Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1ncorrect | Hacker News Reader

I want to see meaningful pushback on this indefensible move of forcing customers to establish and maintain a relationship with the manufacturer in order to use the products they sell.

Other examples are: Wahoo, who locked the control of their products behind an account and login requirement for devices which had been working perfectly fine for years prior.

Roche, who killed their blood glucose app at the start of 2023 and forced all their users to move to a third party app, developed by one of their subsidiaries, which requires you to accept a data exfiltration clause, if they wish to continue the automagic on-device logging.

View on HN

Samsung did something similar with their phones' built I'm heart rate and oxygen sensor, and health related metrics from the accelerometer

My Samsung Galaxy S8+ had those sensors and I used them often for many years. The results were interesting and useful, and graphed with history in the Samsung app which shipped on the device.

Then one day they changed the terms so you had to create and sign into a Samsung account, and upload your health data, to continue using the sensors.

I didn't accept those terms so I wasn't able to use those health monitoring functions on my expensive device any more.

Interestingly, most articles I saw about the change portrayed it as a good thing, that you could now have consistent healrh sensor records across your devices and other good cloud features, even portraying it as an oddity that Samsung Health didn't require Samsung cloud integration all along and that they had finally caught up to the times. But it already had those features before the change! The only visible change was to to remove the choice to opt out of uploading your personal data.

samsung takes horrible liberties with all their products, not only phones but things like televisions and even refrigerators.

As people who understand these things, we can choose the role of "citizen technologist", to benefit society.

Some off-the-cuff ideas of how:

1. Make our own purchases "on principle", and hope that enough other techies do that, that economic pressure is applied to brands.

2. Make our own non-purchase technology adoptions "on principle".

3. Inform other techies, both on specifics of individual devices/architectures/vendors/etc., and to bring everyone up to speed on the basics (e.g., reasons for open standards, user-oriented products/services, avoiding lock-in, privacy-respecting, responsible security, etc.).

4. Inform non-techies, such as by pointing them at solutions in their interest, and in the interest of society.

5. Advise lawmakers, to complement whatever they're hearing from lobbyists.

6. Contribute code and other effort to open platforms, and actually use them.

7. Be careful about helping to prop up society-hostile platforms, such as by using them to the exclusion of something else, making them more palatable to the exclusion of something better, implicitly endorsing them, etc.

8. Keep principles a factor in who we go to work for, how we work while there, and whether we stay there.

These are great ideas, that a tax paying citizen should not be burdened with in a first world country. Our administration needs to step up from hiring dinosaurs, to actually hiring technology-competent legislators that can compose effective legislation.

I’d question whether our techie peers can be bothered to care about these principles. IME most are too complacent.

I bought a Miku baby monitor because it had the features I wanted but didn’t require a subscription. It was pretty expensive ($399).

Then Miku sold to another company (they either filed or were planning on filing for bankruptcy), and the first thing the new company did was send a letter demanding $10 a month to keep using most of the monitor’s features.

Without knowing the particulars, that's an interesting example. The fact that Miku was going bankrupt suggests that they did not have a viable/sustainable business, and perhaps they could have been profitable with a different (i.e. subscription fees) business model. In either case, new company seems like they do not much value existing Miku customers, as demanding more money for a product that was bought/paid seems pretty outrageous.

They pushed out an over the air update the bricked nearly every device and had to swap them all out right before sending out a letter warning they were going to file.

The lesson that it drives home to me is that if a company can force updates to your device, it doesn’t matter what the terms of service are or how much you trust the company.

They can go bankrupt, sell off the assets, and some new vampire company can come along and remove your ability to use your product.

> if a company can force updates to your device

Worse, if your device requires remote services then they can control access to those. Stallman was right.

It was marketed directly based on 'no subscription fees', and had a heftier price to boot. So they're having their cake and eating it too.

Your first mistake was buying a baby monitor where it was even possible for most of its features to be remotely disabled unless you paid a fee. If you give someone else control over your devices, and your data, they'll eventually take it.

There was no alternative for a baby monitor with the features I was looking for.

