Alphabet's Nest To Deliberately Brick Revolv Hubs 432
Nest, a Google-owned company, will deliberately break one of its own products come May 15. The company has announced plans to disable Revolv, a hub that allows customers to electronically control lights in their homes. Entrepreneur Arlo Gilbert raises some important questions: Google/Nest's decision raises an interesting question. When software and hardware are intertwined, does a warranty mean you stop supporting the hardware or does it mean that the manufacturer can intentionally disable it without consequence? Tony Fadell seems to believe the latter. Tony believes he has the right to reach into your home and pull the plug on your Nest products. [...] 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. That's a pretty blatant "fuck you" to every person who trusted in them and bought their hardware. They didn't post this notice until long after Google had made the acquisition, so these are Google's words under Tony Fadell's direction. Revolv was acquired by Nest in 2014, and it is believed that all Nest wanted from the acquisition was talent and workforce. An older version of Revolv website reveals that its hub was marketed to have "free lifetime service subscription," "free monthly updates for additional device support," and "free future firmware updates to automatically activate new radios." James Grimmelmann, a professor of Law, tweeted, "I didn't realize that Revolv promised free lifetime service. That makes the shutdown a deceptive trade practice as well as an unfair one." Aaron Parecki, co-founder of IndieWebCamp, wrote, "Your friendly reminder that without open standards, you're not "buying" smarthome hardware, you're renting it."
Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, fuck it. Be evil and a jackass.
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Funny)
The nest CEO seems to think he's Steve Jobs though he's only getting the jackass part of the equation right.
So essentially that makes him steve ballmer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
HAAHHAAAHAHAHA throwing chairs throwing chairs ahahahahaha!
But as you throw your IoT enabled chair, it is listening to you and reporting back to the mothership via your Revolv hub. Oh wait...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The nest CEO seems to think he's Steve Jobs though he's only getting the jackass part of the equation right.
Name even ONE instance where Apple has reached-out and intentionally and permanently disabled an already-purchased piece of Apple hardware.
Well? I'm waiting...
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Error 53.
Re: (Score:3)
What Google is doing isn't exactly that. They're not reaching into the device and disabling it, they are shutting off the cloud services that support it. Unfortunately the net effect on the end user is exactly the same; the device is useless.
There aren't a lot of direct analogies yet for hardware, and most of them are from companies that have gone out of business. But there are plenty for software and for DRM-protected media. For example, the Microsoft Plays For Sure music files that no longer play because
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Interesting)
It's really disingenuous to say that people did this to themselves. After the repairs were complete, the phone worked perfectly fine, meaning that as far as they knew they had done the job correctly. What happened is that a later update came around and bricked the device if somebody had repaired it.
But that's not even the worst part, the worst part was that Apple refused to unbrick the devices, and basically forced everybody to come to their repair shops. Why is that bad? Because right to repair is actually codified in US law, meaning it's illegal for a manufacturer to create countermeasures for you doing self repairs and/or going to third parties for repair.
Furthermore, the whole argument in favor of that brick was absurd. Is somebody really supposed to steal your iphone, swap their own fake fingerprint sensor in it, and then put it back as if nothing happened? That sounds like a cheesy plot to a mission impossible movie.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First, I don’t think you’re familiar with the way secure cryptosystems are designed to operate. They simply don’t work unless they’re configured into a fail-deadly state.
No, what they’re protecting against with this approach to repair is okay, they’re protecting you against several attacks. The first and most likely is phone theft. An AppleID locked phone is stolen. Someone takes it to a launderer, who opens the phone and swaps the TouchID cable over to a special device
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, Apple fixed it with iOS 9.2.1. If you use iTunes you can put that version on your phone and unbrick it. No need to go to an Apple shop.
Sure you can repair something yourself, or have a 3rd party do it, but you usually void your warranty and no longer have a guarantee that the device will work/keep working.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds exactly like something the FBI or NSA would like to do though! They are the evil organization du jour that must be protected against.
If they were able to take your phone and pull that off without you knowing, you have much bigger problems than an iphone can possibly present.
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
It was more like an xbox detecting that the dvd drive had been swapped, and triggering the DRM.
