Powered On, Sound Off: TyTN II--Case of Buyer's Remorse?

[Chuong Nguyen]

"Powered On, Sound Off" will be a new series that will occur from time to time in which I will post my ideas, reflections, and thoughts on relevant issues regarding mobile computing. I encourage readers to participate and "sound off" their thoughts in our discussion.

I read an interesting article over at TiltSite (http://tiltsite.com/2008/01/two-websites-providing-info-about-the-qualcomm-ms7200-chipset-issue/) regarding the issue of devices being manufactured with high-end features, but having those features disabled. One such instance is the case of HTC, the maker of the TyTN II/Tilt among many other successful Windows Mobile devices, utilizing the Qualcomm MS7200 chipset, but not enabling the graphics/video drivers so that the devices could play multimedia smoother and have a quicker response. Theoretically, the Qualcomm chipset does have an integrated video/graphics component to enable better video playback.

Moreover, in their marketing on the HTC Global product page (http://www.htc.com/product/03-product_tytn_II.htm), the firm never promised that the device would be enhanced for gaming, video playback, or system-intensive multimedia, unlike other competitors like the older Dell Axim with an integrated graphics card. In fact, there was no mention of an integrated video or graphics card. For the unhappy owners of the TyTN II, is this a case of buyer's remorse--expecting too much from a device by reading the pure specifications, "specs," sheet? Or is this HTC failing to deliver?

We have also previously reported on this site about a petition to HTC (http://pocketnow.com/index.php?a=portal_detail&t=news&id=4725) to release the video drivers. More recently, the people over at XDA-Developers have created a pot for some developer to come through and create drivers. Additional websites have been created to bring this issue to light, two of which include HTCDriver.com (http://www.htcdriver.com/) and HTCClassAction.org (http://www.htcclassaction.org/).

As a Tilt owner and user, I have evaluated my needs before purchasing my device. I understood that it comes with Windows Mobile 6, has integrated WiFi, GPS, HSDPA/UMTS, GSM/EDGE/GPRS, Bluetooth, and a relatively short battery life with all these features enabled. My needs for the device include: email, PIM functions, ability to stream video via Slingbox or stream music through various internet radio stations and/or programs, and other applications that I use regularly including a financial calculator. I do understand, as somewhat of a more experienced user, that the device can play videos and I can load movies, but I do know that a dedicated portable media player (PMP) would be better suited for the project. With these needs and constraints, I understood that the Tilt fits my needs best at this time.

For me, the issue of the drivers is important, but at the same time it is akin to buyer's remorse. It's like users who were sold a device with WM 5 and expect a WM 6 upgrade when none was promised. If a WM 6 upgrade was promise and one was later cancelled (like the case of the BlackJack), then that's different story. For me, you were sold on what the device has and will do under the manufacturer's conditions, not on the potential of the device to do greater and better things. While HTCClassAction.org says that a class action lawsuit is the last resort, there shouldn't even be a class action suit as HTC never promised video drivers. Videos do play, although somewhat choppy.

Another example of this would be the case of Apple, Inc. with the iPod and iPhone. Users knowingly buy the phone/portable media player with the understanding that the battery is not user-replaceable. However, later in the game, there appears several class action suits regarding the fact that the battery is not user-replaceable. My thought is let's not cry foul when we know what we've gotten ourselves into.

So what are your thoughts? Too high of consumer expectations or a device manufacturer neglecting to address consumer needs?

If you have a suggestion for the next "Powered On, Sound Off" discussion, feel free to send me your ideas to chuong@pocketnow.com.

[motionmind]

I was hoping to see an integrated video driver to maybe extend the battery life by having my tasks involving screen rendering (camera, web) to be done quicker. While I agree that HTC made no promises of any speedy multimedia experience, we've all come to expect that our devices will, at the very least, handle multimedia gracefully without the lag of the Tilt.

[Pony99CA]

It seems like an overreaction to me.

First, unless they promised something beyond "marketing speak" (like a "rich media experience", which is very subjective), there's not really a reasonable cause of action.

The class action suits that I'm aware of involved promised features. Sharp promising an OS upgrade for their Mobilon Handheld PC and then reneging, HP's early Jornada Pocket PCs not supporting enough colors, a Palm device not supporting over 60,000 colors, the Verizon Motorola V710 promising Bluetooth (which implied a full set of profiles) but crippling it, etc.

Second, who buys a device nowadays without reading reviews or testing it in a store? Reviewers and very early adopters, maybe.

I don't have a problem with petitioning HTC to create the drivers, but just because it has a chip in it doesn't mean that the chip has to be used, so a lawsuit is silly.

Steve

[easycure1974]

I am very disappointed with the video performance. I have own a Qtek 9100 and a Qtek S200 and then the HTC Tytn. I primary use my phone as working tool, exchange pushmail, document reader, PIM and and time management for keeping track of time spent with different clients and projects.

But I also use the phone watching a movie and playing some games sometimes. And I did at least expect the Tytn II to performe as good as my old Tytn. But the videoperformance is really bad comparing to my old Tytn. So I feel that this is my last HTC phone ever, they always have serious bugs in their software. I guess you heard of the IE scrolling bug in Tytn II also? IE in a Tytn II is totally useless without the fix available on XDA Developers.

HTC support is laughable, without the incredible people over at XDA I would have sold the phone long time ago.

[UndaC]

It's not just a "gamers" or "videophiles" perspective that's involved here.
The lack of HW acceleration means:
Worse battery life.
Poor video conferencing and video capturing.
Poor video playback.
Poor general 2D-performance (ie simple stuff like drawing the GUI, scrolling a web page).

And as most of the TyTN II owner know the camera is next to useless in anything but extremely brightly lit envoirments. Not because the pictures are very bad but because the viewfinder runs at ~3 (not kidding) fps with extreme blur. Also the shutter speed (or rather processing speed) when taking a photo is so very much delayed that most often the person or thing you are trying to shoot will have moved.

Euqally the video capturing is done at an FPS that is simply not acceptable on any modern device.

Also, why assume that video viewing is just for fun?
I work as an editor for a magazine and quite often I need to watch newsfeeds or videos sent to me.