In general it’s getting harder and harder to avoid devices where this is possible. The obvious answer is regulation.

Oh hey, fellow Miku friend. I was _furious_ when they first announced their bankruptcy plan. We supposedly paid a hefty premium for hardware that enables onboard breathing monitoring, and suddenly they're pretending they have to ship it to the cloud to do some magic? Nah, tear it down, and turns out we did pay extra for hardware.

Our Miku's use a Novelda (fka Xethru) UWB sensor SoC, specifically designed for human presence monitoring and, drumroll, breathing and heartbeat. Specifically they use an X4: https://novelda.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/x4_datasheet_...

I likely won't have time, what with the kids and all, but I'm going to give it the old college try to tear into this thing and craft some firmware so we can actually keep things from being a paperweight. It blows my mind this isn't just table stakes with IoT crap these days, but here we are.

You will own nothing and be happy.

Sometimes when I’m updating multiple devices a day and/or trying to figure out what’s not working I think I might be happier not owning them.

And many car manufacturers, right?

BMW now hides features behind signing into their absolutely atrocious online "app store." When I first got my car and was excited about exploring the features, I went through the incredible pain of logging into my account by typing my email and password with that little knob, and then one day it just logged me out and wanted me to do it all over again, and I can't be bothered so I just dismiss the dialog whenever I see it. So the upshot is they've created a set of features that aren't worth the trouble of the awful UX (and potential privacy issues), plus an occasional nag to remind me of that fact.

You also can't get a software update without installing their terrible mobile app (and logging in), so I take it to the dealer and make them do it.

Tesla has none of these issues.

Unfortunately I find Tesla's UX unbearable in other ways.

I have to admit, begrudgingly, that the Tesla App experience “JustWorksTM.” This is the 3rd I’ve picked up (3, Y, Y) and this time, I didn’t even have to pair my phone. I was signed into my existing app and my new Y just changed from an order number to a VIN and started working. All my preferences synced to my driver profile immediately.

If every experience with Tesla was like the initial buying experience I’d recommend it to anyone, however, let me assure anyone interested the honeymoon phase definitely ends.

How the fuck is it possible they don't let you do all the authentication in the app and then pair it with the car?

Maybe they do, but I don't install apps for horseshit like this. I especially don't install apps from companies that are obviously terrible at software development, like car manufacturers.

> so I take it to the dealer and make them do it.

Won't they charge you through the nose for this? We recently went to a Lexus dealer for something random but specific on an old Lexus, and they did basic service like an oil change. When we stepped inside, it was like a 5 star hotel lobby with ordurves and fancy hosts a bunch of weird junk.

We got the bill, and never even considered going back.

I had them do it when I was in for my (free) oil change, and they didn't charge me for it. I suppose they might if I brought it in for just the software update.

Good luck. I called out Logitech for forcing users to log into some bullshit online account to maintain their Harmony remotes, and was attacked by apologists on Reddit (take that for what you will).

A couple months later Logitech shitcanned the entire product line (which I had already returned after discovering their scam), and screwed all the apologists. I wonder what they think today... if they even do.

Don't underestimate the cognitive dissonance (and resulting apologism and shilling) that you'll face when you call out defects and scams in someone's pet product or belief system. And yes, it happens right here on HN too often as well.

FWIW Logitech continues to run the Harmony servers, and I've bought a couple of used hubs since. I hate that you have to login, so don't call me an apologist; Logitech made some real mistakes here. Still, the Harmony products work well enough. I hope eventually either Logitech open sources the server and database, or that someone emulates the server somehow.

> attacked by apologists on Reddit

Sometimes people get into niche communities and get really obsessive in a ridiculous way, like spending inordinate amounts of time defending a junky Logitech software suite.

I know, because it has happened to me. I see it happen with particular frequency in Discord.

I am not a psychologist, but it seems like a trap humans are predisposed to fall into.

This is what industrialization has freed us up to do.

Logitech still supports the Harmony devices, for how much longer remains to be seen. I just recently replaced some that had broke so I'm good till the next device failure as long as I don't make any major replacements either.

