MyLink Firmware upgrade

[stooge]

Is there any legal recourse.

For map updates, no.
There is no update since the last one which was around 2017/2018.
Gm used a proprietary packaging method for the map data so it cant be updated by a 3rd party unless someone reverse engineers the method used which probably wont happen.

The map "updates" were sold as an aftersales option on a per upgrade cost so even if you tried the legal route you would quickly find that it would go nowhere unless you can find paperwork that states the map "updates" were guaranteed as a part of the contract of sale.

If you do manage to find some legal recourse then post back here about it so others can give it a go.

 

[Skylarking]

For map updates, no.
There is no update since the last one which was around 2017/2018.
Gm used a proprietary packaging method for the map data so it cant be updated by a 3rd party unless someone reverse engineers the method used which probably wont happen.

The map "updates" were sold as an aftersales option on a per upgrade cost so even if you tried the legal route you would quickly find that it would go nowhere unless you can find paperwork that states the map "updates" were guaranteed as a part of the contract of sale.

If you do manage to find some legal recourse then post back here about it so others can give it a go.

Mylink navigation was an expensive item where it could be ordered as an option. Where Mylink navigation was a standard inclusion (for specific variant) that high cost was built in to the vehicles cost.

Whichever way one bought Mylink navigation, the average purchaser’s expectations would be that updates would be provided periodically, at a minimum, for the duration of the vehicles warranty period. And many of these average purchasers would also expect that Holden would provide map updates well past the warranty period. It’s all an implied expectation in the purchase. And the fact the updates were handled as an after sales action doesn’t change the buyers expectations that updates would continue to be made available.

Such consumer expectations that map updates would be provided would be difficult for Holden to go against even if they have small print in some doc which wasn’t highlighted to the average consumer at vehicle purchase. Heck even clauses in contracts can be struck out by the courts as an unconscionable contract condition.

I also don’t see how Holden would be able to defend the fact that they choose not to provide updated map data while also choosing to keep a proprietary format that excludes others from providing such a service. It’s an indefensible position really…

The fact many other vehicle manufacturers provide free map updates during the warranty period and/or allow 3rd parties to provide map updates doesn’t bode well for Holdens stance.

But it really needs to go before a judge to decide. Sadly the question can then become about what loss one suffers from such outdated maps given they can use their phone… Courts dish out punishments and a loss helps them quantify what that punishment should be.

To go down the (small claims?) court path, an individual needs to be so aggrieved to actually take that step but the loss issue is a problem. It’s probably why we haven't seen a class action on this subject…

It all may be a case of the paintiff wins but because no loss is quantified the defendant pays nothing.

If anyone does take the plunge, I’d want the courts to force Holden to open up Mylink so others can provide map updates (and the app store that we were promised back in 2013) but I’d guess that such forced labour is beyond small claims courts…

 

[stooge]

the average purchaser’s expectations would be that updates would be provided periodically,

just because the consumer expects that map updates would be provided does not mean that they "have" to be provided under acl.
consumers can have all sorts of expectations about a product they purchase but just because they expect something it does not make it law.

with things like gps navigation unless the manufacturer specifically states a map update period or terms then they dont have to supply them.

a gps device at the time of purchase operates "as described" and that is what the consumer purchased and no reasonable person would expect that 5~8 years later the manufacturer must provide updates to that device unless it was a part of the original description or within the sales contract and that is how gm will get away with it under acl.

an out of date mapping system does not constitute a "major failure" so you would need to fight for it under the provision that it makes the vehicle "unsafe" because the navigation system still does what is described and that is "navigation".

so you will need to prove that the x year old maps cause the vehicle to be unsafe to get any where under acl and we are not talking about assumptions and theories here, you will need verifiable proof/documentation that shows it and i cant see that happening.

i am sure that if 1 single member could force some form of legal recourse on this issue and post the results here it would open the floodgates for every member in the same situation but so far there has been nothing.

I’d want the courts to force Holden to open up Mylink

that would violate intellectual property laws so that will never happen, that is like saying apple must open up the ios update system on my iphone 3 because i purchased it 10+ years ago and i expect them to update it but they wont.

