100 replies to this topic

[Erik Slagter]

It seems nobody cares, people only care about feaures (at any cost).

Exactly, cost being effort (of others, generally) and violation of rules, because it can't cost anything in money. That is exactly my objection against this pau thing, both VU+ and the customer benefit whilst the laws are completely ignored and violated.

 

So, if you bought a receiver and it didn't mention it can't record, return it and demand your money back. Whether the artificial limitation can be lifted is completely irrelevant (SatKiekerd).

Edited by Erik Slagter, 27 April 2015 - 16:12.

[Rob van der Does]

So, if you bought a receiver and it didn't mention it can't record, return it and demand your money back. Whether the artificial limitation can be lifted is completely irrelevant (SatKiekerd).

That will only be the case if a customer runs a PLi-image. No other image is handicapped by this (as far as I know).
As the PLi image for the Zero was only released many months after the box hit the market, it's very likely no retailer/customer knew about this handicap at all.

[Pedro_Newbie]

So, if you bought a receiver and it didn't mention it can't record, return it and demand your money back. Whether the artificial limitation can be lifted is completely irrelevant (SatKiekerd).

 

 

But what's the reason to return it? It doesn't mention on the box that it can record and even in any adverts of VU+ it doesn't stated that it can record. It should be the other way round, if it stated it could record then you could return it.

Returning something because it doesn't do what it isn't suppose to do is a bit weak   

 

The fact remains that it is a bit lame of VU+ just to spare about 4 euro's to do this.

[Erik Slagter]

 

So, if you bought a receiver and it didn't mention it can't record, return it and demand your money back. Whether the artificial limitation can be lifted is completely irrelevant (SatKiekerd).

That will only be the case if a customer runs a PLi-image. No other image is handicapped by this (as far as I know).
As the PLi image for the Zero was only released many months after the box hit the market, it's very likely no retailer/customer knew about this handicap at all.

 

It's irrelevant. How many times. Without a special code sequence that lifts the limitation, and which is also not present in the original image, and which violates tax laws, it is not possible. Full stop. It has nothing to do with technical abilities. If the receiver was meant to be selled as a recording device, there wouldn't be this artificial limitation in the first place. Let's have this clear. There is no plugin that "enhances" the receiver, it's a code sequence that lifts an artificial limitation.

[Erik Slagter]

The fact remains that it is a bit lame of VU+ just to spare about 4 euro's to do this.

I don't think it's just "lame", it's a decision that has consequences. If you sell a receiver that can't record (for whatever reason), be prepared to have to take it back if you sell it as a recording device.

[WanWizard]

All images are handicaped in the same way.

 

The only difference between other images and OpenPLi is that we refuse to install the pau extension by default. So OpenPLi is the only image where the enduser notices this issue. In fact the main reason users/buyers are ignorant about this problem is because other images did this. So point the finger to them, not to us.

[malakudi]

Although I don't want to defend VU+ for what they did on SoloSE and Zero, the "PVR tax" is something any EU citizen should shout against. Especially since most of these money go to MAFIAA representatives in european countries. We pay our subscriptions to our content providers and we have the right to record - applying a tax on a basic usage of a service is ridiculous.

[Rob van der Does]

So OpenPLi is the only image where the enduser notices this issue. In fact the main reason users/buyers are ignorant about this problem is because other images did this. So point the finger to them, not to us.

If this is addressed at me: I'm not pointing any finger; I'm just trying to explain the factual situation.

[Rob van der Does]

Although I don't want to defend VU+ for what they did on SoloSE and Zero, the "PVR tax" is something any EU citizen should shout against. Especially since most of these money go to MAFIAA representatives in european countries. We pay our subscriptions to our content providers and we have the right to record - applying a tax on a basic usage of a service is ridiculous.

Absolutely true. But nothing we can do about.
Anyway: this shouldn't be a reason for VU or any other company to trick/betray customs.

[oszi]

The fact remains that it is a bit lame of VU+ just to spare about 4 euro's to do this.

 

 

I think you are wrong because in some countries it's much more than only 4 €. In Germany for example the fee is 13 € netto (15,47 € incl. VAT)!!!
This means the price for the box would be more than 10% higher !!!! Not all people are looking for a cheap STB with PVR function most of them are using it as a client.
Most advertisements I've seen are not talking about PVR ready function.
Other point is I guess 90% of competitors ar doing it in the same way .
Example Xtrend is using Open Pli even for Twin PVR products without PVR function!!!!
 

[Rob van der Does]

Most advertisements I've seen are not talking about PVR ready function.

