14 ms·

The basic problem I see here is that you don't own the speakers you have bought. My moral point of view is: I bought the thing so I own it. I must be allowed t

The basic problem I see here is that you don't own the speakers you have bought. My moral point of view is: I bought the thing so I own it. I must be allowed to understand how it works and I decide what it does. I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) and no one else can do that without my order. Buying locked black boxes is bad (for the customers). Buying locked black boxes that change their functionality without my consent after I bought them is a so utterly broken system that I don't have words for it.

MereInterest 5y ago
Agreed wholeheartedly. Google is acting like their hands are tied, and cannot possibly take any other action than to remove a feature from existing devices. If they do, they should be fully liable for fraud, having performed a bait and switch. That the switch happened a significant time after the purchase doesn't change the fact that Google misrepresented the capabilities of the product.
- duxup 5y ago
  > having performed a bait and switch I don’t think getting sued and losing is bait and switch.
  - mbreese 5y ago
    Not intentionally, but they did sell something with a feature, only to remove that feature later. The issue isn’t that they got sued and have to remove that feature from future speakers. The issue is that they removed the feature from devices they already sold.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      In reality, Sonos is not even required to license the ‘technology’ and should they decide to do so, they can ask whatever price they want. Would you suggest there is some legal way to make Google liable for that?
      - mbreese 5y ago
        Well, Google has already infringed on the devices sold. So, yes they are liable for that. For new devices, Google wouldn’t need to include the same functionality — new customers won’t be expecting the functionality. What I’m curious about is why they removed the functionality from existing devices. That just opens them up to another lawsuit, this time from customers (for bait and switch). I’m sympathetic… they are in a damned if you do/damned if you don’t situation. And this is probably the cheapest way out.
      - MereInterest 5y ago
        Yes, in the same way that the manufacturer of a physical product may be sued for damages. Suppose I buy a pair of scissors. Fancy new scissors, with some whiz-bang feature that makes them really cool scissors that can cut through anything. Now, the manufacturer is sued for violating a patent, and loses the case. The manufacturer may end up paying a fine to the patent holder. The manufacturer may no longer be allowed to sell those scissors, or to sell repair kits for those scissors. But the manufacturer may not break into my house, take the scissors out of my drawer, and modify them. I've bought them, and the manufacturer no longer has any right to change them. The problem isn't just that Google removed a feature from an existing product. The problem is also that Google has the ability to do so in the first place.
  - sp332 5y ago
    I don't think it was fraud specifically, but having sold something they weren't allowed to sell, they should refund the customers who are losing the features.
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    Google is attempting to mitigate one wrong by performing another. Google is not allowed to implement feature covered by another company's patent. Google is also not allowed to sell a product advertised as having a specific feature and then later remove that feature. The two are independent. Having lost the lawsuit, Google's proposed remedy is to "undo" the patent infringement by removing the patented feature. This may reduce the harm to Sonos, but actively harms people who purchased the devices.
fsflover 5y ago
If you want to support alternative vendors, have a look at this: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v12/ https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v12/.
bsedlm 5y ago
What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? As computers are now everywhere and have to do with everything, it is becoming a real political issue to decide if people should be allowed to really modify their computers. Smartphones most certainly do not allow it. PCs do, but they're from the hobby dominated earlier phase of the technology. > Buying locked black boxes that change their functionality without my consent after I bought them is a so utterly broken system that I don't have words for it. I just refer to this as our current situation, and it's going to get worse.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights.
  - bsedlm 5y ago
    The car example is a terrible example. I only used it because it's a well known example. But I'm actually thinking about digital computer techonology. In computers the difference between able and allowed works very differently. Specially in software-only contexts (hardware will likely remain hackable). I'm trying to draw attention to the software-only case (which is also what the article's about). My nightmare scenario is that by some means, things like web-inpsector tools cease to work, or require a licensed regulated permission to be opened or something. A technology like WASM, it seems to me, accomplishes a similar goal without trying to do it. The goal of WASM is completely unrelated to restricting inspect-ability, which in turn reduces the ability to modify, yet it manages to do this, it raises the bar for changing webpages.
  - mindcrime 5y ago
    Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights. Right. And maybe even more key is that the manufacturer "allowing" that does not alleviate you from liability for any bad thing that happens as a result of you choosing to drive around without brake lights. There are other ways to cultivate safety, besides manufacturers locking things down and making them an unmodifiable black-box.
alistairSH 5y ago
Totally agree - I hate that consumer electronics, now including very expensive products like cars, are black-box with OTA updates that can alter functionality in undesirable ways. The latest update from Tesla including a significant UI update which many owners are unhappy about. One example I heard was the seat-heat control is now buried one level lower in the menu. Not only is that an annoying change, but potentially has safety ramifications - putting controls in a touchscreen is bad enough, but burying them makes those controls unsafe to use underway.
- hnburnsy 5y ago
  Voice control... "My butt is cold" "My butt is too hot" https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1v4m7aHk__KdfkoedDsiChxilbTvSg9AkV3J1quU0iRo/htmlview#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1v4m7aHk__Kdfkoed...
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    Does it work with an accent? Serious question, voice control often doesn't work well with a heavy accent.
charcircuit 5y ago
>I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) Sure, but you can't change it to do something that violates someone's patent without licensing it.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure I can, as long as I'm not selling it. A patent doesn't ban an object from existence.
  - sulam 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure (dueling IANALs!) you can't. This is why patent licenses are such a key piece of OSS packages that you want companies to be able to use.
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      Define "use". The GPL explicitly allows internal use / modification of software, for example[1]. It's only when you sell / distribute software that includes OSS components that licenses matter. I can do whatever I want with OSS code and I can modify consumer electronics I've bought any way I want; there is no need to be concerned with licenses and patents. Only if I want to sell my creation do patents matter. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi...
      - sulam 5y ago
        I honestly believe you're wrong here. There's no exclusion for not profiting from your unlicensed use of a patent, you're infringing regardless of how you use it. Whether or not someone will sue you obviously brings into question damages and how they would collect them, but I don't believe infringing behavior is contingent on a monetary exchange. Here you go, a source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/patent_infringement https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/patent_infringement [...] one commits patent infringement by making, using, offering to sell, or selling something that contains every element of a patented claim [...]
lkxijlewlf 5y ago
That's the world we're moving towards. I was recently looking at the Opal C1. Looks great. $300 is a bit rich, but the kicker was they want $4/month for the software! Now, maybe the camera will function without it? I dunno, I kinda stopped right there and didn't look further because that turned me off.
- iratewizard 5y ago
  Key fobs, cameras, and everything else wrapped up with a subscription service. Appliances built to fail so that you won't mind renting every major purchase in your house. Single family homes being bought up by REITs like Blackrock, so a larger proportion of the population has to rent for life. Endless printing of money to devalue what you have and enrich the architects of the broken system. Useless idiots fighting to empower said architects, entranced by the promise of endless charity bringing them to prosperity. It's a creative form of slavery at least.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    It is not that simple. If you are willing to shell out more money for "professional" products, you can get products that standalone or you can buy a standalone system (e.g. security cameras with an NVR etc.). What we are getting is a two-tiered society where people with more money have the option to "completely" own their appliances/electronics/homes, while the majority of people cannot afford to do so.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Ugh. Subscriptions for things that don't require updates or continued support/infrastructure from the vendor drive me crazy. The Opal C1 is a prime example. It's a webcam. If the feature-set at sale is acceptable to the consumer, there's no additional cost to Opal (no servers to maintain etc) to necessitate a subscription. It's been posted many times, but it's a good one, so... The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.” He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.” “I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.” In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip. “You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug. From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door. “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it." ― Philip K. Dick, Ubik
Semaphor 5y ago
