Right next to the prominent label about causing cancer in the state of California, presumably.
I feel a notice wouldn't work here because the average consumer wouldn't understand the implications of depending on the manufacturer's servers or what it even means, plus every smart doorbell or whatever would just include it so it's not like it'd affect any consumer's choice
This product may be revoked at any time.
This product incurs $30 billion in annual fees.
This product sells your usage data.
The features present at time of purchase may be changed, downgraded, or removed at any time.
Just have no need for the hassles.
> you own nothing
> the company owns everything
> you have no rights
> you promise not to try and exercise any right you think you have
> just in case you ever get it in your silly little head that you do have any rights whatsoever, you agree to binding arbitration with the firm we pay
> you cannot do anything the company doesn't like
> the company can do literally anything it wants whether you like it or not
> the company is not responsible for anything ever
> the company makes absolutely no guarantees about anything
> but you agree to indemnify us in all possible circumstances
There's also the grey area of remote kill. It should be required to be disclosed up front and the company should be required to put up a deposit with the FTC for a simple you-can-live server. If the company shuts down the FTC's copy is spun up and anything that hasn't been killed continues to operate.
Why on earth can't I just send the command directly to my garage door opener over my LAN? That should be the simplest mode of operation possible. I only need Internet connectivity if I somehow want to close my garage door from miles away!
I'm pretty sure he's had it fail from right outside his house due to mobile network outages more often than he's used it from far away though.
Because of NAT. Your door opener isn't connected to the internet, it's connected to your router, which uses network address translation to make all your devices share a single internet connection. So your door opener can send outgoing messages no problem, and the NAT router will route those outside, and then route responses to those messages back to the opener, but there's no (easy) way for a device outside your home network to access your opener. Of course, your phone or PC is on your home network, but only when you're at home. Presumably, you also want to be able to control your door opener when you're not at home, and at those times, you have to get through the NAT. Doing that requires the company's server, or something like Tailscale which sets up a virtual private network (VPN) between your opener and selected devices. But even Tailscale requires some type of server on the internet to work, even though the main traffic goes direct.
Basically, what you're asking for could have been a reality if 1) we had IPv6 (or just not IPv4 with its very limited number of unique addresses), and 2) we didn't have to worry about security so we could feel safe putting random crappy IoT devices directly on the internet and not worrying about hackers opening our garage doors or houses so thieves could enter and take stuff.
I agree it would be ideal to use a local network path if possible, but given that remote access is a requirement, I can understand why they just made it the default.
Another option is to require companies go the Minecraft route where the "server" portion is always free to download and run but you need the paid client to actually connect to the servers to play the game.
Imagine if there were a product support guarantee corporation which took, say, 4% of the cost of retail electronics sales, in order to guarantee their long term support.
This might be OK for a huge company like Google, but for many others, what good is it? If the product folds, it's probably because the whole company folded, and when that happens, you're not getting a refund, regardless of what any contract says.
Did they promise that anywhere? No. Did they kept on their unwritten and unspoken promise? Yes, for years now. Do you have to be Apple to do this? I don't know, would love it if the answer was no, but looks like everyone else treats this as cost and Apple treats it as value added?
https://www.elkjop.no/product/hjem-rengjoring-og-kjokkenutst...
Unfortunately for electronic items the lifetime and spares information is usually blank because the manufacturer doesn't supply it.
A recent example - you buy a $1600 virtual reality headset (HP G2, specifically). A couple of years later the manufacturer drops support and Microsoft disables WMR capabilities.
This bricks a perfectly functional, expensive, device.
Personally, I feel the "right to repair" should extend to software. Why am I not allowed to revive an old mobile phone with a new OS version? Why am I not allowed to revive an old device by modernizing its hardware driver? Why can I not bring an old video game back to life?
Yes source code is IP - but maybe an expiration system similar to pharmaceuticals should apply where, for instance, a regulator compels a companies to release the sources of their drivers & services when a product or service is no longer officially supported.
This isn't acceptable, especially not for devices in that price range. I recommend to try it once as it is an experience, but otherwise VR is pretty much dead again. But don't buy Facebook or something similar, they simply don't offer support for their hardware.
Smartphones are a tragedy itself. Security theatre destroyed it. I could have a safer phone that is on a current patch level instead of using the OEM OS. But my digitally incompetent bank doesn't allow me to use a good phone to run a banking app, because it doesn't allow rooting devices.
Even without giving you any source, manufacturers could at least provide binaries and a mechanism to flash it to devices. There is no technical reason to not allow this.
So, ol' monkeyfun had a quest 2 controller grip button break. From gentle, ordinary gripping. And on the same day as fixing an unrelated problem in another controller. Tragedy!
