I really wish somebody would take on a Class Action against companies that do this sort of thing. Far too often these days, updates remove or break functions that somebody uses. The definition of a 'reasonable life' should be defined for every product, but as in the case of the Devialet Phantom, this is defacto defined as the 2 year warranty, as once out of warranty, you're on your own.So (hypothetically), if you had purchased that item based on that functionality, and communicated that to the retailer at the time of purchase, under Australian Consumer Law, you would be entitled to remedy or full refund as it would be classified as a major fault, not representative of the sample shown and not as advertised? After all, the thing is only 4 years old and surely has not satisfied the expectation of a 'reasonable' life of such a device has it?
Not speaking as a class-action lawyer, just a goober on ASR.
S,