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")
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.
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 sure about others, but I am more likely to respect a company that does that and buy future products from them.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.