Using the CGA to get Android updates in a timely manner

Forums › Android › Using the CGA to get Android updates in a timely manner

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#687129 17-Sep-2012 14:26

The other option is the CGA outdated and needs to be brought into the reality of 21st century?

Someone needs to be brought to reality, but it isn't the CGA!

I suggest if you seriously believe what you are typing, you should return all your computers and electronics as they will all have defects, it's nigh impossible to get one defect free, and if you can point to 3 bits of software in the history of computing without a single defect, then I'll buy you a chocolate fish.

joutei

308 posts

Ultimate Geek

#687131 17-Sep-2012 14:29

networkn:

The other option is the CGA outdated and needs to be brought into the reality of 21st century?

Someone needs to be brought to reality, but it isn't the CGA!

I suggest if you seriously believe what you are typing, you should return all your computers and electronics as they will all have defects, it's nigh impossible to get one defect free, and if you can point to 3 bits of software in the history of computing without a single defect, then I'll buy you a chocolate fish.

LOL , LEGEND !!

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#687132 17-Sep-2012 14:30

joutei:
networkn:

The other option is the CGA outdated and needs to be brought into the reality of 21st century?

Someone needs to be brought to reality, but it isn't the CGA!

I suggest if you seriously believe what you are typing, you should return all your computers and electronics as they will all have defects, it's nigh impossible to get one defect free, and if you can point to 3 bits of software in the history of computing without a single defect, then I'll buy you a chocolate fish.

LOL , LEGEND !!

/me bows

The perfect end for the thread would be a lock now :)

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#687133 17-Sep-2012 14:33

karit:
networkn:
karit:
networkn: Based on that, I presume you will return every device which has software on it (including all your smartphones) , back to the manufacturer for a refund, and not purchase any computers ever again, since almost every bit of software in existence will have defects! Also you will never use any website.

If they fix the defect they don't have to give you a refund. Other OSs release security fixes on a regular basis e.g. Windows, OSX and Linux.

Well the chances of them fixing every defect=nil so based on the "reasonable timeframe" clause he would have no choice.

So are your saying the CGA shouldn't apply at all? What is the difference between a software defect and a hardware defect in a switch in my toaster? They are both defects.

Why are people placing a lower standard on what they expect from software than they do from hardware? Chances are that if it plugs into the wall these days it will have some level of firmware/software in it, so should manufacturers get a free rein if they just say software bug not covered. If that is the case best for the manufactures to move any thing possible into software so they don't need to fix it when it breaks.

The other option is the CGA outdated and needs to be brought into the reality of 21st century?

It’s not a software defect. The software works exactly as claimed. The problem is a security vulnerability that could be exploited. Unless the software has been advertised using the claim that it is unhackable or something similar, then it isn’t contravening the CGA as far as I can see.

It’s tantamount to saying that your car works just fine, but somebody could break in if they throw a brick through the window. Would you deem having a window that is not brick proof as contravening the CGA? I certainly wouldn’t, unless the car was advertised as having unbreakable windows.

karit

84 posts

Master Geek

#687134 17-Sep-2012 14:34

networkn:

The other option is the CGA outdated and needs to be brought into the reality of 21st century?

Someone needs to be brought to reality, but it isn't the CGA!

I suggest if you seriously believe what you are typing, you should return all your computers and electronics as they will all have defects, it's nigh impossible to get one defect free, and if you can point to 3 bits of software in the history of computing without a single defect, then I'll buy you a chocolate fish.

Hello World? And that been written in most languages and implemented on more hardware. So far more than three.

But using that argument show me a toaster that is defect free? If you could produce a toaster with no defects why would you need a warranty or the CGA in the first place?

joutei

308 posts

Ultimate Geek

#687139 17-Sep-2012 14:37

If you were trying to get your "Trend maker Badge" , Id say job well done :)

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#687148 17-Sep-2012 14:51

gregmcc: Retailers/importers in this country need to be aware of this and build this in to the price of their products, if they don't then they will be the losers, they cannot opt out/contract out of the CGA

That'll work.
Not.

When there are no more retailers left, because everyone has simply brought on-line from overseas suppliers (who aren't bound by any interpretation of the CGA)... who you gonna call?

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

richms

28176 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#687149 17-Sep-2012 14:53

oxnsox:
When there are no more retailers left, because everyone has simply brought on-line from overseas suppliers (who aren't bound by any interpretation of the CGA)... who you gonna call?

I guess he will have to leave the country like many many people I know have done.

Richard rich.ms

nzgeek

618 posts

Ultimate Geek

#687181 17-Sep-2012 15:53

NonprayingMantis: That's not analagous since the software in the phone doesn't have a fault, just a security vulnerability that people with the rights skills could exploit.

