4 ms·

I think it’s worth noting that the company which is charging the subscription fee is not the same company that sold the smart hubs: Futurehome declared bankrupt

I think it’s worth noting that the company which is charging the subscription fee is not the same company that sold the smart hubs: Futurehome declared bankruptcy in May; this fee is being charged by its successor.

bigmattystyles 1y ago
What about the people? Are they the same?
- owlninja 1y ago
  > The platform and related services were purchased from the bankruptcy estate—50 percent by former Futurehome owners and 50 percent by Sikom Connect—and are now operated by FHSD Connect AS.
phkahler 1y ago
So the company has even less claim to those devices it has damaged.
msgodel 1y ago
It doesn't matter whether it's shareholders or creditors in charge IMO. Neither party have your interests in mind. If you don't have the firmware source and an unlocked bootloader you're only renting the device.
- gruez 1y ago
  That might work for the average HN user that already has a homelab cluster with a dozen kubernetes services running, but for the average joe it might as well be dead.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    This is an old argument. FLOSS firmware allows consumer to pay to any external company to fix the device, thus breaking the artificial monopoly of proprietary software.
duxup 1y ago
Sadly that demonstrates how you have to trust the first company ... and anyone else who might buy that company ... :(
like_any_other 1y ago
Are we to understand that it is legal to sabotage [1] products if you buy their bankrupt manufacturer? Do I have to care about the corporate health of the maker of every item in my house now? And does the bankruptcy even matter, legally? The company had a business/contractual relationship with its customers. Selling that contract/relationship to someone else, even through bankruptcy, does not let them unilaterally alter it. E.g. if they had made promises, contractual or even just in marketing, a change of owner is immaterial to the other side of that contract/promise. [1] This is not hyperbole, but an accurate description of destroying functionality that did not require company servers. [2] False advertising is a crime, after all.
- Pet_Ant 1y ago
  I mean, I think the answer to 1 is "yes". They wouldn't have bought the asset if they couldn't extort their customers. Now you at least have the option to pay to continue access, versus having no maintenance at all. Is it ethical? I wouldn't say so, but I do think that is the economic argument.
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    > Now you at least have the option to pay to continue access, versus having no maintenance at all. They locked the owners out of their devices, hence the bounty from Rossmann to "hack" them. They gave one option, but took one away. > I think the answer to 1 is "yes". They wouldn't have bought the asset if they couldn't extort their customers. It's definitely how the law is currently being applied, and they probably won't have legal trouble from it, but I argue this is a corruption of ownership law, and any kind of update that is against the device owner's wishes (that they are deliberately prevented from reverting) is equivalent to criminal hacking. I can't emphasize this enough - the devices in question do not belong to them. They sold them, these are privately-owned computers they are interfering with. Especially in the case of bankruptcy - the device owners have no more of a business relationship with this new owner, than they do with a random hacker making printers emit goatse.
    - 1y ago
throw7 1y ago
The article says "purchased from the bankruptcy estate—50 percent by former Futurehome owners..." So that sounds like the same people/company no?
- kube-system 1y ago
  Completely different company with some of the same owners.

bigmattystyles 1y ago

What about the people? Are they the same?

owlninja 1y ago
> The platform and related services were purchased from the bankruptcy estate—50 percent by former Futurehome owners and 50 percent by Sikom Connect—and are now operated by FHSD Connect AS.

phkahler 1y ago

So the company has even less claim to those devices it has damaged.

msgodel 1y ago

It doesn't matter whether it's shareholders or creditors in charge IMO. Neither party have your interests in mind. If you don't have the firmware source and an unlocked bootloader you're only renting the device.

gruez 1y ago
That might work for the average HN user that already has a homelab cluster with a dozen kubernetes services running, but for the average joe it might as well be dead.
- fsflover 1y ago
  This is an old argument. FLOSS firmware allows consumer to pay to any external company to fix the device, thus breaking the artificial monopoly of proprietary software.

duxup 1y ago

Sadly that demonstrates how you have to trust the first company ... and anyone else who might buy that company ... :(

like_any_other 1y ago

Are we to understand that it is legal to sabotage [1] products if you buy their bankrupt manufacturer? Do I have to care about the corporate health of the maker of every item in my house now? And does the bankruptcy even matter, legally? The company had a business/contractual relationship with its customers. Selling that contract/relationship to someone else, even through bankruptcy, does not let them unilaterally alter it. E.g. if they had made promises, contractual or even just in marketing, a change of owner is immaterial to the other side of that contract/promise. [1] This is not hyperbole, but an accurate description of destroying functionality that did not require company servers. [2] False advertising is a crime, after all.

Pet_Ant 1y ago
I mean, I think the answer to 1 is "yes". They wouldn't have bought the asset if they couldn't extort their customers. Now you at least have the option to pay to continue access, versus having no maintenance at all. Is it ethical? I wouldn't say so, but I do think that is the economic argument.
- like_any_other 1y ago
  > Now you at least have the option to pay to continue access, versus having no maintenance at all. They locked the owners out of their devices, hence the bounty from Rossmann to "hack" them. They gave one option, but took one away. > I think the answer to 1 is "yes". They wouldn't have bought the asset if they couldn't extort their customers. It's definitely how the law is currently being applied, and they probably won't have legal trouble from it, but I argue this is a corruption of ownership law, and any kind of update that is against the device owner's wishes (that they are deliberately prevented from reverting) is equivalent to criminal hacking. I can't emphasize this enough - the devices in question do not belong to them. They sold them, these are privately-owned computers they are interfering with. Especially in the case of bankruptcy - the device owners have no more of a business relationship with this new owner, than they do with a random hacker making printers emit goatse.
  - 1y ago

throw7 1y ago

The article says "purchased from the bankruptcy estate—50 percent by former Futurehome owners..." So that sounds like the same people/company no?

kube-system 1y ago
Completely different company with some of the same owners.