 

[Skylarking]

just because the consumer expects that map updates would be provided does not mean that they "have" to be provided under acl.
consumers can have all sorts of expectations about a product they purchase but just because they expect something it does not make it law.

with things like gps navigation unless the manufacturer specifically states a map update period or terms then they dont have to supply them.

a gps device at the time of purchase operates "as described" and that is what the consumer purchased and no reasonable person would expect that 5~8 years later the manufacturer must provide updates to that device unless it was a part of the original description or within the sales contract and that is how gm will get away with it under acl.

an out of date mapping system does not constitute a "major failure" so you would need to fight for it under the provision that it makes the vehicle "unsafe" because the navigation system still does what is described and that is "navigation".

so you will need to prove that the x year old maps cause the vehicle to be unsafe to get any where under acl and we are not talking about assumptions and theories here, you will need verifiable proof/documentation that shows it and i cant see that happening.

i am sure that if 1 single member could force some form of legal recourse on this issue and post the results here it would open the floodgates for every member in the same situation but so far there has been nothing.

that would violate intellectual property laws so that will never happen, that is like saying apple must open up the ios update system on my iphone 3 because i purchased it 10+ years ago and i expect them to update it but they wont.

The ACL statutory warranty duration itself is written around what the average consumer’s expectations would be for the type of product purchased, the price paid and such stuff. It’s purposely vague.

Likewise what the average consumer expectation would be around gps updates would form a part of the purchase bargain. It’s an expectation that the seller can easily alter by highlighting how their product differs from that generally sold within the market. Else as the seller aught to know what the market expects, sales that hide the fact they don’t meet those average consumer expectations can look like they are knowingly being deceptive. And courts already have a dim view of companies relying on small print buried in some document to justify deceptive conduct.

As far as I’m aware, Holden never highlighted to the buyer that they may cease to provide map updates while the vehicle was still covered by the factory warranty. As such, it’s more difficult for Holden to claim the avergae consumers expectations are irrelevant especially when other manufacturers handle gps map updates within service/warranty systems. Without some affirmative action on the sellers behalf, at the time of purchase, a buyers reasonable expectations can’t be simple dismissed.

Again it’s not unreasonable to expect map updates to be provided during the factory warranty period which means that as the last VF were sold in 2018 map updates should be available at least until 2025 if not longer. And given that map updates were sold through Holden service/parts and the manufacturer have obligations to provide parts supply for 10 years after last vehicle sold, there is that as.. But Holden have gone AWOL.

As for the GPS working when sold, well in my case many of the local streets where I frequented simply weren’t defined within the map data, nor were they defined within the last map data that Holden loaded into Mylink (at their cost during service). In that context the GPS didnt work as described… It required that I purchase a Navman to be able to navigate those areas which I guess defines part of the loss I suffered should I bother with small claim

What’s also important is that a claim under ACL doesn’t have to be a major fault or a safety related issue. A claim can be associated with a minor fault which the seller or manufacturer won’t correct. Interestingly a minor fault can even escalate to become a major fault under ACL if the fault isn’t repaired in a timely manner or after a number of repair attempts.

The fact Holden doesn’t care to provide map updates (to correct a localised mapping deficiency) could be argued that they have failed in their repair attempt if that localised deficiency impacts the buyer. As such the minor fault can become a major fault under ACL which in itself could open up a bigger can of worms for the manufacturer.

But all arguments would need to be put before a judge who will need to be convince that one hasn't received the full benefit of their purchase (because of outdated maps). As mentioned, small claim don't have to be related to safety Issues. Heck many a small claim have been related to aesthetics of repairs…

As to why nothing has been done via small claims to date, well it may be because it is a PITA going to small claims court and most would simply prefer to use their phone for navigation (since they already use it for calls and texting while driving ). The fact it hasn’t gone to court doesn’t mean it can’t be successful with arguments a judge is willing to hear.

And if someone ever goes to small claims court and wins, that doesn’t automatically mean every other case will succeed on the same grounds. After all, each small case is seen as a stand alone thing unless it has made its way through appeals to the top court and becomes a precedence.

