It's one thing to discontinue selling the product.
It's another to discontinue service (i.e. Music) to the product.
Did the hardware generate a lot of support requests?
Does it require too much engineering to keep secure with updates, etc.?
It's another to discontinue service (i.e. Music) to the product.
Did the hardware generate a lot of support requests?
Does it require too much engineering to keep secure with updates, etc.?
I can't repeat this enough: there needs to be LEGISLATION against this.
If a product needs cloud functionality to operate, there needs to be a legal minimum number of years (5?), and the company should be required to prominently advertise the length of time (so they can compete to guarantee for longer periods of time, like 10 years).
And companies can still stop selling the thing. They just need to keep the cloud servers running and maintaining their integrations with the rest of their code.
If maintaining servers for 5 years is the tipping point for them to judge that the product won't be profitable and therefore won't release it, then yeah it doesn't sound like it should be worth selling in the first place.
A judicial solution would be much more measured and flexible.
Unfortunately, lawyers and courts have a undeservedly bad reputation which is often created by poor legislation which is beset by political motives and disadvantaged by having to draft prospective rules that can apply to a broad set of differing circumstances.
Edit: Why don't court do this more? Often because of terrible, over-reaching legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act