Actually it was more like an xbox which had the dvd drive swapped a long time earlier and worked flawlessly without issue suddenly downloading an update and triggering the DRM.
In any analogy it was what is generally known as A Dick Move (TM)
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
It's time for a judge to rule a software license is meaningless and true ownership of a product with software in it is occuring.
Then let the lawyers do their thing with that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For nearly 20 years I have made the argument that software simply needs to fall under the same laws as any other consumer product for quality, reliability, safety, and doctrine of first sale. Bugs that make software unusable / crash prone should be the same as a coffee machine that only lasts a week or tends to start fires. The manufacturer can replace it until it wo
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not FUD, it's absolutely correct, and your post is wishful thinking, which is why the quote is correct.
Your argument for 20 years is worthless, because **software isn't treated like that**. It doesn't matter how long you've been arguing it; software is not treated like other consumer products, no matter how much you think it should be. There's no signs that it'll ever be treated like other consumer products. You're just tilting at windmills.
We FOSS people, unlike you apparently, actually live in the real world, and here in the real world where software *isn't* subject to the quality, safety, reliability, and doctrine of first sale terms that regular consumer products are, FOSS software is the only thing that makes sense if you actually want to have real control over your software instead of just renting it.
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Interesting)
Gonna be interesting when the software -- bugs are the user's problem -- mentality collides with the automotive strict liability world. Presumably the entertainment components can work (or not work) like the crap we are used to. But if your autonomous car runs over a kid on a tricycle I think that software vendors are going to find themselves in a whole new legal world.
Popcorn time ...
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:4, Interesting)
Try to take a broken toaster back to any big box retailer and get your money back: Unless they really want your repeat business they will make you suffer in a long line to get a "reconditioned" replacement that won't last a week.
The real advantage of F/OSS is that it gives you no warranty or promise of any kind, but that it DOES give you the capability of fixing it yourself and making the system do what YOU want. As long as your software is controlled by a vendor or any other third party that does NOT have your interests at heart, you remain at their mercy. And they will only act in their best interests, not yours.
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny that you're crying FUD in a comment on an article where it is actually happening right now. If it actually happens, it's not FUD. If it really is FUD, there must be some practical workaround that doesn't involve replacement. Would you care to share your solution with the new brick owners?
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess it depends on who's lifetime you're talking about...?
The hardwares lifetime?
Your lifetime?
The external servers lifetime (that the unit is dependent upon)?
Or the company's lifetime...which sounds like it was done away with in this case when Google bought them...?
Re: Don't Be Evil (Score:3)
Not if you only purchase certain portions of the company.
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Remind me not to buy a Google self-driving car. Wow, dick move.
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately, don't buy a self-driving car by a competitor of Google that Google will buy out.
Oh, wait, that requires precognition.
But definitely, dick move by Google.
Re:Don't Be Evil (Score:5, Interesting)
More accurately, don't buy a self-driving car by a competitor of Google that Google will buy out.
Unfortunately there aren't very many Google products that *didn't* originate elsewhere. There's search... but what else? It's not as if Glass or Voice or Maps actually started inside Google, much as they sometimes try to bury any pre-Google history.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll never buy a self driving car. That's ridiculous! I will pay for a subscription service and let someone else worry about whether they need maintenance or upgrades.
The vast majority of the time I don't even need a car. Really I need my car AT MOST about an hour a day, the rest of the time it just sits there slowly falling apart.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> the rest of the time it just sits there slowly falling apart.
Why not fix entropy instead?
Put Lifetime in quotes (Score:5, Informative)
I've found that "lifetime" warranties are often for the product's lifetime, not the life of the owner.
So a lifetime warranty on a dishwasher might be 10 years. Not sure how they get away with that, but I've seen it more than once.
Re:Put Lifetime in quotes (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it then deceptive to not advertise the quantity of time that is considered to be "lifetime"?
Has anyone purchased this device within said quantity of time?
Does the expiration of my dishwasher warranty allow the company to send a guy to my home to permanently disable it?
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine (hope?) that at the very least the "lifetime" period is specified in the fine print somewhere.
