4 ms·

They didnt buy a device that requires connected services. It could work locally. That functionality has been removed in an 'upgrade'. They destroyed the lawnmo

• kube-system 1y ago
  That sounds awfully like a dependency on services to me. If the device is designed for somebody else to be managing and pushing out offer updates to it on your behalf, that’s a service. I wouldn't buy a lawnmower where normal operation of the device let somebody else change it whenever they feel like it.
  • EMIRELADERO 1y ago
    The point is that the dependency is artificial. The user you responded to said it wasn't sold as a service, as it had local functionality that was removed post-sale. The customer didn't buy access to a service with a physical product to serve as support for that service, they purchased functionality, and that functionality is (potentially illegally) being taken away from them.
    • kube-system 1y ago
      I understand why people are mad. I just don’t understand why anyone here is surprised. Nor is there really anything unique about artificial proprietary lock-in when it comes to services. As a business practice it’s not uncommon.
      • EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        > I just don’t understand why anyone here is surprised. Are they? To me it looks like legitimate complaints and only that. > Nor is there really anything unique about artificial proprietary lock-in when it comes to services. As a business practice it’s not uncommon. It's unique in its illegallity. They're lucky these aren't very expensive products, or people would actually go to court and maybe force the manufacturer's hand for once.
        • kube-system 1y ago
          I don't know about the home jurisdiction of this company, but I don't see any reason why this would be illegal in the US. Typically most cloud products outline in their terms that services and their features may change at any point.
          • EMIRELADERO 1y ago
            The illegality lies on the fact that the product was advertised as having certain functionality on its own. > Typically most cloud products outline in their terms that services and their features may change it at any point. The user bought the device before ever agreeing to any terms. At that point they're inherently entitled to the advertised functionality, merely by having their money change hands. Any post-sale agreement is separate from the purchase of the product that was informed by the advertisements.
            • kube-system 1y ago
              Except there are two different companies here. The company that initially advertised and launched these products doesn't exist. The second company bought servers that are connected to devices where users have all clicked through a EULA which likely says that they can change it whenever the heck they want.
              • EMIRELADERO 1y ago
                > The second company bought servers that are connected to devices where users have all clicked through a EULA which likely says that they can change it whenever the heck they want. And that EULA is potentially unconscionable, both procedurally and substantively, both due to the prior purchase that was concluded before any EULA came into the picture and the overall balance of power in the terms, the reason being that users have an inherent legal right to use software that comes with a device they purchased regardless of any later agreement.
                • 1y ago