There is a bunch of comments stating that the article is misleading. For example, referring to the first paragraph with the woman describing how her device stop

There is a bunch of comments stating that the article is misleading. For example, referring to the first paragraph with the woman describing how her device stopped working. The company's abandoning the tech and almost going bankrupt is only a part of the story, albeit central. They did not disable her device remotely, and they still worked on the tech at the time, but they COULD NOT repair the device: Barbara Campbell, who received her implant during the clinical trial of the Argus II... But in 2013, after four years of regular use, Campbell’s system shut down in the subway station, and despite some repair attempts by Second Sight, never worked again. While she talked with her doctors about having the implant removed, she ultimately decided that the risks of another surgery weren’t worth it. She still has the defunct technology in her left eye. It shut down unexpectedly, the company still worked on the tech, yet could not repair it. She now has a defunct neurological device in her head that is supposedly unrepairable and the risk of removing it might outweigh the risk of keeping it. Isn't it terrifying as is? Now to add to the insult, the company that made it shifted to something else, so if it starts causing any troubles, there will be no-one to provide expertise to help assess the risk. It reinforces the main story quite a bit: there is enough risk and complexity as is, regardless the company going out of business.