14 ms·
Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?
- JohnFen 7y agoI don't know about expiration dates, but I think a hard-to-miss warning in the product description and packaging would be highly desirable.
- mfer 7y agoThe software doesn't "expire" or "perish". The software isn't gone. The software may go into a state of not getting updates. A lot of the problems outlined in the post have to do with device and solution design decisions rather than in software expiring. This also touches on open source software lifecycle choices. PHP may be updating quicker than it used to but the backwards compatibility is amazing. Angular 9 moving at this pace of change is an example of a lot of churn. Churn is fun for us devs while we work on things but not great for the solutions our stuff is embedded in.
- rasz 7y agoIt sure does expire its usefulness. Try running old phpBB forum, Android 4 phone, or browser from 2011. Software degrades into a point of uselessness.
- anon73044 7y agoAnd yet, Windows XP and IE 5 still have a nonzero market share for some reason.
- user5994461 7y agoWindows XP and Vista have a market share of less than 0.1% if we are to believe steam stats. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ Either that, or steam doesn't work on these and the missing 0.1% are Windows Server OS. Turns out, software does stop working for real.
- m-p-3 7y agoA good example would be Chromeboxes and Chromebooks. They really should put an expiration date / EOL on the packaging and system itself.
- inetknght 7y agoChromeboxes and Chromebooks should not have expiration dates. The company that built them should be fined for dropping them.
- alkaline9 7y agoPerishable software is a huge problem - things keep operating only in dynamic equilibrium, such that they would fall apart as soon as we stop putting energy into fixing flaws. I have been thinking for years that as a society, we need 100-year products. It would be a global good to counteract the local incentives for producing perishable software. However, over time I have realized that there are legitimately unforeseen circumstances that come up - for example, the general realization of the need for stricter security around logins (e.g. two-factor authentication). Maybe a 10 year time window is realistic for now. In the meantime, requiring expiration days would go a long way towards calling out how perishable our devices and software are.
- ailideex 7y ago> It would be a global good to counteract the local incentives for producing perishable software. What are we talking about here? Asking people to not write bugs?
- alkaline9 7y agoNo, it is asking people to design and test systems for the long-term. It would require establishing strong interfaces between components that will hold up when subcomponents are swapped out. I think of it like a car where parts can be replaced if those parts have an issue, but the designs of the connectors stays the same, and replacements are available. A 100-year car isn't one that requires no maintenance for 100 years; it is one that can be maintained, and replacement parts can be acquired, and it will still continue working. If a car depends on a remote server, such that the car stops operating when the remote server is shut down, then that car is perishable.
- LeftHandPath 7y agoThere are a lot of cars that were maintainable, and built to be maintained, that can’t be maintained anymore simply because the manufacturer went defunct and there are no more parts (e.g. Saab, Datsun) or because the cost of manufacturing more parts for a car with a dwindling owner-base began to outweigh the profit, and thus, there are no more parts (e.g. older Ford models). Unless the car is built primarily with 3rd-party parts (from manufacturers like Bosch, Brembo, etc) - which is something that consumers usually hold against a car, like how many people are upset that the new Toyota Supra is actually a BMW - then the problem is almost completely analogous to the shutting down of remote servers; if the manufacturer goes defunct or can no longer make a profit by continuing service, the car’s life has perished. And in fact, the only way to avoid this is super conglomerates and monopolies - Lamborghini parts should always be available, because they come from the Audi parts bin, which comes from the Volkswagen parts bin.
- jkmcf 7y agoA perfect example: the Sonos debacle from a few weeks ago.
- winternett 7y agoAnd they're pretty much wireless speakers... Something that really shouldn't need updates ever. But somehow they require remote updates. :[
- tbyehl 7y agoThey're not 'pretty much wireless speakers', else any Bluetooth or AirPlay speaker would be an equivalent substitute. They're self-meshing wireless routers combined with a media streamer and packaged into a speaker. They also self-cluster / coordinate to support surround sound, grouping, and AirPlay. Complicated stuff. Sucks that they don't provide the option to offload some of that work to a computer or appliance, letting the speakers be less smart and have increased longevity, but that's the trade-off in a smart speaker system where customers can start with just one speaker and not need to buy anything else.
