←back to thread

I thought I bought a camera, but no DJI sold me a license to use it [video]

(www.youtube.com)
354 points qingcharles | 4 comments | 21 Apr 25 02:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.671s | source
Show context
dsign ◴[21 Apr 25 04:55 UTC] No.43748593[source]▶
I have a washing machine that won't let me use it fully without installing an app that asks for permission to track my GPS coordinates at all time, in my phone. HomeWhiz.There should be a law against selling new hardware that demands that sort of thing to function, or to have full functionality. But I would be happy if procedures to bring class-auction lawsuits against companies that engage in this kind of bait-and-ransom were somehow simpler.
replies(7): >>43748608 #>>43748639 #>>43748642 #>>43748719 #>>43748767 #>>43749046 #>>43749344 #
1. mjevans ◴[21 Apr 25 05:06 UTC] No.43748642[source]▶
At the very least, when you the current end user refuse to agree to their terms of service, the model should have to be returned, at the manufacturer's expense, irrespective of condition.

Think of renters stuck in a place with units like that! They too should have the right to require un-tracked appliances and be free from being forced to agree to additional contract overheads that aren't obvious in the price / what should be reasonable terms.

replies(2): >>43748666 #>>43749028 #
2. alwa ◴[21 Apr 25 05:12 UTC] No.43748666[source]▶
Obligatory link to Doctorow’s Unauthorized Bread (2019), a DRM-themed, uh… thriller? polemic?… of a novella. Deals with the themes you discuss: large appliance manufacturer malfeasance, intrusive exploitation beyond the scope of the product’s purpose, renters’ relative helplessness for the appliances to service their daily needs.

https://craphound.com/unauthorized-bread/

Discussion here (2020, 123 comments):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23985140

3. phire ◴[21 Apr 25 06:46 UTC] No.43749028[source]▶
In many countries, the consumer protection laws are strong enough that consumers probably can return such appliances, as long as the facts about app requirements weren't made abundantly clear to them at the store.

Though, it's usually the store who's responsible for that refund, not the manufacturer . Still, stores are motivated to reduce return rates and will put pressure on manufactures to not do stupid things.

replies(1): >>43749158 #
4. hoistbypetard ◴[21 Apr 25 07:12 UTC] No.43749158[source]▶
For things you can carry back to the store, that works well. When I buy a new washing machine, though, it's a bit more complicated:

- I go to the store and make the purchase.

- A delivery crew brings the washing machine to my house.

- They unhook my old washing machine and take it away.

- They attach my new washing machine in its place.

Even with the strongest reasonable protection laws I can imagine, the most the store would be obligated to do if the new machine is unsatisfactory would be to detach the new machine and take it away. And I've probably had to pay for one or two visits from the installers at that point. Regardless of whether the extra visit from the installers carries any extra cost for me, there's enough hassle associated with this that I can easily imagine keeping a machine where I'm not happy with some app requirement because it'd be too much trouble to make the change.