Another thing I’m currently realizing as I’m building my own completely local smart assistant (based on Rhasspy): Those black boxes are a lot cheaper. Just the hardware I need to replace an Echo Dot (and excluding the Pi 4 that does the heavy processing) could buy me 2 - 3 Echo Dots from Amazon.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  I’ve just started searching for completely local voice assistants, and had only found Mycroft. Thanks for mentioning Rhasspy, that looks like exactly what I want (my search skills failed me yesterday). And I completely agree about HW costs. Just getting a decent mike and speaker peripheral gets you close to the price point of the echo dot. I’m curious how much researching you’ve put into HW options, and if you’re currently leaning toward any specific HW
  - Semaphor 5y ago
    Rhasspy is amazing! It supports everything I want: central processing with several satellites, multi-language requests (while I want to keep everything English, I also want to request bands not in English), pre-defined commands, fine-tuning. For the microphone, I want to go with the ReSpeaker mic array in a case [0] for when I need multi-directional far-field recognition (living room, bed room), and probably the often recommended PS2 microphone otherwise (office, kitchen). Speakers will be normal PC stereo speakers in the kitchen, cheapest output I can find for all others (only the kitchen needs to play music while I cook). rPi 4 will run full Rhasspy (I currently have it on my home assistant pi, I’ll need to see about performance), my old pi3 is running it as a satellite for testing, I want all satellites to be on pi Zero 2 eventually (online discussions say the Zero 1 is too weak for speedy wakeword recognition) But I still need to do more evaluation and setup before I’m done, currently the satellite can do nothing but turn the office light on and off :D [0]: https://www.seeedstudio.com/ReSpeaker-USB-Mic-Array-p-4247.html https://www.seeedstudio.com/ReSpeaker-USB-Mic-Array-p-4247.h... edit: Just wanted to add that the reason I’m going with a Pi is not some specific love for it, but that it’s the platform I’ll have the easiest time finding support for online ;) It matters less for the processor, so if the Mini-ITX SoC’s I want become available again, and I can build my own NAS, then maybe Rhasspy will just run on that.
Workaccount2 5y ago
Black boxes that you paid for upfront, that change their functionality, and you have to pay $9.99/mo for it.
gameshot911 5y ago
Does the moral situation change if I the seller make you agree not to tamper with the product before I sell it to you, and you do so?
- rlpb 5y ago
  Either I own it or I don't. If you don't want me to tamper with it, then you can't sell it to me. You can give me use of it under some other kind of agreement, but then you can't misrepresent that as a "sale".
  - cheschire 5y ago
    Is your contention that a sale cannot contain a hybrid of services and goods, and must be one or the other?
    - inetknght 5y ago
      Sales can't be for devices that you don't own. Period. If you want to sell services that require specific hardware that you don't want the person to change to their will then make it clear that the device is loaned.
    - rlpb 5y ago
      It is not. Merely that there is no "sale of goods" component if the buyer doesn't end up owning the goods, where I define ownership as meaning that there aren't contractual restrictions on what the owner can do with them. This might mean that it's entirely a service by this definition.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    While I agree that the owner has every right to modify their own property, I see no reason why you can't buy an item (with full rights) while also agreeing to pay a penalty to the seller if you modify it. That's just a sale combined with a standard performance contract. You would retain the right to make changes—doing so does not infringe on the seller's rights, as they are no longer the owner—but there would be consequences for doing so because of the second part of the contract which you voluntarily agree to as a condition of the sale. Of course a penalty clause like this is demanding quite a large concession from the buyer, so I would hope people would tend to be reluctant to agree to such terms. It's also not the sort of thing you could easily claim was included in an implied contract without explicit notification and formal consent.
yawnxyz 5y ago
It's as if the speakers you buy are like contracts on the blockchain that point to jpgs on some Dropbox... Except in this case it's Google's servers. And Tesla, Toyota, Keurig and an increasing number of hardware manufacturers will continue to yoink features we think we "own"
cmurf 5y ago
I agree. But the Apple culture of selling an experience not a product, with a claimed residual ownership of the hardware to prevent you from completely understanding or controlling how it works and what software runs on it, and who can repair it, is being widely replicated now. John Deere. Tesla. Requiring owners to use OEM parts to avoid manufacturer voiding the warranty, is a violation of the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act. I don't see why tech companies get away with what automobile companies know they can't. https://www.aftermarketnews.com/hyundai-issues-statement-on-ftc-compliance-warning/ https://www.aftermarketnews.com/hyundai-issues-statement-on-... https://blog.amsoil.com/a-victory-for-consumer-freedom/ https://blog.amsoil.com/a-victory-for-consumer-freedom/ Had this act not existed, had the FTC not had the power to send out nasty grams on behalf of consumers, you'd only be able to put in GM branded motor oil to keep your automobile warranty from being voided. It's going to take a broad right to repair law to stop the trend, and unfortunately I'm not sure we'll get it because tech buys politicians. And the vast majority of consumers really just don't give a shit about understanding technology or repair. They willingly just shell out the cash.