- winternett 7y agoI get it... Smart TVs with embedded apps are being retired in the same way, but at least when that happens you can use an aux connection to make the device still viable in some sort of way. I use an HDMI wireless connection from my laptop for example, never needed apps to run from my TV since day 1. I avoid buying most devices that do things that my Laptop and desktop PCs can do these days with function-specific (dumb speakers), because even if worst comes to worst I can always install Linux and keep grinding for the most part.
- JadeNB 7y agoNo, they need expiration dates more than milk, because at least the dairy farmer isn't coming into my house to curdle my milk in the middle of the night.
- winternett 7y agoGood point. Planned obsolescence has always been a valid threat against our financial futures. Pushed software updates can secretly render IOT devices useless or slow them down. i predict there will be a ton of class action suits in years to come over this, the real tragedy is that bilked consumers will likely never be the ones who recover the loss. It's unfortunately the way of capitalism.
- anyonecancode 7y agoMaybe a better analogy isn't milk, but car seats? I was surprised to learn about car seat expiration when I became a parent, but it makes sense -- the materials themselves break down over time, and safety standards and research evolve. I don't think it's too big of a leap to see software in a similar way. Even if the code itself still runs just fine in ten years, likely the context it runs in has long changed.
- Swizec 7y agoSeatbelts too. And airbags. Afaik you're supposed to replace those every 10 years or so. Most people of course don't. Another good one most people forget: Hard drives last about 5 years. CD-Rs are rated for 10 years. A flash drive can go for 10 years. SSD holds data for about 2 years. The electronics themselves in many modern consumer devices are basically kaput after 4 to 5 years. Point is you are likely overestimating the lifespan of your devices even without taking software into account.
- JohnFen 7y ago> Hard drives last about 5 years. I've often heard this, but I regularly use hard drives for much longer than that. I've only ever had one fail.
- winternett 7y agoSSDs now though may likely change that. If they fail early, they were likely manufactured to do so, or there was some other issue like power surges.
- JohnFen 7y agoTrue, but I'm not yet comfortable with using SSDs for anything of importance.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- nicolaslem 7y agoAs time passes the more I think that Stallman was right: Today there is no way I'm buying a device that a company can turn into a paperweight by flipping a switch. Tomorrow I won't probably buy anything where I'm not controlling the software.
- winternett 7y agoSome instances of software truly need the Internet to run, E.G. Facebook or GTA Online. Many software tools don't need that connection to run, but are heavily embedded with connection dependencies like a calculator app (stable technology). Many of these apps and devices become totally useless if an active connection is not available. This is a bad move companies make all the time to encourage our dependence. The same goes for Hardware -- Do you really need to send a Tweet from your refrigerator? Identifying the frivolous items that do not need to be Internet reliant and avoiding them altogether might be the key to sanity, unless you want GE logging each time you open your refrigerator door and spying on what you buy and store in it. This discussion ties into so many issues faced in modern day society. Technology should serve in making life easier, less expensive, and more efficient for all of us, not in manipulating our emotions, costing more over time, and in tracking our decisions and movements.
- LeftHandPath 7y agoI’ve been harassing my dad for ages over his purchase of a WiFi-enabled LG fridge. Neither of us know why it’s connected - but it is, and it proudly displays a WiFi icon with a backlit LED right above the water dispenser. The only thing you can possibly gain from a WiFi-enabled fridge (it has no voice commands, no screen, etc) is just being monitored and/or hacked. There is literally no benefit to the consumer from having WiFi on that device.
- winternett 7y agoProbably take some time to remove the network password, and/or block the IP at your router level?
