Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Bibliophile
LarryOnLI
Posts: 2,009
Registered: ‎01-04-2010

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

B&N should not publish roll-back information, that would just lead to more trouble.

 

When you do a factory fail-back on your NOOK (roll back), you will lose registration, all books will need to be re-downloaded, and all shelving will be lost. Any custom font size settings will be lost as well as all remembered WiFi hotspots.

 

Can't you see the outcry when B&N publishes the procedure for that and people follow it without reading/understanding all the caveats?

 

Given that B&N is working on a fix, the best thing for them to do (in my humble opinion) is tell those people who call needing access to their SD card contents the procedure on a case by case basis.

 

I don;t have the numbers, but I suspect that the great majority of NOOK users don;t even have any side-loaded content, and since all B&N content is stored on the internal memory card they don't even notice the problem.

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
deemure
Posts: 3,933
Registered: ‎12-28-2009
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

As an early nook owner-ordered for Christmas when it first came out, but because it wasn't pre-ordered, I got it in January-I can say I have no real use for an sd card with it. I had one installed, but I needed it elsewhere and never put it back in. I have one in my NC and one in my N2E, but don't miss it in my N1E 3g.
"I still believe in spite of everything that people are good at heart." Anne Frank.
Frequent Contributor
robodojo
Posts: 38
Registered: ‎06-16-2010
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.


DCLOVELL wrote:

The "right" to compensation has been killing this country.  IMO it all started with a hot cup of coffee that someone put between their legs while they were driving.  If nothing was done to purposely be malicous and has not harmed anyone...why should there be compensation.



Actually, the case you are referring to--the woman who was burned by fast food coffee in the 90's--was a bit different than you think. She wasn't driving, she was parked, sitting in the passenger seat, and was burned by coffee that the company mandated be 180-190 degrees. She was the 700th and something person to file a complaint, was hospitalized for seven days, had major burns requiring skin grafts and was almost 80 years old when it happened. Her lawsuit changed company policy and saved more people from being burned. Not all lawsuits are frivolous, but some big corporations would like you to think so.

 

However, most nook complaints--apart from those about terrible customer service from call centers--are fairly frivolous. :smileyhappy: Heck, nooks are frivolous but I love mine!

 

Sorry to go off-topic but I just watched a documentary that featured the coffee woman's story and couldn't resist saying something, as I, too, was one of the people who thought her claim was ridiculous. I feel foolish now.

Distinguished Correspondent
BelgianAlien
Posts: 89
Registered: ‎09-03-2010

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.


robodojo wrote:

DCLOVELL wrote:

The "right" to compensation has been killing this country.  IMO it all started with a hot cup of coffee that someone put between their legs while they were driving.  If nothing was done to purposely be malicous and has not harmed anyone...why should there be compensation.



Actually, the case you are referring to--the woman who was burned by fast food coffee in the 90's--was a bit different than you think. She wasn't driving, she was parked, sitting in the passenger seat, and was burned by coffee that the company mandated be 180-190 degrees. She was the 700th and something person to file a complaint, was hospitalized for seven days, had major burns requiring skin grafts and was almost 80 years old when it happened. Her lawsuit changed company policy and saved more people from being burned. Not all lawsuits are frivolous, but some big corporations would like you to think so..


I'll go off topic for a little while with you here... 

No matter how you look at it, placing a fresh cup of coffee between your legs is plain stupidity. Period. 

-----------
Always read something that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it. ~P.J. O'Rourke
Distinguished Bibliophile
deemure
Posts: 3,933
Registered: ‎12-28-2009
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

I too will go off topic here. Who hasn't cradled or sat a cup of coffee on a leg? Especially if adding cream and sugar. The coffee was way hotter than home coffee makers can make it, though it was under a category of ready to consume. If one took a drink right away which ready to consume refers to, then serious damage would be done to the tongue and mouth. And, in this particular case, there was shared liability. Mcdonald's was found liable for a certain percentage-the fact the coffee was way too hot for immediate consumption, and the woman was found liable or responsible for her part. Damages were assessed on Mcdonald's based upon the percentage of liability. The amount she likely ever received was further reduced upon appeal, but the case did change some things as far as how Mcdonald's serves coffee. For the record also, the coffee was way hotter than even other restaurants serve it. It would have caused severe damage no matter where it spilled. I daresay anyone critical of this case would feel different if it happened to them or their mother or grandmother.
"I still believe in spite of everything that people are good at heart." Anne Frank.
Distinguished Scribe
Ya_Ya
Posts: 3,334
Registered: ‎09-29-2010

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

[ Edited ]

deemure wrote:
The coffee was way hotter than home coffee makers can make it, though it was under a category of ready to consume. If one took a drink right away which ready to consume refers to, then serious damage would be done to the tongue and mouth. 

