• foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    130
    ·
    9 months ago

    We need consumer protections here, though.

    Like 10 year money back guarantee or something. If the device becomes unusable due to actions outside of the device owners control, those in control should be obligated to reimburse.

    Not doing so opens the doors to racketeering.

    • Ogmios
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Not doing so opens the doors to racketeering.

      That’s the idea.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I mean I haven’t seen it yet but for a simple example, imagine a Netflix competitor that says you just buy the device for $5,000. One time purchase. Free ad-free tv forever.

        Let’s say they get enough subscribers purchasers to profit by year 3.

        Okay. Rug pull. Chapter 11. Sorry bye, thanks for all the fish.

    • kevincox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t think we need to set a global minimum date, but the manufacturer should have to put a date on the box. If they don’t support the device up to that date (including security updates and maintaining any required cloud services) then the consumer gets a full refund with possibly additional damages.

      I think of it like the digital version of a nutrition facts table.

      • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Good idea. If we do this and also add some sort of positive label on devices that work locally and are interoperable it might start a positive feedback loop: More people become aware of the issue or simply want the device with the better label when choosing in a store, leading to more manufacturers producing more devices that aren’t cloud-dependent.

        Right now I often see the opposite happening: Manufacturers who don’t even put on their packaging that their system is really just Zigbee under the hood for example.

        • kevincox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah. For sure. If your device doesn’t depend on a cloud service you can put that on your label and it is basically a gold star.

          Although even local devices should get security updates. The radios and the firmware speaking the ZigBee protocol can have vulnerabilities.

    • SapphironZA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      I vote for forced open sourcing of the server side components and communication protocols. That way people can create custom firmware or build support into generic NVRs

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Most customers would not be able to take advantage of this because they lack the skills to do so.

        • conciselyverbose
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          9 months ago

          You don’t need every consumer to roll their own. If they’re obligated to provide server code, or an API, or whatever, stuff that sells at scale can be integrated into community projects. If you buy something obscure you might have issues, but you have options if you buy something mainstream and get the rug pulled.

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            Right, but what I’m saying is how many people do you think will be able to track down the new open-source project and connect it to their hardware?

            • conciselyverbose
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              You don’t think it will be mentioned in any of the articles about the hardware being abandoned?

              But community projects would very likely also allow third parties to provide services that handled the legwork for customers if they preferred as well.

            • Natanael@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              Because if the community solutions are good enough then half the articles about the shutdown will mention it

            • SapphironZA
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Word does spread and if there are enough of a group, people will likely setup 3rd party hosting solutions around supporting abandoned abut functional products.

              But the secondary effect is likely to be that companies support their products for much longer.

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

                If companies do that then it’s useful. Otherwise, open servers is a good thing, but is only a true solution for smart home hobbyists.