- 7y ago
- rapjr9 7y agoThe problem with expiration dates for software/hardware is that it's difficult to predict when they expire. A new malware attack can make an entire class of device obsolete overnight. IoT devices might be fine if you keep them on a private network but expire quickly if exposed to the internet. A device might be abandoned by a company (no more firmware updates) but later adopted by the open source movement and then updated for a decade. Everyone might be using a device thinking it's safe when actually an APT has had a compromise for it for years. Maybe a better solution is the ability to force obsolescence, but then companies might misuse that and it could be an attack route itself to turn off the devices. An expiration date or forced obsolescence can destroy many things that are actually still useful. A companies commitment to provide updates may be some indication of expected life, but is also a guess and how can you trust that small companies (innovators) will be around in the future? Maybe the solution is the old fashioned approach to hardening devices; keep improving them until we know they are stable and reliable and then keep making the same thing, like old Unix servers. But people like new things and there are always desirable features that could be added. All changes are the potential creation of new vulnerabilities. The Soviet Union used common parts to make many different devices, which made them last forever because they were easy to fix. But that also kept them from switching to new devices because it would obsolete so much infrastructure and the social functions built around it. The only long term solution may be to change society so no one has an interest in doing bad things, it becomes boring and unattractive. That doesn't eliminate all risks though, because the world itself changes and can cause new unforeseen problems. A layered approach could protect devices better, giving them a longer useful life. And if they were designed well (by iterating) to start with, that would help too. A plan for what to do, just in case, might help as well. Risk and cost assessment can help make wise decisions. Sometimes the only solution will be to just pull all the devices and replace them, at high cost. We're already facing multiple problems along these lines (compromised home routers, bugs in CPU's, zero days, people not updating software) so there is something to be learned from current problems and solutions. One really difficult problem is we don't really know how to make things that last a long time at a reasonable cost. Have a look at the projects of the Long Now Foundation: http://longnow.org/ http://longnow.org/
- winternett 7y ago
- beloch 7y agoThe problem with planning obsolescence in this manner is that different people use their devices differently and have different expectations, both of which make their devices go obsolete at different times. An ancient phone that hasn't had an OS update in years still has a good shot at being able to handle texts and phone-calls. If that's all a user wants from it, it's not obsolete until it becomes so old it can't talk to their carrier's network. This is the sort of user who might not be afraid of replacing batteries. Another user might want to do a fair bit with his phone and be just barely satisfied with the quickness of the interface when he first gets his device. A couple of updates, with their associated bloat, might reduce the speed of the interface enough that the phone becomes, as far as this user is concerned, ready for the junkpile. If you're making the phones these two users are buying, how do you choose an expiration date? If you put it somewhere in between the above two extremes, one user will angrily bin their phone long before the expiration date and place no further trust in such dates, or your brand, while the other user, knowing how long his phones typically last, might not even buy a phone with such a short official lifetime. Expiration dates are for milk and eggs. What users want is for the makers of the products they're using to commit to meeting their needs for a reasonable time period. People understand that hardware goes obsolete, but are less understanding when companies provide software updates that have so much bloat that devices become progressively less capable and effectively lose features. People get mad, and rightfully so, when companies refuse to sell repair parts and actively sue anyone making third-party parts.
- winternett 7y agoThen perhaps companies should price these devices accordingly to correspond with flawless performance during a pre-specified time period. Right now, if we spend $1,000 on a new XXXYZ Phone, there is no commitment to flawless and essential updates from the company. As they release new devices each year pretty much, it would be in a company's (shareholder-driven) best interests to encourage their user base to upgrade each time a new device is released. This tends to drive the need to intentionally degrade older devices via updates for industry leading companies, by driving annual revenue upwards on a more predictable schedule.
- 7y ago
- commandersaki 7y ago> Hardware now (storage, memory, and processing power) are finite in devices like most mobile phones, eventually due to storage, and processing power, they slow down and eventually need to be retired. Pet peeve. Hardware if ever slows down. It's the software that gets worse.
- safety-third 7y agoAlways on accident of course. There is no way a hardware manufacturer would intentionally sabotage their products to boost sales.
- hughw 7y agoWe need software escrow for consumers.
- mamborambo 7y agoThe "Buy it for life" movement would absolutely need to flag software-dependency as an anti-feature. My recent smart TV purchase is regrettably tied to a fixed China-hosted domain name to fetch the main pages, and despite many calls to the manufacturer they refuse to tell me how to change that hard-wired address to another one. I hope the consumers can rally together and create a crowdsourced BIFL database of which brands to avoid, and perhaps how to circumvent these software dependency.
- phendrenad2 7y agoYou could do it at the router level.
- tinus_hn 7y agoThat would be nice but people still complain even if the support lifecycle is known in advanced as with Windows XP and 7.