You can dial your 2400 baud modem if you find another endpoint or operate one yourself, you're not bound to a specific provider. Fax machines still work after all.

You can run norton antivirus for DOS in whatever state it was when it was last sold.

So now all I have to do is find someone who keeps a bank of 2400 baud modems and an updated list of virus definition files.

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.

But this is the point, manufacturers should offer improved features as incentives not intentionally and gratuitously deprecating older products.

It is an optional feature in this case. He could go out and buy a regular cartridge and print from his same printer.

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.

A general-purpose computer with a general-purpose operating system and a general-purpose network adapter tied to it absolutely does not require Norton Antivirus or its virus definitions to function. Correspondingly, Norton is not involved in manufacturing any of these components.

That seems like a distinction without a difference. I hypothetically bought a product that requires a service for functionality - Norton Antivirus. According to the parent poster, Norton should be required to keep their service running.

Should Sony also be forced to keep their service running for PS1 games that had an online component - forever?

> 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.)

Technically you didn't buy a Norton Antivirus, you entered into a license agreement. Software is, unfortunately, almost always leased and not bought. However, I would very much be into forcing companies to either a) keep their service running forever, or b) allow the user to use a third-party service - in this case, virus definitions. This is in line with my comment elsewhere in the thread - companies should be allowed to either a) sell a product that doesn't require a service, and if it uses a service, it should support compatible third-party services as well, or b) lease the product as a part of a service. They should explicitly be banned from selling a product that requires their particular service to function.

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?)

You’re right. It was first introduced with the PS2 in 2000. I do however have a vague recollection of early cartridge based systems where you could download games over cable.

You're probably thinking of Sega Channel [1] which was functionally like Microsoft's Game Pass that is available now. You knew that you would only have access to the games as long as you subscribed, and that they could be changed at any point by Sega.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Channel

>Should Sony also be forced to keep their service running for PS1 games that had an online component - forever?

Yes! Absolutely they should.