It should be the other way around;

as far as I'm aware there is no other E2-box that has no recording capabilities, so if an advertisement and/or announcement on the VU-website doesn't explicitly say that the box can't record, one can safely assume it can.

 

 

Normally you can assume a car can drive backwards, so a (potential) buyer will not do any research if it actually can. So if a car manufacturer decides to build a car that can't reverse, it should be clearly announced as such.

[MiLo]

But who gives a shit about violating (GPL) license? So many projects exist (eg Black Hole..) that violate the license.
It seems nobody cares, people only care about feaures (at any cost).

My rant is NOT about licensing at all. It's about how you all should care about your freedom. Don't let them take it away from you. It's like a pedofile luring a kid into his car by promising him candy. Even if the candy is real, the price the kid will pay is way too high to justify any amount of candy.

There is "pau" candy now. There was HBBTV candy already. There will be "CI+" candy soon. Don't take the candy. Run away and go tell your parents.

If you don't, they will take away your freedom and you'll never get it back.

For all you know, the pau plugin could stop working next month, and you'll have to pay to get it to work again. Or maybe it'll just stop working and you'll have to either stick to old software or buy a new receiver. The same goes for the rest of the candyware.

[MiLo]

I think you are wrong because in some countries it's much more than only 4 €. In Germany for example the fee is 13 € netto (15,47 € incl. VAT)!!!

You should complain to your country, not to OpenPLi. I suggest buying your box in another country.

Dutch people have been buying recordable DVDs in Germany for years, because the Dutch tax amounted to over 50% of the cost. I suggest you do the same, and hit your government where it really hurts.

[MiLo]

Although I don't want to defend VU+ for what they did on SoloSE and Zero, the "PVR tax" is something any EU citizen should shout against. Especially since most of these money go to MAFIAA representatives in european countries. We pay our subscriptions to our content providers and we have the right to record - applying a tax on a basic usage of a service is ridiculous.

True. Governments in general are blatantly ignorant about techical issues. But they excel at recognizing that most of their voters are even more so, and the few that happen to be able to think for themselves tend to have a "I don't mind theirs if the government doesn't mind my business too much" attitude towards politics in general.

[ims]

it is similar as it was on Sony Digital8 camcoders ... disabled recording via Firewire (for recorders was added next tax too). But there it was much easier  - rewrite several values by LANC protocol in memory (temporary or permanent) and change checksum and recording and more functions was enabled...

[Erik Slagter]

To add to the above, I don't have an opinion on what an end-user does with the devices he legally owns. That's nowhere near my business. But as a public software supplier, the considerations are slightly different.

[robertut]

Manufacturers with this attitude are idiots in my opinion. They are shooting themselves in their own foot.

They will generate unsatisfied customers, who will turn away from their products, and instead of helping to go clean the market, they encourage people to buy clones instead.

 

There are not only dreambox clones, but also vu+ clones and so on.

 

One good motivation until now, to buy originals instead of clones was that originals get proper support, no need for patches and similar things. Now it looks like one still needs to patch the original box with the original image to get decent functionality.

It's becoming pointless to approach like that.

 

My guess is that the manufacturer actually cooperates with other image teams and offers patches to them so they actually are getting support with such patches - but that's also what clone manufacturers do! Why buy original boxes then?

What's the motivation behind?

 

I mean, should we support a manufacturer who is cheating taxes by buying expensive boxes from him?
I could buy a clone for less then half a price from a different manufacturer who is also cheating. What's the point? Me being stupid enough?

Edited by robertut, 7 May 2015 - 21:08.

[hemertje]

Manufacturers with this attitude are idiots in my opinion. They are shooting themselves in their own foot.
They will generate unsatisfied customers, who will turn away from their products, and instead of helping to go clean the market, they encourage people to buy clones instead.

There are not only dreambox clones, but also vu+ clones and so on.

One good motivation until now, to buy originals instead of clones was that originals get proper support, no need for patches and similar things. Now it looks like one still needs to patch the original box with the original image to get decent functionality.
It's becoming pointless to approach like that.

My guess is that the manufacturer actually cooperates with other image teams and offers patches to them so they actually are getting support with such patches - but that's also what clone manufacturers do! Why buy original boxes then?
What's the motivation behind?

I mean, should we support a manufacturer who is cheating taxes by buying expensive boxes from him?
I could buy a clone for less then half a price from a different manufacturer who is also cheating. What's the point? Me being stupid enough?

You still want to buy a VU+ Zero and help them to betray/trick customs???

[Erik Slagter]

If it saves a few pennies, most people are quite happy to let go all principles.

[Rob van der Does]

This is not about people (customers) as hardly anyone will be aware of this issue.
This is about a company violating rules.