[citation][nom]smleth[/nom]I bought a program from BestBuy for my PC and it didn't work as advertised, so I am going to sue BestBuy cause they didn't test it on my computer first...What BS...[/citation]
Something not working and something that is killing your battery and taking your information are two TOTALLY different things. Wow, I thought Tom's readers were smarter than this.
[citation][nom]supall[/nom]So let me get this straight. If software doesn't work on your Windows desktop OS due to hardware differences, it isn't the software developer's fault, its Microsoft's? So Microsoft must now go through each software developed for their OS and make sure it runs on every possible hardware combination?There is already a precedence that puts Google in the clear of this one. If the issue is getting a refund, why not try to contact the developer's directly? Most developer's are more than willing to refund a product that does not work on their device.[/citation]
There are some very obvious flaws in your argument.
1: Microsoft does not distribute applications, except in the "windows live store" They are not responsible for applications that they do not distribute. Otherwise Microsoft would be sued for viruses, and that is ridiculous.
2. Publishers make it their business to ensure that their applications work on 99% of all possible combinations, if it doesn't work on your machine and says you meet the minimum specs, it would be considered a bug.
Since the two circumstances are clearly different there is no precedent being set.
If Microsoft sold the software, than Microsoft would be held responsible for it working. Since Google sells and publishes the applications themselves they are significantly more involved in the programs than Microsoft is.
Not only that the 15min to try an app is Google's policy and it seems to be a confrontation to consumer rights. According to law you have 24-48Hours depending on the state to return an unopened product. Since by definition the product does not loose any value upon launching I have a hard time seeing that as legal. A judge would have to decide if software without any physical box counts as unopened. Clearly though Software licenses are not a physical good I have no idea how they are interpreted by law.
"There is already a precedence that puts Google in the clear of this one. If the issue is getting a refund, why not try to contact the developer's directly? Most developer's are more than willing to refund a product that does not work on their device."
I'd assume part of it is that if they personally give you a full refund then they have to deal with Google to get Google's portion of the money back.
Maybe a good solution is for the App Developers to be able to set the refund time [minimum, the current 15 min]. That would, in particular, point out the devs putting up crappy apps, since they would be the ones with very shorter refund periods.
Granted, in addition to modifying the store to deal with that, updating 100s of thousands of existing apps with their 'new' refund time, Google would have to build in a mechanism that allows the developers to set another time frame, on every app, that stops people from installing Angry Birds, using it for 3 hours, returning it, and buying again in 20 minutes. Or maybe just a reasonable default, like 30 days...
[citation][nom]Jamie_1318[/nom]There are some very obvious flaws in your argument.1: Microsoft does not distribute applications, except in the "windows live store" They are not responsible for applications that they do not distribute. Otherwise Microsoft would be sued for viruses, and that is ridiculous.2. Publishers make it their business to ensure that their applications work on 99% of all possible combinations, if it doesn't work on your machine and says you meet the minimum specs, it would be considered a bug.Since the two circumstances are clearly different there is no precedent being set.If Microsoft sold the software, than Microsoft would be held responsible for it working. Since Google sells and publishes the applications themselves they are significantly more involved in the programs than Microsoft is.Not only that the 15min to try an app is Google's policy and it seems to be a confrontation to consumer rights.[/citation]
1) Microsoft may not distribute applications except through Windows Live, which is a distribution platform, but the argument should still stand because Google, although providing a distribution platform and profiting from it, does not hold proprietary rights to the apps. Otherwise, we would not be seeing other Android markets out there (Amazon being one) that would host those very same apps. So any app that doesn't work for a default device does not make Google accountable. Android app developers make their apps work on a specific version, much like Software developers will have their products work on Windows 7, Vista, and XP, but not on Windows 95 or NT.
2) If it is considered a bug, does that mean the app is defective? Let me point to Steam - it is a distribution platform. Not everything on Steam is guaranteed to work flawlessly on your computer. The only thing Steam is accountable for is your account, the games on your account, and the fact that you can download and install the game successfully.
So let me go back a bit and clarify my argument that proves that there is a precedence. Android OS an operating system; Android Market is a distribution platform; and the apps are individual software. On your PC, Windows is an operating system; Steam is a distribution platform; and the games are your software. So if a game isn't working properly on your specific computer, who's at fault? Since Google is in charge of the Android Market, the lawsuit states that Google is at fault for the apps not working on their specified devices. Yet, if a game on Steam isn't working properly, Steam isn't to blame, except for the publishers.
Now, if the same non-working App from the Google Market was downloaded from the Amazon market and worked, then there is a case that I could see. Likewise, if the game from the Amazon download worked where it didn't on Steam, then I could see where Steam would be at fault.
Even I don't believe steam has ever been held accountable for distribution in court. If you have ever have asked for a refund due to poorly made program, not working etc. etc. you would know that hey do in fact hold themselves responsible for their distribution. They probably forward the bills to the other parties involved. Steam's responsibility as a reseller is to ensure reasonably well that programs run on your computer and they do that very well. They will even refund games that just don't run acceptably. A good example is RAGE. They were giving out refund because the game just ran so poorly on supposedly on supposedly compatible systems.
I would like to point out the most obvious precedent here, a store, any store in fact is held responsible for defective items. Period. It's just expected. Have you ever gone to a store to return a defective item and they say "yeah, we just don't do that". NO. You never have. They must accept defective product so long as it is reasonable. They don't accept disposable items for one. If the app said it would work on his device, they are damn well responsible for it not working. They may be able to pass on the cost to the developer, and cut ties if they don't. They lose a total of $0 by refunding the man's dollars.
To further prove my point that no precedent has been set, find a case, preferably a bunch of cases where distributors were not held responsible for the programs that they sold. Unless there was a court involved there was no precedence set. A single case does count as precedence however one case makes a very weak argument.Any differences between the cases would render it worthless. A google search of "distribution platform held not responsible for programs" you will find zero relevant results, and I for one am not interested in searching further.
Last point I fail to see how it matters that there are more than one distributor for a single product. Why should that matter at all? There are tens of thousands of stores selling the same products so I don't see how it's relevant. A defective product is a defective product no matter who sold it. It is not there responsibility to ensure they do not sell defective products, that is ridiculous. Their responsibility is simply to take back the man's money from the developer because they did not deserve the money in the first place.
I apologize for making this giant wall of text, but hopefully it was worth it.
I will summarize counterarguments so just read this if you don't like text:
1: Steam makes themselves responsible, why shouldn't Google/Amazon apps?
2.Distributor does not lose money, they just don't give money to developer, a very simple process of holding money for a day or so.
3. Brick&Mortar Stores are held responsible for defective products
4. Precedent is only set at a court ruling. Unless you can find court rulings there is no Precedent. Considering that steam is held responsible (they hold themselves responsible though) I would argue the opposite of what you are saying is true.
Jarrasic512 - You are right, I thought the "readers" here were smarter than this, but then again it doesn't look like you actually read the article. The lawsuit is not because it killed their battery life or because they contained malware. It's because the apps did not function as promised.