5 ms·

No company is, and expecting any company to continue spending money on maintaining a service even if they've decided it isn't profitable is pollyannaish. To th

No company is, and expecting any company to continue spending money on maintaining a service even if they've decided it isn't profitable is pollyannaish. To that end, I'm not sure I see the value in framing this specifically as a Google thing. Google is maybe the most visible because of how many products it has, and how popular many of them are. But really, this sort of thing is a problem that's inherent to any IoT devices that rely on proprietary cloud services, in whole or in part.

walterbell 7y ago
There's a difference between an IoT manufacturer going out of business, which causes related software services to terminate, and an IoT manufacturer failing to deliver on device claims made before the sale took place.
- bunderbunder 7y ago
  There's also a difference between how we want things to work, and how they actually do. These services typically include some language in the EULA to the effect of, "We can disable parts of this device from our end, for any reason, at any time." And agreeing to those is almost certainly precondition for using the device. Which absolutely sucks. But it's the legal and consumer protection environment we live in right now. Pretending it isn't is -- hang the downvotes, I'm gonna double down on this -- pollyannaish. Until things change, your only real recourse as a consumer is to refuse to buy products that are sold under those sorts of terms. Which, unfortunately, does mean steering clear of IoT devices that rely on proprietary cloud services.
  - walterbell 7y ago
    EULAs do not override national or state regulations on device fitness for purpose.
cf498 7y ago
I expect a company to continue a service for the foreseeable future (lets say the normal duration of the warranty on the product) if it is necessary to use a product i just bought. Otherwise I expect a refund or it feels very much like fraud to me. Legislators should get involved here sooner then later.
- Nullabillity 7y ago
  There is a huge difference between the product naturally breaking a while after the warranty expires, and the product deliberately self-destructing as soon as it's no longer the manufacturer's problem.

walterbell 7y ago

There's a difference between an IoT manufacturer going out of business, which causes related software services to terminate, and an IoT manufacturer failing to deliver on device claims made before the sale took place.

bunderbunder 7y ago
There's also a difference between how we want things to work, and how they actually do. These services typically include some language in the EULA to the effect of, "We can disable parts of this device from our end, for any reason, at any time." And agreeing to those is almost certainly precondition for using the device. Which absolutely sucks. But it's the legal and consumer protection environment we live in right now. Pretending it isn't is -- hang the downvotes, I'm gonna double down on this -- pollyannaish. Until things change, your only real recourse as a consumer is to refuse to buy products that are sold under those sorts of terms. Which, unfortunately, does mean steering clear of IoT devices that rely on proprietary cloud services.
- walterbell 7y ago
  EULAs do not override national or state regulations on device fitness for purpose.

cf498 7y ago

I expect a company to continue a service for the foreseeable future (lets say the normal duration of the warranty on the product) if it is necessary to use a product i just bought. Otherwise I expect a refund or it feels very much like fraud to me. Legislators should get involved here sooner then later.

Nullabillity 7y ago
There is a huge difference between the product naturally breaking a while after the warranty expires, and the product deliberately self-destructing as soon as it's no longer the manufacturer's problem.