Cisco backs down, drops cloud from default router settings

Re:Cisco backs down, drops cloud from default router settings by lukejduncan on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:16PM (#4208675)

Do we know that's really what happened? I can very much see it going either way a) Lawyer put in too much defensive language or b) Cisco really wanted to push you into a new service.

Admittedly, it's a very different product and service, but can we blame them when they see companies like Facebook forcing their email service on users in such an obtrusive way? If I were a semi-out-of-touch manager I might think "The cloud is the way to go, we get more control, there are legitimate upsides to consumers, and anyone who bitches ultimately shuts up after a day of tweeting."

Seems like there's lots of precedent for them to think about trying.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cisco backs down, drops cloud from default router settings by wmf on Friday July 06, 2012 @02:37PM (#4209056)

There are two separate issues here. It's clear that Cisco deliberately created the Cloud Connect service (I won't speculate on their motivations; in theory such a service could benefit customers) and deliberately auto-updated customers to it (which they promised all along). The TOS is a separate problem and appears to be a combination of legal ass-covering and deliberate misinterpretation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cisco backs down, drops cloud from default router settings by rhizome on Friday July 06, 2012 @02:04PM (#4208921)

I agree that this can be a meme within the business/legal logic. "Hey, if Facebook can get away with it..."

[ Parent | on HN ]