3 ms·
Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it. A buyer should discount the value of products that rel
by delichon 4mo ago
Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it. A buyer should discount the value of products that rely on ongoing services accordingly.
See also 'Juicero'.
- ryandrake 4mo agoIf a software requires a server component that is costly to run, then I would expect the software developer to charge a subscription in order to use it, rather than offering it as a one-time charge and then destroying it when they realize letting me continue to use it is costly.
- dijit 4mo agoYeah, but gamers in particular are against subscriptions and micro-transactions. Only one gets away with it: World of Warcraft.
- Rohansi 4mo agoYou also pay for expansions in WoW which are a one time fee, for each expansion. The latest one includes previous ones so you don't need to pay for all eleven of the, but if you're an active player you would absolutely pay for all of them.
- jasonlotito 4mo ago> Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it There are carve-outs in the legislation for this. It's a moot point.
- knollimar 4mo agoLike what? I read it and don't see workabke carveouts.
- marcosdumay 4mo agoSo it's ok for companies to misrepresent their subscription services as a "single-payment" acquisition and pull the brought product away form their customers when they want?
- delichon 4mo agoNo, if they materially misrepresent their product like this it is fraud and a crime. A new law isn't needed if a prosecutor or plaintiff can show the misrepresentation.
- trinsic2 4mo agoThen switch to a subscription model. nobody is forcing you to operating your service indefinitely. Just don't sell something, the say you are not supporting it any longer and remove the ability to use a purchased product.