Exactly this. A software vulnerability is not a fault, it's more like a weakness. It does not stop the software from working as expected under normal operating conditions. The only time it becomes a problem is if that weakness is specifically targeted by a malicious third party.

gregmcc: At the end of the day a defect is a defect if it's software or hardware the CGA is quite clear it applies to both.

I disagree. The CGA ensures that goods are fit for the purpose for which they were intended. If the flaw does not affect the operation of the product under standard conditions, then the product is operating as designed.

Look at it this way. The design of most cars makes it impossible to see low objects that are behind you when you are reversing. This is a defect in the design of the car, which makes it unsafe under certain conditions. This is therefore a defect in the design of the car. We're now seeing reversing cameras becoming standard in new car models, which helps to fix this defect. If you have a car without such a camera, do you expect your car's manufacturer to install one under the CGA in order to fix this defect?

The only way that you could expect the vulnerability to be fixed under the CGA is if it was being exploited with such regularity that it became impossible to use the device under normal operating conditions. I haven't heard of any exploits being used with that sort of regularity. If you read articles on Android exploits being used in real life, almost all involve people installing rogue applications on their phones. These are usually applications that look suspicious (e.g. free versions of paid games, released by someone other than the game's publisher), so the user should have known that something wasn't quite right.

All of these facts make a claim under the CGA very hard to justify.

To those of you who believe that CGA action is warranted, please try to justify your reasoning like I have just done. Give me a clear and compelling argument why the vulnerabilities are preventing you from using your device in the manner for which is was designed. Try and convince us, in the same way that you'd convince a judge or arbitrator. If you can't do that then just let this thread die a quiet death.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#687263 17-Sep-2012 17:42

I don't believe CGA action is warranted as I said previously. But I think there are a lot of bad analogies in this thread that miss the nuances of this particular situation.

For me it comes down to this: If the software fault was such that it frequently made your phone unusable, a claim under CGA would be justified irrespective of whether or not malicious intent was required to exploit the software and cause the fault to make your phone unusable.

BUT in this case you have an unpatched exploit that causes no noticeable issues and your phone works as intended, so I can't see how CGA action is likely to succeed.

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#687267 17-Sep-2012 18:00

blair003: I don't believe CGA action is warranted as I said previously. But I think there are a lot of bad analogies in this thread that miss the nuances of this particular situation.

For me it comes down to this: If the software fault was such that it frequently made your phone unusable, a claim under CGA would be justified irrespective of whether or not malicious intent was required to exploit the software and cause the fault to make your phone unusable.

BUT in this case you have an unpatched exploit that causes no noticeable issues and your phone works as intended, so I can't see how CGA action is likely to succeed.

This is the most intelligent thing I have seen all day.

I agree 100% with this post.

gzt

17127 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#687275 17-Sep-2012 18:16

karit:

The thing is - now you are saying that any software with a defect of any kind can be taken back to the retailer and must be exchanged, replaced, or made good. That is even worse than where you started.

You are going to lose on that one 100%.

If you are going to have a chance of winning your original idea you need to consider some simple examples:

{devils advocate: case one} If the software in combination with the phone does not meet the phone's advertised and stated purpose then you might have an easily winnable case. Can you think of any good reasons to apply that rule? I cannot.

{devils advocate: case two} A retailer has an Android 2.2 phone on display. You walk in and buy the phone. The retailer obtained the phone from a distributor/manufacturer that does not have a carrier relationship. Android 2.3 is already out and resolves several vulnerabilities in 2.2. But this particular phone will never get updated to 2.3 over the air provided by a local carrier, never. A couple months later you finally get wise to this. Can you show the retailer is under any obligation to repair (by installing 2.3), replace or refund?

Dunnersfella

4086 posts

Uber Geek

#687463 17-Sep-2012 22:35

An interesting, if not long summation of why Android is 'where it is'...

http://www.pulse.me/s/dmS06#/androidcentral.com.feedsportal.com/c/33995/f/616884/s/237ca833/l/0L0Sandroidcentral0N0Cwhy0Eyou0Ell0Enever0Ehave0Elatest0Eversion0Eandroid/story01.htm

Giggs

252 posts

Ultimate Geek

#687694 18-Sep-2012 13:01

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7695185/Internet-Explorers-huge-security-hole

Does this mean I can take my Windows XP machine with Explorer 8 back to the retailer for a refund/repair? :-)

kontonnz

137 posts

Master Geek

#687698 18-Sep-2012 13:08

Giggs: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7695185/Internet-Explorers-huge-security-hole

Does this mean I can take my Windows XP machine with Explorer 8 back to the retailer for a refund/repair? :-)

actually since IE8 did not come with xp you are probably more than welcome to upgrade it or remove it from the OS, and you would find that since it is 2 versions out of date good luck on that.

Not only that XP is out of its lifecycle pretty much so even then good luck trying to return it ;)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6