Well, this is interesting. The Dutch Consumentenbond, the largest consumer protection advocacy agency in The Netherlands, today filed a lawsuit against Samsung demanding the company starts properly updating its Android phones. The Consumentenbond had been in talks with Samsung about this issue for a while now, but no positive outcome was reached, and as such, they saw no other option but to file suit.
The Consumentenbond is demanding that Samsung provides two years of updates for all its Android devices, with the two-year period starting not at the date of market introduction of the device, but at the date of sale. This means that devices introduced one or even more years ago that are still being sold should still get two years’ worth of updates starting today.
There’s actually an official English version of the press release (as a translator, I am genuinely surprised about that).
Bart Combée, director of the Consumentenbond: “On buying a Samsung Android device, consumers are given inadequate information about how long they will continue to receive software updates. The Consumentenbond is demanding that Samsung provide its customers with clear and unambiguous information about this. Samsung moreover provides insufficient information about critical security vulnerabilities, such as Stagefright, in its Android phones. Finally, the Consumentenbond is demanding that Samsung actually provide its smartphones with updates.”
The Consumentenbond’s own research has shown that 82% of the Samsung phones sold in The Netherlands did not get updates to the most recent version of Android in the two-year period, which leads to all kinds of security issues and other problems. While Samsung, which has a smartphone market share in The Netherlands of about 80% (yeah… Sorry about that), is the focus of this particular lawsuit, the Consumentenbond notes that other manufacturers are guilty of the same problems.
It will not come as a surprise to any of you that I sincerely applaud this effort. The Android update clusterfrick is by far the biggest problem in the Android world, and OEMs should be, if possible, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their negligent practices regarding updating their software. There is an extremely strong mandatory EU warranty policy on all products sold in the EU of at least two years, and Samsung and other Android OEMs are clearly failing to follow this law.
That being said, the minutiae of any possible outcome of this lawsuit are extremely crucial. Not only should Samsung and other OEMs be legally forced to release updates for their smartphones for at least two years (I would personally prefer three or four years, actually, but let’s start somewhere), the updates ought to be timely. Every Android smartphone should be updated to the latest version of Android for two years after sale of said smartphone, with each update being released no later than four weeks after code availability from Google.
If this means they have to spend more resources on their development team – so be it. If this means they can no longer sell outdated, crappy hardware because newer Android versions would be too slow – so be it. If this means they have to work more closely with Google to prepare for new releases – so be it. None of that should be the concern of any consumer.
The case has no merit IMO. Under general consumer law principles the vendor (not the manufacturer) is responsible for warranties. There is absolutely no legal obligation to upgrade, repair or replace a functioning device.
If people want ongoing upgrades they should buy a Nexus, Lumia or iPhone. The other alternative is buying a cheap prepaid Android and upgrade every 12-18 months.
Moreover, I bet you dollars to donuts that if forced, these OEMs wills start rushing out upgrades that are buggy as shit in order to meet the quotas mandated by the nanny state, leaving consumers in the lurch, with no way to downgrade back to something that worked.
This is going to be especially bad when Google ships a broken-ass update like Lollipop was. Motorola actually passed on 5.0 when updating the 2013 Moto X and waited until 5.1 so they could provide something stable. With this kind of mandate, they might not have that option in the future.
Edited 2016-01-19 00:42 UTC
You’re terribly off the mark.
The European law stipulates that every electronic device which is sold in EU is covered by a mandatory 2 years warranty. Every EU citizen thus may expect that any smartphone he/she buys will be properly supported during this period of time which means his/her gadget will be updated and secured in a timely manner.
Since every smartphone is being officially sold for at least a year after its initial introduction, that, mathematically speaking, means that every Android vendor must support all its smartphones for at the very least three years which is not the case as we all know.
Personally I don’t care if new major Android releases are made available for older phones because we all know it’s not always feasible and beneficial (for instance Apple users mourn the fact that their old Apple gadgets are hardly usable after being upgraded to new iOS releases).
Still, security updates (specially for remotely exploitable vulnerabilities) must never be postponed beyond, say, a four weeks period.
