Comment by mrtksn
4 months ago
I have this regulation idea:
If the hardware requires software that is not available for self service, then the customer is entitled for full refund at any time.
In other words if the hardware is just an accessory for providing service through software then the money the user pays for the hardware should be considered a refundable deposit.
You should propose it! I hear the CFPB is looking for new ways to protect consumers.
Unfortunately the CFPB is in the process of being eliminated.
I believe that was the joke.
2 replies →
Doesn't the FTC regulate vendor-advertised claims about product behavior?
They do but I'm sure Humane has something in their Terms of Service about 'We can discontinue service at any time.'
1 reply →
Sounds like a good intention with bad consequences. It would incentivise operating systems to become subscriptions too. Plus, it would never happen. If a company goes bankrupt they can’t buy back the devices.
I’d rather they were forced to release their software to the public, making it a requirement without which bankruptcy or sales would be refused by regulatory agencies. That way hobbyists could still get them to work, perhaps even launch a new company to revive the old devices (reducing e-waste). Additionally, we could detect if they had been doing anything shady with the data.
I think going bankrupt can be grounds for making the software open source or at least free to make the users whole. Think of it like a liability, when bankrupt the stakeholders can choose to refund customers or make the software available - whichever suits them.
That might also have bad consequences (not because the idea is bad, but because corps will try to route around it). It'll start with pieces of the software not being able to be released because they were licensed from a third party, and end with software development teams being organized into contract shops that own the code and thus (oh! How sad!) are regrettably unable to supply any code after the bankruptcy of the main entity. Would need very careful rules from regulators to try and anticipate tricks like this.
I agree it should be carefully designed but let's be honest, all those outs can be solved if lawmakers are willing.
> because they were licensed from a third party
*or they were violating open source licenses like some startups just do.
But in either case a reasonable fine could be appropriate.
That is far better; this 'blahblah' that, after bankruptcy legal reasons prevent from passing out the source should not be allowed as excuse.
> If a company goes bankrupt they can’t buy back the devices.
Yes, but in this specific scenario the purchasing entity is far from bankrupt at least financially.
Then the hardware is not a purchase, but a lease (without time limits). And the vendor would have to refund lease payment if it stops working.
If you want to go the other way, a hardware that requires a paid service should be jail-breakable. If the designated service stops working, then the service should be open-sourced. (We would love this on HN but just imagine the OpenSource overload engineers like us would be overwhelmed with to the point no one would try.)
> If the hardware requires software that is not available for self service, then the customer is entitled for full refund at any time.
If a service it depends on goes away within X years (5? 10?) you're owed a prorated refund.
Why is this regulation necessary? You can just choose not to buy products whose future you’re skeptical of.
In this case, Humane would likely go bankrupt rather than pay out the refunds your regulation would require, so it would still be ineffective in protecting consumers.
Why have regulations at all then? Why regulate water purity when you can choose to not drink water you're skeptical of, or why regulate food if you can just not eat food that you're skeptical of? Regulations are there not for you, who perhaps knows better, but there for the people who do not. Most people are not tech-savvy. Most people believe whatever marketing is being shoved down their throat.
An average person does not do or know how to do the due diligence of product validation, and I'd argue even the tech-savvy of us are unable to figure out if a product is going to stick around or not since what info is being given to us for analysis is limited, and heavily watered down.
Regulations are necessary where the harm that we’re protecting against is so severe that avoiding it is worth the cost and lost productivity of administering and complying with the regulation.
Food and water safety certainly fall in that category! Ensuring that early adopters of useless $700 widgets are “protected” against startups going bankrupt or otherwise discontinuing / canceling the product doesn’t seem worth anyone’s concern.
Some people’s reaction to observing anything in society that they don’t like is “that should be banned!” I don’t think that’s an appropriate reaction.
The proposed regulation would dramatically increase the risk of any investment in a new consumer hardware startup. And, there are not that many of these startups in the first place, because they’re risky enough as it is! So, the net result would be less innovation and less startups doing hardware, and I don’t think that would be a net improvement.
Manifesting the Invisible Hand requires a lot of prerequisites that are obviously untrue in the real world. Like that customers are able to do research and understand the findings.
I don't understand how libertarians look at the current state of things and conclude that fewer regulations would solve the problem.
5 replies →
> You can just choose not to buy products whose future you’re skeptical of.
I had a meeting last week whose sole purpose was for me to re-describe something a couple times which I had already described in text. And which also could be found in vendor documentation.
I also know someone who seems to think that (almost?) anything pushed on the Internet must be true.
Understanding how products works and what are the risks requires a study. It’s not realistic that a layman will study and understand the implications of the architecture of the product.
This regulation will transfer that requirement from the consumer to the maker so that the maker can choose to create products they issue full refund when they can’t guarantee perpetual software availability or they can choose to make all the software available with the product. It also avoids dictating how the product should be designed when doing all that.
In this particular case, this is true, and in any case approximately nobody bought these, but it's not uncommon for large, well-capitalised companies to nuke products when convenient (Google likes doing this, say).
Oligarchs will say no