If I just wanted to use a simple text editor and gps I could have gotten a much cheaper phone than this.

And what about the touch screen bug? The CPU is pegged at 100% utilization whenever you use the touch screen. I don't know it that's a video driver issue but it's certainly hadicapping in some apps.


And last but not least. Gaming. Though gaming was never my intent for this device I certainly expected it to at least be able to do some of the basic stuff my much older phones do.

As for HTCs marketing here are some quotes:
"[...]perfectly for reading and creating e-mails, using applications, or even just playing games."
"Always ready for business - and pleasure[...]"


And beyond every thing else:
Why in the name of all that is good should we even have to be asking for a driver to begin with?
In all other areas of IT it is, with all rights, assumed that if you buy a product with a pre-installed OS you also get all drivers pre-installed.

If you buy a laptop, even a laptop that is marketed as a business tool, would you accept if the manufacturer just supplied the laptop with a generic VGA driver with no means of getting hold of a proper driver?
As you probably all know the absence of a driver doesn't just mean that you can't play games or watch high resolution videos. It means that even the 2D GUI of Windows is slow, wathcing videos becomes problematic and in case of newer card you loose out on all power saving functionality of the video card.

You wouldn't accept it on a PC so why should anyone accept it on a Pocket PC?

Woudl you accept if the manufacturer said
"yeah we know the specs state that we put a GeForce Mobile 8800 GTX in there but we never actually promised any drivers did we eh? besides, you can use office without drivers right, so go bugger off"

And to top it all:
the drivers are readily available from Qualcomm/ATi, there's simply no reason for HTC not providing them other than intentionally crippling the device or laziness/being cheap (and since the device ain't cheap I don't think we should let HTC reserve the right to being cheap either....)

[Pony99CA]

It's not just a "gamers" or "videophiles" perspective that's involved here.
The lack of HW acceleration means:
Worse battery life.
Poor video conferencing and video capturing.
Poor video playback.
Poor general 2D-performance (ie simple stuff like drawing the GUI, scrolling a web page).
Worse battery life would only be true if the hardware accelerator were less power hungry than the CPU. Has that been proven?

Regarding video conferencing, how many people really do that?

But, even more importantly, aren't your same arguments true for devices that don't have video acceleration hardware at all? So why is it any worse than those?

As for HTCs marketing here are some quotes:
"[...]perfectly for reading and creating e-mails, using applications, or even just playing games."
"Always ready for business - and pleasure[...]"
Those quotes don't mention anything specifically about performance. You can play games (Solitaire, Bubble Breaker), and games fall into the "pleasure" area. I don't see any promise of arcade-quality speed, so there's still no cause of action.

Also, your first quotation is taken way out of context. Here's the full quote:

Communicating on the go is easier than ever with an innovative, ergonomic LCD design that positions the touch screen perfectly for reading and creating e-mails, using applications, or even just playing games.
That's talking about the tilting display making it easier to use the device for various things; it's not about performance at all.

And beyond every thing else:
Why in the name of all that is good should we even have to be asking for a driver to begin with?
In all other areas of IT it is, with all rights, assumed that if you buy a product with a pre-installed OS you also get all drivers pre-installed.
Do you? Are you sure that every chip on a mobo is used and has a driver pre-installed?

What's assumed is that the product lives up to its claims, nothing more. If they advertise video acceleration, then, yes, there should be drivers for the video accelerator; if they don't advertise it, you shouldn't assume the drivers are there just because the chip may be.

In fact, here's what the HTC TyTN II spec sheet (http://www.htc.com/product/03-product_tytn_II.htm) says about the processor:

Qualcomm® MSM 7200, 400MHz
and the display:

2.8 inch, 240 X 320 QVGA TFT-LCD display with adjustable angle and backlight

Also, the only mention of video is in the battery section:

Up to 120 minutes for video call
Just because somebody is geeky enough to know that the Qualcomm chipset includes video acceleration doesn't mean that you were promised it. I don't see how any reasonable person reading that spec sheet would assume that video acceleration was offered.

As you probably all know the absence of a driver doesn't just mean that you can't play games or watch high resolution videos. It means that even the 2D GUI of Windows is slow, wathcing videos becomes problematic and in case of newer card you loose out on all power saving functionality of the video card.
You're just reiterating what you said above, and I'll again point out that many Windows Mobile devices don't have video acceleration hardware at all, so how are you worse off?

Woudl you accept if the manufacturer said
"yeah we know the specs state that we put a GeForce Mobile 8800 GTX in there but we never actually promised any drivers did we eh? besides, you can use office without drivers right, so go bugger off"
If the specs focus on a specific video card, yes, they should support that. However, if the specs only mention a chipset (which seems to be the case), and that chipset happens to include video acceleration hardware, I wouldn't assume that the hardware was necessarily available.

For example, suppose a chipset has support for SDHC cards, but the device didn't have a memory card slot. Should you sue over that? As that's not a perfect analogy, what if they only shipped drivers for regular SD and therefore only supported SD cards up to 1-2 GB? Should you sue because the OEM could have supported more? If the OEM didn't specifically promise SDHC support, I don't think so.

And to top it all:
the drivers are readily available from Qualcomm/ATi, there's simply no reason for HTC not providing them other than intentionally crippling the device or laziness/being cheap (and since the device ain't cheap I don't think we should let HTC reserve the right to being cheap either....)
Were the drivers available when the device first shipped? If not, your claim of crippling the device borders on libel.

However, I do agree that if the drivers are available, HTC should make them available. However, from what I've read, they don't have to. They're a business engaged in trying to make a profit, and businesses try to cut expenses where they can.

In other words, they do get to reserve the right to be cheap even if their device isn't. If you don't like that philosophy, you have a simple recourse -- vote with your wallet and don't buy HTC devices.

Steve

[Jaime Rivera]

What makes me wonder is why build so much potential, sell it, and not give the end user the option to take advantage of it. I guess it's true, they never offered it, but if it's there, why not just show who's interested how to enable it.

Same case with the iPAQ 110. Powerful device in specs, but not that perfect in action.

[UndaC]

1. Worse battery life would only be true if the hardware accelerator were less power hungry than the CPU. Has that been proven?

