4 ms·

These companies marketed to a public not yet experienced with cloud-dependent services and the inevitably finite lifetime they carry, and frankly (I can say fro

These companies marketed to a public not yet experienced with cloud-dependent services and the inevitably finite lifetime they carry, and frankly (I can say from experience) many of the product designers and engineers weren't really thinking ahead about that stuff either. Lots of stuff is engineered as if it will be usable indefinitely (or until it physically wears out), even though it has technical dependencies or financial costs that make that infeasible, and almost almost all that stuff is sold to the public under the pretense that it's just a better version of the same old thing. Very few products, especially among consumer good, openly communicate a window of support or availability and many don't even predict a specific one internally. You're probably right that there'd probably no teeth to a suit, but that's more because the practice of denying that cloud-backed products are ephemeral is just that pervasive. It's an effective excuse, but also a crappy one.

wannacboatmovie 2y ago
It's important to note that these devices are not self-destructing nor are they cloud-dependent and will still perform their primary function as a locally controlled touchscreen thermostat. It is the remote control via app features that are being disabled. It is similar to how the original iPhone and iPad are basically unusable with no connectivity in today's world (think: these legacy thermostats may not support modern security protocols due to lack of power to perform the cryptographic functions, or software support in the > 16 year old microcontroller. Let's assume hardware was designed with chips in production a few years before the release so we're talking 2005-era hardware. This is pre-iPhone, George Bush was still president and you had a flip phone in your pocket. Should they never upgrade their backend security so they can support these things in perpetuity?) Sadly, I suspect if this was an Apple(r)(tm) Thermostat the HN crowd would be banding together in their defense.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > It is similar to how the original iPhone and iPad are basically unusable with no connectivity in today's world This should be unacceptable as well.

wannacboatmovie 2y ago

It's important to note that these devices are not self-destructing nor are they cloud-dependent and will still perform their primary function as a locally controlled touchscreen thermostat. It is the remote control via app features that are being disabled. It is similar to how the original iPhone and iPad are basically unusable with no connectivity in today's world (think: these legacy thermostats may not support modern security protocols due to lack of power to perform the cryptographic functions, or software support in the > 16 year old microcontroller. Let's assume hardware was designed with chips in production a few years before the release so we're talking 2005-era hardware. This is pre-iPhone, George Bush was still president and you had a flip phone in your pocket. Should they never upgrade their backend security so they can support these things in perpetuity?) Sadly, I suspect if this was an Apple(r)(tm) Thermostat the HN crowd would be banding together in their defense.

ryandrake 2y ago
> It is similar to how the original iPhone and iPad are basically unusable with no connectivity in today's world This should be unacceptable as well.