Disagreed. Google is not just selling a toy and its software, they are in control of important things like locks and thermostats. And they’re not even saying “You can buy a new Nest and reactivate your account.” They’re saying “As of May 15, 2016, Revolv service will no longer be available. The Revolv app won’t open and the hub won’t work… Revolv data will be deleted.” And they’re apparently not even notifying users by phone, mail, or email.
Also, it’s not like Revolv really puts a strain on Google’s server infrastructure. How difficult would it have been to instead announce “As of May 15, 2016, we will no long support Revolv hardware or maintain the Revolv software. Revolv’s servers will, however, remain operational for as long as there are active users of the service.”? A few thousand dollars at most? For all the good that would do for Google/Nest’s brand value/trust in the company/trust in IoT as a concept? Avoiding litigation costs?
Oh the users are boned no matter what. That’s kind of the point. And the companies would argue that you have AGREED to the EULA even if you declined to read it. While I admit that EULAs become so ubiquitous that I don’t always read them, I HAVE stopped a number of transactions at work when I refused to “just click agree” and I pointed out that I do not have the authority to bind my employer, and that this contract will have to go through the legal department.
Another argument for broadband as a public utility. Without it you can no longer heat or cool your house, or run your appliances. No consumer level ISP has Quality Of Service guarantees that I’m aware of. Also with “Smart” Meters they can (and do!) turn off (and on) your power remotely. No service visit needed, and if you opted for e-bills (which ended up in your spam filter) no postage wasted either.
It occurs to me that the problem with those drug cabinets might have been expediently solved if the drug cabinets were simply bricked after a certain point.
In the end, isn’t forcing people to buy a new device better than quietly ending support and allowing more and more security bugs to be revealed over time? “They should open source the device APIs and let people fix it themselves!” is one response, but wouldn’t that just make things even less secure? Surely supporting the device forever and ever just isn’t feasible, anymore than writing completely bug-free software to begin with.
We’re not talking about ending updates or tech support. We’re talking about shutting down the servers rather then merely not supporting them, and bricking the product in people’s homes.
A product sold with a “Lifetime Subscription.” Bricked after 17 months.
When those products control important infrastructure and/or bricking them puts people at risk, then yes, I do. The presence of software doesn’t change that. My utility company isn’t allowed to turn off my electricity or natural gas heat even if I don’t pay my bill for months, but Google can brick my thermostat on a whim. My keys will never stop working and I can call a locksmith whenever I need to, but Google can brick my smart front door lock. (Note, I use “my,” loosely, I don’t use any home automation). Even if my alarm company goes out of business, I can use the same hardware with another company. They chose to make a device that people rely on for their well-being and safety and make it rely on their maintaining their servers. And yes, they do have responsibilities for meeting reasonable expectations regardless of warranty length.
The difference being that if and when a game no longer works because the server is decommissioned I’m out a form of entertainment. these games have lifecycles, and most players have moved on to the next one. If a home automation device goes down, things like heating, cooling, and lighting go down. It’s much more of a issue. Not to mention more expensive to change out to a replacement that may or may not be compatible with my other existing hardware.
Right now this is affecting early adopters and the more wealthy. But eventually these will be items that you get because your house came with them. In a decade or so they will be more common and cheaper, to the point where many people will lose control of their house functions because the hub device stopped working.
The solution is a DD-WRT type Linux distribution standard for home automation. So that the core software runs on hardware you own, and any device that is compatible will connect first to the local hub and not to the internet. Ths has the added bonus of not needing to put heavy encryption into the lightbulbs and power switches. All remote access can go through the hub. It has to be done right, and it would mean that companies couldn’t lock people into walled gardens of automation products. So it’s probably doomed.
It’s a dick move, I’ll grant you, but we shouldn’t expect a company to support its products indefinitely.
The Revolv was launched mid-2013 and sold for some time after that. There’s a hell of a difference between “indefinitely” and a maximum of three years.
Can an EULA be enforced if the terms of the contract is fraudulent? If these devices were sold as “lifetime subscriptions” and then the device is killed off after 1 1/2 year - is that fraud?
If you went to a restaurant that had an all you can eat sign and you paid for it and then 1/2 way thru dinner they say that they raised the price and you have to stop eating - that’s not legal.
Tivo pulled something similar - they sold the tivo series 1 as a lifetime subscription. I have lifetime on both 1 and 2 series devices. After about 5 years they started to kill off or throttle the updates to the devices for recording shows. Complaints came in on forums around the same time. People figured that the switch to monthly subscriptions signaled a change at Tivo that us lifetime owners were no longer welcome getting the same updates that monthly subscribers got. I have a device with a lifetime subscription and it’s 17 years old. If it still operates, the lifetime is still good. It’s not MY lifetime or some date picked out by an accountant that is financially worthwhile for them…
The company didn’t go under. Google bought it. Google IS the company, and it’s still alive. It’s not a case of Google buying the assets after the company went under.
If something is insecure because it’s open, then it wasn’t secure in the first place. Obscurity is only a minor speed bump when you want to break something.
I am not apologizing for Google. This is a greedy, short-sighted, anti-consumer decision on their part.
We should not expect a company to support its products indefinitely. We should demand that devices we purchase are legally ours to repair, modify, and use how we choose.
