People bought devices that did not show the ads. Now Google has forced those ads onto those devices. So, hindsight being 20/20, this is yet another abuse.

After a certain point, you have to start noticing patterns.

It's still vandalistic destruction of property Google doesn't own. Google and their hardware partners owe refunds to all these customers.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are implicit expectations during a purchase that shouldn't ideally be violated. But I'm curious if you truly believe this, or if it's just hyperbole.

In this "fully my property, not a service I'm using" framework, would an update that patches a security vulnerability be "altruism"? Would refusal on Google's part to patch vulnerabilities be a completely acceptable refusal to futz with someone's property?

This is a serious question; my perspective is that "I thought I was buying unchanging property" is disingenuous unless you're similarly surprised by app updates and maintenance (let alone feature development). The expectation of these updates makes it pretty clear to me that this resembles a service more than a static product that Google has ability to "vandalize" (or responsibility to maintain).

They should be legally required to supply security patches and legally required not to reduce the functionality of the device.

If they can't do that, then they need to stay out of the space.

And how much billions is the marketing budget to get that narrative successful ? /s

mostly memes

Like the otter box for example: https://hackaday.com/2021/04/06/you-otter-be-able-to-stream-...

Talking specifically of TV experience the Shield has been the best streaming device on the market. Working out of the box and putting away the tinkering and manual config of the common HTPC. NVIDIA has brought updates and support to old Shield devices with the almost same support as Apple devices. It is disappointing NVIDIA does not own their own OS as Apple and Shield loyal users are affected of Google anti-consumer behaviour.

Very difficult to do when it comes to entertainment. Almost all streaming services have locked down DRM that makes running open source software very difficult.

(I know someone will say “just pirate it then!” but even putting moral obligations aside that’s still not realistic for the average viewer)

I don’t believe there is any coherent moral argument against piracy in the face of such hostile tactics from media companies.

Of course there is. Pirating streaming media isn’t like stealing bread to feed your starving family, it’s entirely optional. If you don’t agree with the terms of service (i.e. DRM) then don’t use the service. Deciding on your own terms of service is just entitlement. I personally don’t care either way but you can’t say there is no argument against it.

Stealing bread actually deprives someone else of a scarce resource, but the marginal cost of making a digital copy of a TV show is ~zero. So you’re right - it is quite different. Stealing bread is much worse than copying a digital file.

Stealing bread to feed your family when the alternative is starving is not the same as watching Game of Thrones.

You both argue around the question: how does the unlicensed reproduction of media morally compare to stealing.

Argument 1: Sufficiently severe benefits should mitigate the moral fault in theft.

Argument 2: Sufficiently small damage should mitigate the moral fault in theft.

You both seem to at least implicitly agree that both is theft, which would be a traditional point of disagreement in the debate.

I commented because I think one and two might be structurally the same argument: It's a consequentialist idea of utility thresholds.

A key disagreement would be whether there are thresholds that make the quantitative difference in utility a qualitative difference. Think hunger on one side and unquantifiable small loss in profits on the other side.

I’m actually arguing from a slightly different consequentialist position; I don’t think intellectual property law in general is socially efficient. You have to consider whether the (putative) benefit of IP-based R&D funding exceeds the loss associated with the introduction of artificial scarcity, social cost of IP enforcement, etc. For something like rocket engines or metallurgy, I would say “maybe”. For the latest Star Wars spinoff, I would say “strong no”.

Even for rocket engines or whatever, it’s not clear if the patent system is still producing acceptable returns.

Then why do public libraries exist? Reading a book is optional. Artists who make TV and movies gain nothing from google being hostile to the people trying to view their work. It’s the publishers and middlemen that are doing this.

I don’t understand the logic here. Libraries pay money for the media they lend out so how is it comparable?

Even if Widevine itself is not open source, there are lots of legal streaming add-ons for Kodi. For example I use Disney+, Netflix and Prime with Kodi on a Le Potato (same SoC as Amazon Fire Stick). Right now it's an old, formerly analog TV, but when I change it I will just buy a 43" monitor.

Kodi+Jellyfin is amazing, I'll never use closed source stuff on my TV again.