Remember when Amazon got in trouble for the ironic crime of remotely un-publishing 1984 from users’ Kindles? Well, they’re not the only ones capable of doing that, although in Barnes & Noble’s case it’s more of a technical snafu than a willful breach of user rights.
A user turned on his Nook after a while of not using it, and found that it insisted on updating itself. Not wishing to interfere, he let it run its course, and in the course of updating, it permanently deleted all non-B&N documents on the device, though his B&N-bought books could be restored. What the hell, right? Doesn’t that break like 10 basic laws of user experience design?
The worst part, though, was when he called it in. He assumed it was a bug, but he was told it was in fact his fault: he had failed to keep his Nook updated, and this was the consequence. The Nook couldn’t install the collected updates without wiping its memory.
It may fall under the “buyer beware” category, but the fact is that Barnes & Noble essentially hit a switch that caused this guy’s Nook to self-destruct, taking personal data with it. Is that something that should be tolerated?