5 ms·

I feel like this is all a bit dramatic. It's not too big a deal to deactivate something that isn't supported anymore. Can't security issues arise from unsupp

by capote 11y ago

I feel like this is all a bit dramatic. It's not too big a deal to deactivate something that isn't supported anymore. Can't security issues arise from unsupported hardware/software after all? There must be some reason. Also, nobody's walking into anyone's house... these comparisons are so over the top. Even if it is unfair (and I see the point, it is somewhat irritating) can we stop with the rampant and out of control use of slippery slope arguments? I feel like that's all I read anymore—slippery slopes happening everywhere with everything. Also, why has nobody asked or investigated as to why they want to brick hardware intentionally? Let's figure that out before we go crazy about this.

davorb 11y ago
I understand that you feel that way, but do me a favour. Go back and look at some of the stuff RMS wrote 10-15 years ago, and then tell me to stop with the slippery slopes. What they are talking about is a pretty big deal, it's a huge deal. What we're going through now is a quiet redefinition of the concept of ownership of property, and that is quite frankly something that we should be having a public and very open debate about. And we need to have it now; in a few years it will be too late.
- petra 11y ago
  It's not new. Just look at printers, keurig, routers and wifi sharing, who controls your car computer,windows 10 shenanigans, iPhone software updates, etc, etc.
  - capote 11y ago
    All these things you mentioned are fine. Cars aren't crashing by being disabled remotely, Windows 10 is decent, I have no issues with my iPhone, I have Keurig coffee at work every now and then and haven't gotten sick or died. Some platforms are open and some are closed. Some are being remotely disabled by their manufacturer (have we bothered to find out why nest is doing this?) and we simply can stop buying products from them.
  - tremon 11y ago
    Define "new". Are any of your examples from more than 10 years ago?
- capote 11y ago
  In my view, we're better off now than 10-15 years ago. We have developed both software and hardware to do many more incredible things and nobody is suffering from human rights issues due to it. Even if some hardware is unfairly locked down, we still have lots of open platforms in both hardware and software and it's still a reasonably free market where if enough people want something, they can acquire it. All I'm offering is a bit of optimism. Things don't necessarily have to go south. Noboey's redefining ownership, it's just a bad apple disabling some hardware. NOTE: you still own whatever hardware you buy. It's just that some hardware sucks and gets disabled by its manufacturer! Many items that we buy have huge defects, many of which are even worse than this! A Ferrari 458 can catch on fire and kill you, for example. It doesn't affect "ownership". I'd make a bet with you if I could that in a few years we'll still be fine and have even more and better hardware and software innovation.
  - imtringued 11y ago
    I haven't heard of any Ferrari 458 related deaths. The manufacturer recalled the cars and replaced destroyed cars free of charge. I don't see how this is worse, I would even argue that this is how Nest should have done it. Either give them new products or fix the flaws of old products so they work offline.
    - capote 11y ago
      My point remains that they're not redefining ownership. Sure, you're right, it's a worse product than the 458. You still own it. It's just a garbage product. Give it a bad review, post an article about it, even sue the company that made it, but I don't see why we have to fear for our future ability to own things.
Dylan16807 11y ago
> It's not too big a deal to deactivate something that isn't supported anymore. Imagine if you applied that attitude to your clothes or furniture. Buy a t-shirt and it explodes into shreds 90 days later. 99% of things continue to work just fine without official support.
- capote 11y ago
  Yeah, that would suck. But it wouldn't be a slippery slope toward the end of clothing as we know it. I would simply avoid that manufacturer of shirts and be optimistic that shirts wouldn't explode again. Also, my point isn't that it specifically wouldn't work without support. It's just to say that we haven't yet gotten a reason for why they're doing this, and we can't know for sure it's a bad reason. Come on guys, do you really thing these guys have malicious intent to screw you over?
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    Things can be unacceptable without being slippery slopes. And nobody loses if such products are made illegal. I don't know where I would go for a comprehensive list of all things that exist. But most software does not require outside support to run; allowing you to use old software almost forever is the backbone of windows. And outside of DIVX machines and John Deere tractors, just about every physical device works perfectly well without manufacturer support.
  - mcphage 11y ago
    > Come on guys, do you really thing these guys have malicious intent to screw you over? No, they probably just don't give a fuck about their former customers.
    - capote 11y ago
      If they don't give a fuck, then why are they going out of their way to disable their devices? Wouldn't not giving a fuck entail just dropping support?