I know I'm part of a dwindling customer base that still uses separate A/V gear and not just built-in streaming apps and a soundbar, but it seems like there would have still been a market for competent universal remotes that you could customize.

I hated how almost every generation of their remotes got harder to use and program compared to pre-Logitech Harmony. The Touch remotes were practically unusable because you had frequently used buttons in poor locations and a touch screen that you had to scroll through to find the correct soft touch button for that wasn't especially responsive, the old models with all hard buttons were vastly more usable.

I also have separate components, and beyond that they're even in an equipment closet separated from my living room (and projector) by a wall. So I wanted an RF remote with an IR blaster I could put in the closet.

But screw it. On the rare occasion I watch something that's not on my Shield (whose remote can control my receiver's volume with CEC), I just adjust the volume manually.

But let's not even get started on the pathetic state of the A/V receiver market, where you can't even get a receiver with A/B/C sets of speakers... despite advertising three zones.

Ring doorbells, because the microphone heard the citizen say the N-word and locked him out of the Amazon account.

Back then, we thought legal questions about discrimination silly - if the baker won't bake cakes for lesbians, who cares, there are dozens of bakers in town who are not silly, why fight with the one who is, especially since the only recourse you will get is a birthday cake.

But now with the app monopolies it's different. If Lyft bans you over a justified chargeback and Uber bans you over another justified chargeback you are going to have a problem.

Not what happened. The driver thought they heard the nword come from a Eufy doorbell. Which was them mishearing the automated response. No person uttered an nword and no ring doorbell was involved.

Amazon did lock the guys account for the report from their driver. That did lock him out of his other IoT devices.

The thing is - even racists have a right that their devices work. They paid money for it. Amazon's duty is to protect their driver, and if they refuse to deliver because a driver has been threatened that's OK. But they can't lock him out of their alarm system or automated door opener. It's worse because when you choose a camera doorbell because you have a choice between Ring and Nest, which is not much of a choice.

Sure, but your original post made this man to be out as a racist. He isn’t.

There are other doorbell choices, like Eufy by Anker. The one this man used.

The point is that Amazon has no business locking even racists out of their Amazon account.

Why doesn't freedom of association extend to Amazon? I'm pretty sure they argue they have the right in the EULAs the racist accepted.

There need to be reasonable limits as companies are not actually literal people, and their rights should be inferior to those of literal people. Treating companies as people and anything they do (eg in the lens of speech) has caused so much damage and has obviously just been an excuse for lawmakers to not have to make tough decisions.

An example that comes to mind is how if you get banned from Steam, you typically still retain the ability to access your past purchases, you just lose multiplayer, purchasing new content etc.

Similarly, companies should not be able to unilaterally discard the responsibilities they take on when they sell people things that require continuous service to operate.

This should be especially relevant in cases like with Philips Hue, now that they've chosen to bear the burden of even previous Hue owners' smart homes, they should not be able to willy nilly shed that in a way that renders the system non-functional. Any bans they make should just leave the hardware usable in the way that it already was.

Eufy by Anker lied about their products storing data locally and instead uploaded it to their servers — and had them unsecured so anyone could download anyones videos.

Wahoo was great, the benefit to the forced app signup was that they deleted all the device settings

Don't use their products then? Nobody is forcing you to.

Sounds like you're suggesting "meaningful pushback" as well then.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. If Reddit is any indication, the moral of the story is they can get away with it because there's a million idiots all ready to take your place.

I think the difference here is that Reddit wasn't bought at a retail location and you couldn't just return it to the store and get your money back.

People can and SHOULD return this garbage to the retail store the minute they get home and realized it's encumbered in this way.

except every single manufacture is going down this road pretty much, they want to monetize all that data because more money equals more better, privacy be damned.

Laws. We need the force of law protecting us when entire industries work against the public good.

What about when you already purchased a product and an automatic update moves functionality, possibly core functionality, behind their app wall?

Normally you would be able to simply continue using the firmware on it, plus the app you originally installed, in perpetuity.

