Hacker News Reader

Comment by jordemort | Hacker News Reader

> If you don't like the option of it happening, and as this example illustrates it can clearly happen, then do not buy products that have the capability of having ads added retroactively to the product.

So, don't buy anything capable of receiving a software update?

View on HN

> So, don't buy anything capable of receiving a software update?

Not quite. Don't buy anything that forces updates. Updates are obviously important for security, compatibility and a slew of other reasons. But updates which are forced on the user are no bueno.

And if a fix for a critical vulnerability and an ad feature are both in the same update?

> And if a fix for a critical vulnerability and an ad feature are both in the same update?

Can you point to actual real-world examples where this has been the case?

I don't see the point of this stretched hypothetical. If it were to come up, then you could deal with accordingly - for instance by getting the update and then blocking the ad server somewhere upstream in your network path.

They don't actually have to be in the same update, the security fix just has to come after the ad antifeature with no separate patches presented, only a linear series of versions. And that linear model is extremely common. Anything using the linear model that has both antifeature updates and security updates at unpredictable times is very likely to run into the “can't install the security update without accepting the antifeature” problem.

Again:

> I don't see the point of this stretched hypothetical. If it were to come up, then you could deal with accordingly - for instance by getting the update and then blocking the ad server somewhere upstream in your network path.

And then not buying that brand's products in the future. And advising others not to buy them.

And now you have reached the exact point these same Android TV customers have reached :)

Can you admit you are wrong now?

My point above was not about how to deal with it, but only to point in the direction of it being very very much not a “stretched hypothetical”, but a reality of a vast quantity of consumer software, including critical things that are difficult for people to replace. (My worldmodel doesn't judge your proposed counter very highly either, FWIW, but I don't feel up to arguing that part just now.)

I am not sure it is that stretched. Do you remember Windows 7 added telemetry, how it was added and how update descriptions became way less helpful?

Literally any device can force you to update, by the simple means of not letting you access the service without the latest version of their app.

> Literally any device can force you to update, by the simple means of not letting you access the service without the latest version of their app.

This is literally not true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com