3 ms·

> If you don't like the option of it happening, and as this example illustrates it can clearly happen, then do not buy products that have the capability of havi

> If you don't like the option of it happening, and as this example illustrates it can clearly happen, then do not buy products that have the capability of having ads added retroactively to the product. So, don't buy anything capable of receiving a software update?

Ansil849 5y ago
> So, don't buy anything capable of receiving a software update? Not quite. Don't buy anything that forces updates. Updates are obviously important for security, compatibility and a slew of other reasons. But updates which are forced on the user are no bueno.
- antiterra 5y ago
  And if a fix for a critical vulnerability and an ad feature are both in the same update?
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    > And if a fix for a critical vulnerability and an ad feature are both in the same update? Can you point to actual real-world examples where this has been the case? I don't see the point of this stretched hypothetical. If it were to come up, then you could deal with accordingly - for instance by getting the update and then blocking the ad server somewhere upstream in your network path.
    - dasyatidprime 5y ago
      They don't actually have to be in the same update, the security fix just has to come after the ad antifeature with no separate patches presented, only a linear series of versions. And that linear model is extremely common. Anything using the linear model that has both antifeature updates and security updates at unpredictable times is very likely to run into the “can't install the security update without accepting the antifeature” problem.
      - Ansil849 5y ago
        Again: > I don't see the point of this stretched hypothetical. If it were to come up, then you could deal with accordingly - for instance by getting the update and then blocking the ad server somewhere upstream in your network path. And then not buying that brand's products in the future. And advising others not to buy them.
        qwertywert_ 5y ago
        And now you have reached the exact point these same Android TV customers have reached :) Can you admit you are wrong now?
        dasyatidprime 5y ago
        My point above was not about how to deal with it, but only to point in the direction of it being very very much not a “stretched hypothetical”, but a reality of a vast quantity of consumer software, including critical things that are difficult for people to replace. (My worldmodel doesn't judge your proposed counter very highly either, FWIW, but I don't feel up to arguing that part just now.)
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      I am not sure it is that stretched. Do you remember Windows 7 added telemetry, how it was added and how update descriptions became way less helpful?
- Jackson__ 5y ago
  Literally any device can force you to update, by the simple means of not letting you access the service without the latest version of their app.
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    > Literally any device can force you to update, by the simple means of not letting you access the service without the latest version of their app. This is literally not true.

Ansil849 5y ago

> So, don't buy anything capable of receiving a software update? Not quite. Don't buy anything that forces updates. Updates are obviously important for security, compatibility and a slew of other reasons. But updates which are forced on the user are no bueno.

antiterra 5y ago
And if a fix for a critical vulnerability and an ad feature are both in the same update?
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > And if a fix for a critical vulnerability and an ad feature are both in the same update? Can you point to actual real-world examples where this has been the case? I don't see the point of this stretched hypothetical. If it were to come up, then you could deal with accordingly - for instance by getting the update and then blocking the ad server somewhere upstream in your network path.
  - dasyatidprime 5y ago
    They don't actually have to be in the same update, the security fix just has to come after the ad antifeature with no separate patches presented, only a linear series of versions. And that linear model is extremely common. Anything using the linear model that has both antifeature updates and security updates at unpredictable times is very likely to run into the “can't install the security update without accepting the antifeature” problem.
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      Again: > I don't see the point of this stretched hypothetical. If it were to come up, then you could deal with accordingly - for instance by getting the update and then blocking the ad server somewhere upstream in your network path. And then not buying that brand's products in the future. And advising others not to buy them.
      - qwertywert_ 5y ago
        And now you have reached the exact point these same Android TV customers have reached :) Can you admit you are wrong now?
      - dasyatidprime 5y ago
        My point above was not about how to deal with it, but only to point in the direction of it being very very much not a “stretched hypothetical”, but a reality of a vast quantity of consumer software, including critical things that are difficult for people to replace. (My worldmodel doesn't judge your proposed counter very highly either, FWIW, but I don't feel up to arguing that part just now.)
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    I am not sure it is that stretched. Do you remember Windows 7 added telemetry, how it was added and how update descriptions became way less helpful?
Jackson__ 5y ago
Literally any device can force you to update, by the simple means of not letting you access the service without the latest version of their app.
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > Literally any device can force you to update, by the simple means of not letting you access the service without the latest version of their app. This is literally not true.