5 ms·

My solution to this problem would be legislation that allows customers, if they wish to, to return devices for a full refund if the company that manufactures th

by mcherm 5y ago

My solution to this problem would be legislation that allows customers, if they wish to, to return devices for a full refund if the company that manufactures the device makes a change that removes functionality that the customer valued. This doesn't prevent the company from making the change, it simply makes sure that they incur a cost for doing so, and it makes whole any customer affected by the change.

klabb3 5y ago
Wow this is by far the best solution to this pervasive problem I've seen, no irony. This way, you don't need legislators go into technical and domain specific detail. Producers are incentivized to provide optional updates or "downgrades" if necessary, and if they shut their cloud services off and brick the device, people have a right to return it. Additionally, it can't be abused by customers if the company acts well. However, we still need to tackle the subscription issue, I.e. That manufacturers can hide behind "you didn't renew the subscription for this printer/treadmill so now we brick it". Any ideas?
- rchaud 5y ago
  You won't need legislators, but you will have to make your case to whoever is manning the returns department at Walmart.
  - pjerem 5y ago
    You misinterpreted. Of course you still need a judiciary process. But you’ll won it because the law would clearly be on your side. Still hard to prove your case, but no company will take the risk because they could have thousands of customers ready to prove they have been abused.
tzs 5y ago
What counts as functionality? For example suppose the UI of a treadmill has a "Last 5 workout programs used" section on the front page of the UI to allow the user to select with one tap a recent program. An update replace that with a "recents..." button which takes you to a new screen that shows the last 10 programs used. Is no longer providing one tap access to the most recent 5 programs removal of functionality? Or is the feature just that it has a way to recall recent programs so as long as there still is a way to do that, even if more convoluted, it does not count as a feature removal? How about functionality that was not in the device when it was purchased but was added by an update? If the law does apply to that, then in effect the manufacturer will be locked into only ever adding functionality. After a few updates the UI is probably going to be a total mess. If the law only applies to features present at purchase, then manufactures will just ship bare bones devices that only implement what is necessary to make the claims on the box and in their advertisements not false. Then the first update will add a ton of stuff to make it more than bare bones.
- wruza 5y ago
  After a few updates the UI is probably going to be a total mess After a few messes the UI teams will figure out that you have to advertise and implement features in a way that doesn't interfere with user's habit. E.g. has a start screen where you may pin "last 5 workout programs", "recents...", any menu item, and a button to access other functions at top right.
smabie 5y ago
This basically means that everything that has software updates can be returned forever. Like most of things in life, the answer is very rarely a new myopic and ill-conceived law added to the thick stack of existing incomprehensible legislation.
- wruza 5y ago
  This basically means that everything that has software updates can be returned forever. It doesn't. It means that functionality cannot be changed in a degrading way, but upgrading and non-conflicting security updates are still allowed. For a customer, money upfront and money over time is the same (adjusting for the interest rate). They don't need just a dead brick, whatever it costs in production. When your saas stops having a feature, you stop paying. This is no different, except that I'd vote for a law which amortized the upfront cost to the real usage time. E.g. I bought a treadmill with 2-year warranty for $4000 and it stopped doing a claimed feature after a year (iow, became broken from my perspective). I either receive a service which returns the feature, or get $2000 back + 20% fine for inconvenience.

by mcherm 5y ago

klabb3 5y ago

Wow this is by far the best solution to this pervasive problem I've seen, no irony. This way, you don't need legislators go into technical and domain specific detail. Producers are incentivized to provide optional updates or "downgrades" if necessary, and if they shut their cloud services off and brick the device, people have a right to return it. Additionally, it can't be abused by customers if the company acts well. However, we still need to tackle the subscription issue, I.e. That manufacturers can hide behind "you didn't renew the subscription for this printer/treadmill so now we brick it". Any ideas?

rchaud 5y ago
You won't need legislators, but you will have to make your case to whoever is manning the returns department at Walmart.
- pjerem 5y ago
  You misinterpreted. Of course you still need a judiciary process. But you’ll won it because the law would clearly be on your side. Still hard to prove your case, but no company will take the risk because they could have thousands of customers ready to prove they have been abused.

tzs 5y ago

What counts as functionality? For example suppose the UI of a treadmill has a "Last 5 workout programs used" section on the front page of the UI to allow the user to select with one tap a recent program. An update replace that with a "recents..." button which takes you to a new screen that shows the last 10 programs used. Is no longer providing one tap access to the most recent 5 programs removal of functionality? Or is the feature just that it has a way to recall recent programs so as long as there still is a way to do that, even if more convoluted, it does not count as a feature removal? How about functionality that was not in the device when it was purchased but was added by an update? If the law does apply to that, then in effect the manufacturer will be locked into only ever adding functionality. After a few updates the UI is probably going to be a total mess. If the law only applies to features present at purchase, then manufactures will just ship bare bones devices that only implement what is necessary to make the claims on the box and in their advertisements not false. Then the first update will add a ton of stuff to make it more than bare bones.

wruza 5y ago
After a few updates the UI is probably going to be a total mess After a few messes the UI teams will figure out that you have to advertise and implement features in a way that doesn't interfere with user's habit. E.g. has a start screen where you may pin "last 5 workout programs", "recents...", any menu item, and a button to access other functions at top right.

smabie 5y ago

This basically means that everything that has software updates can be returned forever. Like most of things in life, the answer is very rarely a new myopic and ill-conceived law added to the thick stack of existing incomprehensible legislation.

wruza 5y ago
This basically means that everything that has software updates can be returned forever. It doesn't. It means that functionality cannot be changed in a degrading way, but upgrading and non-conflicting security updates are still allowed. For a customer, money upfront and money over time is the same (adjusting for the interest rate). They don't need just a dead brick, whatever it costs in production. When your saas stops having a feature, you stop paying. This is no different, except that I'd vote for a law which amortized the upfront cost to the real usage time. E.g. I bought a treadmill with 2-year warranty for $4000 and it stopped doing a claimed feature after a year (iow, became broken from my perspective). I either receive a service which returns the feature, or get $2000 back + 20% fine for inconvenience.