←back to thread

568 points rntn | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ffujdefvjg ◴[] No.41881316[source]
Hope Deere gets what's coming to them and this sets a precedent for other companies. Next on the list should be devices remotely disabled when they're discontinued, which would have otherwise continued to work perfectly fine (like the Spotify car device).
replies(3): >>41882511 #>>41884095 #>>41886538 #
tmm ◴[] No.41882511[source]
Would also like to see a ban on firmware updates and programming tools locked behind a dealer (or support contract) portal and a ban on time-restricted software licenses for hardware.

In line with remote-bricking discontinued hardware, these policies only serve to generate eWaste.

If you sell programmable hardware, or really anything with embedded software, you should be required to make all the tools and software available to end users (doesn’t have to be free, but shouldn’t require a subscription or support contract either) in perpetuity.

Licenses to enable additional hardware features are fine, but they must be granted for the life of the device (i.e. as long as it can be kept working), not an arbitrary “we think the life of this thing is 5 years”. You should never have to keep paying to use a device you already bought.

replies(6): >>41883839 #>>41884251 #>>41884279 #>>41884363 #>>41887852 #>>41887972 #
hsbauauvhabzb ◴[] No.41884363[source]
How would you implement that though? As soon as you push a law in a single state, the company will move states, over a single country and the company will move countries, and you’re not gonna get this law passed somewhere like China
replies(1): >>41885688 #
F-Lexx ◴[] No.41885688[source]
> and you're not gonna get this law passed somewhere like China

That's exactly what embargos are for.

replies(1): >>41886323 #
1. jimnotgym ◴[] No.41886323[source]
Or at least proper regulation. If you want to import X to the US then it must comply with Y
replies(1): >>41888215 #
2. freedomben ◴[] No.41888215[source]
Yes, but we should also be honest about the fact that this protectionism will have a cost. In the case of farm equipment, it means that everyone who buys food will be paying more to subsidize the protected industry.

I'm not making a judgment on whether it's worth it or not, I think that depends on a lot of details, but when people throw out tariffs they are rarely honest about the fact that it's a tax that flows downstream to the end user. In some cases multiple ways, like farmers who pay higher cost for equipment due to tariffs, so production of their soybeans (or whatever) are higher, so then they needs USDA subsidies to make them price competitive for export, so there's multiple layers of taxation there to make it work.