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.

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_bomb

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man's_switch

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.

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.

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.