by capote 11y ago

davorb 11y ago

I understand that you feel that way, but do me a favour. Go back and look at some of the stuff RMS wrote 10-15 years ago, and then tell me to stop with the slippery slopes. What they are talking about is a pretty big deal, it's a huge deal. What we're going through now is a quiet redefinition of the concept of ownership of property, and that is quite frankly something that we should be having a public and very open debate about. And we need to have it now; in a few years it will be too late.

petra 11y ago
It's not new. Just look at printers, keurig, routers and wifi sharing, who controls your car computer,windows 10 shenanigans, iPhone software updates, etc, etc.
- capote 11y ago
  All these things you mentioned are fine. Cars aren't crashing by being disabled remotely, Windows 10 is decent, I have no issues with my iPhone, I have Keurig coffee at work every now and then and haven't gotten sick or died. Some platforms are open and some are closed. Some are being remotely disabled by their manufacturer (have we bothered to find out why nest is doing this?) and we simply can stop buying products from them.
- tremon 11y ago
  Define "new". Are any of your examples from more than 10 years ago?
capote 11y ago
In my view, we're better off now than 10-15 years ago. We have developed both software and hardware to do many more incredible things and nobody is suffering from human rights issues due to it. Even if some hardware is unfairly locked down, we still have lots of open platforms in both hardware and software and it's still a reasonably free market where if enough people want something, they can acquire it. All I'm offering is a bit of optimism. Things don't necessarily have to go south. Noboey's redefining ownership, it's just a bad apple disabling some hardware. NOTE: you still own whatever hardware you buy. It's just that some hardware sucks and gets disabled by its manufacturer! Many items that we buy have huge defects, many of which are even worse than this! A Ferrari 458 can catch on fire and kill you, for example. It doesn't affect "ownership". I'd make a bet with you if I could that in a few years we'll still be fine and have even more and better hardware and software innovation.
- imtringued 11y ago
  I haven't heard of any Ferrari 458 related deaths. The manufacturer recalled the cars and replaced destroyed cars free of charge. I don't see how this is worse, I would even argue that this is how Nest should have done it. Either give them new products or fix the flaws of old products so they work offline.
  - capote 11y ago
    My point remains that they're not redefining ownership. Sure, you're right, it's a worse product than the 458. You still own it. It's just a garbage product. Give it a bad review, post an article about it, even sue the company that made it, but I don't see why we have to fear for our future ability to own things.

Dylan16807 11y ago

> It's not too big a deal to deactivate something that isn't supported anymore. Imagine if you applied that attitude to your clothes or furniture. Buy a t-shirt and it explodes into shreds 90 days later. 99% of things continue to work just fine without official support.

capote 11y ago
Yeah, that would suck. But it wouldn't be a slippery slope toward the end of clothing as we know it. I would simply avoid that manufacturer of shirts and be optimistic that shirts wouldn't explode again. Also, my point isn't that it specifically wouldn't work without support. It's just to say that we haven't yet gotten a reason for why they're doing this, and we can't know for sure it's a bad reason. Come on guys, do you really thing these guys have malicious intent to screw you over?
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Things can be unacceptable without being slippery slopes. And nobody loses if such products are made illegal. I don't know where I would go for a comprehensive list of all things that exist. But most software does not require outside support to run; allowing you to use old software almost forever is the backbone of windows. And outside of DIVX machines and John Deere tractors, just about every physical device works perfectly well without manufacturer support.
- mcphage 11y ago
  > Come on guys, do you really thing these guys have malicious intent to screw you over? No, they probably just don't give a fuck about their former customers.
  - capote 11y ago
    If they don't give a fuck, then why are they going out of their way to disable their devices? Wouldn't not giving a fuck entail just dropping support?