Great, thanks very much. Do you have an overall photo of the rear of the box?
Previous "2900 XT Lacks UVD" Posts
- Thread starter thatdude90210
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, mixed up Universal and Unified. Nevertheless - the acronym itself stands for the dedicated silicon while the acronym plus "technology" presumably stands for "... decoding technology".
Anyway, I'd think AMD legal knows how to do their job and carefully revisited everything marketing is going ti deploy.
I wonder if the UVD is part of the theater chip or is it suppose to part of the GPU?
Sound_Card
Regular
Justice department, consumer affairs, gotta file complaint with consumer affairs, and claims court at the courthouse. Obviously you've never sued anyone before, obviously I have. AMD's paying for laywers, in the least, or I automatically win.
the law? well, it can be found right here:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-38/bo-ga:s_4//en#anchorbo-ga:s_4
Add to that the fact I bought this card online as well, and you have online sales fraud as well. That can elad to arrests, for sure. This gets prettier by the minute.
It was a joke buddy, so don't get all up tight about it.
Good luck on your court case, I hope your not one of those people that sues for a living.
als on the flickr site..
back:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neliz/512075848/
front:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neliz/512075854/
Aerows
Regular
Please don't misunderstand me. It is wrong to list that a product contains a feature, but then actually doesn't. It is illegal, and you have every right to be upset about it. I was pointing out that while I might not be upset about a feature that is unimportant to me being absent, I would most certainly be upset if the product lacked a feature that *was* important, and possibly the reason I purchased it. You are also correct that taking it back isn't really the answer, since you might find out after the time to take it back has expired that the feature is not available. I was replying to the comment about a lawsuit, not your further inquiry which verified that the packaging is, in fact, claiming a feature that is not present, and perhaps not reflecting that I do take the situation seriously. Before your comments, which took place *after* I had posted my original statement, it seemed unclear whether the packaging was making this claim.
I would very much like to hear what Dave Baumann has to say about this, but I'm sure he has to clear it with his superiors before saying anything further, since he does work for ATI (I believe he is in their marketing department, but he would have to clarify his position since I am not 100% sure what he does at ATI) and this is clearly a case of false advertising. In any case, you most certainly have a right to be upset, feel cheated and demand an answer for why an advertised feature is missing. This is *no* different that the Pure Video fiasco - but if your neighbor steals from the store it has no bearing on your defense (or the legality of your actions) if you steal from the store also.
I'm fascinated to see how this will evolve, and await further comment on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aerows
Regular
It was a joke buddy, so don't get all up tight about it.
Good luck on your court case, I hope your not one of those people that sues for a living.
In cases where people are being cheated, I very much believe that they are not only well within their rights to file suit, they are protecting others as well. Were it not for consumer lawsuits, companies could and would make all types of false claims regarding their products.
An example: apple juice marketed for babies and young children claimed to be apple juice. It was discovered that it was not apple juice at all - it was just water with sugar added. Babies don't know what apples taste like, and can't complain in any case. Parents paid for, and thought they were providing apple juice to their children, but were instead giving them sugar water.
There are certainly egregious examples of consumers abusing consumer protection laws, but there are also egregious examples of companies that violate them. I must again point out that if your neighbor is stealing from the store and you decide to steal from it yourself and get caught, "But they did it too!" is not a defense, nor is "They took $100 worth of stuff but I only took a pack of gum!" going to work, either. You might get a lighter sentence, but you will get one nonetheless.
Thanks
Sound_Card
Regular
Their was a mistake with the labeling. I doubt UVD was put there on the box to full consumers on purpose. Alot of these things happen all the time. It's a simple mistake and their was mix up somewhere along the lines. AIB's have already started changing the boxes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar to the NV40 PureVideo problem in some ways but differing in others.
If I remember correctly the NV40's programmable video processor, though included in the chip, was FUBARed and it took quite a while for NV to remove mention of support from their literature/website. It may be that this was a marketing cock-up i.e. they had knowledge of the problem but didn't update the marketing info for this chip in a timely manner. On the other hand, maybe NV initially thought they could overcome the hardware problems with a software fix and this led to the delay.
In the case of this UVD, it sounds as though it is a marketing cock-up in some way. The sooner they remove claims for UVD support on the 2900, the better.
I'm still surprised that some people seem to be getting their knickers in a twist about this to such an extent.
If I remember correctly the NV40's programmable video processor, though included in the chip, was FUBARed and it took quite a while for NV to remove mention of support from their literature/website. It may be that this was a marketing cock-up i.e. they had knowledge of the problem but didn't update the marketing info for this chip in a timely manner. On the other hand, maybe NV initially thought they could overcome the hardware problems with a software fix and this led to the delay.
In the case of this UVD, it sounds as though it is a marketing cock-up in some way. The sooner they remove claims for UVD support on the 2900, the better.
I'm still surprised that some people seem to be getting their knickers in a twist about this to such an extent.
The problem lies in the way this info has come out, and how the company is dealing with it. I see no statement from any of the affected parties denoting the mistake, nor do I even see an acknowledgement..all I see is a bunch of "busy beavers" trying to fix the problem and sweep it under the rug.
This is the acts of guilty parties, and it does not go unnoticed.
Fact of the mater is that I am busy collecting data on this subject, including changed webpages, product pages, box designs, and such, all of which were done long after I bought my cards. This move, after the fact, without compensation for those affected, it ASLO illegal..the matter must be dealt with appropriately, or consequences will ensue.
nV's PVP was a class action lawsuit. This allows them to deal with one case, get a ruling, and be done.
