Hacker News Reader

Comment by ziml77 | Hacker News Reader

I've thought about that before too. As soon as something is no longer actively supported, it should become open for people to maintain themselves. Unfortunately, there's a lot of companies that would fight that with as much money as it takes, so it would never happen (at least not in the US)

View on HN

It actively goes against their profit interests. If they deprecate the older devices and leave them as black boxes, that's another way to push consumers to buying the new stuff.

Something like this would have to be done with regulation.

Shares some similarities with the gradual corruption of copyright over the years, extending it out into infinity (thanks Disney!), companies would rather hold close the things they refuse to use than give them to the people once they have no more profit to be made off of them.

If only they would frame it as an environmental concern/issue as well, eg: properly dealing with e-waste. Why purchase a device that can be systematically deprecated within a short life cycle when such things can be repaired and/or otherwise be repurposed?

I would like to see a graph of average second hand prices of different abandoned products over time. Mark the interesting points like apple not supporting the next version of the OS or blocking app downloads. Perhaps an income estimate of the average user at the interesting points could also be included and/or sales figures of still supported versions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com