7 ms·

If I sold furniture, the designs and manufacturing processes and materials usage all undergo continuous iteration, yet when I sell you your chair, you don't hav

• nathan_compton 4y ago
  No one is going to use an unpatched bug in your chair to rob your house.
  • Brian_K_White 4y ago
    What a stunning observation that I totally hadn't considered. /s This is an overused excuse that does not actually justify nearly as much as what it's used for. Also, online services suffer leaks and outtages and 3-letter/police pressure that I have no control or knowledge of that self owned self hosted software does not. None of the excuses for rent hell are actually valid. They are just the excuses used to sell the idea. The fact that services have their own problems does not mean there is no such thing as a valid service, or that the security update issue is not a real thing, it just means that this security update issue is just a thing like a lot of other things, that only really necessarily applies in certain cases, and doesn't apply everywhere, and doesn't override all other concerns, and there are other equally valid issues that are addressed by the opposite sort of model. Ie, it's nothing special and does not excuse or trump anything else.
  • projektfu 4y ago
    No, but if my dehumidifier model causes fires it will be recalled and I'll get my money back to buy a new one. Although, I think some companies use recalls in a dark pattern, specifically baby product companies.
    • ghaff 4y ago
      So you're talking about an unusually serious flaw and almost certainly for some bounded period of time--and assuming the purchasers even learns of the recall. Automobiles aside, I don't think in my 60+ years I have ever been aware of a recall on a product I purchased.
      • tomrod 4y ago
        That may be the case, but a lot of people do pay attention to recalls. Whether a majority, plurality, or minority of the population I have no idea, but folks in my social circle do search for recalls when purchasing used.
        • thfuran 4y ago
          It's surely not just a minority but a very small minority if you're not counting the recalls that either end up in the news or go through the trouble of informing customers.
      • closewith 4y ago
        With respect, are you based in the US? The EU's Safety Gate programme documents safety recalls all the time, and it's common to get an email (for bigger purchases) or see recall notices at the entrance or checkouts at retailers. Retailers of safety-critical products (medical equipment, lifejackets, climbing gear, etc) will often insist on a phone number or email address in case of recall. https://ec.europa.eu/safety-gate-alerts/ https://ec.europa.eu/safety-gate-alerts/
    • blep_ 4y ago
      I'm curious now, can you expand on dark recall patterns?
  • analog31 4y ago
    Nobody is going to pay for an unpatched bug in a chair in the first place, and then be happy when they're asked to pay more to fix it.
  • closewith 4y ago
    However, if your chair allows someone to rob your house, in most jurisdictions, the manufacturer will face enormous liability. Maybe we should introduce that expectation for software developers, too.
    • julianlam 4y ago
      Where does it end? I'm liable for my client's laziness in not upgrading to a patched version?
      • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        you are liable for producing shit in the first place. If chairs killed people, ikea would not get away with 'well, they didnt pay us subscribrion to get a new safe version' If spftware industry is a joke and can't sort out it's own mess, its on us, not the consumer
      • closewith 4y ago
        This just reads to me that you don't want to have to accept any liability for the work you produce. Why shouldn't you be liable for the initial flawed software that you sold to an unsuspecting buyer? Why should you be able to suddenly shift liability onto your customer by releasing a patch? In the United States, the landmark product liability case was Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.. In the majority decision, one of the judges wrote: > Even if there is no negligence, however, public policy demands that responsibility be fixed wherever it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life and health inherent in defective products that reach the market. It is evident that the manufacturer can anticipate some hazards and guard against the recurrence of others, as the public cannot. Those who suffer injury from defective products are unprepared to meet its consequences. The cost of an injury and the loss of time or health may be an overwhelming misfortune to the person injured, and a needless one, for the risk of injury can be insured by the manufacturer and distributed among the public as a cost of doing business. It is to the public interest to discourage the marketing of products having defects that are a menace to the public. If such products nevertheless find their way into the market it is to the public interest to place the responsibility for whatever injury they may cause upon the manufacturer, who, even if he is not negligent in the manufacture of the product, is responsible for its reaching the market. However intermittently such injuries may occur and however haphazardly they may strike, the risk of their occurrence is a constant risk and a general one. Against such a risk there should be general and constant protection and the manufacturer is best situated to afford such protection. There are some things to unpack here. First, as a software developer, you are supposedly the expert and are in a far better position to evaluate your software and its potential hazards. Your customers are neither required to be experts in your software or how it might harm them, and realistically have no way to properly assess it no matter their skill level, so the responsibility falls on you. Second, it is in the public interest to dissuade software developers from releasing faulty, broken, dangerous, etc software to the public. If a law which makes you responsible for the results of your software's failing makes you think twice about selling it, then that is a benefit to the public. If you aren't confident enough that you can accept the liability, why should your customers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escola_v._Coca-Cola_Bottling_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escola_v._Coca-Cola_Bottling_C....
  • d13 4y ago
    If my unpatched chair breaks because of a manufacturing defect I’ll sue the company.
    • julianlam 4y ago
      You would? That seems like an outsized reaction to a broken chair.
      • tomrod 4y ago
        Small claims makes low dollar torts fairly straightforward.
