9 ms·

That's not what security updates are. They are fixes for errors in the original software. They are product recalls for dangerous product faults. You can't charg

That's not what security updates are. They are fixes for errors in the original software. They are product recalls for dangerous product faults. You can't charge the customer because the product you shipped them was faulty.

vanchor3 3y ago
Network hardware vendors have been doing it for years, more money for Microsoft I guess.
- justinclift 3y ago
  Isn't that only Cisco? HPE Networking (and Procurve before it) at least used to provide firmware updates to their switches without cost. Hopefully that's not changed in recent years (no idea).
  - vanchor3 3y ago
    Juniper is another one that definitely charges/requires contract for updates. Can't remember who else off the top of my head.
mathgradthrow 3y ago
Despite the legal system depending almost exclusively on analogies like this when it comes to tech, I feel that I have read very few legal opinions that make them.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Warranties don't last forever. If you find a manufacturer defect in a five year old item that has a two year warranty they don't have to fix it. It doesn't matter if it was their fault they don't need to maintain it forever.
Guvante 3y ago
Dropping support for old versions is standard. As long as the window of support is sufficiently long it is a fine decision overall. The question is can Microsoft extend that support for a cost? Note they did provide a decade of updates.
- kevincox 3y ago
  > The question is can Microsoft extend that support for a cost? I think it is reasonable to do this. The alternative is making all users pay for the extended support that only a minority need. I think after a decade it is completely fair that the users who value longer support can pay for it.
voxic11 3y ago
If software was subject to the same product liability laws as physical products could open source software even exist?
- jrm4 3y ago
  Most likely, but the current proprietary software probably wouldn't. Part of the whole "product liability" thing is WHAT IS PROMISED, either in contract or implied. Most open source clearly disclaims as much as possible, and also doesn't have a clear "party" making claims. Proprietary, like Microsoft, makes a ton of claims about safety and privacy and doesn't deliver.
kevincox 3y ago
Providing infinite support for all software would greatly increase the cost. I don't think that is actually what users want. I think the way that Microsoft is managing this is actually a pretty fair system. 1. Included with the base purchase price you get a predefined period of support. 2. You can pay more to get longer support. This way users that value longer product lifetime are the ones paying the cost, not the ones who are happy to update to the new version every few years. Whether or not the specific prices are fair is a different (and much more complex issue). But I think the model makes sense.
pavon 3y ago
Even by that analogy, product recalls laws often have limited duration. In the US car manufacturers are allowed to charge for recalls if the vehicle is more than 15 years old[1]. Consumer computers have a shorter average lifespan than vehicles, and generally aren't a life safety concern. Microsoft will be providing free updates for 4 years after Windows 10 was replaced by Windows 11, and free upgrades to Windows 11 if hardware supports it. There are arguments about whether that is an acceptable duration, but the idea of a limited duration in general is perfectly reasonable. [1] Page 13 in https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/mvdefectsandrecalls_808795.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/mvdefe...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

vanchor3 3y ago

Network hardware vendors have been doing it for years, more money for Microsoft I guess.

justinclift 3y ago
Isn't that only Cisco? HPE Networking (and Procurve before it) at least used to provide firmware updates to their switches without cost. Hopefully that's not changed in recent years (no idea).
- vanchor3 3y ago
  Juniper is another one that definitely charges/requires contract for updates. Can't remember who else off the top of my head.

mathgradthrow 3y ago

Despite the legal system depending almost exclusively on analogies like this when it comes to tech, I feel that I have read very few legal opinions that make them.

Guvante 3y ago
Warranties don't last forever. If you find a manufacturer defect in a five year old item that has a two year warranty they don't have to fix it. It doesn't matter if it was their fault they don't need to maintain it forever.

Guvante 3y ago

Dropping support for old versions is standard. As long as the window of support is sufficiently long it is a fine decision overall. The question is can Microsoft extend that support for a cost? Note they did provide a decade of updates.

kevincox 3y ago
> The question is can Microsoft extend that support for a cost? I think it is reasonable to do this. The alternative is making all users pay for the extended support that only a minority need. I think after a decade it is completely fair that the users who value longer support can pay for it.

voxic11 3y ago

If software was subject to the same product liability laws as physical products could open source software even exist?

jrm4 3y ago
Most likely, but the current proprietary software probably wouldn't. Part of the whole "product liability" thing is WHAT IS PROMISED, either in contract or implied. Most open source clearly disclaims as much as possible, and also doesn't have a clear "party" making claims. Proprietary, like Microsoft, makes a ton of claims about safety and privacy and doesn't deliver.

kevincox 3y ago

Providing infinite support for all software would greatly increase the cost. I don't think that is actually what users want. I think the way that Microsoft is managing this is actually a pretty fair system. 1. Included with the base purchase price you get a predefined period of support. 2. You can pay more to get longer support. This way users that value longer product lifetime are the ones paying the cost, not the ones who are happy to update to the new version every few years. Whether or not the specific prices are fair is a different (and much more complex issue). But I think the model makes sense.

pavon 3y ago

Even by that analogy, product recalls laws often have limited duration. In the US car manufacturers are allowed to charge for recalls if the vehicle is more than 15 years old[1]. Consumer computers have a shorter average lifespan than vehicles, and generally aren't a life safety concern. Microsoft will be providing free updates for 4 years after Windows 10 was replaced by Windows 11, and free upgrades to Windows 11 if hardware supports it. There are arguments about whether that is an acceptable duration, but the idea of a limited duration in general is perfectly reasonable. [1] Page 13 in https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/mvdefectsandrecalls_808795.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/mvdefe...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]