Does the expiration of my dishwasher warranty allow the company to send a guy to my home to permanently disable it?
This takes planned obsolescence to a whole other level. With lifetime warranties that apply to the owner's lifespan, they just send someone with a garrote over to permanently disable you.
Re:Put Lifetime in quotes (Score:4, Funny)
Some countries actually have laws about products - fitness for use, merchantable quality and so on.
But don't go to any of them or you might catch a dose of cormanism and end up marrying a gay.
Re:Put Lifetime in quotes (Score:5, Informative)
I would imagine (hope?) that at the very least the "lifetime" period is specified in the fine print somewhere.
From their FAQ:
The Revolv Lifetime Subscription, which is included in the $299 you pay for the solution, enables GeoSense automation and remote updates that allows your Revolv to work together seamlessly (and continually update) with the products you already own; for the lifetime of the product.
It would appear they have decided to euthanize the product an thus it has reached date end of its lifetime.
The question, as I see it, is given the vague definition of lifetime in the FAQ, and absent any clearer one in the TOS that everyone reads in great detail too be sure they understand what they really are getting and not just click "Accept" does Google's EOL'ing of the Revolv constitute a breach of the promise of lifetime service? The products are still serviceable except for the lack of a server, so should there be a remedy for the people whose live once revolved around home automation but are now at a standstill due to Google's actions?
Re: (Score:3)
I would imagine (hope?) that at the very least the "lifetime" period is specified in the fine print somewhere.
I would hope for much more than that. The "fine print" isn't always easily accessible at the time of purchase.
"Lifetime" should not be considered an acceptable term to establish a warranty timeframe. It's redundant; warranties are supposed to define the lifetime of the product, not the other way around.
Re:Put Lifetime in quotes (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK the expected lifetime of a product is determined by courts. For something like a laptop computer, it's typically 5-6 years, for example. It depends on the cost of the product, how it was marketed, what a "reasonable person" (legal term) would expect etc.
We actually have really great consumer laws covering this. If something breaks during a manufacturing/design defect within it's reasonable lifetime you can get a fix or partial refund. For example, if a laptop expected to last five years broke in year four due to a flawed cooling system you could get a 20% refund.
I don't even know what exactly this thing is supposed to be, but it's some kind of home control system so courts would probably lump it in with stuff like light switches and consumer units. Reasonable lifespan of 10 years or more. This seems to be very much a design flaw (can be remotely bricked by discontinuation of the service) so you could probably take the vendor to Small Claims Court and win.
It's the vendor that pays out, not the manufacturer. That's why Amazon had to partially refund that guy whose PS3 had the "other OS" feature remotely deleted by Sony.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep- through the wire.
Re:Put Lifetime in quotes (Score:5, Funny)
A crew of really small people then.
Re:Put Lifetime in quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That is exactly why home automation fails to take off. There have been dozens of standards all closed for communications. They start getting communications standardize they install cloud components. Which they cancel due to low usage.
No one has a stable roll your own setup.
Re: (Score:2)
What we need, is a new standard that standardizes all the other standards ...
https://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Put Lifetime in quotes (Score:4, Informative)
Not that I need it, but how well does X10 work?
Simultaneously great and not great. I've been using X-10 components every single day since 1999, and 99.9% of the time, they Just Work. The other 0.1% of the time, I have to fiddle with it. Sometimes I can just retry a command. Other times, I have to change antennae positions because the radio environment in the neighborhood has changed. So X-10 works great, but it's always a little bit marginal. It doesn't take much to tip it over the edge into not working. And of course there's zero security of any kind, so if the neighbor kids knew what X-10 was, they could turn my lights off on me.
Specifically, I wonder about the North American practice of wiring houses as two separate 110 volt "buses" 180 degrees out of phase. Doesn't that mean that an X10 controller on one "bus" can't talk to a device on the other "bus" unless a 220 volt device like a clothes drier or electric stove happens to be running?
Correct, the two legs are generally inaccessible to each other. I have a receiver on each one, in consequence.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with phones is that they aren't like most other products.
