5 ms·

I wonder why I'm not entitled to free updates that correct bugs in some software I paid for

by plafl 11y ago

dpark 11y ago
In perpetuity? Does your payment of $100 oblige the software manufacturer to provide bug fixes for you indefinitely?
- Silhouette 11y ago
  Surely that depends on the nature of the bugs and what is reasonable in the circumstances? However, for software bought at substantial cost, where the nature of the defect is such that the software doesn't do what it's supposed to, it seems reasonable to me that someone in the supply chain might be on the hook for all or part of the original purchase price if the defect happens within the reasonably expected working lifetime of the software (which might need defining explicitly somewhere for licences that are in principle indefinite, but could certainly run to many years in some cases). Similarly, if the defect causes other damage through negligence, or results in other losses as a consequence of using the software but then not being able to use it any more, it seems reasonable that someone in the supply chain might be on the hook for paying compensation, possibly exceeding the original purchase price in serious cases if that's what it takes to make good the damage. I'm wary of unrealistic laws that assume bug-free software is something we know how to create, and I'm wary of laws that restrict new business models such as rental/SaaS schemes. But right now the system is so heavily one-sided that it's silly, with the big businesses making the big name software products generating huge profits while their users sometimes suffer real damage because of defects in those products.
  - dpark 11y ago
    The supported lifespan of expensive software is generally spelled out. The problem is that people want support to go on indefinitely for free, and so they use software that is no longer supported. If you buy software and the manufacturer only guarantees two years of support, then you should plan to upgrade at or before the two year mark, or negotiate a support deal with the manufacturer. If you continue using the software after support has ended, you are by definition unsupported and I'd say absent any malicious damage or major negligence on the part of the manufacturer, any issues are on you. You can't buy a car and then expect that the manufacturer will be on the hook for an engine failure after the warranty period unless the failure is caused by major negligence or malicious design. Perpetual support is not something any other industry provides. I don't understand why software manufacturers should attempt that either.
    - Silhouette 11y ago
      The supported lifespan of expensive software is generally spelled out. Unfortunately that is far from universal. We have several software products with permanent licences that had 4+ figure costs, and none of them gave any specific indication of support at all. Often you only get these things set out in writing with an expensive support contract on top of your original purchase. However, if you're spending literally thousands on a piece of software and that software proves to be fundamentally defective within a reasonable period, I think you should be (and in many cases, you probably legally are) entitled to fair compensation if the defect isn't fixed and any significant resulting damage made good. If you continue using the software after support has ended, you are by definition unsupported and I'd say absent any malicious damage or major negligence on the part of the manufacturer, any issues are on you. Perhaps, but I'd argue that artificially nerfing the product so despite its permanent licence it can't actually be used after a certain period of time does constitute "malicious damage or major negligence". You can't buy a car and then expect that the manufacturer will be on the hook for an engine failure after the warranty period unless the failure is caused by major negligence or malicious design. Perpetual support is not something any other industry provides. You've chosen an unfortunate example there. Safety recalls are pretty much an indefinite obligation in the auto industry, at least in my country. I have recent first-hand experience of this, and someone who apparently didn't ensure the appropriate remedial work was carried out on some vehicles and so left a potentially fatal design problem unfixed is about to get formally investigated by the relevant government department. It seems to me that software developers can't reasonably be expected to provide indefinite, free of charge support in areas like compatibility with new hardware/OS/protocols that evolve over time. That compatibility probably wasn't part of the original deal, unless this kind of support was explicitly included probably for some fixed time period. However, for issues that are clearly fundamental defects in the product, such as serious security vulnerabilities, privacy leaks, data corruption bugs, or complete inability to use the product because something like an activation server is no longer available, it seems reasonable to me that we should treat these closer to the way we handle safety recalls on cars. Want to turn off your activation server after a couple of years? No problem, but you're on the hook for either patching out the activation mechanism for all your customers or compensating them for the functionality they're about to lose after they already paid for it.