Naturally this loser went to fix it. No guides? Oh well, at least she could see 3rd party 3D printed parts online for sale.
Might as well disassemble it to see how broken the part is, to know what to order. Whipped out tools, started disassem-- aaaaaaand it broke.
Not only was there a terribly placed ribbon cable made very difficult to access, not only were tons of parts inconsistently either held in by the lightest friction or intense nearly glued-together forces or strange catches, but the precise intersection of these aspects (and a ribbon cable that was seemingly stuck to the connector on just one pin) meant that when a disassembly step caused the controller to spontaneously fall apart into a few pieces, it was so forceful that it damaged that ribbon cable.
AAAAAAAAAAA!!!! ================
For what it's worth, I anyway discovered that the way the part broke would need me to extract an embedded piece of metal anyway and make some repairs to another piece of plastic, so it was never going to end in success.
But it really made me appreciate just how terribly designed those controllers are for repair. Even the component that broke was... designed to bend a piece of plastic repeatedly from what I could tell, rather than say just having a small metal spring.
So user-hostile.
- https://www.meta.com/us/en/quest/accessories/quest-2-control...
- https://www.meta.com/us/en/quest/accessories/quest-touch-plu...
On the software side they have been pretty great with support IMO, e.g. by adding 120Hz to the Quest 2 quite some time after release and opening up the Oculus GO, after they discontinued it. Maybe not valve-level but definitely much more than I expected from meta, and their hardware was a third of the price of valve's, despite having an actual APU in them!
You may now want to argue that these devices are older. That is true, you mostly need replacement parts for older devices.
And software support? I do remember where Facebook forced me to make an account or the hardware would be unusable.
For me that was the argument to never buy hardware from Facebook again. Sure, it was Oculus at the time and even if technically the Rift and Rift S were solid products, I would thoroughly recommend to not become a private customer of Facebook for now. Maybe things have improved, because they certainly should.
- 1. use MagiskSU for rooting
- 2. add some modules to bypass SafetyNet/PlayIntegrity (https://github.com/chiteroman/PlayIntegrityFix/releases)
- 3. For especially annoying apps add some modules to hide well-known "root apps" from the applist, so these apps don't know they're installed (https://github.com/LSPosed/LSPosed.github.io/releases + https://github.com/Dr-TSNG/Hide-My-Applist/releases) [I only needed it to get Pokemon-Go to work, banking worked without it]
My local banking apps and even google wallet work mostly fine with these workarounds. Though it breaks every few months, which is then usually quickly fixed with a magisk+module update.
Yep sounds about right. This world is a parody unto itself.
If you're willing to buy a new device, then I recommend getting a Pixel on sale and flashing it with GrapheneOS[0]. No rooting required. Read up on it when you have a chance. Also, if you install the sandboxed Google Play Services layer (which doesn't require any Google account logins and has very limited access to the device) you will be able to run your bank app.
Honestly part of that is the fault of the OS itself. If shouldn't allow apps to tell if the phone is rooted or not. Unless I'm asking the app to do something that requires root, the app shouldn't have any ability to tell that it's on a rooted device.
Hardware is complicated and there are just not enough people with the deep understanding to fix it. I've got lots of old 'open source' devices that lost traction in their developer community. Nobody ever managed to recreate a usable OS for the old Sharp Zaurus PDA until the device itself was completely obsolete.
New OS versions rely on new hardware functions (or just a higher amount of memory or I/O to be usable) so patching to run on old hardware won't deliver something running well.
Video games are a bit of a special case because there's the media copyright as well. But there are lots of reimplementations of game engines so maybe you can't but others certainly do...
Same as we need copyright maximums in the range of a generation (20 years). Having something come out of copy right 100 years later removes the cultural impact that putting a copyright into the public domain has. Primarily because everyone who was impacted by the original copyright is no longer alive. A prime example is steamboat Willie, aka Micky mouse og, really doesn't have any interest in doing much with it because it is culturally stale/mummified/dried out.
Not saying that this shouldn't happen, though. Just saying that people suggesting this sort of stuff should realize that the economic consequences for some businesses would be major.
Not so sure in reality. There's a lot to dislike about Apple and I won't go into it, but as an example, I like their support policy. They promise 5y and usually it's 7y. They do disable features on older phones via feature flags where the performance would not be up to it (like on-device AI lately), but this rather long support does not seem to impact their sales negatively. Arguably it works for them b/c people know they can resell their phones after 2y and still get a good price as buyers know they will get support. I am one who switched from Android/Sony precisely because of this.
The same could be true for opening older phones as some Android makers do unlocking the boot loader and leave it to enthusiasts to port newer Android versions. Many phones get recycled to something different this way (controller for home automation) and would never reduce sales.