If you don't buy a Blu-Ray player, no problem: you can just use DVDs, or watch Netflix (using various devices, including your computer), or download stuff off BitTorrent and watch it on your computer, etc. Or you can just read a book, go outside, or anything else that doesn't involve watching a movie.
If you don't buy a game console, no problem: you can play games on your PC (including emulator games which are better anyway), or you can ju
Re: (Score:3)
There’s no uniform meaning to “lifetime.” If the warranty doesn’t specifically state the lifetime to which it refers, it might as well not exist.
Says Consumer Reports [slashdot.org]
Re:Put Lifetime in quotes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Put Lifetime in quotes (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you tried it lately? They want a receipt nowadays, believe it or not.
Plus, with the overall health of Sears Holdings lately, we'll see how long even that lasts.
Re: (Score:3)
I've found that "lifetime" warranties are often for the product's lifetime, not the life of the owner.
So a lifetime warranty on a dishwasher might be 10 years. Not sure how they get away with that, but I've seen it more than once.
That couldn't possibly be true.
If you buy that dishwasher, get it home and installed, and 7 days later it dies... Does that not mean by definition the dishwashers lifetime was 7 days? That would mean the lifetime warranty is equal to 7 days.
No company agreement or warranty is allowed clauses that violate state or federal laws, and this one most certainly would violate some consumer protection "lemon law" out there.
Google's battered customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is intentionally bricking hardware that I own. That's a pretty blatant "fuck you" to every person who trusted in them and bought their hardware.
How many times has Google said "fuck you" to people who trusted them and how many times have those people returned to Google for more? Who actually trusts Google anymore?
Re:Google's battered customers (Score:5, Funny)
Who actually trusts Google anymore?
I'm not sure Maybe I should go to my usual source to find out [google.co.uk].
Waaaaiiiitttt....
Re:Google's battered customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly this. I have no idea why anyone would buy anything that Google sells that isn't directly related their search business. And if Google buys someone that produces something you already own, you had better start looking for a replacement - when they discontinue something, they aren't content with simply ending sales and sending it to some legacy support contract like any other company - they want to burn the product down and piss on the ashes.
And it's convenient the whole parent company rename, so they can do shit like this without tarnishing the 'Google' name on a wide scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Trust is not absolute -- it is differential.
I own a Google Nexus phone (made by Huawei, but it's marketed as a Google Nexus phone). This required trusting them enough to bet that my $800 or so (128GB version, with Nexus Protect) spend on the phone will last me about the two years or so I expect to use the phone. Do I trust Google that much? Probably. Would I trust them with a low-cost home appliance thingy that, if they broke, I could replace with something else? I might, if that was the best option at t
Re: (Score:2)
How many times has Google said "fuck you" to people who trusted them and how many times have those people returned to Google for more? Who actually trusts Google anymore?
Considering how many Android fan boys there are around here, quite a few. But then even after a decade and more of Microsoft bad practices there were plenty of MS fans. Takes all sorts.
Re:Google's battered customers (Score:5, Insightful)
People who bought Revolv hubs didn't buy a Google/Nest/Alphabet product.
The ugly side of IoT (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't control it you don't own it. This is the ugly side of IoT. I remember when the first NASes came out, it was great. You could, with a little firewall tweaking, have a hosted file server that you could access from anywhere. Cloud storage is the antithesis of this notion. Someone else takes care of it for you, but it's totally out of your control. They aren't your bits anymore and they could vanish at any time. The wife didn't believe me until Yahoo music shutdown and the albums purchased were just gone forever. If you can help it, always have something YOU control. Don't waste your hard earned money on some corporation's little experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The one comfort I take from this sort of story is that as it happens more often, more normal (non-nerd) people will realise how much they could be giving up by allowing all this connected technology into their lives and relying on so many online services that can be changed or shut off at any time. That will lead to people voting with their wallets, and potentially even at the ballot box, for more reasonable terms and for stronger consumer protection, security and privacy rules.
It will probably also open up
Re: (Score:2)
Cloud storage is the antithesis of this notion. Someone else takes care of it for you, but it's totally out of your control. They aren't your bits anymore and they could vanish at any time. The wife didn't believe me until Yahoo music shutdown and the albums purchased were just gone forever. If you can help it, always have something YOU control. Don't waste your hard earned money on some corporation's little experiment.