I fully support Thom here.
On what planet does warranty = free upgrades?
Bobthearch,
I agree with you that a warranty might not entitle the owner to get upgrades, but on the other hand I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a consumer to expect security updates and bug fixes. A lot of phones being sold today don’t get this support after sale, and that is something that should be warrantied.
Warranties exist to protect consumers from defects, and I can’t think of a compelling argument suggesting that software/firmware defects should be held to a different standard. When something is faulty or becomes faulty during normal use, a warranty entitles the owner to a fix.
Sometimes in a product recall, the replacement will be upgraded simply because it’s both easier and cheaper to use new parts than it is to fix the old products. Back to your point, while manufacturers may not be obligated to provide “upgrades”, it may nevertheless be easier & cheaper than fixing faults in the firmware that shipped.
So you’re saying that the OS and all the apps it came with should be bug free? And if not, where do you draw the line between what is ‘acceptable jank’ and what isn’t? On my 2013 Moto X, the phone ran noticeably choppier with Lollipop than it did with Kitkat. Would that be Google’s mess to clean up or Motorola’s?
Edited 2016-01-19 04:40 UTC
WorknMan,
Wasn’t Motorola a part of Google in that period? Haha, it’s a fair point though. I see Google’s role as kind of incidental. If a manufacturer went with an in-house OS, say TempleOS, their responsibility would be clear. The tradeoff in using 3rd party open source has always been you can incorporate the software in a product and sell it, but then you have to support it yourself.
If a version is that bad, then it probably shouldn’t be sold or offered as an upgrade until it’s fixed. Keep supporting the old version in the interim.
And if there is no after-sale support, then maybe the advertising should be obligated to include verbiage about that fact: “sold as is with no future updates available for bugs and security vulnerabilities”. Truth in advertising might be embarrassing enough to get manufacturers to opt for providing fixes from time to time, and if not then at least consumers will know up front that is what they’ll be buying.
Edited 2016-01-19 07:54 UTC
Well, my camera (Nikon D800) has had three firmware updates since I bought it close to three years ago.
I don’t expect any software to be bug free. After 40+ years of writing the darned stuff I think I should know that by now.
I ditched my Android phone a few years ago because the maker (HTC) didn’t release any patches. Well, that was one of the reasons (unable to remove FB & Twitter apps were just two of the others) and went back to a dumb phone. Because it does no do ‘internet’ then there really is little chance of it being hacked.
I hope that thie lawsuit results in a loss for Samsung. It will set precident and that may mean the end of burner Android phones that are good only for ‘landfill’ after a few months because of their insecurity.
I guess we’re going to find out from this lawsuit if the EU considers software updates to be part of a proper functioning device. If so, it’s not a stretch to declare that updates are covered under warranty: repairs for manufacturing defects are already covered by law, after all.
In a planet where consumer rights are kept and the product was faulty to begin with.
Security bugs meant it wasn’t bug free at purchase time.
This doesn’t mean a new Android version needs to be provided, say upgrade 4.3 to 4.4. But all 4.3 bugs need to be fixed for free during warranty time.
If the product was truly faulty, it’s already covered by a two year warranty in the Netherlands. So you can take it back to the store and get your money back. No?
Except bad software practices have lead the common man accept that it is ok to live with broken software.
As a teacher of mine used to say, it is like if people accepted that after buying a pair of shoes they might explode at home when they try them on the wrong order.
So yes, it is most likely covered by the warranty but people don’t do it, second you also don’t exchange the car or house among other items, rather get the dealer to provide the necessary repairs free of charge.
Let’s not confuse things: it should be free security updates.
Security updates are a lot of the time just one liner fixes in existing code bases that were previously shipped.
IMO Thom is incredibly naive about business practices and the law.
Edited 2016-01-19 02:57 UTC
car analogy: if there is learned about an important flaw with a car, it is repaired for free if the car is still under warranty. why not with a phone? yes, the phone flaw can be either in hardware or the software, but is still a flaw and the device is still under warranty.
Consumer law considers that more expensive goods (eg cars) are generally entitled to better warranty protection.