MereInterest 5y ago

Agreed wholeheartedly. Google is acting like their hands are tied, and cannot possibly take any other action than to remove a feature from existing devices. If they do, they should be fully liable for fraud, having performed a bait and switch. That the switch happened a significant time after the purchase doesn't change the fact that Google misrepresented the capabilities of the product.

duxup 5y ago
> having performed a bait and switch I don’t think getting sued and losing is bait and switch.
- mbreese 5y ago
  Not intentionally, but they did sell something with a feature, only to remove that feature later. The issue isn’t that they got sued and have to remove that feature from future speakers. The issue is that they removed the feature from devices they already sold.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    In reality, Sonos is not even required to license the ‘technology’ and should they decide to do so, they can ask whatever price they want. Would you suggest there is some legal way to make Google liable for that?
    - mbreese 5y ago
      Well, Google has already infringed on the devices sold. So, yes they are liable for that. For new devices, Google wouldn’t need to include the same functionality — new customers won’t be expecting the functionality. What I’m curious about is why they removed the functionality from existing devices. That just opens them up to another lawsuit, this time from customers (for bait and switch). I’m sympathetic… they are in a damned if you do/damned if you don’t situation. And this is probably the cheapest way out.
    - MereInterest 5y ago
      Yes, in the same way that the manufacturer of a physical product may be sued for damages. Suppose I buy a pair of scissors. Fancy new scissors, with some whiz-bang feature that makes them really cool scissors that can cut through anything. Now, the manufacturer is sued for violating a patent, and loses the case. The manufacturer may end up paying a fine to the patent holder. The manufacturer may no longer be allowed to sell those scissors, or to sell repair kits for those scissors. But the manufacturer may not break into my house, take the scissors out of my drawer, and modify them. I've bought them, and the manufacturer no longer has any right to change them. The problem isn't just that Google removed a feature from an existing product. The problem is also that Google has the ability to do so in the first place.
- sp332 5y ago
  I don't think it was fraud specifically, but having sold something they weren't allowed to sell, they should refund the customers who are losing the features.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  Google is attempting to mitigate one wrong by performing another. Google is not allowed to implement feature covered by another company's patent. Google is also not allowed to sell a product advertised as having a specific feature and then later remove that feature. The two are independent. Having lost the lawsuit, Google's proposed remedy is to "undo" the patent infringement by removing the patented feature. This may reduce the harm to Sonos, but actively harms people who purchased the devices.

fsflover 5y ago

If you want to support alternative vendors, have a look at this: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v12/ https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v12/.

bsedlm 5y ago

What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? As computers are now everywhere and have to do with everything, it is becoming a real political issue to decide if people should be allowed to really modify their computers. Smartphones most certainly do not allow it. PCs do, but they're from the hobby dominated earlier phase of the technology. > Buying locked black boxes that change their functionality without my consent after I bought them is a so utterly broken system that I don't have words for it. I just refer to this as our current situation, and it's going to get worse.

josephcsible 5y ago
> What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  The car example is a terrible example. I only used it because it's a well known example. But I'm actually thinking about digital computer techonology. In computers the difference between able and allowed works very differently. Specially in software-only contexts (hardware will likely remain hackable). I'm trying to draw attention to the software-only case (which is also what the article's about). My nightmare scenario is that by some means, things like web-inpsector tools cease to work, or require a licensed regulated permission to be opened or something. A technology like WASM, it seems to me, accomplishes a similar goal without trying to do it. The goal of WASM is completely unrelated to restricting inspect-ability, which in turn reduces the ability to modify, yet it manages to do this, it raises the bar for changing webpages.
- mindcrime 5y ago
  Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights. Right. And maybe even more key is that the manufacturer "allowing" that does not alleviate you from liability for any bad thing that happens as a result of you choosing to drive around without brake lights. There are other ways to cultivate safety, besides manufacturers locking things down and making them an unmodifiable black-box.

