Dooo it!
Can they even after the Supreme Court ruling?
default value: 2 years
2 years plus source code and working oss backends or 10 years (and still source code).
2 years will just ensure endless forced upgrade cycles IMO.
yes thats the default value because thats how it pretty much is, not because its ideal :)
Perhaps more important is to have devices start or fall open… if the OEM has lost interest in it, let others support the device. Make ewaste valuable and avoidable.
A more important thing is update schedule, like oneplus used to state that they support their device for 3 years, but they only have one year of reasonably frequent update, after that it is like yearly update.
“IDK, depends on how many people buy our idea. Would you like a smart hair dryer?”
deleted by creator
It might provide value to our customers, but does it provide value to our ShArEhOlDeRs?
I’d be a fan of a law that companies who drop support of their product would have to release code that lets 3rd parties or users themselves offer alternative support. If you want to fully abandon a product opensource it. If you’re a big company that doesn’t want to do that release a feature for users to self host before you cut ties. I know it’s not a simple thing to do in the current world but if laws mandated it then tech would have no choice but to adapt.
Oops, the company we outsourced the software development to went under!
We’re soooooorry
This would be an excellent law/regulation that makes complete sense.
The major companies can most definitely manage this (although they will cry crocodile tears).
Effective [some future date], in order to sell any device connected to the Internet (or Bluetooth, or whatever), you must register your entire codebase and all internal documentation with the FTC, and keep it updated, along with any signing keys to lock bootloaders. The day you abandon support, if you haven’t provided everything required for end users to take complete control of their device, your code base and any other IP enters the public domain, and the FTC uses their discretion on release of keys.
It would take new laws, and you’d have to be careful with language and structure to prevent abuse of “third party” code and abuse of corporate structure to try to prevent old devices from being usable, but you could do it.
I have had a similar idea. Basically some third party that is trusted to be the escrow for all the source code and documentation would basically release it once the company stops supporting it.
This sounds like a security nightmare though. A central repository of all code and keys is a gold mine for exploitation. Don’t get me wrong, I would really want this to work, but if it was compromised it could he catastrophic.
I do think there should be regulations in place that are clearly and easily enforceable by the FTC though. I’d love to see companies be hit with fines and/or compulsory refunds if they stop supporting devices and don’t provide some path forward for customers to keep using the device. That doesn’t solve for startups that go out of business, but it would at least cover the tech giants who are doing this garbage.
This is essentially the premise of Stop Killing Games but in a different world.
Just because a product went defunct does not mean the entire code base is obsolete to the company.
Suppose I release software that makes a profit for a while, then falls off and starts costing me money, obviously time to retire that thing. However, a ton of code in that original product was a stepping stone for newer projects. I now have two choices.
A) Drop support and give world+dog my code, giving everyone a look into my existing products.
B) Keep losing money on the old project and make up for it by overcharging for my latest work.
That’s a lose-lose proposition.
Your self-hosting solution sounds mighty fair!
I’ve been in software for more than 20 years now. I’ve done some pretty innovative things from time to time. There is nothing I have ever done or seen in any proprietary code base at any company I’ve ever worked at that isn’t at every other company. The only unique thing at any company is how all the puzzle pieces get connected. It’s pure ego to think that any idea you have in that now open source project is unique or what’s giving you any competitive advantage in your other projects.
If there’s nothing unique or special in any company’s code base, then why does SAP software suck so much more than anything else?
Definitely not supporting their quality, but a ton of the wtf designs are because of legacy customers paying millions to have it.
This is a commendable goal; though it would still rely on good faith that a lot of these companies won’t have.
They’d rather screw the users anyway, sell the IP and let it rot within the maws of some holding company.
We’ll need some clauses that the tech cannot go inactive as it trades hands as well.
Further, some teeth will be needed toward feature deactivation, as there’s nothing stopping a company from yanking features and packaging it up as efficiencies made or product evolution.
I’d be a fan of a law that requires local control through standardized hardware and software protocols for any devices sold.
And no, I don’t think the standard needs to be codified into law, but I do think it should meet minimum requirements.
To clarify, the FTC is being urged to craft this regulation. They have not recently urged for this regulation. Gotta love the English language.
Products that change the service they offer after you purchase it should also be eligible for a full refund (plus a % on top for the hassle). Such as offering a service through the product for free at the time of purchase but then moving it being a monthly subscription paywall later on, or just removing the feature completely.
So if you spent $130k on a Tesla that came with Disney+ and then the CEO has a completely irrelevant spat with Disney and removes it 5 years later, you should be able to return it for a full refund?
