5 ms·

Just make them liable for the damages and then they will start caring. This might be one of the only cases where subscription model would work well to cover th

Just make them liable for the damages and then they will start caring. This might be one of the only cases where subscription model would work well to cover the maintenance cost.

ryandrake 1y ago
Yea, in the real world, the CEO gets news that tens of thousands of his company's routers were compromised, and calls up his General Counsel and asks "are we liable for damages?" And if the answer is NO, he goes back to enjoying the house party in his luxurious third home.
- itopaloglu83 1y ago
  Yeah, I know, at some point you cannot make them care for their customers wholeheartedly.
- eru 1y ago
  It depends on whether customers care.
axiolite 1y ago
> This might be one of the only cases where subscription model would work well to cover the maintenance cost. 1) Company takes your subscription money. 2) Company finds a vulnerability that's difficult to fix. 3) Company announces your device is EOL and ends your subscription, taking your money for doing nothing, and not helping when you need it.
- worthless-trash 1y ago
  You have a bright future in product management.
  - Intermernet 11mo ago
    Or medical insurance.
eru 1y ago
Contracts will (and do) include boilerplate whereby the customer absolves the manufacturer of liability.
- notimetorelax 1y ago
  It’s fairly trivial to write a law that makes those illegal.
  - eru 1y ago
    The question is whether you want to interfere in the freedom of contract for this. Almost all software everywhere comes with a 'no liability' clause. And arguable, open source couldn't exist without it. The exceptions where liability is wanted negotiate that specifically.
    - otterley 1y ago
      There is precedent, for example, lemon laws related to automobiles. Unfortunately, governments have ceased to care for consumers like they once did.
      - eru 1y ago
        Consumers can care for themselves, if we let them.
        otterley 11mo ago
        Respectfully, I think you have too much faith in the ability and general desire of individuals to protect themselves. Consider how successful scams and security breaches are. Consider, too, the unequal bargaining power between vendors and individual consumers (have you ever tried to negotiate a form contract with a megacorporation?). We protect people because they have failed. These regulations tend to follow actual injuries; they are rarely promulgated in anticipation of them.
fransje26 11mo ago
> This might be one of the only cases where subscription model would work well to cover the maintenance cost. Or -hear me out on this one, it is wild take- if you come out with a device, system or software that has fundamental flaws, you fix them at your own cost or get fined to oblivion if you don't. If a company is not able to come up with reliable, quality products, then perhaps it shouldn't be in the business of creating said products to start with. The fact that you suggest subscriptions to fix fundamental issues is a good reflection of how companies have managed to skew the general perception on what is "acceptable" as a product. In fact, they have pushed it so far, that they are feeding it to us backwards. Pushing out minimal viable products and have subscribers pay to (perhaps, one day) get something that works shouldn't be the norm. A car info/entertainment system that is too slow and buggy because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to take the steps necessary to make sure it worked reliably? -> fix it A phone manufacturer that throttles your system after a year because they couldn't be arsed to properly size their batteries originally? -> fix it A router manufacturer shipping software so buggy their hardware needs to be rebooted periodically? -> fix it Etc. "Software is hard" or "product design is hard" are no excuses. Building airplanes that don't fall out of the sky is also hard, and yet we manage to do so. (Or, rather ironically, the ones that follow the "minimal viable product" software mentality do fall out of the sky. Looking at you, Boeing).
- itopaloglu83 11mo ago
  Those are the companies that abuse the customer trust and sell them something cheap under the guise of high quality, but in fact really cheap and not well thought.

Just make them liable for the damages and then they will start caring. This might be one of the only cases where subscription model would work well to cover the maintenance cost.

ryandrake 1y ago

Yea, in the real world, the CEO gets news that tens of thousands of his company's routers were compromised, and calls up his General Counsel and asks "are we liable for damages?" And if the answer is NO, he goes back to enjoying the house party in his luxurious third home.

itopaloglu83 1y ago
Yeah, I know, at some point you cannot make them care for their customers wholeheartedly.
eru 1y ago
It depends on whether customers care.

axiolite 1y ago

> This might be one of the only cases where subscription model would work well to cover the maintenance cost. 1) Company takes your subscription money. 2) Company finds a vulnerability that's difficult to fix. 3) Company announces your device is EOL and ends your subscription, taking your money for doing nothing, and not helping when you need it.

worthless-trash 1y ago
You have a bright future in product management.
- Intermernet 11mo ago
  Or medical insurance.

eru 1y ago

Contracts will (and do) include boilerplate whereby the customer absolves the manufacturer of liability.

notimetorelax 1y ago
It’s fairly trivial to write a law that makes those illegal.
- eru 1y ago
  The question is whether you want to interfere in the freedom of contract for this. Almost all software everywhere comes with a 'no liability' clause. And arguable, open source couldn't exist without it. The exceptions where liability is wanted negotiate that specifically.
  - otterley 1y ago
    There is precedent, for example, lemon laws related to automobiles. Unfortunately, governments have ceased to care for consumers like they once did.
    - eru 1y ago
      Consumers can care for themselves, if we let them.
      - otterley 11mo ago
        Respectfully, I think you have too much faith in the ability and general desire of individuals to protect themselves. Consider how successful scams and security breaches are. Consider, too, the unequal bargaining power between vendors and individual consumers (have you ever tried to negotiate a form contract with a megacorporation?). We protect people because they have failed. These regulations tend to follow actual injuries; they are rarely promulgated in anticipation of them.

fransje26 11mo ago

> This might be one of the only cases where subscription model would work well to cover the maintenance cost. Or -hear me out on this one, it is wild take- if you come out with a device, system or software that has fundamental flaws, you fix them at your own cost or get fined to oblivion if you don't. If a company is not able to come up with reliable, quality products, then perhaps it shouldn't be in the business of creating said products to start with. The fact that you suggest subscriptions to fix fundamental issues is a good reflection of how companies have managed to skew the general perception on what is "acceptable" as a product. In fact, they have pushed it so far, that they are feeding it to us backwards. Pushing out minimal viable products and have subscribers pay to (perhaps, one day) get something that works shouldn't be the norm. A car info/entertainment system that is too slow and buggy because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to take the steps necessary to make sure it worked reliably? -> fix it A phone manufacturer that throttles your system after a year because they couldn't be arsed to properly size their batteries originally? -> fix it A router manufacturer shipping software so buggy their hardware needs to be rebooted periodically? -> fix it Etc. "Software is hard" or "product design is hard" are no excuses. Building airplanes that don't fall out of the sky is also hard, and yet we manage to do so. (Or, rather ironically, the ones that follow the "minimal viable product" software mentality do fall out of the sky. Looking at you, Boeing).

itopaloglu83 11mo ago
Those are the companies that abuse the customer trust and sell them something cheap under the guise of high quality, but in fact really cheap and not well thought.