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.
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.
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.
The government holds loads of confidential information, including keys. It’s perfectly fine.
Anything short of the code already existing and being ready to release allows bankruptcy to kill devices and isn’t good enough.
This is essentially the premise of Stop Killing Games but in a different world.
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).
Just because a product went defunct does not mean the entire code base is obsolete to the company.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!
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 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.
A big problem is things tied unnecessarily to an internet service. We need to educate people that there may be alternatives and we need our purchasing decisions to support that. For example, most home automation stuff should NOT require or use any internet.
The article calls it “software tethering”. If any support commitments encourage manufacturers to stop that, we’ll all be better off. Let’s start with requiring users be clearly notified of software tethering, so they know what they’re buying
this is so infuriating
I have a Hatch, which i have programed for my babies bed time, just play white noise sound at this time, turn off this sound in the morning, play bird song when hes supposed to wake up
I specifically got the older model, since the newer model has a lot of these basic features locked behind a paywall, while the old one they are just free.
Went traveling, and without a wifi connection it wont even do this. Apparently making an alarm clock remember its settings without a wifi connection is too much work.
At least make it required to not brick at EOS if it’s a device that would otherwise run. Like a laundry machine.
There’s no reason a laundry machine requires an internet connection
- if an internet connection provides additional functionality such as notification, it easier to have the machine work normally without notifications
- there’s no reason a machine requires an internet connection, especially with the release of the Matter/Thread standard to unify home automation local protocols
When I got new machines about five years ago, I briefly considered connected machines. It would be really nice to get notifications on my phone but how can it possibly cost that much and why does the only option depend on a cloud service?
I agree. But the people who have one should not need to buy new machines just because support ended. And it’s my understanding that it’s currently the case with several brands.
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
Or they take out 70% of the features it had at launch and make you wonder why you still use the thing anymore.
Let’s add AI!
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 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.
Back around android 3-6 it was more common, really hasn’t been a thing for a while IMO. Have non-daily driver Oneplus 5t and 6t, both Lineage os 14, they work well.
Yeah it was an older model phone, so it could be the reason as someone else mentioned that older android versions had that issue
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”?
5 year minimum and the are forced to open source every abandoned project
default value: 2 years
It would be a nice gesture, but I will believe those promises of support when they have teeth to them.
What happens if they stop doing it? Do I have to sue them for breach of contract, have to prove actual damages, and settle the class action lawsuit for $5 in store credit?
What happens if the company goes bankrupt or creates a new subsidiary to service the product and the subsidiary folds?
What level of support are they obligated to provide? What issues must be fixed and how promptly?
Dooo it!
The all new Fard Shitsta will reverse camera software supported for 10 whole years!
10 years later…
Well, it doesn’t run anymore, fine you can have it for 20 bucks.