2. Regarding video conferencing, how many people really do that?

3. But, even more importantly, aren't your same arguments true for devices that don't have video acceleration hardware at all? So why is it any worse than those?

4. Those quotes don't mention anything specifically about performance. You can play games (Solitaire, Bubble Breaker), and games fall into the "pleasure" area. I don't see any promise of arcade-quality speed, so there's still no cause of action.

5. Also, your first quotation is taken way out of context. Here's the full quote:
That's talking about the tilting display making it easier to use the device for various things; it's not about performance at all.

6. Do you? Are you sure that every chip on a mobo is used and has a driver pre-installed?

7. What's assumed is that the product lives up to its claims, nothing more. If they advertise video acceleration, then, yes, there should be drivers for the video accelerator; if they don't advertise it, you shouldn't assume the drivers are there just because the chip may be.

8. Just because somebody is geeky enough to know that the Qualcomm chipset includes video acceleration doesn't mean that you were promised it. I don't see how any reasonable person reading that spec sheet would assume that video acceleration was offered.

9. You're just reiterating what you said above, and I'll again point out that many Windows Mobile devices don't have video acceleration hardware at all, so how are you worse off?

10. If the specs focus on a specific video card, yes, they should support that. However, if the specs only mention a chipset (which seems to be the case), and that chipset happens to include video acceleration hardware, I wouldn't assume that the hardware was necessarily available.

11. For example, suppose a chipset has support for SDHC cards, but the device didn't have a memory card slot. Should you sue over that? As that's not a perfect analogy, what if they only shipped drivers for regular SD and therefore only supported SD cards up to 1-2 GB? Should you sue because the OEM could have supported more? If the OEM didn't specifically promise SDHC support, I don't think so.

12. Were the drivers available when the device first shipped? If not, your claim of crippling the device borders on libel.

13. However, I do agree that if the drivers are available, HTC should make them available. However, from what I've read, they don't have to. They're a business engaged in trying to make a profit, and businesses try to cut expenses where they can.

14. In other words, they do get to reserve the right to be cheap even if their device isn't. If you don't like that philosophy, you have a simple recourse -- vote with your wallet and don't buy HTC devices.

Steve

1. I can't say with 100% certainty. But unless the chipset is flawed (and we've heard no indications of that) purpose specific parts of the chipset will be much more energy conserving than using the main CPU.

2. It's an advertised feature. I know quite a lot of people who use it. I think it depends on how many people you know that are running 3G. Where I live 2G is pretty much dead and everyone runs 3G since a while back so here it's pretty commom.

3. Most devices have some sort of rudimentary yet optimized path to achieve acceptable video performance. Video performance (as well as 2D, GUI, 3D etc.) performance of the TyTN II is worse than the TyTN "I" and to me that's "worse".

4-5. You are right. It doesn't promise all out performance. It does however indicate that it's a viable "entertainment" device.
(However the mention that the touch screen is good for gaming. No mention of actually using the touch screen pegs the CPU at 100% making games that use constant touchscreen input lag along at 5 fps.)

6. I have not once heard of, bought a, helped installed a etc. computer from any major OEM at any point in time that did not come equipped with all drivers.
It's easy enough to go into the device manager of windows to see if there are any uninstalled devices. I have not seen this once.

7-8. If I were to sell a car and advertize that I had a "Ninja dude 2000" engine which you check out to find that it's a 1000 bhp turbo engine and then you buy it and relize that it actually has the engine but they choked it at 500 bhp and removed the turbo would you be happy?
I don't think it's right calling me a geek just because I actually checked out what the chipset was about before I bought the phone.

9. Simple: the TyTN II performs worse than it's predecessor when it comes to video/2D/3D. It performs worse than much older phones in these areas. It performs worse than much cheaper devices in these areas. Thus I'm worse off. (I'm not saying that it's a worse phone in general, heck it has a lot of sweet features and CPU performance for non rendering tasks is sweet too.)

10. I don't mean that they focus on it. Maybe it's simply on a spec list without any mention in the marketing texts. Does that acutomatically make it ok to not ship a driver for it?

11. The point is pretty much moot since all manufacturers tend to clearly specify what kind of storage they support.
I mean I'm ok with a product not supporting all hardware features.
For an example I know that my videocard supports 2048x1546 resolutions but the spec sheet of my laptop clearly stated that max supported res of the machine was 1280x800 so I have no beef.
The TyTN II specs clearly state that it has a 3 mpix camera so I have no problem with the hardware being able to support more.

12. They were available according to the chipset manufacturer and Qualcomm. So if you want to point your finger at anyone for my statement not being true then point it at them. Besides I'm pretty sure it was actually available. And if not they've had plenty of time to make up for it after the launch.

13. I agree that it's very uncertain that they should have to support their device with drivers. They can do it and in my mind they should do it but they don't, in the strict terms of the law, have to.
Thus the awareness campaign. If you actually read htcclassaction.org you'd realize that it's mostly a campaign meant to shed light on the issue. Actually going after HTC is a desperate last attempt at fixing this situation that we're all hoping we can avoid.

14. I will. :) That doesn't mean I will just accept that my current, newly purchased and quite expensive device, is in my opinion crippled. Next time around though I will probably avoid HTC unless I see that they are willing to do something about the current situation.
I mean to be honest I would be happy with just getting a proper explanation and their view. If they can put reason behind their actions then I as a consumer could probably forgive them.
Just being silent and ignoring the issue certainly pushes me away though. If this is how they handle customer care and public relations then their products are not for me.

[bluetoof]

Believe it or not I created the petition. I was pretty upset . It's not 2002 anymore! Video performance is "important" to "smartphones". Whether they promised it or not the stats on Qualcomms site boasted this thing as some kind of power house of a graphics proc. And that's all people had to go by and they knew it. Why even go with Qualcomm to begin with then. Why not just stay with the Samsung procs? Cheaper?...

[bluetoof]

In the end, if HTC keeps up these same practices with any device Android or not, the consumers will ultimitely determine their fate. It would be unfortunate but sometimes companies lose sight especially whey they grow "too big".

