3 ms·

It's one thing to discontinue selling the product. It's another to discontinue service (i.e. Music) to the product. Did the hardware generate a lot of support

It's one thing to discontinue selling the product. It's another to discontinue service (i.e. Music) to the product. Did the hardware generate a lot of support requests? Does it require too much engineering to keep secure with updates, etc.?

crazygringo 2y ago
Seriously. I can't repeat this enough: there needs to be LEGISLATION against this. If a product needs cloud functionality to operate, there needs to be a legal minimum number of years (5?), and the company should be required to prominently advertise the length of time (so they can compete to guarantee for longer periods of time, like 10 years).
- esafak 2y ago
  That's like a minimum wage law. The flip side is that companies will be more guarded about releases. Can you live with that?
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    Absolutely, just like I can live with minimum wage. And companies can still stop selling the thing. They just need to keep the cloud servers running and maintaining their integrations with the rest of their code. If maintaining servers for 5 years is the tipping point for them to judge that the product won't be profitable and therefore won't release it, then yeah it doesn't sound like it should be worth selling in the first place.
  - inkcapmushroom 2y ago
    I can live with companies not turning my 2-year-old device into a doorstop, yeah.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - ClassyJacket 2y ago
    Minimum wage laws work great. I live in the country with the highest minimum wage in the world, every country should be like this.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- ClarityJones 2y ago
  I think the courts are much better suited to resolving this kind of issue, because it's very product and advertising specific. Courts could easily rule that e.g. Spotify breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or possibly civil fraud, or something else, by failing to prominently disclose the minimum number of years / bricking the devices too soon. A judicial solution would be much more measured and flexible. Unfortunately, lawyers and courts have a undeservedly bad reputation which is often created by poor legislation which is beset by political motives and disadvantaged by having to draft prospective rules that can apply to a broad set of differing circumstances. Edit: Why don't court do this more? Often because of terrible, over-reaching legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act
- mvdtnz 2y ago
  There is legislation against this in many places. I don't know if this product was offered for sale in New Zealand but if it was Spotify is in violation of the Consumer Guarantees Act and must issue a refund to all customers who request one.

crazygringo 2y ago

Seriously. I can't repeat this enough: there needs to be LEGISLATION against this. If a product needs cloud functionality to operate, there needs to be a legal minimum number of years (5?), and the company should be required to prominently advertise the length of time (so they can compete to guarantee for longer periods of time, like 10 years).

esafak 2y ago
That's like a minimum wage law. The flip side is that companies will be more guarded about releases. Can you live with that?
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Absolutely, just like I can live with minimum wage. And companies can still stop selling the thing. They just need to keep the cloud servers running and maintaining their integrations with the rest of their code. If maintaining servers for 5 years is the tipping point for them to judge that the product won't be profitable and therefore won't release it, then yeah it doesn't sound like it should be worth selling in the first place.
- inkcapmushroom 2y ago
  I can live with companies not turning my 2-year-old device into a doorstop, yeah.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- ClassyJacket 2y ago
  Minimum wage laws work great. I live in the country with the highest minimum wage in the world, every country should be like this.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
ClarityJones 2y ago
I think the courts are much better suited to resolving this kind of issue, because it's very product and advertising specific. Courts could easily rule that e.g. Spotify breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or possibly civil fraud, or something else, by failing to prominently disclose the minimum number of years / bricking the devices too soon. A judicial solution would be much more measured and flexible. Unfortunately, lawyers and courts have a undeservedly bad reputation which is often created by poor legislation which is beset by political motives and disadvantaged by having to draft prospective rules that can apply to a broad set of differing circumstances. Edit: Why don't court do this more? Often because of terrible, over-reaching legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act
mvdtnz 2y ago
There is legislation against this in many places. I don't know if this product was offered for sale in New Zealand but if it was Spotify is in violation of the Consumer Guarantees Act and must issue a refund to all customers who request one.