They implicitly agree under duress, because their time is worth far too much to even read 10 pages of fine print for every product they use. I'm not being flippant; it bloody well is.
I'm not sure why courts consider that to hold any weight; to me it goes against the whole notion of informed consent in binding agreements. And to be fair, often the courts don't consider to hold any weight.
You don't need to read 10 pages of fine print for every product, because it's functionally the same fine print for every product.
If you don't like this, don't ever buy smart devices because they /all/ reserve the right to do this kind of stuff.
I avoid smart devices like the plague. If I want my speakers smart, I'll connect them to a suitable control unit. The only thing I want from my speakers is for them to translate electrical waves into pressure waves, the more accurate the better.
Another benefit is not having an audio player tethered in one place.
A third benefit is being able to change the audio settings from any one of a half dozen devices in my house.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/4/11362928/google-nest-revol...
That's the future. The dude with the 80's hifi setup knows what's up, in my opinion.
Another benefit is not having an audio player tethered in one place.
A third benefit is being able to change the audio settings from any one of a half dozen devices in my house.
Okay, but that's just wireless tech. Why do they need to be constantly connected to the internet and phoning home?
It seems odd then that you have to actually buy the device before you can even read the terms. I guess the idea is that you can always return it if you don't agree?