Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Aug 2012 13:12 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "It'll be a full x86 device - Lenovo calls a 'joint effort' with Intel and Microsoft - that clocks in at 1.3 pounds with a 10.1-inch 1366 x 768 display. It's billed to have 10-hour battery life, which would be impressive for a device only 9.8mm thick. The standard model is Wi-Fi-only, but there will also be carrier versions including one with AT&T's LTE connectivity." If you see a 1366x768 resolution on a 10.1" display, they blew it.
Thread beginning with comment 530474
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 18:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Next you'll want a refund for the OS that runs on your microwave oven.

Its one thing to want the freedom to install another OS, its another thing to demand a refund for an OS which was sold to Lenovo at a volume discounted rate.

This steers into the realm of ridiculousness.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Morgan on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Next you'll want a refund for the OS that runs on your microwave oven.


You know very well it's not the same thing at all. Comparing hard-coded firmware to user-uninstallable software is misleading and beneath you.

The rest of your statement has no legs to stand on. Microsoft's own EULA states that you can and should seek a refund if you don't agree with the terms of the EULA. If the hardware manufacturer won't comply, they still have to honor their own warranty and refund for a defective purchase. The only way they can avoid that would be to post the entire Microsoft OS EULA on their website or at the physical point of sale, and require you to agree to it before completing the purchase.

If your take on it was the way the world worked, then every store in existence would just mark down all their products by a penny and say "we sold it to you at a discounted rate, therefore you are not eligible for a refund or exchange". The public wouldn't stand for that, and neither should computer purchasers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:56 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


You know very well it's not the same thing at all. Comparing hard-coded firmware to user-uninstallable software is misleading and beneath you.


Tablets are absolutely an appliance. The experience is completed by the combination of hardware and software. They are decidedly not general purpose devices, and are not sold or advertised as such.


The rest of your statement has no legs to stand on. Microsoft's own EULA states that you can and should seek a refund if you don't agree with the terms of the EULA. If the hardware manufacturer won't comply, they still have to honor their own warranty and refund for a defective purchase. The only way they can avoid that would be to post the entire Microsoft OS EULA on their website or at the physical point of sale, and require you to agree to it before completing the purchase.

If your take on it was the way the world worked, then every store in existence would just mark down all their products by a penny and say "we sold it to you at a discounted rate, therefore you are not eligible for a refund or exchange". The public wouldn't stand for that, and neither should computer purchasers.


Maybe you wish for it to not have legs to stand on. True, after some legalese you may end up wringing a refund out of an OEM, but in the process you'll have spend potentially hundreds filing in a small claims court, weeks of your time, and receive something like a $100 dollar check. That's if they don't demand you return the entire device outright.

So just because you legally can do something, doesn't mean it is reasonable or right to demand one. I believe the same argument is made for software patents, they're perfectly legal in the US too, but according to many, the exercise of that legal right is reprehensible.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by MollyC on Thu 9th Aug 2012 21:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Next you'll want a refund for the OS that runs on your microwave oven.


You know very well it's not the same thing at all. Comparing hard-coded firmware to user-uninstallable software is misleading and beneath you.
" [/q]

Can I play Socrates for a moment?
If I flash my own firmware onto a microwave oven, why should I not then be able to legitimately demand a refund for the firmware that was bundled, according to the logic of the commenter that started this discussion?

Second Socratic query: This Lenovo device is being sold, not as a "general purpose computer that just happens to have a particular OS bundled with it", it's being sold as a "Windows 8 tablet computer". That is, Windows 8 is part of the device being sold, just as the track nipple is part of the device being sold. Is that way of looking at it wrong, and if so, why?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Tablet computer is not an appliance. It's a mulitpurpose universal computer device. Therefore your example is irrelevant.

While the notion of many vendors to turn computers into appliances is known (that logic helps them to lock them up), users should resist such kind of logic as much as possible, especially when it comes to real multipurpose devices.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Thu 9th Aug 2012 19:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

A tablet is not a general purpose device. Do you think you'd have luck asking Apple for a refund on an iPad for the cost of iOS?

Reply Parent Score: 2