If your phone gets a software update and the WiFi and Mobile Data quick-toggle disappears and is replaced by an “internet” toggle 5 years later, does that entitle you to a full refund?
Just trying to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.
For the first example, absolutely. If some execs have a meltdown, it could change future services but anyone who was promised Disney+ on their Tesla with no limit on it should get a fair refund. I understand that there’s a slippery slope argument here, and no– the value of Disney+ in a car isn’t 100% the value of it. But it’s BS that a manchild having an Internet meltdown loses people a service they had and “paid for”
Just trying to figure out exactly what “changing the service” means.
I don’t know that non-lawyers need to figure out exactly what it means, but in an ideal world: if you pay for something that includes a continuation of services and the services stop continuing, you should be compensated fairly. I am not smart enough to word that in a way that can’t be worked around, “gotcha’d”, etc. but I’m guessing the spirit of the rules is fairly common ground for anyone who isn’t trying to rug-pull a service out from under those they sell it to.
Yes
Might sound stupid, but perhaps then they shouldn’t be offering services like Disney Plus and instead simply offer a car that lets you download any streaming app you have your own subscription for.
That’s a fair point.
I’d like to see a requirement that products and devices which have been deemed by their manufacturer to be end of sale/support/repair/life are required to be unlocked, with technical schematics and repair documentation made freely available, upon request of the owner.
Software open-sourced, too.
Would be nice, but I’d be happy with instructions on how to flash FOSS firmware onto it, and a description of the API surface so individuals could make their own compatible firmware.
I support it at face value, but as someone who knows little about what this exactly means/involves - what are the risks for misuse by others if everything becomes publicly available and stops making developments?
I see it just gets incorporated into their business model.
I’d argue it would meaningfully suppress the incentive for planned obsolescence for good faith manufacturers, and it opens up repurposing of equipment from less reputable entities.
5 year minimum and the are forced to open source every abandoned project
It’s really in the tech sector’s best interest to do that anyway. Because as a consumer, I’m now quite hesitant to buy a thing without knowing if it’s going to be properly supported.
We’ve all been burned before. My Sonos webradio lost functionality for a while after some backend streaming service was defunct. They did manage to fix that but it meant installing a new app, new account that sort of thing. It’s annoying- but at least the manufacturer did the right thing to keep it working. I can only imagine how frustrating it would’ve been if the entire thing stopped working with no support…
Basically, that experience is why I’m no longer willing to buy things that wholly depend on outside servers and the like to keep working. There’s too much risk of ending up with an expensive paperweight.
Because as a consumer, I’m now quite hesitant to buy a thing without knowing if it’s going to be properly supported.
The end-game is to have every consumer appliance operate with a shelf-life. Yeah, you’ll have older models that don’t do this, but they will become increasingly rare (and, consequentially, expensive) while the mass produced disposables will saturate the market.
Basically, that experience is why I’m no longer willing to buy things that wholly depend on outside servers
What do you do when this becomes “Everything”?
New account = new TOS I imagine?
Well the new account was for the new streaming service which replaced the old one. And since that’s a different company… different TOS, obviously.
It was mildly annoying, but at least it means I can still use the radio I bought.
I only buy stuff that runs on standards and is accessible by FOSS or open protocols. I’ve never had to retire something because of the decision of a tech company.
It’s not only that, the issue is that they release updates that slows down the device, and you get so irritated that you buy a new “faster” device
I’m not an IT expert, so I don’t know how feasible this is, but they should have at least two branches of updates. One that is strictly security and the other that are all the bells and whistles. I would love to stick with an old os if it’s not vulnerable to the outside world.
It’s called a LTS (Long Term Support) builds versus the current build. There is even sometimes ELTS (Extended Long Term Support)
(Please do not start a Linux discussion by replying to this comment)
Apple Mindset. I gave up on the iPhone after v3 bricked within a month of the v4 release.
Android does the same shit, and I hate it.
I’ve had to give up phones that still worked fine because the app updates killed the responsiveness
Android does the same shit, and I hate it.
My OnePlus has been solid for the last five years. Idk about the Pixel, though.
Yeah it was an older model phone, so it could be the reason as someone else mentioned that older android versions had that issue
Yeah I’ve never had this issue with Android, not least of which is because you’re able to just root it and install whatever ROM/OS you want. If Google pushes an unstable update just wipe that shit and put Lineage on it.
Apple only gets away with it because they put their users in a walled garden where you have no choice but to receive Apple’s updates on their timeframe. I quit that life in 2006 when they updated my iPod Touch into uselessness and haven’t come across the problem again since switching to Android.
Or they take out 70% of the features it had at launch and make you wonder why you still use the thing anymore.