[Rainman]

Believe it or not I created the petition. I was pretty upset . It's not 2002 anymore! Video performance is "important" to "smartphones". Whether they promised it or not the stats on Qualcomms site boasted this thing as some kind of power house of a graphics proc. And that's all people had to go by and they knew it. Why even go with Qualcomm to begin with then. Why not just stay with the Samsung procs? Cheaper?...

You're assuming that everyone researched the chipset and based their decision of the Kaiser based on that chipset. I don't think that's necessarily the case. Personally, when I saw the specs of the Kaiser, I was most interested in the tilting screen, 3G, GPS, wi-fi and bluetooth. I use my SlingBox on occasion, but that is all I use my Tilt for in regards to video. I use it primarily for phone, email, calendaring and task management and in that regards, it works perfectly fine for me. So for me, the video acceleration is not an issue. The only lag I notice really is when the screen changes from portrait to landscape, but it is something I am willing to accept.

If we had a device that did exactly everything we wanted, then there would only be one phone manufacturer and one device out on the market. But we don't because one size does not fit all in the case of these mobile devices, as shown by the wide variety of them in the market place.

[bluetoof]

You're assuming that everyone researched the chipset and based their decision of the Kaiser based on that chipset. I don't think that's necessarily the case. Personally, when I saw the specs of the Kaiser, I was most interested in the tilting screen, 3G, GPS, wi-fi and bluetooth. I use my SlingBox on occasion, but that is all I use my Tilt for in regards to video. I use it primarily for phone, email, calendaring and task management and in that regards, it works perfectly fine for me. So for me, the video acceleration is not an issue. The only lag I notice really is when the screen changes from portrait to landscape, but it is something I am willing to accept.

If we had a device that did exactly everything we wanted, then there would only be one phone manufacturer and one device out on the market. But we don't because one size does not fit all in the case of these mobile devices, as shown by the wide variety of them in the market place.

You are exactly the person who the petition is not geared for. You are conent with the Tilt the way it is because you are not a "power user". Using push email to mail a thousand emails a day doesn't make one a "power user". Taking advantage of every capability/feature/option the device has does. IMHO.

With that said you don't need to get involved at all. You are probably in the "majority" as well. Which in fact is one of the reasons this "problem" may never get fixed. Because the majority aren't "power users".

Regardless of whether video/gaming/photo is important in a smartphone the MSM chipset is performing worse in all those categories than previous older models. That's not good business IMHO. That's when the consumer will flex and make alternative decisions. Just my 2cents.

I've heard some rumors that the reason the drivers aren't there is because HTC didn't want to pay Qualcomm for them or Qualcomm was trying to overcharge HTC. Regardless. If I'm HTC how hard really would it be for them to get this done? Really? A couple phone calls. A few more dollars. I mean whatever they spend on it to get them will improve pretty much their whole lineup of new models. Unless they are pissed at Qualcomm and plan on going with another chipset altoghet with Android and future WinMo phones.

Only time will tell. Actually someone at HTC could tell but they aren't...

And if in fact HTC or Qualcomm does give the users what they want, then bonus for you, no? You get a bump up in the performance and capabilities of your Tilt without even doing anything.

[starstreak]

I would say you are right. If it wasnt promised, then I can't see them being at fault.
BUT

BUT!

I want to throw my unit out the window for two reasons.
1) The camera is a joke. The screen refresh is as bad as camera phones from 5 years ago. If this means getting new drivers, they should.
2) I can't stand the LAG. There are times, which is very often, like 1 out of every 5 clicks where I press on the screen and nothing happens! BUT if I press and hold for a second or so, then it registers the click. They need to fix that. It just slows down everything I'm doing.

[bluetoof]

Is anyone else getting the double letter mistyping error on their Kaiser? When it boiled down to it I could "live with" all the video/camera issues but when I would type words fast on the slide out keyboard like "moon" or "ladder" or "hello", anything that has double letters, it would register like 3 or 4 additional letters like moooon or ladddder. That was the straw that broke the back and I think that too may be attributed to some driver issue. All the other stuff I could handle, but the double letting typing issue I could not. It happens on different ROMS too.

[starstreak]

Nope but then again, not sure how many times I typed with a double letter. But I dont believe so. Do you had the issues I have?

Is anyone else getting the double letter mistyping error on their Kaiser? When it boiled down to it I could "live with" all the video/camera issues but when I would type words fast on the slide out keyboard like "moon" or "ladder" or "hello", anything that has double letters, it would register like 3 or 4 additional letters like moooon or ladddder. That was the straw that broke the back and I think that too may be attributed to some driver issue. All the other stuff I could handle, but the double letting typing issue I could not. It happens on different ROMS too.

[Pony99CA]

4-5. You are right. It doesn't promise all out performance. It does however indicate that it's a viable "entertainment" device.
(However the mention that the touch screen is good for gaming. No mention of actually using the touch screen pegs the CPU at 100% making games that use constant touchscreen input lag along at 5 fps.)
"Gaming" could include casual games.

The issue of touching the screen causing high CPU load may have nothing to do with the video driver, though. It sounds like a big problem that HTC should fix, but unrelated to the issue of video drivers.

7-8. If I were to sell a car and advertize that I had a "Ninja dude 2000" engine which you check out to find that it's a 1000 bhp turbo engine and then you buy it and relize that it actually has the engine but they choked it at 500 bhp and removed the turbo would you be happy?
If they didn't advertise it as a turbo engine and the specs stated their engine provided 500 bhp, they did nothing wrong.

I'm sure some aftermarket would develop to provide the turbo and remove the limit, too, making other people money. :)

I don't think it's right calling me a geek just because I actually checked out what the chipset was about before I bought the phone.
You're putting words in my mouth. I said "just because somebody is geeky enough...." I wasn't necessarily referring to you, nor did I call you a geek. I said that researching the processor to that level of detail is a geeky thing to do. (It's like saying something is a stupid thing to do. That doesn't mean that I think the person is stupid, just the action. It would take a pretty big action -- or lots of stupid actions -- for me to call the person stupid.)

