Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Apr 2016 22:19 UTC

On May 15th, my house will stop working. My landscape lighting will stop turning on and off, my security lights will stop reacting to motion, and my home made vacation burglar deterrent will stop working. This is a conscious intentional decision by Google/Nest.

To be clear, they are not simply ceasing to support the product, rather they are advising customers that on May 15th a container of hummus will actually be infinitely more useful than the Revolv hub.

Google is intentionally bricking hardware that I own.

This should be absolutely illegal. I'm pretty sure Google has some EULA bullshit that "allows" them to do it, but EULAs are legal wet sand, and honestly, I just don't care. The fact Google can just get away with this shows you just how utterly warped and inherently - I'm using that word again, it's been a while - evil they really are.

These companies literally do not care about you. The sooner you accept that, the less attached and to and blinded by these companies you'll be.

Thread beginning with comment 627240
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Another stupid opinion.
by oskeladden on Sun 10th Apr 2016 23:18 UTC in reply to "Another stupid opinion."
Member since:

Sometimes you buy a product that is a dud.

This guy bought a product that was a dud and paid the cost for being an early adopter.

...and consumer protection law says that if a consumer buys a product that is a dud, they have a right to compensation.

This happens and what you are arguing for is making EOL of a product illegal which is ridiculous.

No. It isn't illegal, as long as the seller is upfront about the fact that the product will reach EOL and be bricked at some stage, and about the broad timeframe within which that will happen.

What is illegal is telling your customers that they have a lifetime service for the life of the product (which, in this part of the world, means the life of the hardware), and then sneaking a discretionary power to brick the product into the fine print.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:

A start-up basically pitched it as a lifetime of support. The company failed and was bought out by another.

There was an ISP in the 90s (before the dotcom bubble burst) that was offering lifetime internet for so much money (I forget the amount) ... guess what when the company went the customers lost their "lifetime of support"

Sorry the guy was a moron for believing the marketing spiel.

Reply Parent Score: 2

oskeladden Member since:

There was an ISP in the 90s (before the dotcom bubble burst) that was offering lifetime internet for so much money (I forget the amount) ... guess what when the company went the customers lost their "lifetime of support"

That is because they went into administration. Insolvency does indeed let you get out of your contracts without paying compensation. However, the flipside is that your assets are used to pay off your creditors. They may not get much, but you get nothing. When Breathe (I assume that's who you're thinking of) went under, the fellow who owned it lost the technology, equipment, everything.

If Nest had gone down a similar route there would have been no issue at all - their "lifetime guarantee" would have come to an end, their entire business would have been wound up, and their technology and IP would have been put on the block for sale to the highest bidder. That, of course, isn't what they're doing. They want to have it both ways - they want to breach their contracts with one set of customers, while carrying on the rest of their business as normal. In the UK, the law - rightly - does not allow you to do that. If you as a company are foolish enough to give a "lifetime guarantee", you're not going to be allowed weasel out of it just because you subsequently realise that you were foolish. Going bankrupt is different, but you can't pick and choose which obligations you're going to keep and which you aren't.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Another stupid opinion.
by Alfman on Tue 12th Apr 2016 00:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Another stupid opinion."
Alfman Member since:

lucas maximus,

Sorry the guy was a moron for believing the marketing spiel.

Just think if the exact same scenario happened with the Nest internet enabled smoke alarms ( yes it's real - ).

We’re pouring all our energy into Works with Nest and are incredibly excited about what we’re making. Unfortunately, that means we can’t allocate resources for our smoke alarms anymore and we have to shut down the service. As of next month, your Nest Smoke Alarm and app will no longer work.

Just as with the Hub, some customer will assume that the marketing claims are true. Just as with the Hub, it's the customers fault for not knowing that the company would brick the device. And then just as with the Hub, you would tell the guy who lost his family in a fire "Sorry the guy was a moron for believing the marketing spiel." F*@k 'em, why should companies be accountable when customers are stupid enough to trust them?

* Taking your words out of context makes it a bit of a straw man, and I sure as hell hope you wouldn't actually say this then. But consider this: logically it's not all that different, all I did was bump up the stakes.

Edited 2016-04-12 01:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2