This isn't true.  Most coffeemakers brew near 200F.  They just don't hold it there.  Multiple sources confirm that 180-190 is where coffee should be held to retain premium flavor.  Many good coffeeshops (not Starbucks, Caribou or Dunkin') still hold coffee in the 180Fs and serve it that way.

 

McDonald's using that as a justification is ridiculous, though.  Even their new (since this case) premium coffee is swill; the older could only be called coffee by the strict definition "brown liquid brewed from specific beans."

 

In order not to cause third-degree burns, the coffee would need to be held below 140F.  The lower-temps of the competition were above that mark.  So this could have happened with coffee from most other fast-food places as well.  Then and now.

 

Well-done beef is 155F.  Should we not serve hamburgers above Medium (135F) so we don't burn people?  (This could be problematic since under 155, the chance of ecoli in ground meat increases significantly.)

 

I truly believe Grandma was responsible, not McDonald's.  Coffee is hot.  You should be careful with it; ie put it in the cupholder to play with it not between your legs. IMO this was a frivolous lawsuit; and the hundreds of other prior other complaints were just as frivolous.  (Perhaps not quite as frivolous as played in the media, but frivolous nonetheless.) 

Distinguished Bibliophile
deemure
Posts: 3,933
Registered: ‎12-28-2009
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

[ Edited ]

I am replying with all due respect. We are talking about a period in time when a lot of people were just starting to buy home automatic drip coffee makers. And these weren't brewing at such high temps as premium makers. Most people didn't buy Bunns, but bought Mr. Coffee. Older people were used to percolator coffee or getting coffee in a sit down restaurant where it might be 130 degrees once the waitress made the rounds. This coffee case was in the early '90s when a lot of cars didn't have cupholders. And older cars didn't. The first car I bought that had them was one I bought in 1993 brand new. Most restaurants did not serve coffee that hot. I am not talking Starbucks, which may do so now, but also serves a heck of a lot of pre-doctored, creamed up coffee which is not given to consumers at that temp. There were also far fewer drive thrus or fast food places back then. Mcdonalds at the time assumed people pulled up to a drivethru, bought stuff, and waited until at their destination to consume it, but they were serving a product that was supposed to be ready to consume.


The lady was 79. She did what many people do or did do-I dated a guy who always held a beverage between his legs while in a car and I have balanced a drink tray or two on my lap while being driven somewhere. People used to place the cup on their lap, but she did so not knowing how hot it was. She was found partly at fault as was Mcdonalds. In the wake of this, sure more coffee shops have sprouted up that serve very hot coffee. They also place sleeves on the cups so you don't burn your fingers through the cup (I have), and there are now labels on the cups that say the product is very hot. I have also had coffee that is so hot that even after waiting half an hour with the lid off is too hot to drink. This woman may never have bought such hot coffee before, did bear some responsibility, but a jury said Mickey Ds also did, partly because they misunderstood how and when people were consuming the product.

"I still believe in spite of everything that people are good at heart." Anne Frank.
Distinguished Scribe
Ya_Ya
Posts: 3,334
Registered: ‎09-29-2010
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

[ Edited ]

@deemure, I'm not going to argue with you.

 

I've done quite a bit of research into the topic as my husband is in foodservice and I used to be.  Many people have tried to convince me that I'm wrong.  The facts, to me, don't support your position.  Nor are some of the things you are claiming true.  [I'm not calling you a liar.  I'm simply saying some things reported as fact were exagerration and supposition.]

 

But, this thread isn't the place for that and I'm not responding again. 

Distinguished Bibliophile
deemure
Posts: 3,933
Registered: ‎12-28-2009
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

[ Edited ]

Ya_Ya, I wasn't arguing, merely discussing. I have also done some research, remember the case, and was in foodservice. I also did once have a McJob. I have received certification in food safety. I have a relative that works with attorneys (not a lawyer) and has extensive knowledge of the case. There was blame to go around.