It's maybe worth noting that Amazon has never shut anything down, not even an AWS API. Who knows which way the winds of corporate profit will blow in the future, and they did remove that one Kindle book off people's devices (1984, naturally), but we can at least compare track records. The Google Graveyard is vast, and haunted.
only the paranoid survive (Score:2)
do no evil, my foot!
observe actions not words.
that means do not trust any of the big tech corps, nor their over hyped mediocre products, nor their vague public stances and pronouncements. if they can make even one cent profit, they will sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
do no evil, my foot!
Do not yell at your foot, it only does what you tell it to do.
You a responsible for all bad actions committed by your foot.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You're running Linux I presume? (Score:4, Informative)
No thanks. Did that for a decade and I go tired of running multiple OSs. I have nothing against Linux. I was even a system administrator for Linux for a few years looking after the servers for a government website. My preference for the desktop is the Mac and I've moved onto doing development for the iOS and Mac environment.
That being said I do have a nice Synology NAS at home where I run my own file server, DNS, mail server, web server, and BitTorrent Sync client. It's also connected to the Internet via a VPN and all my computers on my home network use it as a proxy. I have my torrent client running on there. There are plenty of other options that can be added such as media servers. It's a really nice box and saves me from looking after another machine. All I had to do was install the drives, turn it on, and configure how I wanted the RAID set up. Yes, I paid for the convenience but I've had it 4 or 5 years and not had a problem with it, except my drives filling up.
The Nature of Beast (Score:5, Insightful)
It is amazing to me how bad of a company Google actually is, and yet there is so little repercussion. But in retrospect it becomes increasingly clear. Google is just the next Microsoft. Due to the complexity of computers the entrenched OS player(s) simply has too much power to run rough shod over their customers, and there is nothing anyone can really do about it.
This is why / I like DIY (Score:2)
It looks a lot less slick, but it's functional and will only leak information that I choose to the wider intertubes. Also, it's pleasant to talk to and share some community with other like-minded anoraks (geeks, I think in the US). So it's Pi, Perl (yes, I do it for a rather meager living) and
Re: (Score:2)
Off the shelf is fine just insure that it works with no internet access at all. My Vera does just fine the rest no so much.
Re: (Score:2)
How much are the premiums?
Re: (Score:2)
Reflections on Trusting Trust (Score:3)
It probably works just fine as a transistor while you're awake and only connects to Guangdong when you're sleeping.
you're welcome...
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
It should only be OK to brick the devices if they refund the purchase price. Otherwise, it's theft.
That word doesn't mean what you think it does (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it does (Score:4, Insightful)
Who do you think is going to pay for that extended availability, other than the consumer? That means that instead of buying $200 Nest thermostats that may or may not work for a few years, everybody is now forced to pay $500 for the same hardware just so that the company accumulates enough reserves to live up to the support guarantees you want to impose. And for what? Because economic illiterates like you don't understand how the real world works? And, of course, that still doesn't protect you from bankruptcy, technological obsolescence, or key employees leaving.
When you "buy" a $200 consumer device, you don't "buy" something in the sense of real estate. What you buy is maybe 20 months of prepaid service at $10/month. It's actually the same for most other things you buy: hammers, houses, cars, keyboards, computers, blenders, etc. That's why hardware gets depreciated. In fact, even with real estate, given taxes, you don't really "buy" it, you just pay a lot of points on a long term lease. Furthermore, when you buy a novel consumer device, there is always the risk that it won't work at all, or that it will last less long than you think. Again, caveat emptor.
So, start living in the real world and stop proposing harmful fixes for things that aren't problems for most people.
Autonomous cars... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait till their short attention span runs out and your 8 year old Alphabet car gets bricked rather than maintained. We need less of this fly by night tech in critical and long term installations.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait till their short attention span runs out and your 8 year old Alphabet car gets bricked rather than maintained. We need less of this fly by night tech in critical and long term installations.
This is why I will never buy an autonomous car.
