←back to thread

400 points ingve | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.446s | source
Show context
qalmakka ◴[] No.45036138[source]
This is intolerable. You own the device. You must be able to run whatever you want on it. Locking or limiting your access to the stuff you bought is not only unacceptable, it's basically like saying you don't really own anything. You're basically leasing a device until the OEM decides you can't run anything on it anymore. Would people accept if a car manufacturer prohibited you from driving their cars in certain places?
replies(2): >>45036146 #>>45037821 #
p0w3n3d ◴[] No.45036146[source]
Meanwhile: VW is already limiting horsepower when the yearly subscription is ceased to be paid

It's already happening. The greediness of vendors, the ignorance of users...

replies(2): >>45036274 #>>45036764 #
AnonymousPlanet ◴[] No.45036764[source]
Back in the 90s Sun sold you computers with X amount of space. There was an option to upgrade. If you took it, they sent a technician around to do the upgrade. All they did was making the already existing space available. Sun always sold hardware with all the space installed but gave you only what you paid for.
replies(1): >>45037780 #
1. p0w3n3d ◴[] No.45037780[source]
I wonder if such actions can become a reason for persecution. Let me make an allegory: if I sold someone thing that is designed to break on purpose, and then requested pay for fixing it, it would be a felony. Why the remote downgrading is not considered a felony?
replies(1): >>45037964 #
2. nicce ◴[] No.45037964[source]
Has someone ever tried this in the court? Only question is the definition of 'broke'.