3 ms·

Do we know that's really what happened? I can very much see it going either way a) Lawyer put in too much defensive language or b) Cisco really wanted to push

Do we know that's really what happened? I can very much see it going either way a) Lawyer put in too much defensive language or b) Cisco really wanted to push you into a new service. Admittedly, it's a very different product and service, but can we blame them when they see companies like Facebook forcing their email service on users in such an obtrusive way? If I were a semi-out-of-touch manager I might think "The cloud is the way to go, we get more control, there are legitimate upsides to consumers, and anyone who bitches ultimately shuts up after a day of tweeting." Seems like there's lots of precedent for them to think about trying.

rhizome 14y ago
I agree that this can be a meme within the business/legal logic. "Hey, if Facebook can get away with it..."
wmf 14y ago
There are two separate issues here. It's clear that Cisco deliberately created the Cloud Connect service (I won't speculate on their motivations; in theory such a service could benefit customers) and deliberately auto-updated customers to it (which they promised all along). The TOS is a separate problem and appears to be a combination of legal ass-covering and deliberate misinterpretation.