PS: the proprietary argument is just a furphy as laws have been used to force companies to do all sorts of things, including breaking them up. Heck, Apple who are the king of proprietary will now produce an iPhone with usb-C port else they won’t be able to sell into the EU.

The more governments stand up to the multinational proprietary bullies, the better outcomes will exist for consumers. Right to repair and all that…

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Soooo... ever heard of Google maps and Apple maps on a device you carry with you all the time these days ? Always up to date and free to update

I gave up on Holden's nav long time ago.

No need to dwell on it if there are other and better options out there.

 

[stooge]

The ACL statutory warranty duration itself is written around what the average consumer’s expectations would be for the type of product purchased, the price paid and such stuff. It’s purposely vague.

you can make all of the assumptions you like about what expectations can be made under acl but it pretty much boils down to 4 key points and one or all of these criteria must be met for you to win.

1- is unsafe;
2- departs from the description or sample model;
3- is substantially unfit for a common or specific purpose, and the defect cannot be easily and quickly repaired; or
4- would not have been bought by a reasonable customer knowing the nature and extent of the failure.

1- the gps being outdated does not make it unsafe.
2- it did not depart from the sample model at the time of sale because that model had the same or less level of map data
3- it is not "substantially" unfit because it does infact work for 99% of locations
4- it is not a failure as it operates like it did on the day of purchase.

you need to prove that the map data not being updated meets the criteria of an acl case.
your definition of what a "reasonable person" expects will be wildly different to what a magistrates will be.

like i have said you need to prove that map updates being provided were a part of the sales contract.

because you cant prove that part you need to move on to other points of acl so is it unsafe? you need to prove it.
would you have not purchased the vehicle if you knew map updates ended in 2018? you need to prove it.
is it "substantially" unfit for the purpose of navigation? you need to prove it.


i am no LegalEagle but i will bet dollars to donuts that anyone going to small claims over this issue with the vf will fail hard and fast.

if someone wants to take the time then contact the ACCC and explain the situation to them and ask what can be done.

PS: the proprietary argument is just a furphy as laws have been used to force companies to do all sorts of things, including breaking them up. Heck, Apple who are the king of proprietary will now produce an iPhone with usb-C port else they won’t be able to sell into the EU.

a usb port has nothing to do with violating IP laws it is a design mandate no different to a seatbelt mandate in a vehicle.
the mandate of a specific charging connector does not violate apples ip, apple could try and argue that it does but that will be a frivolous attempt.

the right to repair movement is not seeking to violate ip laws, it seeks to gain access to tools, parts or board schematics for the process of repair.
the right to repair movement has a clear statement that they do not wish to infringe on intellectual property, they do not want access to proprietary software, they do not seek to have chips/parts deserialized or encryptions decoded.

ip laws have seen many sites/businesses shut down and people jailed all over europe in the last 2 decades so the eu is not the bastion of law freedom that you think it is and infact the eu has created some of the harshest ip laws to date.

but all of that crap aside...
the update scheme used in the mylink is encrypted and packaged using a mechanism designed by gm or a company they tasked to do the job so it remains their intellectual property and you are not going to see a small claims court force gm to publicly reveal intellectual property.

 

[Skylarking]

you can make all of the assumptions you like about what expectations can be made under acl but it pretty much boils down to 4 key points and one or all of these criteria must be met for you to win.

1- is unsafe;
2- departs from the description or sample model;
3- is substantially unfit for a common or specific purpose, and the defect cannot be easily and quickly repaired; or
4- would not have been bought by a reasonable customer knowing the nature and extent of the failure.

The way the statute is written is important and you've flipped it somewhat while adding your own conditions...

Part 3-2—Consumer transactions

Subdivision A—Guarantees relating to the supply of goods

54 Guarantee as to acceptable quality
(1) If:
(a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and

(b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction;

there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.

(2) Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as:

(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and

(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and

(c) free from defects; and

(d) safe; and

(e) durable;

as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).