Samsung phones are expensive enough to carry a 2 year warranty
unclefester,
You’d think so, but after buying a used car from a Honda dealership and paying $2k for an extended warranty as an insurance against potential repairs. When I brought it back in for leaking lights, and faulty gearbox mechanism that prevent the car from shifting out of park. “nothing is covered by your warranty, that’ll be $1000 to fix.” I refused all repairs but they still demanded an undisclosed $120 just because they looked at it. I was appalled. Then when I got home I found out they broke the paneling. After several calls and them refusing to honor their warranty, I contacted consumer affairs. Many many months later, they telephoned me and said they’d been contacted by consumer affairs, they would fix the faulty gearbox.
They would not refund the $120. I asked them to fix the flooded lights and the paneling as well. They drilled holes in the lights and tied the paneling with a piece of rope, I kid you not! This is the official Apple Honda dealership in my area…
TL;DR, a car warranty is only as good as the dealership’s integrity. You can go to court over it, but the whole reason for a warranty is to avoid the stress.
Kind of curious where you live, not trying to pry personal info, but if it were me, I’d pay via credit card the 120, dispute that charge later, go to a different dealer to see if they would not be idiots and honor the warranty. In general, once a car shop has shown itself to be terrible at its job, I’ll go elsewhere even if its a much longer drive.
Bill Shooter of Bul,
They weren’t our regular mechanic, I thought it’d be less trouble to go to the authorized dealership for warranty. Dealerships outsource the warranty coverage for used cars, so even though they sold you the warranty initially, it gets transferred to a third party, which is a convenient scheme for dealerships to deny responsibility afterwards. I hate everything about repairing cars, the warranty was supposed to take the edge off…grr. You are right, I’ll have to go elsewhere next time. It’s probably not systemic of all Honda dealerships, but I doubt I’ll buy another.
Warranties exist to protect from lemons, but in a very ironic way I think the “Market for Lemons” theory might apply to warranties as well.
I tend to steer clear of extended warranty coverage. Too difficult to get it enforced at times, when its really a shady third party you have to deal with. Even with Manufacturer’s warranty, I’ve heard of problems even with “bumper to bumper coverage”. Sometimes things are obviously broken, but not broken enough to convince the dealership that a repair is necessary, like loose power steering belts. Thats when a switch to the dealership next town over makes sense, as long as there is one with in a day’s drive.
The fine print on car warranties usually excludes any part made by another company eg electrics, transmission, suspension etc. They are also the parts most likely to fail.
unclefester,
This was all stock parts at an authorized dealership. They just didn’t want to honor it before I went to the department of commerce. What I learned is that even with a bumper-to-bumper warranty in hand, actually getting it enforced can be a stressful ordeal. For me, the primary reason to have a warranty is to eliminate stress and anxiety at the mechanic, and so it failed to serve it’s purpose. You know the biggest irony of all is that now I’m stressed over the next time I need to get warrantied service.
I imagine this might be the same anxiety consumers feel when it comes to fixing computers too. Because you can never tell just how honest or even competent IT shops will be with diagnostics and charges:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeCj58p27uI
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/computer-shops-fail-undercover…
IT shops can break your trust and misuse your data, and you have no way to know.
http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2012/07/23/best-buy-geek-squad-trus…
I fix computers from time to time, I hardly make money on that at all, but sometimes I think it would be easier to make a living if I were dishonest – use lies to pad my paychecks. Does anyone else sometimes feel that honesty hurts business, and that “survival of the fittest” promotes those who are willing to be dishonest?
You’re beating around the bush with technicalities. In any case, the sellers in turn will send the phone for “manufacturer’s warranty”.
Having said these, I personally wouldn’t update my phone, for even updating gmail from google play makes it slower. But a warranty is a warranty, and they should honor it. The car analogy in another comment is right on the mark.
This may perhaps lead to a more sensible android market, where the devices are made more durable and to last for at least two or three years. The current state of affairs is to make shitty cheapos in order to force consumers to buying a new phone once every year or 18 months. That’s not sustainable or sensible. Assume, with a view to limiting support costs, Samsung chose to offer only 5 or 6 phones at any time, instead of the 20 or so varieties it currently does. You’d get better economies of scale, and better support for replaceable parts such as batteries, not to mention covers. It would also allow smaller manufacturers to carve their own niche markets. It’s a win for the consumer, win for the environment, and win for the competition picture.