No problem however in renting one, like a taxi.
Not clear on the technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Firewalls and VPNs.
So that you remain a steady stream of income (Score:2)
or else. Clearly.
The mistake you made was thinking that your requirements were the ones that mattered to them.
I expect this Nest shit to harvest as much and as intimate of data about you as possible in the most invasive way possible to bombard you with ads. Because just like Facebook, you're not their customer, businesses trying to stuff your face with said ads are.
Luckily I have 0 interest in home automation after seeing the X 10 shit in the 90's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not clear on the technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain to me again why a home automation device that simply turns my lights on and off requires a company-owned server on the internet to operate?
I ask this question all of the time. It's happening everywhere and nobody really seems concerned that they have no control over the product they purchased or that a 3rd party is controlling items in their homes/businesses, or that a 3rd party has access to their networks and data.
IMO, that is exactly wrong with people today. Nobody cares about their own property, including their identity. They blindly follow the crowd to the cloud. All in the name of simplicity and coolness.
Re: (Score:2)
“Intentionally Bricked” (Score:3, Informative)
TFA & other stuff I’ve read on this accuse them of taking an affirmative action to destroy the hardware, IE “intentionally bricked.” Reality is that they’re turning off servers that the hardware needs to function. Net effect to the consumer is the same, but the inflammatory language is inaccurate.
If Google sent down a kill packet or firmware update that was intended to ruin a piece of hardware that would otherwise continue to function as-is if they hadn’t done so, that’s “intentionally bricked.” If they shutdown a server farm that consumers aren’t paying any on-going fees to make use of, that’s a different thing. Google has an obligation to not destroy something you bought, but they’re not obligated to keep providing you free server time.
Basically what I’m trying to say is read the fine print and check your entitlement. You chose to pay money for a product that was dependent on someone else’s charity to keep working. You backed the wrong horse.
If you can’t smash everything it needs to work with a hammer, you don’t own it.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is if we say, "Google is continuously making outlays of cash to hold up a service which consumes power and IT resources and generates zero revenue, and now they want to turn it off," it sounds like we're making unreasonable demands asking for free service forever. If we say, "Google is destroying shit we paid $200 for!", it sounds like Google is evil.
Re: (Score:3)
Net effect to the consumer is the same
...and suddenly your entire post becomes an exercise in pedantry. The hardware will stop working. Whether it be by a signal being sent or a signal not being sent, it still prevents the hardware from doing what it used to do the day before. The customer will be just as pissed about their expensive systems just seem to die.
If you think that using the term "bricked" is inflammatory, you probably don't want to hear the language that will be used by the Revolv customers when the central part of their home automa
Re: (Score:3)
The service wasn't free of charge. Users paid $300 for lifetime support and purchased a product for real money with the understanding that the servers would remain in place to support the product. Oops sorry we changed our minds about those servers and nope not refunding any of your money.
On the other hand users didn't pay a cent for GMail.
See the difference?
Re:“Intentionally Bricked” (Score:5, Informative)
Basically what I’m trying to say is read the fine print and check your entitlement. You chose to pay money for a product that was dependent on someone else’s charity to keep working.
The not-so-fine print at the time of purchase actually said "Free lifetime service subscription." [archive.org] That sure sounds like an a liability the parties would have had on their radar when valuing the acquisition. In fact, after the acquisition was complete, Nest reiterated the commitment: "For existing customers, the service will continue to be available and we will continue to offer customer support." [archive.org]
Reasonable people thus might well view the ongoing service as something more along the lines of a contractual obligation rather than an "entitlement" or "charity."
IoTOBSE (Score:4, Insightful)
Internet of Things Owned By Somebody Else.
Time to sue Google (Score:3)
California Code 1793.03(b) states:
(b) Every manufacturer making an express warranty with respect to
an electronic or appliance product described in subdivision (h), (i),
(j), or (k) of Section 9801 of the Business and Professions Code,
with a wholesale price to the retailer of one hundred dollars ($100)
or more, shall make available to service and repair facilities
sufficient service literature and functional parts to effect the
repair of a product for at least seven years after the date a product
model or type was manufactured, regardless of whether the seven-year
period exceeds the warranty period for the product.
