Just make them liable for the damages and then they will start caring.
This might be one of the only cases where subscription model would work well to cover the maintenance cost.
This might be one of the only cases where subscription model would work well to cover the maintenance cost.
1) Company takes your subscription money.
2) Company finds a vulnerability that's difficult to fix.
3) Company announces your device is EOL and ends your subscription, taking your money for doing nothing, and not helping when you need it.
Or -hear me out on this one, it is wild take- if you come out with a device, system or software that has fundamental flaws, you fix them at your own cost or get fined to oblivion if you don't.
If a company is not able to come up with reliable, quality products, then perhaps it shouldn't be in the business of creating said products to start with.
The fact that you suggest subscriptions to fix fundamental issues is a good reflection of how companies have managed to skew the general perception on what is "acceptable" as a product. In fact, they have pushed it so far, that they are feeding it to us backwards.
Pushing out minimal viable products and have subscribers pay to (perhaps, one day) get something that works shouldn't be the norm.
A car info/entertainment system that is too slow and buggy because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to take the steps necessary to make sure it worked reliably? -> fix it
A phone manufacturer that throttles your system after a year because they couldn't be arsed to properly size their batteries originally? -> fix it
A router manufacturer shipping software so buggy their hardware needs to be rebooted periodically? -> fix it
Etc.
"Software is hard" or "product design is hard" are no excuses. Building airplanes that don't fall out of the sky is also hard, and yet we manage to do so. (Or, rather ironically, the ones that follow the "minimal viable product" software mentality do fall out of the sky. Looking at you, Boeing).
Almost all software everywhere comes with a 'no liability' clause. And arguable, open source couldn't exist without it.
The exceptions where liability is wanted negotiate that specifically.
We protect people because they have failed. These regulations tend to follow actual injuries; they are rarely promulgated in anticipation of them.
You don't negotiate the contents of your burger with McDonald's. If you don't like it, you go to Burger King or have a Döner Kebab.
There's plenty of tacit negotiations here.
> We protect people because they have failed. These regulations tend to follow actual injuries; they are rarely promulgated in anticipation of them.
Homeopathic medicine tend to follow actual health problems, too. That doesn't mean they are a good idea.
Not every industry is a competitive one with practically unlimited choices. Natural monopolies or industries with high barriers to entry tend to have the most leverage over their customers. Most people have only a single electricity provider, and there are only two major mobile OS vendors worth speaking of.
> Homeopathic medicine tend to follow actual health problems, too. That doesn't mean they are a good idea.
Some work; some don’t. The key is figuring out which solutions are effective and which aren’t. Nobody is proposing keeping fixes around whose costs aren’t worth the benefits to society.
Couldn't you just include selling a product or a licence for it as a requirement?
Generally most GPL'd software isn't sold (terms and conditions may apply).
Pretty well, actually, as long as you can download the software for free.
The only industry with a broad "no liability for torts" is gun manufacturing.