Besides, what's wrong with being a geek? I'm one and don't think it's an insult. :)

9. Simple: the TyTN II performs worse than it's predecessor when it comes to video/2D/3D. It performs worse than much older phones in these areas. It performs worse than much cheaper devices in these areas. Thus I'm worse off.
Sorry, maybe my question wasn't clear. I meant how are you worse off than buying another phone that had no hardware acceleration?

If the TyTN II performs much worse than the previous model, that may well be a bug and HTC should address that. One way to address that may be to provide a video driver, but there may be other ways, too.

10. I don't mean that they focus on it. Maybe it's simply on a spec list without any mention in the marketing texts. Does that acutomatically make it ok to not ship a driver for it?
Yes, it does. If you weren't promised something, it makes it OK not to give it to you.

If I promise you an ice cream cone and give you one, you shouldn't complain that I didn't give you sprinkles, even if the store has sprinkles.

11. The point is pretty much moot since all manufacturers tend to clearly specify what kind of storage they support.
I mean I'm ok with a product not supporting all hardware features.
For an example I know that my videocard supports 2048x1546 resolutions but the spec sheet of my laptop clearly stated that max supported res of the machine was 1280x800 so I have no beef.
The TyTN II specs clearly state that it has a 3 mpix camera so I have no problem with the hardware being able to support more.
So it sounds like your objection is that they didn't specify anything. Would you have been OK with them saying "No video acceleration provided", then?

12. They were available according to the chipset manufacturer and Qualcomm. So if you want to point your finger at anyone for my statement not being true then point it at them. Besides I'm pretty sure it was actually available. And if not they've had plenty of time to make up for it after the launch.
I wasn't saying that your statement wasn't true; I was asking if the driver was available in time to ship it.

However, I shouldn't have mentioned the launch date, even. Devices are planned and built well before the launch date, so if the driver wasn't available during development, I can see why it wasn't included.

13. I agree that it's very uncertain that they should have to support their device with drivers. They can do it and in my mind they should do it but they don't, in the strict terms of the law, have to.
And that's my point. If they don't have to legally, threatening a lawsuit is just silly.

Thus the awareness campaign. If you actually read htcclassaction.org you'd realize that it's mostly a campaign meant to shed light on the issue. Actually going after HTC is a desperate last attempt at fixing this situation that we're all hoping we can avoid.
I did read the site. My problem is that it isn't a petition asking for the drivers or a site just to raise awareness; it specifically mentioned a lawsuit. Just look at the domain name -- it's already a threat of a lawsuit no matter how much the site may claim to be an awareness campaign.

Compare that to the HTCDriver.com site, which is an awareness site. HTCClassAction.org is a threat, and an unjustified one, IMHO.

14. I will. :) That doesn't mean I will just accept that my current, newly purchased and quite expensive device, is in my opinion crippled. Next time around though I will probably avoid HTC unless I see that they are willing to do something about the current situation.
I mean to be honest I would be happy with just getting a proper explanation and their view. If they can put reason behind their actions then I as a consumer could probably forgive them.
Just being silent and ignoring the issue certainly pushes me away though. If this is how they handle customer care and public relations then their products are not for me.
I agree that it would be good for HTC to address the issue, if only to say they didn't want to pay for the driver and the additional testing cost.

I also have no problem with people (like you) asking for the driver; we all have the right to ask for things, especially when the hardware is already there. It's not an unreasonable request.

What I do have a problem with is people who expect things they weren't promised, and especially if they threaten a lawsuit over it (like E. Hoogendijk, who started HTCClassAction.org).

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Believe it or not I created the petition. I was pretty upset . It's not 2002 anymore! Video performance is "important" to "smartphones". Whether they promised it or not the stats on Qualcomms site boasted this thing as some kind of power house of a graphics proc. And that's all people had to go by and they knew it.
HTC isn't responsible for what's on Qualcomm's site. The only thing that HTC is responsible for is what's on HTC's site and marketing literature.

Why even go with Qualcomm to begin with then. Why not just stay with the Samsung procs? Cheaper?...
Maybe Qualcomm's was cheaper, maybe it made integrating the phone easier, maybe it has other advantages under the covers.

The point is that nobody should infer a device takes advantage of all features of the underlying chipset based solely on the fact that it has that chipset.

Now, if the device has problems, that's another issue. The OEM should certainly address the problems, but that's not really the issue here.

Steve

[Nick Collision]

It seems like an overreaction to me.



I don't have a problem with petitioning HTC to create the drivers, but just because it has a chip in it doesn't mean that the chip has to be used, so a lawsuit is silly.

Steve
Have you EVER in your life ever bought a high end computer device without the expectation that drivers would be included or at least AVAILABLE to enable that device to work as designed? Is that an unreasonable expectation?

After doing your homework into chipsets and device capabilities, and made a decision to buy a piece of high end equipment based on all the publicly available information, would you not assume it was built and sold to meet the lofty "marketing terms" they were sold by?

If you think what HTC has done is OK, go buy dual Nvidia 8800 SLI video cards and install them in your desktop pc using only the standard XP VGA drivers. THAT is what HTC expects us to do, that is an almost perfect analogy.

[Chuong Nguyen]

My personal take is that HTC should have released the drivers, but they didn't. They never advertised that they would and don't have an obligation to release drivers. If they did, that would be great PR and good customer service. However, if they didn't, it's within their rights as nothing was promised.

In the analogy with the XP computer, the main difference here is that people buy PCs and know that the parts can be mixed and matched and customized to their needs. People can buy Brand A Graphics Card, install X gigs of RAM from Brand B, and utilize Brand C's processor. However, with a mobile device, since there isn't the same "customization" ability with the hardware, consumers ought to know that they are buying into a "closed" system. If something wasn't released originally and wasn't promised in a future upgrade, then that is what they are buying.

In terms of the lack of screen responsiveness: that is probably something that I have gotten used to. I have read the reviews prior to acquiring a Tilt and for what I need, the pros definitely outweigh the cons and I made an informed decision realizing that the lack of screen responsiveness wasn't going to be that big of an issue. To others, it may. To those people, I am not sure that drivers would truly fix the problem. I have installed cooked ROMs from XDA-Developers and some ROMs have better screen response time than others.

