this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
111 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
183 readers
102 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 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