alistairSH 5y ago

Totally agree - I hate that consumer electronics, now including very expensive products like cars, are black-box with OTA updates that can alter functionality in undesirable ways. The latest update from Tesla including a significant UI update which many owners are unhappy about. One example I heard was the seat-heat control is now buried one level lower in the menu. Not only is that an annoying change, but potentially has safety ramifications - putting controls in a touchscreen is bad enough, but burying them makes those controls unsafe to use underway.

hnburnsy 5y ago
Voice control... "My butt is cold" "My butt is too hot" https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1v4m7aHk__KdfkoedDsiChxilbTvSg9AkV3J1quU0iRo/htmlview#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1v4m7aHk__Kdfkoed...
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Does it work with an accent? Serious question, voice control often doesn't work well with a heavy accent.

charcircuit 5y ago

>I should be able to change the thing's behavior (if I have the skills) Sure, but you can't change it to do something that violates someone's patent without licensing it.

dahfizz 5y ago
I'm pretty sure I can, as long as I'm not selling it. A patent doesn't ban an object from existence.
- sulam 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure (dueling IANALs!) you can't. This is why patent licenses are such a key piece of OSS packages that you want companies to be able to use.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    Define "use". The GPL explicitly allows internal use / modification of software, for example[1]. It's only when you sell / distribute software that includes OSS components that licenses matter. I can do whatever I want with OSS code and I can modify consumer electronics I've bought any way I want; there is no need to be concerned with licenses and patents. Only if I want to sell my creation do patents matter. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi...
    - sulam 5y ago
      I honestly believe you're wrong here. There's no exclusion for not profiting from your unlicensed use of a patent, you're infringing regardless of how you use it. Whether or not someone will sue you obviously brings into question damages and how they would collect them, but I don't believe infringing behavior is contingent on a monetary exchange. Here you go, a source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/patent_infringement https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/patent_infringement [...] one commits patent infringement by making, using, offering to sell, or selling something that contains every element of a patented claim [...]

lkxijlewlf 5y ago

That's the world we're moving towards. I was recently looking at the Opal C1. Looks great. $300 is a bit rich, but the kicker was they want $4/month for the software! Now, maybe the camera will function without it? I dunno, I kinda stopped right there and didn't look further because that turned me off.

iratewizard 5y ago
Key fobs, cameras, and everything else wrapped up with a subscription service. Appliances built to fail so that you won't mind renting every major purchase in your house. Single family homes being bought up by REITs like Blackrock, so a larger proportion of the population has to rent for life. Endless printing of money to devalue what you have and enrich the architects of the broken system. Useless idiots fighting to empower said architects, entranced by the promise of endless charity bringing them to prosperity. It's a creative form of slavery at least.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  It is not that simple. If you are willing to shell out more money for "professional" products, you can get products that standalone or you can buy a standalone system (e.g. security cameras with an NVR etc.). What we are getting is a two-tiered society where people with more money have the option to "completely" own their appliances/electronics/homes, while the majority of people cannot afford to do so.
alistairSH 5y ago
Ugh. Subscriptions for things that don't require updates or continued support/infrastructure from the vendor drive me crazy. The Opal C1 is a prime example. It's a webcam. If the feature-set at sale is acceptable to the consumer, there's no additional cost to Opal (no servers to maintain etc) to necessitate a subscription. It's been posted many times, but it's a good one, so... The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.” He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.” “I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.” In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip. “You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug. From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door. “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it." ― Philip K. Dick, Ubik

Semaphor 5y ago

Another thing I’m currently realizing as I’m building my own completely local smart assistant (based on Rhasspy): Those black boxes are a lot cheaper. Just the hardware I need to replace an Echo Dot (and excluding the Pi 4 that does the heavy processing) could buy me 2 - 3 Echo Dots from Amazon.

