I anticipated a response like that and you have a valid point, but it does not explain nearly all the issues. Just as an example, not only why does simple swiping home screens on an iPhone/iPad lag after a few years when nothing has fundamentally changed about that behavior, but an even greater question is why is it permissible that/if other features and expensive computations are added that are impacting performance of such fundamental and core functionality/behavior.
There should be no right that barring some major security changes, that core functionality is not only impacted, but that added features impact performance or that a user should have the right to choose performance over features.
I reiterate my example, would it be ok with you if your car lost 100 hp or 20 mpg fuel economy over 5 years because there were things added to your car that weigh it down so much or due to a roughshod rebuilding of your engine every time you changed your oil?
It is really a clear case of fraud and destruction of property when, e.g., a phone becomes so laggy that it is unusable over 5 years solely due to updates that were imposed and required by manufacturers even if they try to justify it by adding things you did not request or need or want.
I am actually surprised that an enterprising technology aware lawfirm has not latched onto this issue. It seems to me to be a rather simple case of proving at the very least the negligence and willful destruction and degradation of others' property.
To simplify the concept, e.g., we are constantly told by phone makers that next-phone is N times faster/more powerful; so how is it that the phone I was told is 5 times more powerful than the predecessor, all the sudden lags when swiping between home/app screens or launching a dialer, a core functionality that hasn't changed in years and like it never did before?
At best, we are facing an immensely sloppy industry that damages our products and property through forced updates; at best.
There should be no right that barring some major security changes, that core functionality is not only impacted, but that added features impact performance or that a user should have the right to choose performance over features.
I reiterate my example, would it be ok with you if your car lost 100 hp or 20 mpg fuel economy over 5 years because there were things added to your car that weigh it down so much or due to a roughshod rebuilding of your engine every time you changed your oil?
It is really a clear case of fraud and destruction of property when, e.g., a phone becomes so laggy that it is unusable over 5 years solely due to updates that were imposed and required by manufacturers even if they try to justify it by adding things you did not request or need or want.
I am actually surprised that an enterprising technology aware lawfirm has not latched onto this issue. It seems to me to be a rather simple case of proving at the very least the negligence and willful destruction and degradation of others' property.
To simplify the concept, e.g., we are constantly told by phone makers that next-phone is N times faster/more powerful; so how is it that the phone I was told is 5 times more powerful than the predecessor, all the sudden lags when swiping between home/app screens or launching a dialer, a core functionality that hasn't changed in years and like it never did before?
At best, we are facing an immensely sloppy industry that damages our products and property through forced updates; at best.