PS3 Owner Given Refund After Sony Makes PS3 Less Useful

from the what-you-thought-you-bought-is-not-what-you-now-own dept

We recently discussed how Sony has decided to eliminate some rather useful functionality from their Playstation 3 -- specifically the ability to run other operating systems like Linux. This annoyed a number of PS3 owners, given that thanks to a Sony "update," the product they thought they purchased is not the product currently sitting in their living room. Sony is obviously interested in keeping their hardware locked down as part of an attempt to retain control in their fight against pirates (and apparently hobbyists). But if the console you bought suddenly does less, are you due a refund? One UK PS3 owner apparently thought so, and was able to use a law created in 2002 to get Amazon to refund about 20% of his original purchase price. The law in question specifically applies to retailers not manufacturers, and requires that goods:

• comply with the description given by the seller and posses the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods.
• be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.

Given that Sony "made it known to the seller at the time of purchase" that the PS3 would be able to run other operating systems, Amazon ponied up the refund -- without the user having to return the unit. Of course the refund will be kicked up to Sony, who isn't going to want a significant chunk of the UK suddenly demanding their money back. So the question then becomes whether Sony backs down and re-instates a feature many of their customers found useful, or just points to their user agreement. Said agreement claims Sony has the legal authority to do whatever the hell they'd like if the changes are applied in order to "prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content."

Less broad consumer protection laws in the States means users here probably won't see refunds, but you may see your obligatory dollar or two should Sony's decision result in a class action lawsuit.

Filed Under: playstation 3, refunds
Companies: amazon, sony

Netflix Refunds Money Without Being Asked

from the that's-how-it's-done dept

With so many stories out there of companies screwing over customers or making life difficult for users, it's always nice to hear a good story. Apparently, Netflix recently had a problem with their Xbox video streaming, and proactively refunded money to customers without them asking. I can't think of any other company I've heard of that's done that. Hell, I remember a past broadband provider who I would call (regularly) without outages, and the best they would do is say that after the service came back, I could call and then they would process a refund -- knowing that when that finally happened hours later, it wouldn't be worth the hassle to call back in and wait on hold.

Filed Under: customer service, refunds
Companies: netflix

Apple Making Developers Pay Up For Any Refunded iPhone Apps?

from the restocking-fees dept

Lucretious points to a Kotaku post claiming that Apple is changing the terms for iPhone developers, such that when users ask for refunds, Apple gives them back the full amount but still demands a 30% fee from the developers. For obvious reasons, this is upsetting developers who worry about getting hit with huge chargeback fees. I would imagine that Apple's response is that if developers make a good enough app, they shouldn't have to worry about refund requests. But, in the meantime, it certainly increases the liability of being an iPhone developer.

Filed Under: developers, iphone, refunds, restocking fee
Companies: apple

Yahoo Offers Refunds Or DRM-Free Music In Exchange For Shutting Down DRM Servers

from the that's-better dept

We were a bit surprised last week when Yahoo decided to shut down its DRM servers, rendering all sorts of "purchased" music close to worthless. After all, when Microsoft had done the same thing, public outcry forced Microsoft to keep the servers running for a few more years. Now Yahoo has leapfrogged that decision, promising either refunds or a replacement DRM-free version of tracks that you downloaded via its service. This may turn out to be expensive for Yahoo, but that's what the company gets for agreeing to a DRM'd solution in the first place, rather than trusting its instincts and telling the labels to ditch the DRM years ago.

What's more interesting about this is that retailers may need to start matching this offer. In other words, people are now (reasonably) expecting retailers to "future proof" their music, so that they don't have to buy the same songs over and over again. If people are buying music, they expect to be able to continue to use that music no matter how the technology changes -- and they're pushing to make sure that happens. Yahoo's decision to now make its music (even as its shutting down the music service) future proof should make the recording industry realize that the days of getting consumers to rebuy all their music every time there's a format shift are long gone.

Filed Under: drm, music, refunds
Companies: yahoo