(3) The matters for the purposes of subsection (2) are:

(a) the nature of the goods; and

(b) the price of the goods (if relevant); and

(c) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods; and

(d) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or manufacturer of the goods; and

(e) any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply of the goods.

(6) Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if:

(a) the consumer to whom they are supplied causes them to become of unacceptable quality, or fails to take reasonable steps to prevent them from becoming of unacceptable quality; and

(b) they are damaged by abnormal use.

The requirement as written in law is that a product must be of acceptable quality which means it must meet all the conditions within in (2) for it to be considered of acceptable quality. It could simply fail in any one of these mentioned conditions for it to be considered "not of acceptable quality"...

As written, there is no requirement that a product must be unsafe, or can't be easily be repaired, or some other condition you specify for a statutory warranty claim to be made to the courts.. It's required in law for the product meet all conditions mentioned within (2) else to fail in just one condition means to "not be of acceptable quality"

As is, GPS navigation units are purchased to help people get from A to B, doubt anyone can argue against that point. And to meet such a use case requires accurate map data which implies periodic map data updates are required. Without such periodic map data updates the routing accuracy can't be provided (where you can be sent the wrong way down a one way street) or in some cases the ability to route is completely lost (since the required area isn't within the map data).

It is the fact that map updates must be provided for a GPS to continue to be functional over time. Without map updates, routing gets progressively worse and worse (as streets change, get blocked off, become one way streets and/or speed zones change over time) unless you are unlucky and live in a new area (in which case you wont have the streets within the current map data and it was always a **** product that could never be fit for purpose unless updates were provided but they never were). The issue of whether map updates are provided free under warranty or a paid for purchase during or post warranty isn't the guiding issue here. The problem is that no map updates are being provided at all, even for those Holden vehicles still currently covered under warranty

The fact Holden isn't willing to provide the map updates or alternatively free up Mylink updates so others can provide them IMO isn't an excuse that Holden can use to overcomes the failing fit for purpose problem. IMO such can't be an excuse to throw away the primary purpose of the GPS unit that people payed good money for (or throw away that vehicle and buy another as much as the manufacturer would love that).

The average consumer expectation that forms part of the implied agreement that map updates will be periodically made available can't be so easily dismissed by Holdens crying poor. If they don't want to provide map updates and don't want to unlock thMyLink so others can provide the updates, then maybe they should refund people the cost of their sat navs since they can't make full use of them.

... a usb port has nothing to do with violating IP laws it is a design mandate no different to a seatbelt mandate in a vehicle.
the mandate of a specific charging connector does not violate apples ip, apple could try and argue that it does but that will be a frivolous attempt....

the update scheme used in the mylink is encrypted and packaged using a mechanism designed by gm or a company they tasked to do the job so it remains their intellectual property and you are not going to see a small claims court force gm to publicly reveal intellectual property.

Yep, the courts requiring Holden to release a Mylink firmware to remove any requirement for a proprietary wrapper of the map data doesn't infringe GM/Holdens IP rights acording to your reasoning any more than the EU requiring Apple to sell an iPhone with usb-c port and charger. May be there is hope for you

But if only our regulators has balls

 

[stooge]

The way the statute is written is important and you've flipped it somewhat while adding your own conditions...

Part 3-2—Consumer transactions

Subdivision A—Guarantees relating to the supply of goods

54 Guarantee as to acceptable quality
(1) If:
(a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and

(b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction;

there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.

(2) Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as:

(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and

(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and

(c) free from defects; and

(d) safe; and

(e) durable;

as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).

(3) The matters for the purposes of subsection (2) are:

(a) the nature of the goods; and

(b) the price of the goods (if relevant); and

(c) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods; and

(d) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or manufacturer of the goods; and

(e) any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply of the goods.

(6) Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if:

(a) the consumer to whom they are supplied causes them to become of unacceptable quality, or fails to take reasonable steps to prevent them from becoming of unacceptable quality; and

(b) they are damaged by abnormal use.

The requirement as written in law is that a product must be of acceptable quality which means it must meet all the conditions within in (2) for it to be considered of acceptable quality. It could simply fail in any one of these mentioned conditions for it to be considered "not of acceptable quality"...

