zlacker

>>xairy+(OP)
I thought the whole point of these camera LEDs was to have them wired to/through the power to the camera, so they are always on when the camera is getting power, no matter what.

Having the LED control exposed through the firmware completely defeats this.

>>sbarre+T1
"Add an LED next to the camera, our customers demand it!"

"Job done boss!"

That's it. That's what happens. Nobody ever reviews anything in the general industry. It's extremely rare for anyone to raise a stink internally about anything like this, and if they do, they get shouted down as "That's more expensive" even if it is in every way cheaper, or "We'll have to repeat this work! Are you saying Bob's work was a waste of time and money!?" [1]

[1] Verbatim, shouted responses I've received for making similar comments about fundamentally Wrong things being done with a capital W.

>>jiggaw+J3
Lawyers after the fact review this. I expect one to start a class action - they will make millions, and everyone else who has this laptop will get $1. The real point is the millions means every other company is on notice that these mistakes hurt the bottom line and so the industry starts to review these things. So long as it doesn't hurt they won't review.

I feel really dirty calling lawyers the good guy here, but ...

>>bluGil+2d
What law as been broken by not implementing this feature?

>>daedrd+ig
If they promise a feature they don't have that is falwe advertising.

>>bluGil+GC
The feature is an LED light next to the camera. They delivered it.

>>jiggaw+ib1
The exact words matter. If they call it a led they are maybe fine. If they call it a camera on led they are sunk. Even if they just call it a led, the implication that it is about camera on is an arguement the courts will not toss out - though how they rule is not as clear