3 ms·
Something that bothers me is why are companies so casual about attaching fragile networked software to long-lived durable goods like cars? The manufacturer has
by Silhouette 7y ago
Something that bothers me is why are companies so casual about attaching fragile networked software to long-lived durable goods like cars? The manufacturer has no economic or legal incentive to keep that patched over the life of the hardware.
Indeed. See also: almost all new TVs are now "smart" TVs, almost all new phones are now "smart" phones, a high proportion of "smart home" and IoT devices simply stop working if some remote service is discontinued (or your Internet connection is slow or down), and so on.
Without reaching much further, mobile operating systems, Windows 10 and a significant amount of locally run desktop software are also practically built around phoning home and relying on remote services by design now, and doing some shady things around tying security or compatibility updates in with other changes you might not want or need.
I came around to the view some time ago that some sort of fairly draconian regulation is the only way to stop this. It simply shouldn't be a prerequisite for using normal, everyday devices that you have to give up your privacy, nor a prerequisite for continuing to use something with a software element the same way as when you bought it that you have to accept arbitrary changes in the software or legal terms later.
- brokenmachine 7y agoMy own little soapbox is that if you buy a product, it should always be possible for the consumer to return it to exactly the state it was at the time of purchase. So no forced or unrevokable updates that ruin (or even change) things. I have a TV that has on multiple times broken things with firmware updates, and there is no known way to downgrade. I'd name and shame the company but I'm sure that almost every manufacturer gets away with the same bullshit. Same with cellphone manufacturers.