As written, there is no requirement that a product must be unsafe, or can't be easily be repaired, or some other condition you specify for a statutory warranty claim to be made to the courts.. It's required in law for the product meet all conditions mentioned within (2) else to fail in just one condition means to "not be of acceptable quality"

As is, GPS navigation units are purchased to help people get from A to B, doubt anyone can argue against that point. And to meet such a use case requires accurate map data which implies periodic map data updates are required. Without such periodic map data updates the routing accuracy can't be provided (where you can be sent the wrong way down a one way street) or in some cases the ability to route is completely lost (since the required area isn't within the map data).

It is the fact that map updates must be provided for a GPS to continue to be functional over time. Without map updates, routing gets progressively worse and worse (as streets change, get blocked off, become one way streets and/or speed zones change over time) unless you are unlucky and live in a new area (in which case you wont have the streets within the current map data and it was always a **** product that could never be fit for purpose unless updates were provided but they never were). The issue of whether map updates are provided free under warranty or a paid for purchase during or post warranty isn't the guiding issue here. The problem is that no map updates are being provided at all, even for those Holden vehicles still currently covered under warranty

The fact Holden isn't willing to provide the map updates or alternatively free up Mylink updates so others can provide them IMO isn't an excuse that Holden can use to overcomes the failing fit for purpose problem. IMO such can't be an excuse to throw away the primary purpose of the GPS unit that people payed good money for (or throw away that vehicle and buy another as much as the manufacturer would love that).

The average consumer expectation that forms part of the implied agreement that map updates will be periodically made available can't be so easily dismissed by Holdens crying poor. If they don't want to provide map updates and don't want to unlock thMyLink so others can provide the updates, then maybe they should refund people the cost of their sat navs since they can't make full use of them.

Yep, the courts requiring Holden to release a Mylink firmware to remove any requirement for a proprietary wrapper of the map data doesn't infringe GM/Holdens IP rights acording to your reasoning any more than the EU requiring Apple to sell an iPhone with usb-c port and charger. May be there is hope for you

But if only our regulators has balls

i have not flipped anything, i wrote the actual requirements for a case to proceed, those points i posted are the actual points of argument in the court, you are just reposting the written legislation but when it comes to a court case the points i posted are the ones that are going to be argued.

you are free to google search and find a single instance of a manufacturer being forced to provide a map update on any gps device sold in australia that is outside the scope of their t/c or contract of sale and when you dont find that you need to wonder why that is while we have this written legislation of "must be of acceptable quality".

the mylink is of acceptable quality, it functions as described at the time of sale so your entire argument is as you like to put it "furphy" and by all means contact the ACCC and explain it to them and they will tell you the exact same thing.

when you purchased your vf with navigation there was no guarantee or specification of map updates or a duration of updates.

you know when you go buy a navman and it states "3 years map updates" or "lifetime map updates"?
what that means is you are guaranteed those updates for that period and in the case of say 3 years they can simply not provide updates for your device after 3 years and there is nothing you can do about it.

in the case of the vf there was no mention of duration or scope of map updates in the contract of sale(that i can find) so you literally have no leg to stand on, again ask the ACCC


you and i can talk sh!t about this all day long but until we see some actual evidence of a positive outcome from a case on this issue then it will always remain as "you have no legal recourse when it comes to map updates" because there has been none and we have no case to draw from.

prove me wrong, i dont mind waiting and if you do then it will be a positive for all vf owners on this forum so you will be helping many and i will be happy with that but until then you are just posting your "opinion" on how acl works on this particular matter and so am i and how it will play out in a courtroom is anyones guess.

the courts requiring Holden to release a Mylink firmware to remove any requirement for a proprietary wrapper of the map data doesn't infringe GM/Holdens IP rights

any forced public disclosure of proprietary code is an infringement on intellectual property no matter how great or small, this is not up for debate it is simple fact whether you like it or not.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

So much text

#googlemapsftw

 

[stooge]

So much text

#googlemapsftw

yep i use android auto in the zb with google maps and for the most part it has been the best out of all navigation devices i have ever used.