[Pony99CA]

As for Pony99CA, you just really need to stop being the good sheep, grazing in the open fields your corporate masters provide, with blinders on as to who else uses the field.
Get a grip, please. I don't have "corporate masters" here; I'm a volunteer and pretty much say what I want (often to the chagrin of the site's owners).

Think about others, not just yourself.
I am. I'm thinking of what's right, not just what's good for a few users. It's not right for people to expect something that they weren't promised. Video acceleration wasn't promised, so HTC doesn't need to provide it.

However, I did say that I thought that HTC should provide the drivers, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

No one is saying the TyTN II is not a magnificent machine, we're just stating that it's under-performing[....]
And, as I've said previously, I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I think that's a valid and reasonable point.

However, I draw the line at people who feel entitled to something they weren't promised, especially if they threaten to sue about it. If you can't understand that, that's your problem, not mine.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

My personal take is that HTC should have released the drivers, but they didn't. They never advertised that they would and don't have an obligation to release drivers. If they did, that would be great PR and good customer service. However, if they didn't, it's within their rights as nothing was promised.
I agree 100% with you.

In the analogy with the XP computer, the main difference here is that people buy PCs and know that the parts can be mixed and matched and customized to their needs. People can buy Brand A Graphics Card, install X gigs of RAM from Brand B, and utilize Brand C's processor. However, with a mobile device, since there isn't the same "customization" ability with the hardware, consumers ought to know that they are buying into a "closed" system. If something wasn't released originally and wasn't promised in a future upgrade, then that is what they are buying.
That's a good point. Embedded devices are significantly different than open PCs.

However, in this case, I wonder if HTC has to be the one to release the drivers. Are they more or less plug-and-play, or would HTC have to customize them (or other parts of the OS)?

If they require customization, I can see why HTC might not want to release them, because that would require engineering effort. If they don't require customization, then why not ask Qualcomm to release them if HTC won't?

Steve

[Pony99CA]

After doing your homework into chipsets and device capabilities, and made a decision to buy a piece of high end equipment based on all the publicly available information, would you not assume it was built and sold to meet the lofty "marketing terms" they were sold by?
The problem is your reliance on "all the publicly available information". As I've said before, just because Qualcomm made it public that the chip has video acceleration hardware doesn't mean that HTC uses that particular feature of the chip. You can only rely on what HTC says in their specs to see what they support. How is that not obvious?

To put it another way, I'd expect Qualcomm to hype every possible feature that their chip supports. That's good marketing for them. However, that doesn't mean that any given OEM will support all of those features. And, if Qualcomm charges extra for drivers for some of those features (as somebody speculated), I can certainly understand why HTC might not want to pay for them. That's business.

I'm not saying that's the best way to do business, mind you, just that I understand it.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

As others have said, of course dedicated hardware is more efficient than using the brute force of the main processor. That's common sense.
Maybe not so common. I seem to recall reading that high-end PC graphics coprocessors are often more powerful than the CPU in the PC itself (which is why some take two slots and have their own large fans).

Knowing that, I asked if what was stated as fact had been proven. Your claim of obviousness is not proof.

(a) because those devices aren't advertised as containing video acceleration hardware. The Tytn II is, whichever way you cut it - they name the chip.
Sorry, but as I've said before, naming the chip doesn't mean that you support every feature of the chip.

(b) because according to HTC, the Tytn II is, and I quote, "More powerful than any mobile communications device you've seen before." I note that everyone else seems to be brushing over that extraordinary claim on HTC's site, but to me it makes it quite clear that the Tytn II should be outperforming the Tytn I, and pretty much every other handset you can name. It doesn't.
I'll accept that the TyTN II is underperforming. That means you might have grounds for a false advertising claim. However, it still doesn't mean that they promised video acceleration.

Consider it another way. Suppose the TyTN II did outperform every other handset without the video drivers. Would you still be complaining about not having the drivers?

When they say "most powerful", that's not about performance?
Not necessarily. It could be, but it could be saying that its combination of function, storage capacity, reception ("more bars") and other factors was better than any other device (whether that's true or not).

More likely, it's just marketing hype. Again, that could be false advertising, but it still doesn't mean they promised a specific thing like video acceleration.

You know, that website doesn't mention that the Tytn II has a microphone. You might assume it does, since it's advertised as a phone, but it doesn't say the mic is included. Or indeed anything about communication being two-way. Would you be surprised if it wasn't?
And you called my analogies "crap"? :confused: :rolleyes: :eek:

Taking your question seriously, though, to be a telephone, you need to be able to transmit and receive sound to another phone. If there's a way to transmit sound without a microphone to another phone, then I'd say expecting a mic would be assuming too much; if there's not, then a microphone would obviously be expected.

However, your analogy is crap in another way. A PDA can display data just fine with no video acceleration, so video acceleration isn't a given like two-way audio is in a telephone.

Rubbish. The video acceleration is advertised in the form of the chip - it's a chip which features video acceleration, pure and simple.
See my previous responses to you and Nick. Just because the chip has it doesn't imply every OEM will support it.

More to the point, why on earth would should anyone imagine that video acceleration isn't going to be supported, when it has been on the previous Tytn and pretty much everything else they've produced?
I don't know. Maybe it was the first time they used the Qualcomm chip and the drivers weren't available during development? Maybe Qualcomm wanted too much money for the drivers? Who knows?

The point is that you can't assume they would be there. As stock brokers say, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Compaq/HP used to provide OS upgrades for almost all of their iPAQ Pocket PCs; now they hardly provide any. Does that make me mad? Yes. Did I rail about it here and in other forums? Yes. Should I have assumed they would make an upgrade available? No. Should I threaten to sue them because they didn't? Absolutely not.

It comes back to the same argument - why assume it can make calls? Why assume you can hear anybody on it? Why assume it isn't made of silly putty? Because we're not morons.
Based on your two arguments there, that last point remains to be proven.... :eek:

Ah yes - because if we assume it has something then we're idiots for not researching our purchase properly, but if we research our purchases we're being geeks, right? Win-win for HTC either way, eh?
Not at all. You should research your purchases, of course, but you shouldn't assume it has anything beyond the specs (and maybe trusted reviews).

Just because Qualcomm included a feature on the chip doesn't mean that every OEM will support it. Do you sense a theme here?