The device was NOT secure on the day it was sold, it was presumed to be secure. The software flaw, unkown (arguably, it may have been known by some malefic entities, like the NSA), was there.
So during the warranty period it should remain “presumably secure”.
Your point being?
“Lawyerese” status definitions
Warranty means, if there is a defect that prevents the device from working or looking as advertised, then the seller must fix it.
Security bugs can certainly be seen as such a defect, lack of upgrades to new Android versions not unless they were advertised. The manufacturer is off the hook except for safety issues (like exploding batteries).
The Consumentbond’s press release doesn’t actually talk about the EU’s rules on warranties, which in any event wouldn’t give a direct right against the producer unless you have a really expanded version of jus quaesitum tertio (rights of a third party). The Dutch version uses the phrase “oneerlijke handelspraktijk”, which suggests that it is based on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (in Dutch, “Richtlijn oneerlijke handelspraktijken”) rather than on the directives on consumer goods guarantees. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive does give a direct right of action against the producer. Here’s the text:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32005L0029
The press release stresses inadequate information, so I assume they have in mind a claim under Article 7 of the Directive (or rather its equivalent under Dutch law). I would assume that they’re intending to argue that by failing to provide information about their upgrade policies, or the consequences to consumers of having a smartphone with unpatched bugs, they’re guilty of a misleading omission for the purposes of Article 7, with whatever remedies follow under Dutch law.
TL;DR: The case is probably about unfair practices rather than warranties.
Incorrect. There is no EU-wide warranty requirement. The directive from 1999 provides for a minimum GUARANTEE (not warranty), which is placed upon the retailer not the manufacturer. In fact, if you look at the English version of the directive, the word ‘warranty’ does not even feature once – only the word ‘guarantee’.
Statutory guarantees, which the said EU directive had incorporated in local laws, and manufacturer warranties are two completely separate issues. It is unfortunate that many people use the words guarantee and warranty interchangeably without really understanding their meaning.
Translators should be aware of this, especially when they link to an article that only mentions guarantees.
[wrong thread, sorry]
Edited 2016-01-21 22:48 UTC
Not correct. The manufacturer cannot evade his repsonsibility. There have been several lawsuits in the EU where the manufacturer was forced to take the necessary action so the reseller could fullfil his 2 year warranty obligation towards the end-customer. This does not imply that the manufacturer has to repair the device, but he has to provide all means to the reseller so the latter can repair the device.
And software defects are also defects. So bug fixes and security updates must be given for the 2 year period. New versions with new features are not part of the warranty obligation.
Edited 2016-01-19 10:07 UTC
Any such lawsuit is not related to EU warranty law, because this law only addresses warranty for consumers. The reseller however is not a consumer, so only trade law or contractual obligations could force the manufacturer to do something here.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:l32022
And the above is exactly what has happened in The Netherlands.
In other words, the directive does not prescribe this yet.
This is the original European Directive that actually includes a line that says it has to be evaluated for the producers part before the end of 2006.
There was already Dutch law that said a consumer could get his warranty both from the seller or the producer, whichever was more convenient for him. Dutch law can give more rights to consumers compared to European law. That is why I wrote “and that is exactly what happened”
Isn’t it common sense to think that when consumers complain to sellers and make them “fix things”, those sellers will get those costs back from the producers? If sellers couldn’t get those costs back they wouldn’t buy from the producers anymore.
Maybe, but any such dispute would still be between the seller and the producer, no consumer protection issues involved.
The manufacturer is the vendor for the retailer, consumer law places the contract between consumer and vendor for convenience so a store can’t pass you off to a far away faceless manufacturer.
And it’s not just about upgrades, but mostly about security patches – a product should be free of security holes, or at the very least should be repaired (ie patched) by the supplier within an expedient time frame.
