Htcclassaction.org Making Serious Progress!!!!!!!!!!!

[dbldwn02]

Originally Posted by robertzas

So if you baught a v8 car, and found out 2 months later that it actually has, and only will run on 4 cylinders would you just bend over and say "hey, just cause they advertised 8 cylinders doesnt mean that combustion actually has to happen in all 8" That is exactly what happened to EVERYONE, not just the people who know.

HEAR HEAR!!!! Good Arguement!

[SprintTouch08]

Originally Posted by robertzas

HTC told their customers they were getting the msm7500 chipset. the msm7500 chipset has the ati graphics card integrated, its not optional like the wifi module. Hey how are you to assume because the chipset has the hardware built in, and the device was advertised with "3d graphics" that an INTEGRAL part of the chipset would be PURPOSEFULLY DISABLED. And lets be frank here, it is DISABLED, why would a company(qualcomm, in this case) release a chipset without the drivers.

plainly it was because they wanted to release a future device on the cheap with the only change being the drivers a la the touch cruise.

So if you baught a v8 car, and found out 2 months later that it actually has, and only will run on 4 cylinders would you just bend over and say "hey, just cause they advertised 8 cylinders doesnt mean that combustion actually has to happen in all 8" That is exactly what happened to EVERYONE, not just the people who know.

heres a demo ive seen a few times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIJWAu6IRe4

that is incorrect. Just because hardware is there or integrated does not mean it is required to be activated. NOWHERE did htc or Sprint/VZW ever say 3d graphics. It was never specifically advertised. Looking at a spec sheet of maximum CAPABILITIES does not equate to them being there just like a lot of the other potential features of the chip.

By law this is not false advertising because there was never a direct promise of 3d graphics or ATI anything by the company/carrier who sold you the device. as ive posted elsewhere i challenge the arguement to produce the said misleading advertisement, so far no one has been able to Thus those analogies are illogical and moot in the first place. This is exactly why the htcclassaction site cant get an attorney to take their case and the one they had skipped town on them. That should be a very big indicator that people are missing. No competent attorney would risk their career on a weak case at best.

Does it suck they arent there? Sure. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it illegal? No. There's nothing you or anyone can do about it honestly. Thats the reality here not the puppy dog tails and rainbows everyone wants it to be. the reality is they played it cleverly so they didnt have to pay extra per device to Qualcomm without violating the consumer's rights. In the end here, either wait and see if they do release them or move on to a different device (even though half of the complainers here will be back for the next HTC round of devices anyways/ aka all talk and empty threats)

[robertzas]

Originally Posted by SprintTouch08

that is incorrect. Just because hardware is there or integrated does not mean it is required to be activated. NOWHERE did htc or Sprint/VZW ever say 3d graphics. It was never specifically advertised. Looking at a spec sheet of maximum CAPABILITIES does not equate to them being there just like a lot of the other potential features of the chip.

By law this is not false advertising because there was never a direct promise of 3d graphics or ATI anything by the company/carrier who sold you the device. as ive posted elsewhere i challenge the arguement to produce the said misleading advertisement, so far no one has been able to Thus those analogies are illogical and moot in the first place. This is exactly why the htcclassaction site cant get an attorney to take their case and the one they had skipped town on them. That should be a very big indicator that people are missing. No competent attorney would risk their career on a weak case at best.

Does it suck they arent there? Sure. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it illegal? No. There's nothing you or anyone can do about it honestly. Thats the reality here not the puppy dog tails and rainbows everyone wants it to be. the reality is they played it cleverly so they didnt have to pay extra per device to Qualcomm without violating the consumer's rights. In the end here, either wait and see if they do release them or move on to a different device (even though half of the complainers here will be back for the next HTC round of devices anyways/ aka all talk and empty threats)

I certainly understand your argument, inevitably, the fault of all bad business ethics is an uneducated consumer. Since the benchmark has all but gone away, no one knew weeks before the release of every device htc has released in the past 2 years has been a downgrade in terms of video performance.

[SprintTouch08]

yes and going back to a car analogy, this is like saying an 07 car had 350hp and a 0-60 of 4.5sec, but the 08 had 400 and did 4.7 sec. Why? well they didnt advertise the new model weighed an extra 500 pounds slowing it down. All that was clearly seen and highly promoted was the all new more horsepower jump. This is the biggest flaw in htcclassactions argument is that never was 3d specifically mentioned. A "rich media experience" and such phrases are all in the interpretation and is a poor assumption to imply 3d. i personally have no media problem on my touch with music or videos, while not as ideal as they probably could be, they arent lacking or not "rich." Comparing to older models means nothing because it is newer chips/technology but that doesnt always mean huge improved performance, thats another poor assumption. There are plenty of single core desktop CPU's that out perform dual cores. same situation here, chip architecture is everything.

Not everything is advertised for a reason. There is a reason the new HTC Diamond is very very clearly advertised as 3d graphics and this round of HTC devices was not- because it simply wasnt there from the start, albeit who didnt pay who for it, it simply was never activated.

There is no justification to complain after the fact that some aspect wasnt activated, nor explicitly promised, because from our consumer point of view feel its should be. It prob was a ton of money that HTC/carriers decided not to pay, as easy as that so it was never ever advertised to be so.

[h311boy]

Maybe I'm blind as a bat, but there is no word about porting, or using these drivers in any practical way. The discussion switched to the old "htc should have, but didnt". In this topic there is no concrete truth, there are only opinions (that have been discuses many times before)

[SprintTouch08]

exactly the topic started off about porting Diamond/Tytn II drivers to other phones and now is another driver debate. The only real truth IS that nothing was ever specifically promised, just a bunch of people saying what could have/should have been instead of what really is. If they get ported over by people on xda/htcclassaction then great. if not oh well.

[DHarvey]

Can you people please stop fighting? This is what I expect from my kid sister and brother but not a bunch of grown men and women on a forum. This is a discussion. Looking back I should have had a Mod lock this thread from the beginning and all of the petty bull$hit could have been avoided...

Start getting back on topic or I will have a mod close and delete this thread...

[Hafrust]

Originally Posted by dharvey4651

Can you people please stop fighting? This is what I expect from my kid sister and brother but not a bunch of grown men and women on a forum. This is a discussion. Looking back I should have had a Mod lock this thread from the beginning and all of the petty bull$hit could have been avoided...

Start getting back on topic or I will have a mod close and delete this thread...

Agreed.

[vboyz103]

So who's going to try to port this, any takers????

[DHarvey]

Originally Posted by vboyz103

So who's going to try to port this, any takers????

Back on topic...

Very nice.

THAT is why I created this thread.

Any takers?