3 ms·

Forever is such a word that it should never be expected to hold except in some limited scientific and mathematical contexts.

onion2k 4y ago
If a company states something is 'forever' or 'unlimited' they should be held to exactly that offer. Companies should not be able to use very appealing language and then just say "but obviously we didn't really mean forever!". Using language with a specific meaning with no intention to actually honor what you're offering is fraud.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  Adding truffle products without truffle and water resistant x meters to that list.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  if you had read some of the previous thread you might have picked up on the subtle distinction that some of the people being dinged for saying Forever probably meant forever when they said it but then ran up against reality. True if you say forever you should be held to it, on the other hand if someone says forever to you you should hopefully be clever enough to realize they can't do it because forever is unknowable. But once again I seem to have run up against the great moral pillars of HN for noting that you should not believe forever when you hear it because well, whatever.
  - _Algernon_ 4y ago
    You should be able to trust a contract to mean what is written. It is not my responsibility to ensure that the company is able to hold their end of the bargain. If they at a later point find themselves unable to hold their end of the bargain, they should face consequences for breach of contract / false advertising and those consequences should be greater than the expected gain from walking back on the contract. Otherwise all contracts become worthless which serves nobody.
    - sethammons 4y ago
      IANAL, but for a contract to be legal, at least in the US, it requires consideration from both sides, which means both sides have to give up something. What consideration is given from the free user?
      - sobkas 4y ago
        > IANAL, but for a contract to be legal, at least in the US, it requires consideration from both sides, which means both sides have to give up something. What consideration is given from the free user? What "free" user? Didn't they paid a fee to get app with forever updates? So they given cash? When it comes to contracts what matters is how much money they can spend on lawyers/experts and how much political clout they have.
  - onion2k 4y ago
    Again though, you're arguing that the company offering 'forever' and not delivering it should become the customer's problem. If the company doesn't want to 'come up against reality' they shouldn't make offers they can't deliver. All I'm saying here is that the customer should come first, even if the company finds it hard or costly to do what they said they will. That isn't controversial.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Of course it's not forever. The company isn't going to be around forever (or even 100 years in all probability). The software isn't going to make any sense probably in 10 years. So no a company shouldn't make those sorts of statements and, if they have lawyers on staff, probably won't. But any claim that a product will be supported "forever" is just as clearly untrue as the claim that some non-trivial software product has no bugs.
Mordisquitos 4y ago
Why is it my responsibility as a consumer to know that "forever is a word that should never be expected to hold", rather than the business's responsibility to know that "forever is a word that should never be [promised if it cannot] be expected to hold"?
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  I guess my eyesight must be failing me, or my reading comprehension and memory because I keep looking through what I said and I don't see a mention of responsibility anywhere. I would say it's not any consumer's responsibility to know that but when it does not hold it may be expected that the cynics who did not expect it to hold point sideways and chuckle because believing "forever" when you hear it is a bit too doe-eyed with wonder, even though you should probably be recompensed in some way.
  - Mordisquitos 4y ago
    Fair enough. I understood the "forever should never be expected to hold" to be justifying the use of the word by businesses which do not necessarily intend to follow through, rather than a cynical resigned acceptance of the fact that they probably won't. In other words, I thought you were expressing the idea that businesses offering "forever" and then pulling back are not to be held accountable because that's business, rather than what (I now think) you meant, that was that one should never trust a business ostensibly offering something "forever".

onion2k 4y ago

If a company states something is 'forever' or 'unlimited' they should be held to exactly that offer. Companies should not be able to use very appealing language and then just say "but obviously we didn't really mean forever!". Using language with a specific meaning with no intention to actually honor what you're offering is fraud.

mejutoco 4y ago
Adding truffle products without truffle and water resistant x meters to that list.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
if you had read some of the previous thread you might have picked up on the subtle distinction that some of the people being dinged for saying Forever probably meant forever when they said it but then ran up against reality. True if you say forever you should be held to it, on the other hand if someone says forever to you you should hopefully be clever enough to realize they can't do it because forever is unknowable. But once again I seem to have run up against the great moral pillars of HN for noting that you should not believe forever when you hear it because well, whatever.
- _Algernon_ 4y ago
  You should be able to trust a contract to mean what is written. It is not my responsibility to ensure that the company is able to hold their end of the bargain. If they at a later point find themselves unable to hold their end of the bargain, they should face consequences for breach of contract / false advertising and those consequences should be greater than the expected gain from walking back on the contract. Otherwise all contracts become worthless which serves nobody.
  - sethammons 4y ago
    IANAL, but for a contract to be legal, at least in the US, it requires consideration from both sides, which means both sides have to give up something. What consideration is given from the free user?
    - sobkas 4y ago
      > IANAL, but for a contract to be legal, at least in the US, it requires consideration from both sides, which means both sides have to give up something. What consideration is given from the free user? What "free" user? Didn't they paid a fee to get app with forever updates? So they given cash? When it comes to contracts what matters is how much money they can spend on lawyers/experts and how much political clout they have.
- onion2k 4y ago
  Again though, you're arguing that the company offering 'forever' and not delivering it should become the customer's problem. If the company doesn't want to 'come up against reality' they shouldn't make offers they can't deliver. All I'm saying here is that the customer should come first, even if the company finds it hard or costly to do what they said they will. That isn't controversial.
ghaff 4y ago
Of course it's not forever. The company isn't going to be around forever (or even 100 years in all probability). The software isn't going to make any sense probably in 10 years. So no a company shouldn't make those sorts of statements and, if they have lawyers on staff, probably won't. But any claim that a product will be supported "forever" is just as clearly untrue as the claim that some non-trivial software product has no bugs.

Mordisquitos 4y ago

Why is it my responsibility as a consumer to know that "forever is a word that should never be expected to hold", rather than the business's responsibility to know that "forever is a word that should never be [promised if it cannot] be expected to hold"?

bryanrasmussen 4y ago
I guess my eyesight must be failing me, or my reading comprehension and memory because I keep looking through what I said and I don't see a mention of responsibility anywhere. I would say it's not any consumer's responsibility to know that but when it does not hold it may be expected that the cynics who did not expect it to hold point sideways and chuckle because believing "forever" when you hear it is a bit too doe-eyed with wonder, even though you should probably be recompensed in some way.
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  Fair enough. I understood the "forever should never be expected to hold" to be justifying the use of the word by businesses which do not necessarily intend to follow through, rather than a cynical resigned acceptance of the fact that they probably won't. In other words, I thought you were expressing the idea that businesses offering "forever" and then pulling back are not to be held accountable because that's business, rather than what (I now think) you meant, that was that one should never trust a business ostensibly offering something "forever".