this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
111 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
183 readers
130 users here now
Blacklisted Sites
List inspired by other community rules.
- Mac Rumors;
- Al Jazeera;
- NBC;
- CNBC;
- Tom’s Hardware;
- ZDNet;
- TechSpot;
- Ars Technica;
- Engadget;
- TechCrunch;
- Gizmodo;
- Futurism;
- PCWorld;
- ComputerWorld;
- Mashable;
- Fortune;
- Hackaday;
- WCCFTECH;
- Neowin;
- Jacobin;
- Yahoo;
- Freethink;
- Big Think;
- Newsweek.
Technology news, blogs and articles.
Forbidden:
- Paywalled content.
- Older than 1 month articles;
- External video links(non native videos);
- Article talking about article, research or news.(Always use original articles).
- [New] Substack links: you can link to substack blogs, but the link should be a custom domain(not XXXX.substack.com).
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
it's about Amazon not having disclosed this artificial end of life at the time of the purchase
Has any other device? What’s the precedence for doing this over the norm?
They’re making an arbitrary claim, it’s really common for programs to use more recourses as they are updated.
Of course... Phone manufacturers for example, include a minimum date they commit to make security and android updates. It is so common actually that it has become one of the benchmarks to compare when buying a new phone
Should a consumer reasonably expect any product to be supported forever and ever and ever just because they didn't say they won't?
It's not like the device is actually bricked, it continues to work offline. I think it severely hurts this lawsuit's credibility when they hyperbolize it to the point of being factually incorrect.
It's just not being maintained to preserve forwards-compatibility, and that's kind of inevitable. Nothing can truly last forever, forever is impossible. And if we can accept that there's no such thing as forever, then it's just a question of when to draw the line, when it's finally okay to eventually drop support. And the question of when could be a valid question to ask, but it doesn't sound like that's the question this lawsuit is asking, it sounds like they just expect infinity.
That doesn't sound any different than most similar electronic devices. No one ever advertises that the online services will be available forever, I doubt Amazon advertised they would work or be supported forever.
For a real world example that's nearly identical... any Internet connected video game console that are now End of Life? The Nintendo eShop is no longer available on the 3DS and Wii U for instance.
As far as I can see, these Kindles still work with whatever they had loaded on them at the time, they just can't connect and download new files from Amazon's services. They still let you side load files directly on the devices. And you can always jailbreak it.
None of those options are any different than what is available on the 3DS and Wii U now.
I would argue, and Amazon almost certainly will as well, that the core functionality is viewing books. Which they can still do just fine.
Yes it does... Phones for example, come out with a known date for end of updates/support
Now putting all this aside, why on earth would any of you be simping for Amazon here is beyond me. Literally, if they do not commit to some reasonable support time, they could pull the plug on ANY device at ANY time for ANY reason
For example, if Amazon decides to sell you a very expensive Amazon TV, you buy it and after 6 months Amazon pulls the plug on it because sales were not as good as they expected, you would be left with a brick... and you are here defending this practice
If it was six months, that would be a very different situation. But the devices being discontinued are from 2012 and earlier, meaning they got at least 14 years of support. If 14 is not enough, what do you think a reasonable minimum should be?
I agree... but as it stands today, Amazon could have done this with a 6 months old device that simply did not sell as they wanted.
It's not "support", Amazon locks their devices to their sources, once they cut them off the devices are basically useless for the majority of users who are not tech savvy enough
Again, the law has to define what's "reasonable" (and that is already a very shitty way of defining law but that's how the US does it).
Is it reasonable for Nintendo to say "people did not expect tariff refunds therefore we don't have to give them while WE did collect them"? well, if there is no case law that argues one way or the other, anything can be argued as "reasonable"
This lawsuit would help establish what is legally reasonable and if it does not take place, reasonable is whatever Amazon wants... and you seem to prefer that scenario?
They're not 'useless' though, they continue to work offline, and that kind of hyperbole makes it hard to take this seriously.
I really am asking here, if 14 years isn't enough, what minimum would be? I'm asking what you think is reasonable.
Yes, my TV also works offline... I cannot load any channels or watch anything new but it still works
I already explained this... actually I already explained the other part as well...
There is an old saying that translates to something like "the worst kind of blindness is found in those who just do not want to see"
here it is again:
Again, the law has to define what’s “reasonable” (and that is already a very shitty way of defining law but that’s how the US does it).
Is it reasonable for Nintendo to say “people did not expect tariff refunds therefore we don’t have to give them while WE did collect them”? well, if there is no case law that argues one way or the other, anything can be argued as “reasonable”
This lawsuit would help establish what is legally reasonable and if it does not take place, reasonable is whatever Amazon wants… and you seem to prefer that scenario?
That did not answer my question.
then I can't help you
It's a pretty simple question, I dunno why you couldn't give a straight answer. I think it's going to be hard to win this kind of battle if you can't give a direct answer.
The issue is that my personal opinion does not matter here; the whole point of the lawsuit is to find what is "reasonable" as per the law.
Now, if you are just looking to chat. Here it goes:
For a company with the resources of Amazon, I'd say it's reasonable that they never cut off their own products as long as they continue in the branch of business these products are intended to serve. In this case, if amazon will continue selling and distributing digital eBooks, then they should continue supporting their old hardware with the service.
If for a technical reason this cannot be accomplished; for example, if the new standard of eBooks is incompatible with the old hardware AND an update is not technically feasible (TECHNICALLY feasible, not "it cost me money"); then Amazon should jailbreak the old devices, for free, so the customers that bought it could more easily find alternatives
PS: please note that a personal option, or making it "simple" or "direct", are artificially imposed barriers to "win" here imposed by you. My point continues to be that it is reasonable for this lawsuit to take place precisely so that a definition of "reasonable" can be recorded in case law
If you want to set a precedent, you have to first pick a battle you can actually win. Your inability to answer the question comes across as a tacit admission that 14 years isn't unreasonable, in which case I don't see this fight as winnable.
And who decides that, you?
I just answered your question in detail... and my hesitation does not come from anything you said, it comes from the suspicion, now confirmed, you were just going to attack my personal position to justify yours.
It seems you still do not understand how the legal system works
I don't think that trying to argue that 14 years isn't enough is a winnable battle. I don't think expecting support to be forever and ever to be a precedent that will ever be set.
THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING CLAIMED! Fuck man, if you want to have a conversation here the least you can do is read the fucking article
So 14 years is enough then?
sorry man, you are trolling or just too dumb to participate
Pointing out how a lawsuit is fundamentally flawed isn't simping or defending the corporation. It's this kind of assumption that makes real online discourse impossible.
There are thousands of models of smart TVs that no longer receive updates, and guess what... They still work as TVs. Just like these Kindles still work as ereaders even without a working store. The store was not the only way to get books on them, and existing books are still there. They aren't useless devices. Something I've pointed out numerous times but keeps getting ignored because that's an inconvenient fact if you want to claim they "no longer work".