I truly respect you and your input a great deal and it pains me that you view this as an argument. A disagreement in perception, and I believe in some experiences. I believe many things are not viewed in terms of real world use, but rather in idealistic situations. I agree this is the wrong place to discuss it, you are correct.
How this applies here is that most companies are trying to rush products to market and do overlook some real world situations. BN is not immune to this, but has tried to address the situation. Sony and the PS3's recent debacle is an example. Apple, too is experiencing some of this, but generally ascribes it to user error or ignores it until what is not broken, is fixed. But, now they are finding that security issues are cropping up. McAfee AV caused an issue where computers couldn't access networks and the internet. This 1.6 "crash" is minor when compared with other examples. Inconvenient, maybe maddening, but something that they will fix, because they must.

"I still believe in spite of everything that people are good at heart." Anne Frank.
Frequent Contributor
robodojo
Posts: 38
Registered: ‎06-16-2010
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

 

 


BelgianAlien wrote:

robodojo wrote:

DCLOVELL wrote:

The "right" to compensation has been killing this country.  IMO it all started with a hot cup of coffee that someone put between their legs while they were driving.  If nothing was done to purposely be malicous and has not harmed anyone...why should there be compensation.



Actually, the case you are referring to--the woman who was burned by fast food coffee in the 90's--was a bit different than you think. She wasn't driving, she was parked, sitting in the passenger seat, and was burned by coffee that the company mandated be 180-190 degrees. She was the 700th and something person to file a complaint, was hospitalized for seven days, had major burns requiring skin grafts and was almost 80 years old when it happened. Her lawsuit changed company policy and saved more people from being burned. Not all lawsuits are frivolous, but some big corporations would like you to think so..


I'll go off topic for a little while with you here... 

No matter how you look at it, placing a fresh cup of coffee between your legs is plain stupidity. Period. 



Sure, but there's "wet pants stupid" and then there's "3rd degree burns with skin graft" stupid. The company needed to make the coffee less hot. 700 instances of burns reported to their restaurants says something was wrong.

 

Frequent Contributor
cbtengr
Posts: 864
Registered: ‎12-29-2009

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

When the inability to access one's sd card begins causing third degree burns and skin grafts, compensation would be in order.

Frequent Contributor
robodojo
Posts: 38
Registered: ‎06-16-2010
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.


cbtengr wrote:

When the inability to access one's sd card begins causing third degree burns and skin grafts, compensation would be in order.


Hee hee! For real. Or when the vacuousness of the responses from B&N tech support sets your brain on fire, compensation would be appropriate.

Distinguished Correspondent
DCLOVELL
Posts: 205
Registered: ‎05-19-2011
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

cbtengr wrote:

When the inability to access one's sd card begins causing third degree burns and skin grafts, compensation would be in order.


robodojo wrote:

Hee hee! For real. Or when the vacuousness of the responses from B&N tech support sets your brain on fire, compensation would be appropriate!

 

This was my point exactly.  There was nothing malicious done by B&N.  We are not entitled to compensation.  Does it suck that the upgrade has caused SD cards not to work correctly...YES!  Is it a deal breaker or time to get on the phone with my lawyer....IMO...NO!  From what I have read..everyone's info is still on the card and accessible from a computer.  How many books can you read at once????

 

I am sorry my comments took us soooo far off topic!

 

Distinguished Correspondent
F14Scott
Posts: 72
Registered: ‎06-29-2010
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.


cbtengr wrote:

When the inability to access one's sd card begins causing third degree burns and skin grafts, compensation would be in order.



I'm truly perplexed by the idea that only physical harm is worthy of compensation.

 

Suppose your car's OnStar downloaded a "transparent" software update that accidentally forced the fuel delivery system to cut out at a range of sixty miles.  Other car enthusiasts discover that the bug could be temporarily overcome by getting out of the car, disconnecting and reconnecting the battery, and restarting the car, a process that would give you another sixty miles.  The manufacturer posts a paragraph on a message board stating that they are aware of the problem and are working to fix it.

 

Sure, you can drive your car.  Yes, it only takes a couple of minutes to perform the fix (if you are handy with a wrench and don't mind getting under the hood).  True, it's not that big a hassle to reprogram all your radio presets.