And the time frame should be related to the actual date of sale, not the date the item first went on sale… Many people buy phones on a 2 year contract from a mobile provider, is it reasonable that they should be locked into a contract for 2 years with a device that is considered end of life and unsupported?
When you buy a handset on contract like this it’s not a one off purchase, it’s more like a 2 year lease where you expect the product to function adequately for the duration of the contract. Consumer law aside, i would absolutely expect updates during an ongoing contract.
There must be a minimum performance metric to be defined, so manufacturers won’t update your phone and make unusably slow (Ironically like what happened to iPhone4).
I’ll be fascinated witnessing a reduction in the number of junk models manufacturers pump out (Because they should keep an eye on their product and not to forget it immediately after shipment if this issue becomes enforceable law). So hopefully, there would be less Samsung Hero Ace Galaxy Mini IV’s and more quality products with a commitment from their vendors.
By the way, if this happens, it might reduce the already tiny margins of Android phones vis a vis iPhone, at least initially. After a while, this decision can actually improve Android margins due to improved user experience.
I find the press release confusing, on one hand it talks about “software updates [which] are vital to keep
smartphones secure” and should be winnable (and doable with minor security point releases), on the other about “provided with the latest Android version”, for which the chances are slim, to say the least.
They should be pushing for opensourcing drivers and other bits required for building and deploying aftermarket firmware, including easier process of installing it on user’s end. With that in place it would be trivial for willing users to stay on whatever android version they seem fit.
“If this means they have to spend more resources on their development team – so be it.”
That would of course be the end of cheap Android phones in The Netherlands. At the moment, you can easily buy a new Android phone for less than €50. That opened up the smartphone market to a lot of people who might otherwise not be able to afford one.
I do think security patches should be included in the legally required 2 year warranty. And if that means phone become a bit more expensive, I think that would be acceptable. But security patches should not have to mean a full Android upgrade. There is no way you can expect the €44.99 KitKat phone you just picked up from Media Markt, will run Marshmallow tomorrow. Apart from hardware requirements, the margins are simply to low for the manufacturer to do the porting work.
Better supported phones, if combined with a trend of a lower model count will require phones to be more durable and last for 2-3 years. If there were only 5 samsung models instead of 20 or so, an aftermarket parts and accessories market could have developed and you could get a fresh replacement battery and continue to use your phone even after 2 years. That would open up a second hand market, where you can get a two years old galaxy s4 or note 2 for 50 Euros, put in a fresh battery, and use a better phone than the 50 Euros junk at media markt.
Oh lets see. I bought my Galaxy Note 10.1 legit rather than grey market the moment it came out. I had it for 9 months till they stopped supporting it. 1 major O/S upgrade right at the end then… “out of luck!”
This is a premium 700$ pacific peso device with 2gb ram and 4x 1.7ghz cores.
🙂 As far as droid goes.. great device. Samsung? Haven’t bought anything since. Won’t again. Bye bye apple wannabe!
Apple wannabe? Last I checked, Apple devices got updates. I don’t see the similarity here. Now, if one expands that to include the removal of the expandable storage, the built-in battery, and the blatant iPhone rip-off in some of their user interface than sure. In the update department however, they’re night and day.
You had better pray that the law never passes. It will mean the end of cheap phones for Dutch consumers. Sellers will simply add the ongoing support cost to the purchase price of expensive models and stop selling cheap models.
It’s good to see some of the commenters here are able to see the future.
I think doing something like that would fall under the category of “Cutting your nose off to spite your face”.
See also: every single internet prediction of companies pulling out of a large market when the regulatory body introduces some new rule the commentator doesn’t like.
Edited 2016-01-19 13:34 UTC
Companies withdraw from markets all the time. In the 1980s many companies stopped selling single engine light aircraft in the USA because of unreasonable lawsuits.
The Dutch phone market is minuscule from a global perspective.
When you are selling a 50 euro phone with a 5 euro profit margin you can’t afford to provide support.
What good is a cheap phone that will never receive proper support in terms of software updates or patches and thus remains flawed for the rest of its sorry life?
You are saying consumers will lament this going away? Well, good riddance I say!
