Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulryanrogers | Hacker News Reader

I'd argue that even the 'safe' devices should at least be open enough to delegate trust to someone besides the original manufacturer. Otherwise it just becomes ewaste once the manufacturer stops support. (Too often they ship vulnerable and outdated software then never fix it.)

View on HN

If the user cannot be trusted to maintain the hardware and software, then the only responsible thing is to rely on the manufacturer to do so. In those cases, if the support is dropped you buy the newest device.

What if that is the newest device?

What if the only hospice in town closes down and your grandma is there? What if Mozilla or Linux die out and the only browsers/OSs that remain are proprietary? You find alternatives or make do, like all aspects of life.

You can't expect services and organizations to last forever, there is always some risk they'll collapse when you are around.

But is it too much to ask to at least let me get my grandma back out of the hospice? Don't just lock all the doors and put up a sign saying "Thanks for your loyal business, it's been an amazing journey". And if I'm the one who owns the building and you were just staffing it, then I'd appreciate having the door keys back as well, please!

Paul knows that. He is arguing for a different future. google is about to remove my ability to remotely control my thermostat. Not even local control. Imagine a world where they would have to choose between continued device support or unlocking… or maybe just building out the local control and cleaning their hands of it. Having corpos as the arbiter of a consumers buying schedule and creating unnecessary easter is pretty undesirable.

easter?

I'm guessing autocorrect for e-waste / ewaste

Did they ask? Some users can be trusted. Is there even a certification program?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45081344

Reply on news.ycombinator.com