4 ms·

I'm not saying that I'm approving this company or their products, but I can definitely get behind the idea of paying for OS updates. Part of the premium we pay

by wiether 10mo ago

I'm not saying that I'm approving this company or their products, but I can definitely get behind the idea of paying for OS updates. Part of the premium we pay for an iPhone or a Mac is to finance the development of iOS/MacOS. We get the updates for "free" but we actually already paid them when we paid the device. Meanwhile, here it's clear: you pay the device, and then you pay for the OS. The opposite being the product like with Microsoft/Google. Or relying on the goodwill of other people (FOSS). If I take the example of Kagi, I saw how much impact as a customer I have/had on the product. Meanwhile Microsoft/Google/Apple don't care. And on FOSS I could _just_ do the things myself, but I'm not an OS dev and I already spend some time on other FOSS projects (I'm writing this message on an Linux computer). Donations are great but they are not reliable/predictable and they don't give you more power to influence the product. Regarding your question "Why do I need to pay to retain data that is on my own device?", according to their FAQ: "Without an active subscription, certain core services and privacy features will be limited. To keep your MC03 fully functional, secure, and up to date, an active subscription is required." https://www.punkt.ch/products/mc03-premium-secure-smartphone https://www.punkt.ch/products/mc03-premium-secure-smartphone So the phone won't brick itself and you won't lose access to your data. But the company itself give me a bad feeling, like Proton, trying to surf the hype and doing lots of virtue signaling.

gruez 10mo ago
>I'm not saying that I'm approving this company or their products, but I can definitely get behind the idea of paying for OS updates. >[...] >The opposite being the product like with Microsoft/Google. But Microsoft does offer that, it's called ESU for windows. The problem I suspect is that the cost of maintaining security patches is fixed, and nobody (relatively speaking) wants to pay for it, so other companies like Apple doesn't even bother.
- imglorp 10mo ago
  That's all fine but Microsoft is also screenshotting everything, uploading it, then selling you services, pushing ads, mining and training on your data and who knows what else. So you pay both ways.
  - dangus 10mo ago
    This statement is wild hyperbole and doesn’t represent the privacy landscape of a default Windows 11 install. Even Windows Recall, an optional opt-in beta product only available on specific hardware, very clearly and specifically in its legally binding privacy policy says that data never leaves your device and is never sent to Microsoft. Windows is paid for by OEMs. It doesn’t cost much (and it’s free for some classes of devices) but Microsoft still gets paid for it. Don’t forget they also get paid for a lot of Windows-adjacent services. 365 subscriptions, Bing users clicking on ads, and the whole business ecosystem of Azure, Entra ID, Microsoft Exchange/Outlook 365, etc.
echelon 10mo ago
> I can definitely get behind the idea of paying for OS updates. From consumer App Store pricing expectations to the notion that FOSS be offered at no cost, expecting everything to be free has damaged small software for decades. There is no other way to support software. You have to pay for it. Even with this, it still won't be able to compete with the big guys and their enormous ad funnels. But it's better than forcing them to be anemic and sustain themselves with nothing at all. We have to pay to maintain the things we want.
- hulitu 10mo ago
  > There is no other way to support software. You have to pay for it. I paid when i bought it. And i am expecting to work as intended. I do not need another one every second week ( feature updates) but i expect that they fix it when it is defective ( security updates). Yes, i know, this is not cool, JPEG standard changes regularly and today the scrollbar is obsolete, that's why we need "updates".
dangus 10mo ago
It’s a stupid business model for this product category and shows their leadership doesn’t understand the market. If you buy a Pixel and flash GrapheneOS, you’re getting a better secured phone, better phone hardware, and for less money if you shop smart. The only reason you’d buy this product over that solution is that you literally don’t know any better. If they want to monetize their OS they should just do what every other phone manufacturer does and sell optional but integrated services. There’s no need to push them as mandatory because a lot of people will end up with them anyway (e.g., iCloud+, Samsung whatever, and Google One).

by wiether 10mo ago

gruez 10mo ago

>I'm not saying that I'm approving this company or their products, but I can definitely get behind the idea of paying for OS updates. >[...] >The opposite being the product like with Microsoft/Google. But Microsoft does offer that, it's called ESU for windows. The problem I suspect is that the cost of maintaining security patches is fixed, and nobody (relatively speaking) wants to pay for it, so other companies like Apple doesn't even bother.

imglorp 10mo ago
That's all fine but Microsoft is also screenshotting everything, uploading it, then selling you services, pushing ads, mining and training on your data and who knows what else. So you pay both ways.
- dangus 10mo ago
  This statement is wild hyperbole and doesn’t represent the privacy landscape of a default Windows 11 install. Even Windows Recall, an optional opt-in beta product only available on specific hardware, very clearly and specifically in its legally binding privacy policy says that data never leaves your device and is never sent to Microsoft. Windows is paid for by OEMs. It doesn’t cost much (and it’s free for some classes of devices) but Microsoft still gets paid for it. Don’t forget they also get paid for a lot of Windows-adjacent services. 365 subscriptions, Bing users clicking on ads, and the whole business ecosystem of Azure, Entra ID, Microsoft Exchange/Outlook 365, etc.

echelon 10mo ago

> I can definitely get behind the idea of paying for OS updates. From consumer App Store pricing expectations to the notion that FOSS be offered at no cost, expecting everything to be free has damaged small software for decades. There is no other way to support software. You have to pay for it. Even with this, it still won't be able to compete with the big guys and their enormous ad funnels. But it's better than forcing them to be anemic and sustain themselves with nothing at all. We have to pay to maintain the things we want.

hulitu 10mo ago
> There is no other way to support software. You have to pay for it. I paid when i bought it. And i am expecting to work as intended. I do not need another one every second week ( feature updates) but i expect that they fix it when it is defective ( security updates). Yes, i know, this is not cool, JPEG standard changes regularly and today the scrollbar is obsolete, that's why we need "updates".

dangus 10mo ago

It’s a stupid business model for this product category and shows their leadership doesn’t understand the market. If you buy a Pixel and flash GrapheneOS, you’re getting a better secured phone, better phone hardware, and for less money if you shop smart. The only reason you’d buy this product over that solution is that you literally don’t know any better. If they want to monetize their OS they should just do what every other phone manufacturer does and sell optional but integrated services. There’s no need to push them as mandatory because a lot of people will end up with them anyway (e.g., iCloud+, Samsung whatever, and Google One).