I don't see how any reasonable person reading that the Tytn II was "more powerful than any mobile communications device you've seen before" would assume that it wasn't at least as good as previous HTC products in such a basic area.
Ah, but I didn't assume that. Based on their claims of being "most powerful", I can understand why you'd assume that the overall performance of the device (not just the video performance) would be better -- and that's why I mentioned false advertising.

My only point is that expecting (and suing over the lack of) an unpromised video driver is wrong.

But that's nonsense, because the hardware [b]is[/i] available - you know that by reading the spec sheet. It's there in the phone. It's been advertised to you. You've bought and paid for it. Why on earth would you not expect to be able to use it?
Yes, the hardware is available. However, show me one place where HTC specifically promises video acceleration and I'll support you completely. If you can't do that, then it wasn't advertised to you by HTC.

If the only place you read about video acceleration was in the Qualcomm spec sheet, why aren't you going after Qualcomm? Well, because they can't control what features the OEMs using their chips choose to implement. And, by the same token, HTC is free to pick and choose which features of the chip they support.

No, it's an absolutely crap analogy, because it's blindingly obvious from one look whether a phone has a card slot or not. Like most of the crap analogies people have been dredging up, it's also proves the point that it's not so easy to see a missing video driver - at least not at first.
OK, here's a software analogy (that I'm sure you'll love :D). Most Windows Mobile PDAs nowadays come with Bluetooth, but some use the default Microsoft stack and some use the Widcomm/Broadcom stack. Some software written for the Microsoft stack doesn't work with other stacks. Should you sue the OEMs who use the Widcomm/Broadcom stacks because they aren't supporting a feature that's in the OS (the Microsoft Bluetooth stack)?

As should be obvious, this campaign is not really about HTC's legal obligations (which we all know are slim to none), it's about righting a moral wrong which HTC have knowingly inflicted on their userbase.
If there's no legal obligation to provide the drivers, then they shouldn't be talking about class action lawsuits and threatening to sue. Duh!

It's about getting them to do the right thing, by applying the muscle of publicity when everything else has failed. Play the semantics all you will, but it's a pretty pathetic argument - I only hope you're on the recieving end of it some day.
I think I am right now....

And I disagree that it's the "right" thing. Right for whom? I think making the drivers available would be a good thing (which I've said) and that publicizing the lack is reasonable (which I've said).

I just think feeling entitled to the drivers is wrong, and I think threatening to sue when you have no legal grounds is ridiculous.

But forget everything else. Do you agree with my last two sentences? That's the main thrust of my argument; everything else is just support for why I feel that way.

Steve

[Rainman]

Rainman:


You do realize, though, that the original comment was about the TyTN II using all it currently has under its hood to its maximum available potential? You're in need of some enlightening as to what the phone is purported to do and what it actually does. The original comment was not asking for the device to do "exactly everything we wanted," but rather exactly everything it is stated to be able to do, at a reasonable rate. 2.3 FPS for a camera from 2007 is acceptable to you? Maybe you should put your wagon in the barn and test drive an, "auto-mobile."

With that being said, because of the raised-nose attitude of the moderators/admins of this site, I think this will be my last visit. Good day, sirs.

Not to sound cliched, but perhaps we can agree to disagree. I agree with Chuong and Pony99CA that while HTC probably should have released the video drivers, they had never advertised the video acceleration. While I accept that fact that there are plenty of people that are having issues with the performance of their Kaisers (as shown in several YouTube videos I have seen), there are several people that do not have this problem at all. So I am not even sure that video drivers would solve the issue. With that, why can't we ask Qualcomm to release the drivers since it is their chip?

If HTC does release an update to include the video drivers, than kudos to them for listening to their customer base. But if not, then we can either accept the device as is (good or bad) or move onto something that will fit our needs.

[UndaC]

With that, why can't we ask Qualcomm to release the drivers since it is their chip?

Because Qualcomm has no business with us. We haven't paid them a single dime.

Besides there might be an issue of the driver/software/codebase being under license fees and if that's true (I'm in talks with Qualcomm and ATi/AMD about this subject at the moment) then Qualcomm would actually lose money by handing out drivers.

[J_J]

This is 'quicky' reply, so I'm not going to search the relevant posts and quote those, however I do want to point some things out:

-- Comparison between PC / PocketPC and people knowing PC's are upgradable, etc. --

Utter nonsense. Yes, many people know, many more do not. Sure if I ask around under my peers, they'll know. If I'd ask around at my peers parents, girlfriends, wives, etc, most of them will not. I sincerely doubt the number of people who know is anywhere near 50% of the users.

-- Comment about power use with and without accelleration --

You might have done some research and unearthed Qualcomm's spec sheets and presentations on the matter, and you would see that hey have benchmarked it and with accelleration indeed uses less power than without.

-- Naming E. Hoogendijk --

First, doing that was in bad taste from the start - I know, that is subjective, so lets not go into that. However, if you did any real research, you would know that this guy is just the technology contact at a domain registrar and has absolutely nothing to do with that site whatsoever, he probably doesn't even know it exists.

-- HTC not being legally obliged to provide these features --

First, and it seems everybody here agrees on this, it can be seen as false advertising. However, when HTC themselves release a spec sheet that lists the MSM7200 and no further information on display capabilities, and hardware display accelleration is one of the MAJOR features of the chipset, it is fair to expect that this feature will be available. In fact, in several countries this IS seen under law as 'implied functionality', and as they have not stated otherwise, are thus legally obligated to provide it.

-- Driver availability, portability and contacting Qualcomm and/or ATI --

If you contacting the other two companies hasn't been tried then you are wrong - THEY however, have no obligation to us whatsoever. Furthermore, if you believe that these drivers can just be gotten from from any device having them and putting them on our affected devices, that just shows how little you know about Windows Mobile internals. It may be possible with heavy hacking (across non-HTC and HTC built devices), so far, nobody has succeeded though. There are differences in kernels, XIP, addressing and whatnot to consider.

And yes, again according to Qualcomm spec sheets and presentations, these drivers were available at 'launch'.