I bought a brand new Lumia 521 for the equivalent of $20. It is running the latest Windows 10 developer release, has a replaceable battery and can take a 128GB SD card. It is more future proof than just about any Android flagship.
Good point.
For some reason I was only including cheap Android phones in the context of my comment.
If it means less crappy, unsupported phones being released to Dutch consumers, I would consider it a flat out win.
I think the lawsuit is trying to piggyback on warranty (if a smartphone has a security hole without an update, is it considered a defect or not?), and minimum warranty in the EU is 2 years, not 4.
Is it not? Is the phone still fit for purpose if by using if it puts one’s personal information at risk?
This will be interesting to watch.
Yes, it would be nice to get the latest version of the OS for your phone for at least two years from the day it was purchased your device.
But even more important is timely security and bug fix updates, perhaps once a week, or at least once a month like some Nexus devices.
Yeah, the law should enforce timely updates of the Android security patch level. Theoretically, that should be less impactful than a full upgrade and could be done quicker with less disruption.
This is fraught with legality problems, as you can load apps from the app store. Is Samsung going to be held responsible for third party apps, Google, the app developers … also if it uses a third party API (lots of apps use mashups) it gets even more complicated.
I suspect that it will be totally unenforceable.
Edited 2016-01-19 19:06 UTC
I’ve got a samsung phone here in US that has been updated maybe once in the 18 months I’ve had it. Still works pretty much the way it did when I purchased it. I’m certainly not stupid enough to enter any personally identifiable information into ANY app on ANY phone, so the security freak-outs are of no consequence to me.
This brou-ha-ha seems to be a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. If samsung lost all sales in Netherlands, it would affect their overall revenue as much as a single wave on the ocean affects an aircraft carrier.
“This brou-ha-ha seems to be a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. If samsung lost all sales in Netherlands, it would affect their overall revenue as much as a single wave on the ocean affects an aircraft carrier”.
Samsung can slip out of this smiling and with almost all the money in the pocket. But can’t slip out keeping its market pride high.
This is about an educated consumer market conciliating with an educated market provider.
[troll] looks sad on the android side – all these phones being abandoned that weren’t even that good to begin with b/c they can’t get a software update.
most iphones will stay updated for 3+ years and eventually cracked glass or a dead headphone jack will end them before software does. more than likely you want the new one and find someone else wanting your old one and just trade up.
also, you can put all kinds of personal info into your iphone and not worry too much: fingerprints, money accounts, all your work documents, etc.. Touch ID, Find my iPhone, remote wipe, encrypted keys, and cloud backup make it a decently secure mobile platform.
several commenters mentioned they never put personal data on an android phone – that’s crazy!
why have a smart phone if it doesn’t even hold any data about you?
Please ezraz, everybody around here know that your digital environment is more resilient and stealth, but not of a different kind.
In fact should be a lot more stealth than actually is. Reason is that closed code, when broken, remains as a enclosed break.
apple’s more expensive month to month so i know i’m not being fair but hey, just saying. i still get defensive about some things when i see what the competition goes through. seems that the extra $40/month or whatever it is i pay to be in the apple world might be worth it. maybe not, it’s been some years since i’ve had anything but an iPhone.
That’s either one nasty contract you’re talking about, or a hell of a lot of iCloud space. I bought my iPhone outright and don’t pay any extra a month for it. I’d say that the hassle-free day my iPhone gives me justifies the extra up-front cost over the cost of an Android flagship… except that most of those are the same price as my iPhone was if you buy them outright.
The iPhone 6 has very similar specifications and performance to the $200 Moto G. The Android flagships are in much higher league.
I fully agree with the lawsuit. In turn, that is why I decided 3 years ago to buy a Google Nexus 4 – knowing that I will get frequent updates, and I still do (3 years later). All phone providers should really do this. There is no reason why devices can’t get software updates (they are mini computers after all). They make it an “artificial” hurdle, and the consumer needs to take the hit. That’s not fair.
The Nexus is a low volume phone sold at cost price (or even a loss). It is designed to highlight the Android ecosystem. That is why it gets regular updates.