• 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • kayazere@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

  • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • OCATMBBL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      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?

      • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

  • _sideffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

    • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Let me own my fucking device so I can use it. Please. We are creating so much waste cause some program can’t run. It’s absurd.

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      In October of last year my mom came home from the ICU, now unable to get out of bed. I replaced all the bulbs in the house with smart bulbs and put the fans on a little smart plug thing. It made me really like the idea of home smart home features, but I’m not techy. They’re just Alexa enabled for her to use with the fire stick, and I use google home on my phone for em.

      Can you offer any advice for ones that don’t require internet? Every time our power goes out (any time there’s a storm), I have to go around and reset them while they flash at me like the worst night club

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      At least make it required to not brick at EOS if it’s a device that would otherwise run. Like a laundry machine.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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?

          • OnToTheFuture@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Although I do this, I do also have a counterpoint to this. I will set my machine to go and it says 60 minutes. Cool, set a timer for that long. Come back in 60 minutes, and it still has 5 minutes left. I ended up figuring out the machine is somehow determining that at 60 minutes, the clothes/blankets/whatever is still too wet, so it’s adding time to the spin cycle to try and spin them more. Having it just ping me would be amazing, but also I do not want to have a machine that refuses to operate without WiFi or some crap.