 

The issue is that the car's functionality, that you paid for, has been limited.  You have been retroactively denied receiving what you paid for.  Do you just suck it up?  How long is reasonable to let the manufacturer work on a fix before it compensates you?  Should the compensation be limited only to the exact number of minutes you spent under the hood and at the radio (maybe forty minutes over the course of a month), or does the experience of having a hobbled car warrant some punative damages?

 

We are now at the seven day mark for v1.6.  Fortunately, for me, I got my nook's radio turned off before the update, so I've not had to "get under the hood."  However, my nook is hobbled.  I suggested a $10 goodwill package, certainly not "blood" from B&N, as others have implied I demanded.

 

What is reasonable for nook users who have lost functionality to expect?

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,807
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

I don't need to drive my nook to work.

Distinguished Scribe
Ya_Ya
Posts: 3,334
Registered: ‎09-29-2010
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

[ Edited ]

F14Scott wrote:

What is reasonable for nook users who have lost functionality to expect?

 


That it be fixed.  It would be nice if they apologized, but I don't expect it.

 

I expect it to be fixed.  I have no idea how long it takes to fix something like this, so I won't suggest how long they should have to fix it.  I certainly do not think two or three weeks is too long.  Nobody can be physically harmed by this, so I absolutely do not believe this should interfere with the engineers' and product team's lives.  My need to workaround this absolutely does not trump Jeffrey's time with his kids (if he has any) or Sam's vacation to Iceland or Employee # 5674321's dinner with her wife.  Ie...  They should be working hard on this at work - but not be working mandatory forced overtime so I can access my SD card.  [Yes, I realize this is hyperbole, but that language is all over this thread.]

 

The melting NOOKColor cords might warrant those things, however.

 

Even your car example is flawed.  If you have content on an SD card you already know the procedure to load to the device.  It's the same procedure.  You have already performed it.  

 

It's more like "an improperly tested software upgrade" that causes the car to only recognize it has 4 gallons of gas, regardless of how much gas it has.  So, every 120+ miles, the driver has to park the car, open the gas cap, replace the gas cap and s/he can drive another 120+ miles. :smileytongue:  Annoying, yes.  Harm?  Nope.

Frequent Contributor
cbtengr
Posts: 864
Registered: ‎12-29-2009

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.

I don't recall ever getting compensation when I had to have a recall repair performed on my cars. They fix it, I don't pay, go on with life. I think they've made some mistakes with the update, including poor communication with users, but I'll survive this without a "boat-full of lawyers".
Distinguished Scribe
RSC_Nook
Posts: 758
Registered: ‎01-04-2011
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.


F14Scott wrote:

  However, my nook is hobbled.  I suggested a $10 goodwill package, certainly not "blood" from B&N, as others have implied I demanded.

 

What is reasonable for nook users who have lost functionality to expect?

 


How do you prove who ended up having certain functionality that was lost and who didn't?  If B&N says 'send us an email if you had a larger than 2 or 4 gb (whichever it was) card and this messed you up, I am sure plenty of folks will try to scam the system and send in a note they did.  If B&N pays EVERY registered nook owner then I am guessing something like 80% - 85% of the folks that were paid (maybe more, maybe less) actually neer had an issue.

 

I am more interested in B&N stay in business then I am seeing them take a massive ding by paying out $10 to every nook user.

 

If there was a certain book you just HAD to read couldn't you just plug the nook into the pc and download to the nook vs the sd card?  for that one (or 2 or 3 or 5) books you just had to have this week?  45 seconds of a work around and move on I guess is my point.  maybe I am missing why that isn't an option.

Distinguished Correspondent
F14Scott
Posts: 72
Registered: ‎06-29-2010
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.


keriflur wrote:

I don't need to drive my nook to work.


You could still drive your car to work, just as I can still read my nook.  You've just lost functionality, as have I.

Distinguished Correspondent
F14Scott
Posts: 72
Registered: ‎06-29-2010
0 Kudos

Re: B&N (lack of) response to v1.6 crash is awful.


Ya_Ya wrote:

F14Scott wrote:

What is reasonable for nook users who have lost functionality to expect?

 


That it be fixed.  It would be nice if they apologized, but I don't expect it.

 

...Annoying, yes.  Harm?  Nope.


Gas cap, battery, whatever.  Either way, it is annoying; on that point I agree.  I guess we'll just have to disagree at what point annoyance turns to damage.  Especially when the nook didn't just malfunction; B&N broke it.