On one end of the spectrum are people who insist that the reason phones only last as long as they do is a 100% deliberate decision on the part of smartphone manufacturers to hamstring their own hardware, often going all the way into full conspiracy-theory-level thinking, with timed kill switches and the like. Frankly, I find this line of thought to be bullshit.
On the other end are the people who are talking about smartphone manufacturers using components that are chosen for being small, light, and/or cheap, rather than being durable and user-repairable, purely for reasons of design, practicality, and cost savings.
Personally, I know which side of this I come down on; Hanlon's Razor[0] applies here, as well as the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, no actual timed kill switches in hardware or software—nor anything in the same general vein—have ever been proven to exist. And if not even the lowest-grade independent Android phone manufacturers are putting those things in their phones, why on earth would the likes of Samsung, Xiaomi, or Apple feel the need to do so?
Not sure about others, but I am more likely to respect a company that does that and buy future products from them.
It's an unrealistic pipedream, but one can hope.
For the US, an expiration system is built into the constituion: "for a limited time"
It's just that that expiration has been stretched to absurdity where "a limited time" now means a whole second lifetime after the death of the author.
In either case, these unsupported iOS versions share a lot of code with newer versions, that are still supported, and also with entirely unrelated products like MacOS, iPadOS, etc. So should Apple only be required to open-source only code that's no longer used in any version of their active products? Should they only open-source the drivers and unlock the bootloader so a third party OS can be made to work on it?
They say "buy" but in reality it's a "licensing agreement" nonsense with a zillion lawyery rules nobody cares about or even reads. Judges should take one look at that and throw the whole thing out but they won't because the intellectual property industry is worth trillions of dollars which means they can buy laws that favor them via lobbyists. It feels like the world is unfixably wrong.
And I believe (not totally sure though) that IP is always part of the bankruptcy assets so probably insolvent companies are not even allowed to just open-source their stuff and allow configuration of the backend so users could set up community-servers and keep things running.
Completely different are cases where companies continue to live but lock features behind new paywalls like Happiest Baby with their Snoo bassinet, invent fees to hinder re-sale like Peloton or cripple working hardware like Sonos did.
Those make me unreasonably mad, not just because I already have too many subscriptions for things that improve my QoL but add up, but also because I do care about my CO2 and environmental footprint. I do not want to trash working devices just because they are now 2 years old. Companies should untether them if they think further cloud support is no longer viable and at the very least should support them for 7-10y.
Suicide bombers like release-to-make switches, so if you shoot them they at least complete part of their mission.
Companies that create self-destructing products are thinking like this. They are binding their survival to that of their customers as human shields and saying "we'll take you with us".
It's very disturbing psychology and having laws that allow companies to do it, even by hiding behind supposed technical ignorance, is a problem.
Actually it's "we spy on you and reserve the right to brick your device at any time", which pretty much every EULA already covers ...
Treat it like we do with food allergen labels. A standard location and plain language.
Then don't buy that device. I know this will be unpopular but there is an entitlement here. I want X, X comes with insane restrictions, instead of sticking to my principles I will buy X then complain about the restrictions. I agree it shouldn't happen, but I also don't buy anything that allows that to happen to me.
Except when the device doesn't appear to be, but can be updated in a way that makes it obvious it does. Absolute statements like "all devices should be able to be jailbroken" or "I want things supported forever" or "just dont do x" are misguided. The world is more complicated, even on this issue. Any implemented solution will have holes and the world will be all the better for it. Progress requires things to die off.
There are some necessary conditions to fully consent to an agreement. If someone has a gun to your head and tells you to do something you don't want to do, it is not entitlement to comply but complain instead of "sticking to your principles".
Yes, but all the manufacturers want you in that relationship with them, and the technology of "internet" has finally given them that ability.
It's just a reminder that capitalism doesn't produce the best goods for consumers, it only produces the ones that are just not shitty enough that people keep buying them.
No matter how good a product is, the market will inevitably enshittify it to optimally conform to market incentives.
There's no excuse for an appliance to brick itself or lose functionality just because of the manufacturer's remote action. When I buy a device, I don't want a perpetual, tethered relationship with the manufacturer in order to work the device. I don't want it to ask the manufacturer for permission to run every day. I don't want it to be dependent on the manufacturer to keep it alive. I don't want to create an account. I don't want to log in to the manufacturer's servers. I don't want them to know my IP address or my home address. Leave me alone, I'm just not that into you!
A hardware device should work on day 10,000 just as it worked on day 1. If you as a company can't do that, you should not be able to sell the device (EDIT: OR at least you should be required to prominently mark the devices as "dependent on the manufacturer's servers")