I would go further: IMO, the manufacturer should never be able to sell the device that requires a service to function, period. They should only be able to either a) sell the device that can be optionally tied to a service - not necessarily manufacturer's - but otherwise works fine without it, or b) rent a device as a part of a service, remaining responsible for its maintenance.
Model a) is how cell phones work - you buy a cell phone, a cellular connection is a separate service provided by multiple competing parties that are not the manufacturer. Model b) is how ISPs tend to work - they lend you hardware to connect to their network infrastructure, they replace it if it breaks, they take it away at the end of the contract, and they absolutely refuse to let you use their hardware with a different ISP.
You typically already have to provide full hardware schematic when submitting an electronic product to test labs to get various certifications.
It doesn't seem that far fetched that you would also have to submit server software and the certification house would keep it in escrow in case you go bankrupt.
I don't think it's realistic to expect that will happen though.
domain.com one day might be owned by $badDude - that's a huge risk
domain.com might return 404's - that's pretty terrible.
What happens to domain.com once $business is now $noLongerBusiness?
You can provide a method of flashing firmware onto the device itself (possible security risk?), but where do you get the files from? How do you verify they're safe?
Then, you need to host the server software itself (depending on how it's coded, that ranges from quite simple to your worst nightmare), and you expect someone to keep that secure? The EU dictates GDPR compliance, which adds additional cost to maintenance.
It's just easier and cheaper to just not bother with servers if the company can't keep them online.
Some devices might not be possible to update due to hardware/software configuration (perhaps certain variables are hard coded?).
Whilst what you're saying is right it just doesn't work that way. I'd love for all the Android devices to get years of OS and security patches, but it simply doesn't happen.
Any IoT device is pretty much the same. It's not going to change any time soon.
Only invest in products you can be sure of (which is hard these days). Expect them to break, expect nobody to care, and be prepared to lose money or get a terrible ROI - it's why phones don't get updates, the OEM doesn't make money from providing updates which are a direct cost VS selling a new phone.
This is capitalism, produce crap, sell many units, offer no support, rinse and repeat.
Furthermore, many countries now have some regulations regarding e-waste. Either now or in the making. And I expect "bricking" to be punished in some way. Right to repair comes to mind.
Exactly, why can’t I still dial in with my 2400 baud modem to get virus definitions for Norton Antivirus for my 386 that I bought in the 80s?
You can run norton antivirus for DOS in whatever state it was when it was last sold.
As far as using as it was, what good is virus protection software that only works for viruses created in the 80s?
Sure I can use a standalone gps device that I bought 10 years ago that doesn’t get updated but that doesn’t do me too much good navigating in a suburban area where most of the roads, houses and businesses didn’t even exist then.
I looked at the pricing. I would go for the free tier in a heartbeat- 15 pages a month and $1 for 10 (?) pages over that. I don’t print that often.
Should Sony also be forced to keep their service running for PS1 games that had an online component - forever?
On the other hand, would that even be particularly difficult?
For most companies making games with an online component, if they set aside 0.1% of revenue into a fund that would take over server costs once support ends, that fund would last for a very long time.
At a certain point the player base drops enough that you only need one server and a few hours a month of labor. (Less than one server, actually, once you factor in virtualization. Even if you want to have some redundancy and support multiple regions.)
As for Sony, PS1 games and on-line: similarly, whatever middleware there is that facilitates on-line gaming, endpoints should be user-configurable. Fortunately, at least PS1 the device doesn't require Internet to run.
(Come to think of it, did PS1 even support an Internet connection?)
Yes! Absolutely they should.
If the service was priced into the selling price of the device, game or other software though: nope, never. You did the math, you sold the device for that price, now keep on delivering.
That would not necessarily mean that they would have to run servers indefinitely, it could as well be in the form of releasing or open sourcing the related server software or the specifications (and required certificates for signing updates if applicable? That might be thorny though.) in a form that someone else could successfully take their place when they end-of-life a device.
Ideally in a form that would also work when the company closes shop, that is when no longer any form of workforce or capital for anything might be available.
It might be time to actually require that from (also software) manufacturers since there seems almost no change in that regard.