4 ms·

I don't think subscriptions per se is that much of a problem, but for certain products I feel like there needs to be some kind of regulation mandating companies

I don't think subscriptions per se is that much of a problem, but for certain products I feel like there needs to be some kind of regulation mandating companies to enable some kind of self-hosted solution on the event they take their cloud down for whatever reason (including bankruptcy). If the product requires online servers, and the company is not willing/able to keep those servers online, anyone who has paid for the product should at least have the option to drift it for themselves. This is especially true for products that are upfront purchase+subscription. At present I just refuse to purchase such products cause I just know they'll stop working and then I'll own a brick.

Gigachad 4y ago
This isn't true for most things you "subscribe" to. If the gym closes down, they aren't required to provide a new location near you. If your office building gets demolished, there is no recourse. You just have to deal with it and sort out your own alternative.
- _delirium 4y ago
  If it's purely a subscription service then that's fine. What bugs me is selling a software or hardware product for an up-front purchase price, but then disabling it by discontinuing a cloud service that it depends on. In those cases I think customers should have some kind of recourse, either as a refund or by allowing them to "unbrick" the device themselves with something self-hosted. For example, if Philips decides to shut down the Hue servers, I think they should be required to make enough technical information available so people who bought Hue products can keep using them. An example of a company voluntarily taking the refund option is Google Stadia. They're shutting down the online service, which will effectively brick all the hardware, and also render purchased software unusable. But they're fully refunding everyone's purchases. It's not clear they legally have to though; perhaps they could've just screwed over everyone who bought the products. I assume there would've been lawsuits to try to sort that out.
- franga2000 4y ago
  Just because there are other situations that suck, doesn't mean this one has to. Allowing users to use software if a company goes bankrupt or kills a product costs next to nothing. A big difference is also that many other subscriptions are much more fungible - I can easily go to another gym or rent a similar office in a nearby building, but I can't go play Sadia-exclusive games on another cloud gaming provider or move my Adobe Lightroom catalogue to some other software.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    I disagree that the situation sucks. You gain value while paying. If it goes away in the future, that doesn’t take away from the current value. Just make sure your data is portable which it should be by EU laws and you are ok.
- layer8 4y ago
  Gyms are compatible which each other in the sense that you can train your body in any of them. If your office building collapses, you can move to another one offering basically the same facilities. The same is often not true for your data that you manage using some SaaS product. For example, should Trello shut down, then even if you can export all your data in some JSON or XML format, there would be no other software where you can continue to use that data in a fashion remotely equal to Trello. Or should GitHub shut down, you'd still have the contents your Git repository, but you couldn't just move your GitHub Actions (and whatever else they provide) to some other service. Services are heavily incentivised to lock in their users with proprietary features, so that users can't easily migrate to a competitor. And that's what comes back to bite you when a service shuts down. Of course, a regulation like the GP proposes would be difficult due to IP rights and third-party licensing. It's more that users should avoid services that lock them in.

Gigachad 4y ago

This isn't true for most things you "subscribe" to. If the gym closes down, they aren't required to provide a new location near you. If your office building gets demolished, there is no recourse. You just have to deal with it and sort out your own alternative.

_delirium 4y ago
If it's purely a subscription service then that's fine. What bugs me is selling a software or hardware product for an up-front purchase price, but then disabling it by discontinuing a cloud service that it depends on. In those cases I think customers should have some kind of recourse, either as a refund or by allowing them to "unbrick" the device themselves with something self-hosted. For example, if Philips decides to shut down the Hue servers, I think they should be required to make enough technical information available so people who bought Hue products can keep using them. An example of a company voluntarily taking the refund option is Google Stadia. They're shutting down the online service, which will effectively brick all the hardware, and also render purchased software unusable. But they're fully refunding everyone's purchases. It's not clear they legally have to though; perhaps they could've just screwed over everyone who bought the products. I assume there would've been lawsuits to try to sort that out.
franga2000 4y ago
Just because there are other situations that suck, doesn't mean this one has to. Allowing users to use software if a company goes bankrupt or kills a product costs next to nothing. A big difference is also that many other subscriptions are much more fungible - I can easily go to another gym or rent a similar office in a nearby building, but I can't go play Sadia-exclusive games on another cloud gaming provider or move my Adobe Lightroom catalogue to some other software.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  I disagree that the situation sucks. You gain value while paying. If it goes away in the future, that doesn’t take away from the current value. Just make sure your data is portable which it should be by EU laws and you are ok.
layer8 4y ago
Gyms are compatible which each other in the sense that you can train your body in any of them. If your office building collapses, you can move to another one offering basically the same facilities. The same is often not true for your data that you manage using some SaaS product. For example, should Trello shut down, then even if you can export all your data in some JSON or XML format, there would be no other software where you can continue to use that data in a fashion remotely equal to Trello. Or should GitHub shut down, you'd still have the contents your Git repository, but you couldn't just move your GitHub Actions (and whatever else they provide) to some other service. Services are heavily incentivised to lock in their users with proprietary features, so that users can't easily migrate to a competitor. And that's what comes back to bite you when a service shuts down. Of course, a regulation like the GP proposes would be difficult due to IP rights and third-party licensing. It's more that users should avoid services that lock them in.