        • leaflets2 4y ago
          Interesting, I wonder how often Small-claims gets used for software. At the same time: @d13 What if the house magically changed shape so the chair couldn't be used any more in that house? Suddenly one day you'll need to sit on the floor and eat, until you had gotten new chairs, for the new shape of the house Who would you sue (the house or the chair company or no one?) Or instead, when the house changes shape randomly and whenever, what about paying the chair company for upgrading your chairs to match the new shape of the house (and you'd never have to cook and eat on the floor) (It makes little sense, I think, to compare software with chairs and houses. Unless the houses are magical as per above)
  • spcebar 4y ago
    You live in a fancy apartment building that has a lobby with a concierge. The building isn't going to give the concierge $100,000 and tell them, okay keep coming back for the rest of your life. If the lobby of your building has a fancy chair in it, the furniture company isn't going to expect $10 a month forever to keep using it, and on the flip side, if the furniture turns out to be accidentally made of asbestos, it's the furniture company's responsibility to do something about that, regardless of the fact that you're not paying them every month. Is there a version of the concierge that's a one time purchase? Probably not a good one? The fee your paying is for 1. continued incentive to continue doing a good job and 2. Training and improvements to the staff. Is there a version of the chair that should be a recurring fee? Maybe if the chair company comes and swaps out the chair every month, but then you're not paying for the chair, you're paying for the chair service. Should the apartment building have the expectation that under a flat fee the fabric in the chair is going to get upgraded to fit new styles and tastes? No, that's never a expectation when you buy furniture. The only case where the manufacturer would be beholden to you would be if there is some gross defect in the product or if there was some negligence on their part that could lead to injury. Realistically there's not going to be an issue where a chair lets robbers in, but if you bought a door lock for example, and the lock failed when someone tapped it, you're not SOL because your not paying a subscription to the lock maker, they're liable for their defective product. There's absolutely cases where software should be a subscription model and there's absolutely cases where it shouldn't be. I don't need any features that have been added to Adobe Premiere since 2013. I don't want or need updates--my copy of CS6 still works. I'm not getting a CC subscription. If I needed software to help with accessibility compliance, I would absolutely be willing to pay a monthly fee because the standards change and information becomes out of date quickly. It would be an unreasonable expectation that a lump sum I paid in 2013 would still have my websites up to code today. -- Forgive typos, on my phone.
    • withinboredom 4y ago
      > There's absolutely cases where software should be a subscription model and there's absolutely cases where it shouldn't be. My thoughts on this: 1. How long would it take a team of 4 people to build this with just the features I need for a single user? 2. How much would it cost to contract a team to build that (ball bark)? If it can be done on a single person's salary, I'm not paying a monthly subscription, no matter how inexpensive. I'm also not contracting that work either, but I might be tempted to compete with them if my employer let me (they won't). Only certain things make sense as a subscription, and those are things that have an infinite (or practically infinite) cost to the consumer, thus they should have an amortized infinite cost.
• Varqu 4y ago
  Speaking from a consumer perspective, there should be definitely 2 options: 1. You pay for a subscription $X per month and get the newest updates. 2. You pay $Y*X once, but then you are left with the version which you bought in the first place.
  • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Why can't software like a music player or playing podcast function perfectly fine w9thout updates for 10 years. We had same audio formats for 10 years, and same OS audio API.
    • Varqu 4y ago
      Well, most software can run perfectly without updates, for example: You can still have a PC running on Windows XP. Why you might need updates: 1. New functionality (if you need a particular feature that was not available before) 2. Security issues
    • ChadNauseam 4y ago
      this is my own ignorance, but have codecs not changed or gotten new features in the last 10 years?
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • willjp 4y ago
      This is my favourite model. Say you are an illustrator, you purchase photoshop once for 900$ and you update again when the features are compelling. Maybe every 5 years? These are not industries where people make programmer wages. Combining all of the required software costs is very expensive. Subscriptions more closely match the model/needs of the producer, but they are often quite bad the consumer.
      • jbluepolarbear 4y ago
• yunohn 4y ago
  > you don't have to keep paying me forever to keep using it. Your analogy is flawed. Rather, you will never indefinitely get the latest quality chair for free after buying it. Nor if tomorrow plastics are banned, they won't replace your chair with wood or metal for free either. And if the fabric wears, they won't replace it for free either. So, why should software updates be free in a dynamic computing world?
  • Brian_K_White 4y ago
    That was covered, as it's obvious.
• skeeter2020 4y ago
  If you sold furniture you would also sell a heck of a lot more of it on very low, very long payment plans. Even more extreme with cars, resulting in leases that are essentially long term rentals or "subscriptions"
  • TrueSlacker0 4y ago
    But you now own the product at the end of the term.
  • Brian_K_White 4y ago
    But RentACenter is only RentACenter, and unlike a lot of on-line services, I don't have to use them to furnish my house. It's fine for the rental option to exist, the problem is only when no other option exists, and, increasingly, no other option exists. Please don't waste our time pointing out how this is generalization and alternatives do exist technically for most things. It's obviously not 100% services, but the entire world of software is becoming more and more each day, worse today than yesterday, worse tomorrow than today, a choice between two opposite ends of a spectrum: 0% ownership in the form of services, and 100% ownership in the form of open source. Each of those are fine in various circumstances. For many things, and increasing, no practical alternative to "RentACenter" software exists because in most cases an individual is not realistically free to do their own thing if they want to sell to customers and buy from vendors and interoperate with family and friends who all take the easy path and use all the major services, or even without interoperation issues the alternative option simply doesn't do the same job or doesn't exist. And the damning thing is that it used to exist, meaning the rental model is not a required aspect to produce the product to do the job.
• nunez 4y ago
  And the margins for those furniture businesses are super duper tiny, whereas software margins are super duper not. Ironically, this is why they hawk monthly plans like the world is ending.