companies that are willing to risk producing a new product in the market.
I say: "bring on the poor quality phones" because it is likely to produce lower price points on better phones as they try to compete. It is also likely to help build a strong young competitor (perhaps KIA can get into the phone business?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Market works how?
suing a mobile phone maker or carrier for not delivering what they promised is like handing out speeding tickets at the indy 500.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Market works how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Market works how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Market works how?
I hate crappy products, but if I joined a class action for every crappy tech product I bought, I'd be full-time managing my legal hobby, and I'd get hundreds of $5 coupons!
The way to handle crappy products is to let the tech journalists chime in first. Which they did, as Google send them Nexus Ones before market release. Then bloggers like engadget or phonescoop get one and do tear-downs, detailed reviews. Then their comments fill with feedback from early adopters. Then bloggers do unboxings, early impressions, and evaluations. Then the dev communities push it to the limit, like XDA-developers.com.
Bottom line, there is no need to buy a device like the Nexus One blind. If there were serious flaws, it would be identified as a dud long before the process above plays out. The market would react to the bad product. Um...Motorola Kin, anyone?
If you want to make a list of Pros and Cons for a product, you probably shouldn't count on the seller to provide you the list of Cons.
How about a little personal responsibility, a little caveat emptor, and a requirement to do a tiny bit of research before dropping $500 on a phone? Or should we just be able to rush in blind and let the legal system fix it if there are bugs?
And, FWIW, I have an N1, and it is awesome. Of course, I never expected Google to answer the phone if I called, so I never did. If there was a 3G problem on T-Mo, which is a serious flaw, did Google fix it? How quickly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Make Me Think Of
Pointless, but a money maker for the suing lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm.... yes and then no. Selling a product that does not work as promised is against the law. Not criminal law of course, but civil law. And failing to get the product working as promised also is against the law.
Let me ask you this, when you spend a lot of money on something and it doesn't work. Do you just shrug your shoulders or do you take it back to either get your money or get it working right?
When that happens on a massive scale it's leads to a lawsuit. This is all really basic stuff. You should seriously consider law school, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nexus One
I guess if my phone didn't work and there was nobody to call for help maybe I wouldn't feel the same way, but the Nexus one is a spectacular device and I don't plan to opt into this suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nexus One
This guy's suit seems like it'd be better targeted at his service provider rather than his handset provider. But, Google is a larger target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nexus One
I have no other issues with the phone. I could see people having issues with T-Mobil's network if they don't live in a big city, it does kinda suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google should have marketed differently and should have targeted the geek/techie audience better. As a technophile and I find this to be the best phone out there... but I would direct more mainstream consumers elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
I believe the G1 on T-Mobile was the first phone with Android. I'm pretty sure that was referred to - or marketed as - the Google phone, so I can understand the confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
I think you're right about the N1 being the first with it, but I don't think it was released with Froyo. I only mention that because I doubt that would have anything to do with the reason there's a lawsuit.
As someone who just got Froyo myself, I know how big of an update it was, but technically speaking, it was only a jump from 2.1 to 2.2. For any other OS, I doubt we would consider that such a significant update.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
The main value of the N1 is that is has NO carrier affiliation, and therefore, NO crapware. Every carrier loves to stick in their programs, their icons, their partner's icons (ex: Blockbuster on Droid X). And you can't delete those unwanted apps. Also, carriers will often choose to DISable useful apps, like laptop tethering, which is an integrated part of Android 2.2, but is removed or hidden by some carriers (same for iPhone). Nexus One is Android the way the Android developers intended it to be.
Next advantage, whenever an updated version of Android is released, with new features and functions, it is released to the Open software community, to carriers, to handset developers. It is then, fairly promptly, pushed out to Nexus one phones. We get the updates and features right away. After months (3-9mos), owners of phones like G1s, Evos, Droids will get the updates - or maybe not at all!
You see, for every new rev of the OS, the handset vendors (Motorola, HTC) need to put their UI enhancements (Motoblur, Sense) on it and to test it with the older handsets. That takes time and resource scheduling, and really they are more concerned with getting out their newer phones. Then, the carrier gets the update from the OEM, but then they have to put their "enhancements", removals, and customizations into the OS ROM. That takes time and resource scheduling, and really they are more concerned with selling newer phones to new subscribers. How important is it to update the phone of someone who is locked into a 2 year subsidy? Not so much. They'll focus on the new subs, and the people coming out of their 2-year contract, and want the best model phones to offer those customers.
As a Verizon or other carrier subscriber with an Android phone, your best bet of getting an update is if your phone is still a featured seller at their stores. In that case, they want the updated OS to sell the new units, and you will get the update as an afterthought. Once your phone is off the shelves, it drops a long way in priority.
The N1 is a testament to consumer freedom. And they don't sell them to consumers anymore. Too bad that era lasted so briefly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
N1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just bugs
There's a bug logged but it was marked as 'will not fix', which was either correctly or erroneously taken for "We know it's a problem but we won't/can't do anything about it." The lawsuit seems to be either a sense of entitlement, or pressure to get them to actually fix it by people who don't want a different phone.
I love my Nexus One. I do end up on edge w/ t-mobile a lot, but I don't know if that's the network or the phone. I've never been bothered by the speed, or lack thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
N1=Awesome
Google really fell down on marketing this phone, it could have been the greatest phone on all 4 US carriers but I think it was killed because the carriers just couldn't stand having such an open phone on their networks. Oh, and google didn't do crap for marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: N1=Awesome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It isn't....but it should. Maybe software companies (especially in the games field) would shape up and release stable products, instead of the crap they've been shoveling out recently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any new product...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"BUGS" = "engineering design failures" seeing them is not fixing them.
Maybe you are talking about the hardware.
That is true, that is possible, but that is not really happening, and sure there are specific reason why you cannot 100% test code, but that is NO EXCUSE for not fixing bugs once you have found them.
Yes, many eyes can find bugs, but if those bugs are not fixed, and systems put in place to stop those ERRORS from being released than Open Source will continue to struggle.
Many eyes have found many bugs, but look at what happens then ! usually NOTHING, that is the problem apart from the vast number of UNKNOWN and undiscovered bugs (Design ERRORS). There is a huge pool of bugs that are known but never fixed. Check out the 60,000+ faults, errors, screwups in Ubuntu, that is only the KNOWN ones, so what does the many eyes do.. Diddly Squat...
However, is it really against the law to sell a product with a few bugs and to to have really dismally crappy customer service?
It most certainly **IS** against the law, several laws, and statutes infact.
Quite simple, its fraudulent, and possibly criminal, for example check out the case of the paraolympic games, an engineering company designed and built a "walking bridge" for the athlets, well they created the bride, (with just a few bugs), and the bridge collapsed, and many people DIED, the engineer who allowed "a few bugs" through is still in prison.
If you say a product is capable of performing specific functions, and it does not, its not 'fit for use' and that is illegal.
so fix the screwups in the design, and accept that just because its "open source" or "software" it has the right to not perform as advertised.
Mike, if this has of been against Microsoft, Im sure the direction of this article would have been completely different.
After all, its Google who pays you right !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]