Every Nest owner should be suing the fuck out of Google in a class-action suit in California right now.
Re: (Score:2)
>They require access to a remote server to function.
This seems to be becoming the case for nearly everything.
One of the reasons I bought into the Philips HUE lighting system is that it requires no remote servers. Everything operates locally. We need more products like this rather than crap that breaks when the Internet is not available or the manufacturer retires the product line.
Re: (Score:2)
"regardless of whether the seven-year period exceeds the warranty period for the product."
Try using some critical thinking.
More IoT crap ... (Score:3)
So, we buy the product, and they just decide when they'll kill it off, and they'll do it by remotely destroying it?
Yeah, enjoy your IoT bullshit, where other people decide what happens to products you purchase, decide they can do it without recourse, and just do it remotely.
Fuck that. This is yet another reason why this whole IoT thing is a completely terrible idea. If I bought it, it's MINE, not yours. Unless you plan on compensating for it, or replacing it, YOU do not get to destroy it.
And if they can reach in and destroy it, they're a hack or two away from someone else being able to do it just for the hell of it.
Nope, I'm neither buying it nor renting it ... because I'm not interested, because I don't trust the competence of the manufacturer, and now because you simply can't trust them to not be assholes.
Sorry, but unilaterally bricking a piece of consumer hardware is a dick move, and it basically says you don't give a crap about your customers. I sincerely hope this makes people realize they shouldn't give a crap about Nest.
Destroying someone else's property should be illegal. Oh, wait, without a bullshit EULA, it would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to over-react without having a brain there or even bothering to read past the headline....
they are shutting off the service, the product will still work perfectly..... except it requires the service. If the company was actually HONEST they would release the firmware as open source and let the community take over. Sadly most companies are not honest and will not do anything like that.
I've had X-10 home automation for over 35 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
.
The problem with home automation nowadays is that you have to rely on "the cloud" or some company to continue to support the product.
As we are seeing with Revolv, such a reliance is a significant disadvantage.
I have had X-10 since 1979. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
We're talking about actual products, get your head out of your ass:
"Pico refined the technology over the upcoming years and in 1978 the first X10 components started to appear in Radio Shack stores. Radio Shack was already a very large electronic retailer with stores scattered all over the United States which helped to make the X10 technology known to tech savvy users."
Source: http://buildyoursmarthome.co/h... [buildyoursmarthome.co]
Not Deceptive at all. (Score:2)
Free lifetime means free for the lifetime of the product.... that product's life is about to end.
TiVo and others have fucked over consumers with their "lifetime" promises, nothing new here.
Simple minor misunderstanding. (Score:2)
Corporations are people, my friend. With all the rights and privileges including, free will and religious faith. But they are special people who can't be jailed, who can transfer all the assets to another coporation people, keep all the liabilities, and declare bankruptcy and dodge it all. Welcome to Copor
Stallman is right (Score:3)
if you don't have the source and the ability to compile that source into working binaries, you don't actually own it.
stupid (Score:3)
If you believe that something like Revolv will keep working forever and ever, that's just foolish. Of course, devices like this often stop functioning after a few years, either because the company decides to move on to different products, or because it goes out of business, or because it gets acquired. (The phrase "free lifetime service" doesn't mean your lifetime or the hardware lifetime, it means "lifetime as we define it".)
However, just because this is common and legal doesn't make it a good idea. This is a stupid PR move on Google's behalf. Keeping the hardware working could only cost them a couple of developers, they'd get useful feedback, and they could send customers a 50% off upgrade coupon when they come out with their own next-generation device, by which time the Revolv radios will probably be obsolete anyway and people will be itching to upgrade.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't offer "lifetime service", they offered "free lifetime service"; that is, as long as the service is offered, it is free.
Re:Nest biggest problem is Google (Score:5, Informative)
You realize that was debunked, right?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1... [theverge.com]
I mean, it's great because it fits the assumed narrative, but there's actually no evidence to back up the claim.
That doesn't apply to this Revolv thing though; I have no idea what the hell they're thinking here at all.