4 ms·

I don't think it works, at least not within the current legal system. Where it becomes mostly about legal bureaucracy of avoiding responsibility, rather than tr

I don't think it works, at least not within the current legal system. Where it becomes mostly about legal bureaucracy of avoiding responsibility, rather than truly focusing on reliability.

pjmlp 8y ago
Sure it does, it is no different than when a company delivers spoiled goods or when one does returns at a shop because the product does not work as described on the box. The root problem is that society got used to turn off/on and hope for the best instead of going back to the shop and ask for their money back. Also every time that there is an bunch of black hat hackers that expose company internal data, if the security breach can be mapped into a CVE database entry, a good law firm could probably make something out of it. Not all jurisdictions are alike, but one needs to start somewhere.
- anonuser123456 8y ago
  Probably not. As a company you just disclaim liability in your terms of service. Jurisdictions that try and override this, simply get excluded from the customer base. The market is still the ultimate decider for quality; if you build a crappy product, expect to get innovated out.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > As a company you just disclaim liability in your terms of service. Judges might disagree. > Jurisdictions that try and override this, simply get excluded from the customer base. Until the customer base is the EU or the US. > The market is still the ultimate decider for quality; if you build a crappy product, expect to get innovated out. The market has utterly failed to decide for quality, the market is mostly interested in price and marketing power, quality has never been a very large factor, though in a mature market it might allow some manufacturers to charge a premium for their products.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    >Probably not. As a company you just disclaim liability in your terms of service. Thankfully EULAs are void in Europe. It is all a matter how big the customer base gets, I am hoping eventually we get something like that EU wide. > The market is still the ultimate decider for quality; if you build a crappy product, expect to get innovated out. If that was true 1 € shops wouldn't exist, but even those products have more testing than most software out there.
    - anonuser123456 8y ago
      > Thankfully EULAs are void in Europe. It's not so clear cut that you should be thankful. The ability of companies to dictate the terms of which users can use their software, affects their risk calculation to produce the product in the first place. It is very likely that very useful but imperfect software will not be written because the risk / reward balance is tilted. Remember, you always have the ability to reject an EULA; simply don't use the product. > If that was true 1 € shops wouldn't exist, but even those products have more testing than most software out there. Consumers can make value choices on quality vs cost. This is a basic market function.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Than let it be so, software shouldn't be a special snowflake with special rules regarding commercial obligations.
      - paulie_a 8y ago
        As a customer I've found just ignoring all EULAs to be effective on the flip side. They are meaningless in my opinion and I don't give a crap about what it says. I'll use the software as I want.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  It's a huge case of Stockholm Syndrome, end users have been conditioned over years to accept these things as normal and have become engaged in an abusive relationship with their captors who will withhold the little help they are prepared to give if the users dare to complain. No other industry has ever gotten away with this. But with 'software eating the world' change is just around the corner, the first software bug that will kill a few thousand people will be a very rude wake up call that something needs to be done. The only industry that really gets it is aviation, medical tries hard but is still a mess, with the exception of devices, in general those are engineered reasonably well. In a way all these SaaS products are setting the stage for some real liability, after all, if the end user doesn't have even a modicum of control over what happens with their data then the other party should assume liability, even if they try real hard to disclaim that. Open source might get exempted, if not then I suspect that a lot of open source projects will fold.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    I am betting on IoT as the final trigger.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      Self driving vehicles, controlled by some griefer would be a pretty harsh demonstration target as well. There is no way I'll drive an internet connected car, unfortunately I still have to share the road with people that do drive internet connected cars.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  > a good law firm could probably make something out of it But that's what I'm saying. If there is a possibility of legal action there will be enough legal bureaucracy to make sure there is something to show in court and avoid responsibility, but not to actually address the problem.

I don't think it works, at least not within the current legal system. Where it becomes mostly about legal bureaucracy of avoiding responsibility, rather than truly focusing on reliability.

pjmlp 8y ago

Sure it does, it is no different than when a company delivers spoiled goods or when one does returns at a shop because the product does not work as described on the box. The root problem is that society got used to turn off/on and hope for the best instead of going back to the shop and ask for their money back. Also every time that there is an bunch of black hat hackers that expose company internal data, if the security breach can be mapped into a CVE database entry, a good law firm could probably make something out of it. Not all jurisdictions are alike, but one needs to start somewhere.

anonuser123456 8y ago
Probably not. As a company you just disclaim liability in your terms of service. Jurisdictions that try and override this, simply get excluded from the customer base. The market is still the ultimate decider for quality; if you build a crappy product, expect to get innovated out.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > As a company you just disclaim liability in your terms of service. Judges might disagree. > Jurisdictions that try and override this, simply get excluded from the customer base. Until the customer base is the EU or the US. > The market is still the ultimate decider for quality; if you build a crappy product, expect to get innovated out. The market has utterly failed to decide for quality, the market is mostly interested in price and marketing power, quality has never been a very large factor, though in a mature market it might allow some manufacturers to charge a premium for their products.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  >Probably not. As a company you just disclaim liability in your terms of service. Thankfully EULAs are void in Europe. It is all a matter how big the customer base gets, I am hoping eventually we get something like that EU wide. > The market is still the ultimate decider for quality; if you build a crappy product, expect to get innovated out. If that was true 1 € shops wouldn't exist, but even those products have more testing than most software out there.
  - anonuser123456 8y ago
    > Thankfully EULAs are void in Europe. It's not so clear cut that you should be thankful. The ability of companies to dictate the terms of which users can use their software, affects their risk calculation to produce the product in the first place. It is very likely that very useful but imperfect software will not be written because the risk / reward balance is tilted. Remember, you always have the ability to reject an EULA; simply don't use the product. > If that was true 1 € shops wouldn't exist, but even those products have more testing than most software out there. Consumers can make value choices on quality vs cost. This is a basic market function.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Than let it be so, software shouldn't be a special snowflake with special rules regarding commercial obligations.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      As a customer I've found just ignoring all EULAs to be effective on the flip side. They are meaningless in my opinion and I don't give a crap about what it says. I'll use the software as I want.
jacquesm 8y ago
It's a huge case of Stockholm Syndrome, end users have been conditioned over years to accept these things as normal and have become engaged in an abusive relationship with their captors who will withhold the little help they are prepared to give if the users dare to complain. No other industry has ever gotten away with this. But with 'software eating the world' change is just around the corner, the first software bug that will kill a few thousand people will be a very rude wake up call that something needs to be done. The only industry that really gets it is aviation, medical tries hard but is still a mess, with the exception of devices, in general those are engineered reasonably well. In a way all these SaaS products are setting the stage for some real liability, after all, if the end user doesn't have even a modicum of control over what happens with their data then the other party should assume liability, even if they try real hard to disclaim that. Open source might get exempted, if not then I suspect that a lot of open source projects will fold.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  I am betting on IoT as the final trigger.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Self driving vehicles, controlled by some griefer would be a pretty harsh demonstration target as well. There is no way I'll drive an internet connected car, unfortunately I still have to share the road with people that do drive internet connected cars.
zzzcpan 8y ago
> a good law firm could probably make something out of it But that's what I'm saying. If there is a possibility of legal action there will be enough legal bureaucracy to make sure there is something to show in court and avoid responsibility, but not to actually address the problem.