I assure you that this matter won't be dealt with as a "class action" suit...because in Canada, regulations differ from province to province, so claims can be filed in each province, each answering to a different authtority, each needed lawyer intervention. With 10 provinces, there's alot of jsut plain old ground to cover...
This is the acts of guilty parties, and it does not go unnoticed.
Fact of the mater is that I am busy collecting data on this subject, including changed webpages, product pages, box designs, and such, all of which were done long after I bought my cards. This move, after the fact, without compensation for those affected, it ASLO illegal..the matter must be dealt with appropriately, or consequences will ensue.
nV's PVP was a class action lawsuit. This allows them to deal with one case, get a ruling, and be done.
I assure you that this matter won't be dealt with as a "class action" suit...because in Canada, regulations differ from province to province, so claims can be filed in each province, each answering to a different authtority, each needed lawyer intervention. With 10 provinces, there's alot of jsut plain old ground to cover...
Wow, it's amazing how inconsiderate people are when it's not their $400 on the line.
I quite agree with you. Call me selfish but I simply don't care how other people spend their money. If they aren't happy, tough luck as far as I'm concerned, but then I am pretty bloody-minded at the best of times.
I understand why some who have bought the card with the expectation of UVD support might be upset and perhaps I'd feel the same if I'd stumped up that amount of cash. On the other hand, I doubt there is hardly a single person who has bought a 2900XT whose system isn't plenty fast enough to decode h.264 content all the same meaning lack of UVD is all but irrelevant. I suppose this is why I can't really get worked up about it all.
*Shrugs*
You should get upset about companies deliberately trying to deceive the public regardless of the nature of the deception. If they're allowed to get away with it, they'll keep doing it, and eventually they'll be deceitful about something that you, personally, do care about. At which point, you will wish that you had got a little more worked up a little sooner.
I got one 2900 mated with a celeron 347 in HTPC. I bought the card for video decoding, as obviously the cpu ain't up to the task.
My gaming machines are up to the task, for sure, but the HTPC's are not...that's why they got the "big card" installed
santiagodraco
Newcomer
Mistake or not (and frankly I think the mistake is that they screwed up development somewhere and just didn't care enough to correct during launch) is irrelevant. The fact is they promoted a major new feature as part of a major new product launch, a feature that did not actually exist on the product, and as a result x number of customers purchased the product under false pretenses. Period. End of story.
Many of those customers are fuming as that feature was a primary driver for purchase.
santiagodraco
Newcomer
As am I. I have a feeling that we'll see ATI/Dave/whoever go strangely silent as they attempt to do the Internet's famous "ignore the problem and it will go away".
The way to handle this is for all consumers to take the time to submit a complaint to the FTC/Consumer Protection agency, whoever. This isn't an example of a "confused" marketing department. Clearly this feature was promoted extensively in the press, slides were distributed, ATI's site listed it for a time for the 2900 I'm pretty sure (wish I could find cached copies), hell even the ISVs/OEMs list it as a feature! And don't think that ATI doesn't have a hand in approving those product packages.
ATI is a public company and when a company falsely represents a launch like this it's a serious thing and they need to take steps to correct the problem and simply "return the product" is not the answer.
Sorry but I'm a bit ticked off about this whole thing
santiagodraco
Newcomer
That's kind of like saying if you buy a car and order a V8 but get a V6 that you shouldn't complain, after all the V6 is plenty powerful to get you where you need to go.
As am I. I have a feeling that we'll see ATI/Dave/whoever go strangely silent as they attempt to do the Internet's famous "ignore the problem and it will go away".
The way to handle this is for all consumers to take the time to submit a complaint to the FTC/Consumer Protection agency, whoever. This isn't an example of a "confused" marketing department. Clearly this feature was promoted extensively in the press, slides were distributed, ATI's site listed it for a time for the 2900 I'm pretty sure (wish I could find cached copies), hell even the ISVs/OEMs list it as a feature! And don't think that ATI doesn't have a hand in approving those product packages.
ATI is a public company and when a company falsely represents a launch like this it's a serious thing and they need to take steps to correct the problem and simply "return the product" is not the answer.
Sorry but I'm a bit ticked off about this whole thing
I have printed up some letters to be sent by registered mail requesting full refund of my purchase price and shipping charges due to inaccurate product labelling(what is need to be done). The vendor will reply, and when that reply arrives, the next step will happen.
Consumer affairs has already had a complaint filed. They must review the complaint, either accept or deny it, and then forward the complaint to the offender, and await a reply within a specified period of time. I'll be contacting consumer affairs in other jurisdictions throughout the day.
In the meantime, small and large claim lawsuits can be filed. I have to await care for my kids, and then I'm off to the courthouse.
Of course, AMD could just issue a statement dealing with the issue, but I have seen no such thing, and communication with tech support says that UVD/Xilleon IS included on R600.
So, DAve, who's right...you or the tech support?
I beleive you, because I have dealt with ATI tech support on numerous occasions...they really need some proper training..and you know that this can be a writeoff too, this training?
Aerows
Regular
If you bought a computer that had "DVD Player" on the box, and bought the computer because you knew at some point you would want to use DVDs, but then found out 5 days later when you went to use one that it actually only had a CD player, how would you feel? What if the company after the fact said "Oh we just messed up on the packaging - the computer doesn't come with a DVD drive - you can watch and use DVD's that have been extracted to the hard disk, but the computer you purchased doesn't come with an actual drive that reads DVD media".
Would that be okay with you?
Sound_Card
Regular
Simple solution, take back the product for a full refund or swap the product for one that does what is advertised.
Or jump on the American trend and sue them dry.
- Status