I wonder why I'm not entitled to free updates that correct bugs in some software I paid for

by plafl 11y ago

I wonder why I'm not entitled to free updates that correct bugs in some software I paid for

dpark 11y ago

In perpetuity? Does your payment of $100 oblige the software manufacturer to provide bug fixes for you indefinitely?

Silhouette 11y ago
Surely that depends on the nature of the bugs and what is reasonable in the circumstances? However, for software bought at substantial cost, where the nature of the defect is such that the software doesn't do what it's supposed to, it seems reasonable to me that someone in the supply chain might be on the hook for all or part of the original purchase price if the defect happens within the reasonably expected working lifetime of the software (which might need defining explicitly somewhere for licences that are in principle indefinite, but could certainly run to many years in some cases). Similarly, if the defect causes other damage through negligence, or results in other losses as a consequence of using the software but then not being able to use it any more, it seems reasonable that someone in the supply chain might be on the hook for paying compensation, possibly exceeding the original purchase price in serious cases if that's what it takes to make good the damage. I'm wary of unrealistic laws that assume bug-free software is something we know how to create, and I'm wary of laws that restrict new business models such as rental/SaaS schemes. But right now the system is so heavily one-sided that it's silly, with the big businesses making the big name software products generating huge profits while their users sometimes suffer real damage because of defects in those products.
- dpark 11y ago
  The supported lifespan of expensive software is generally spelled out. The problem is that people want support to go on indefinitely for free, and so they use software that is no longer supported. If you buy software and the manufacturer only guarantees two years of support, then you should plan to upgrade at or before the two year mark, or negotiate a support deal with the manufacturer. If you continue using the software after support has ended, you are by definition unsupported and I'd say absent any malicious damage or major negligence on the part of the manufacturer, any issues are on you. You can't buy a car and then expect that the manufacturer will be on the hook for an engine failure after the warranty period unless the failure is caused by major negligence or malicious design. Perpetual support is not something any other industry provides. I don't understand why software manufacturers should attempt that either.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    The supported lifespan of expensive software is generally spelled out. Unfortunately that is far from universal. We have several software products with permanent licences that had 4+ figure costs, and none of them gave any specific indication of support at all. Often you only get these things set out in writing with an expensive support contract on top of your original purchase. However, if you're spending literally thousands on a piece of software and that software proves to be fundamentally defective within a reasonable period, I think you should be (and in many cases, you probably legally are) entitled to fair compensation if the defect isn't fixed and any significant resulting damage made good. If you continue using the software after support has ended, you are by definition unsupported and I'd say absent any malicious damage or major negligence on the part of the manufacturer, any issues are on you. Perhaps, but I'd argue that artificially nerfing the product so despite its permanent licence it can't actually be used after a certain period of time does constitute "malicious damage or major negligence". You can't buy a car and then expect that the manufacturer will be on the hook for an engine failure after the warranty period unless the failure is caused by major negligence or malicious design. Perpetual support is not something any other industry provides. You've chosen an unfortunate example there. Safety recalls are pretty much an indefinite obligation in the auto industry, at least in my country. I have recent first-hand experience of this, and someone who apparently didn't ensure the appropriate remedial work was carried out on some vehicles and so left a potentially fatal design problem unfixed is about to get formally investigated by the relevant government department. It seems to me that software developers can't reasonably be expected to provide indefinite, free of charge support in areas like compatibility with new hardware/OS/protocols that evolve over time. That compatibility probably wasn't part of the original deal, unless this kind of support was explicitly included probably for some fixed time period. However, for issues that are clearly fundamental defects in the product, such as serious security vulnerabilities, privacy leaks, data corruption bugs, or complete inability to use the product because something like an activation server is no longer available, it seems reasonable to me that we should treat these closer to the way we handle safety recalls on cars. Want to turn off your activation server after a couple of years? No problem, but you're on the hook for either patching out the activation mechanism for all your customers or compensating them for the functionality they're about to lose after they already paid for it.