In reality, on each new iOS device, Apple forces you to use the current version of the app in the App Store now, and your old version apps are not included in backups or able to be transferred to new devices.

You are eventually forced to use the latest version of the app by Apple.

The latest version of the app will require the latest firmware or will modal lock you out until you upgrade the device.

Blame Apple for not letting you preserve your old versions of working apps between backups and devices, and blame Apple for allowing time bomb expiring apps like Signal and Chase Mobile into the App Store.

Further blame Apple for not having an iOS "internet access" permission per app that would prevent these apps from learning that there are new, unwanted firmware updates available when all you want to do is local operations.

Finally, any product that requires that you "sign up/log in" on the first screen and can't be used otherwise without PII should go straight back into the box to be returned.

Fair enough. But what if you bought the product, paid a fair amount for it (i.e., you can't just shit-can it) and *then* X months later the brand suddenly require a sign up, subscription fee, etc.

Then what?

Exactly. I have hundreds of dollars tied up in MY hue products. I paid the market price for a device that didn't require me to sign up for an account.

As far as I'm concerned these companies should get hit with deceptive advertising charges. Yes, I realize that buried somewhere two or three hundred paragraphs deep in the TOS I "agreed" to let them do this. Then again maybe I didn't, because I also likely "agreed" to have the TOS changed at any time for any reason without warning. That is key here.

IMO These companies get away with this because they can toss out one of the basics of contract law. It is unconscionable that one party can _unilaterally_ change the terms of the contact (the "terms of service") without prior warning or input from the other party (me, as the purchaser of said device/service).

Basic contract law should apply here. What _tangible_ benefits are there to me

Step 1: Make discontent known to brand Step 2: Create/join community of fellow disaffected individuals Step 3: Use community to spread awareness of said dissatisfaction Step 4: Observe as sales of product fall off and brand reputation falters Step 5A: Observe as brand reverses unpopular decision and recovers OR Step 5B: Observe as brand is replaced in the market by one which better meets consumer preferences

Has this ever actually happened?

The market is littered with the corpses of companies who failed to meet consumer demand.

> companies who failed to meet consumer demand

What you claimed was a lot more specific than that. Do you have any actual examples of the specific sequence of events you claimed?

This has no actual effect on the underlying issue that nothing is stopping companies from doing this. In fact, if what you describe active ually happens a lot, it would be trivial to set up puppet competitors to your own products in order to recapture leaving costumers, repeat ad infinitum.

"it would be trivial to set up puppet competitors to your own products in order to recapture leaving costumers"

Citation needed

> Step 5B: Observe as brand is replaced in the market by one which better meets consumer preferences

Step 0A- Realize that most mature industries are incestuous. They share the same consultants, they swap employees, they compete for the same market with the same group-think mindset, etc. They all have the same incentives and paradigm for success and thus often act in murmuration'ing way. That is, they're too big and too risk-adverse to consider innovation so they feign being competitive and milk the market the best they can.

Step 0B - Realize that for the most part the gov - via Cronie Capitalism - will not protect consumers, and will put the thumb on the scale for the largest players. Your rights and privacy - in the context of Surveillance Capitalism (which the gov benefits from) - are more myth than they are real.

Step 0C - Realize that all the steps follow are rarely successful. Sure, you can try but the odds are not in your favor. You end up paying the subscription and/or having your usage data sold in some black box cyber back room.

A: I already explicitly avoid products that are encrusted in this shit. B: I have not used either of these products since their respective changes, even though they’re otherwise still perfectly functional.

A notable flow on effect is both of these products had helped with the management and improvement of my health, and these changes have had a measurable negative impact since I’ve been unable to use them.

How can you avoid products that are unilaterally and unexpectedly changed in the future? The answer is you can't.

Dunno this looks pretty safe to me https://www.lighting.philips.co.uk/consumer/p/led-bulb/87186...

Do you live in the real world or are you on a farm living off the land?

Completely useless comment.

No but I live in the amazing world of free-market capitalism where I can choose to reward whichever company best meets my preferences as a consumer with money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com