-- Drivers not being the issue --

While for example with touchscreen it IS possible that this is not a driver issue (unlikely, though), I fail to see how 3D games not running on devices that have neither a Direct3D nor OpenGL ES driver, is not driver related.

--

Well that's all for now.

[Pony99CA]

Speaking of themes, there is a recurring one here at PocketNow. Any negative comment involving Windows Mobile is savagely refuted and frankly, it's getting old and is something I thought was exclusive to Apple enthusiasts.
Nonsense. We've all probably criticized Windows Mobile, and I don't have a problem with well-reasoned and rational criticism of Windows Mobile.

The home page post that I made about Just Another Mobile Monday's post was because they took a "sky is falling" approach with a headline of "Windows Mobile Is Broken", and I was pointing out why it wasn't. In fact, I believe that I said that I actually agreed with many of the points in that article. Gizmodo has had a similar attitude, IMHO, and I've tried refuting those posts.

However, remember that we made home page posts about both of those articles. That's hardly a tactic we'd take if we were rabid fanboys.

Just because something could use fixes in a few places doesn't mean the whole item is broken. If my car's fender is dented, the air conditioning doesn't work and the trunk won't stay locked, it needs to be fixed, but the car itself isn't broken; I can still drive it safely.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Besides there might be an issue of the driver/software/codebase being under license fees and if that's true (I'm in talks with Qualcomm and ATi/AMD about this subject at the moment) then Qualcomm would actually lose money by handing out drivers.
Fair enough. And if HTC made them available, they might lose some of the profit margin they built into their pricing.

Would it be OK if HTC made the drivers available for a price?

Steve

[Pony99CA]

-- Comment about power use with and without accelleration --

You might have done some research and unearthed Qualcomm's spec sheets and presentations on the matter, and you would see that hey have benchmarked it and with accelleration indeed uses less power than without.
Thanks for that information. I didn't research it because, frankly, I didn't care. I just wanted to ensure that the claim wasn't being made without a factual basis (as opposed to claiming it was "obvious").

-- Naming E. Hoogendijk --

First, doing that was in bad taste from the start - I know, that is subjective, so lets not go into that. However, if you did any real research, you would know that this guy is just the technology contact at a domain registrar and has absolutely nothing to do with that site whatsoever, he probably doesn't even know it exists.
First, that name was listed as the Registrant in WHOIS, not just the Technical Contact. Unless he's using some privacy service, that should mean that he's supposed to have been the one to register the domain, and therefore should have some idea that it exists.

But what "real research" should I have done?

As for being in bad taste, it's public information available to anybody online. Also, I only posted a name (and not even a full name); I didn't post any E-mail address, physical address or telephone number, so I reject your claim.

However, if the domain isn't his and he asks me to remove his name from the post (or the real registrant steps forward), I'll be happy to do so.

-- HTC not being legally obliged to provide these features --

First, and it seems everybody here agrees on this, it can be seen as false advertising. However, when HTC themselves release a spec sheet that lists the MSM7200 and no further information on display capabilities, and hardware display accelleration is one of the MAJOR features of the chipset, it is fair to expect that this feature will be available. In fact, in several countries this IS seen under law as 'implied functionality', and as they have not stated otherwise, are thus legally obligated to provide it.
OK, if there are countries where that would be considered "implied functionality", then they may well have a legal duty to supply the drivers -- assuming that merely naming a chip is sufficient to imply that all functionality of that chip is used even if the specs don't indicate that it is.

So let me ask one last time -- if a vendor uses a chip, are they obligated to spell out which features they use or don't use? I don't think so. If nobody addresses this issue that I've raised several times, I will consider any further discussion unproductive.

-- Driver availability, portability and contacting Qualcomm and/or ATI --

Furthermore, if you believe that these drivers can just be gotten from from any device having them and putting them on our affected devices, that just shows how little you know about Windows Mobile internals.
If you're referring to me, I actually assumed that they aren't plug-and-play, but I could have been wrong, which is why I asked.

As for knowing little about Windows Mobile internals, I'm not an OS-level programmer and don't hack ROMs, and you may know more about that than I do. However, I have worked for a company that created Windows Mobile devices. (Technically, we didn't build the device or create the Windows Mobile build; we added our own software for the ROM builds -- a process that I assisted in -- and the OEM actually built the image and the devices.) I also wrote two of the small programs that were included on that device. So I'll wager that I'm more knowledgeable than most about the process.

-- Drivers not being the issue --

While for example with touchscreen it IS possible that this is not a driver issue (unlikely, though), I fail to see how 3D games not running on devices that have neither a Direct3D nor OpenGL ES driver, is not driver related.
I don't believe that anybody said that the video driver wasn't related to 3D games. I said that the touchscreen problems were likely a different issue, and, as this thread was about the video drivers, we should stick to that issue.

Steve

[dsilver]

As one who received a brand new Tilt (after several consecutive insolvable 8525 issues/devices) for free, my woes are probably not nearly as poignant as those that have paid full "retail." The most annoying point for me is changing the SIP method. If I am using the keyboard for input and want to switch to RapidCalc or the built-in transcriber, it takes up to 10 seconds (without exaggeration) for the Tilt to display my choices after touching the SIP option icon. It THAT is due to the "video driver" issue, then, yes, I do feel cheated. If what I'm having is an isolated problem, then I will (once again) contact at&t's "crack" support team. As an aside, when I was having problems with my 8525, I had to go through 3 support levels before I was forced to talk to HTC's support folks. One of those people told me that to deal with the problem I was having, I would have to periodically hard reset my device and/or delete the partnership between pc/ppc and start over - time and again, depending on the frequency of my problem. I felt that this was not a viable option and, after encountering the same problems with 3 different devices, demanded an upgrade. I don't depend on my device as a pmp, and so don't worry about the video lag time. The same goes for the camera's lack of performance. What I don't understand about the driver issue is why, if the chip is included and the device itself can be more versatile with its empowerment, HTC decided not to include it. Frankly, the prices of smartphones are almost beyond ridiculous. Since the original retail was so high, I don't understand why the license agreement for the use of the driver wasn't agreed upon between Qualcomm and HTC before the phone's release. It may have artificially jacked the retail price up another hundred bucks or so, but, what the heck..