ncallaway 5y ago
I’ve just started searching for completely local voice assistants, and had only found Mycroft. Thanks for mentioning Rhasspy, that looks like exactly what I want (my search skills failed me yesterday). And I completely agree about HW costs. Just getting a decent mike and speaker peripheral gets you close to the price point of the echo dot. I’m curious how much researching you’ve put into HW options, and if you’re currently leaning toward any specific HW
- Semaphor 5y ago
  Rhasspy is amazing! It supports everything I want: central processing with several satellites, multi-language requests (while I want to keep everything English, I also want to request bands not in English), pre-defined commands, fine-tuning. For the microphone, I want to go with the ReSpeaker mic array in a case [0] for when I need multi-directional far-field recognition (living room, bed room), and probably the often recommended PS2 microphone otherwise (office, kitchen). Speakers will be normal PC stereo speakers in the kitchen, cheapest output I can find for all others (only the kitchen needs to play music while I cook). rPi 4 will run full Rhasspy (I currently have it on my home assistant pi, I’ll need to see about performance), my old pi3 is running it as a satellite for testing, I want all satellites to be on pi Zero 2 eventually (online discussions say the Zero 1 is too weak for speedy wakeword recognition) But I still need to do more evaluation and setup before I’m done, currently the satellite can do nothing but turn the office light on and off :D [0]: https://www.seeedstudio.com/ReSpeaker-USB-Mic-Array-p-4247.html https://www.seeedstudio.com/ReSpeaker-USB-Mic-Array-p-4247.h... edit: Just wanted to add that the reason I’m going with a Pi is not some specific love for it, but that it’s the platform I’ll have the easiest time finding support for online ;) It matters less for the processor, so if the Mini-ITX SoC’s I want become available again, and I can build my own NAS, then maybe Rhasspy will just run on that.

Workaccount2 5y ago

Black boxes that you paid for upfront, that change their functionality, and you have to pay $9.99/mo for it.

gameshot911 5y ago

Does the moral situation change if I the seller make you agree not to tamper with the product before I sell it to you, and you do so?

rlpb 5y ago
Either I own it or I don't. If you don't want me to tamper with it, then you can't sell it to me. You can give me use of it under some other kind of agreement, but then you can't misrepresent that as a "sale".
- cheschire 5y ago
  Is your contention that a sale cannot contain a hybrid of services and goods, and must be one or the other?
  - inetknght 5y ago
    Sales can't be for devices that you don't own. Period. If you want to sell services that require specific hardware that you don't want the person to change to their will then make it clear that the device is loaned.
  - rlpb 5y ago
    It is not. Merely that there is no "sale of goods" component if the buyer doesn't end up owning the goods, where I define ownership as meaning that there aren't contractual restrictions on what the owner can do with them. This might mean that it's entirely a service by this definition.
- nybble41 5y ago
  While I agree that the owner has every right to modify their own property, I see no reason why you can't buy an item (with full rights) while also agreeing to pay a penalty to the seller if you modify it. That's just a sale combined with a standard performance contract. You would retain the right to make changes—doing so does not infringe on the seller's rights, as they are no longer the owner—but there would be consequences for doing so because of the second part of the contract which you voluntarily agree to as a condition of the sale. Of course a penalty clause like this is demanding quite a large concession from the buyer, so I would hope people would tend to be reluctant to agree to such terms. It's also not the sort of thing you could easily claim was included in an implied contract without explicit notification and formal consent.

yawnxyz 5y ago

It's as if the speakers you buy are like contracts on the blockchain that point to jpgs on some Dropbox... Except in this case it's Google's servers. And Tesla, Toyota, Keurig and an increasing number of hardware manufacturers will continue to yoink features we think we "own"

cmurf 5y ago

I agree. But the Apple culture of selling an experience not a product, with a claimed residual ownership of the hardware to prevent you from completely understanding or controlling how it works and what software runs on it, and who can repair it, is being widely replicated now. John Deere. Tesla. Requiring owners to use OEM parts to avoid manufacturer voiding the warranty, is a violation of the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act. I don't see why tech companies get away with what automobile companies know they can't. https://www.aftermarketnews.com/hyundai-issues-statement-on-ftc-compliance-warning/ https://www.aftermarketnews.com/hyundai-issues-statement-on-... https://blog.amsoil.com/a-victory-for-consumer-freedom/ https://blog.amsoil.com/a-victory-for-consumer-freedom/ Had this act not existed, had the FTC not had the power to send out nasty grams on behalf of consumers, you'd only be able to put in GM branded motor oil to keep your automobile warranty from being voided. It's going to take a broad right to repair law to stop the trend, and unfortunately I'm not sure we'll get it because tech buys politicians. And the vast majority of consumers really just don't give a shit about understanding technology or repair. They willingly just shell out the cash.