Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.


You have a bright future in product management.


Or medical insurance.


Yea, in the real world, the CEO gets news that tens of thousands of his company's routers were compromised, and calls up his General Counsel and asks "are we liable for damages?" And if the answer is NO, he goes back to enjoying the house party in his luxurious third home.


Yeah, I know, at some point you cannot make them care for their customers wholeheartedly.


It depends on whether customers care.


> This might be one of the only cases where subscription model would work well to cover the maintenance cost.

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).


Those are the companies that abuse the customer trust and sell them something cheap under the guise of high quality, but in fact really cheap and not well thought.


Contracts will (and do) include boilerplate whereby the customer absolves the manufacturer of liability.


It’s fairly trivial to write a law that makes those illegal.


"No liability" already mostly only applies to defective products, not harmful ones.

The only industry with a broad "no liability for torts" is gun manufacturing.


The question is whether you want to interfere in the freedom of contract for this.

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.


There is precedent, for example, lemon laws related to automobiles. Unfortunately, governments have ceased to care for consumers like they once did.


Consumers can care for themselves, if we let them.


Respectfully, I think you have too much faith in the ability and general desire of individuals to protect themselves. Consider how successful scams and security breaches are. Consider, too, the unequal bargaining power between vendors and individual consumers (have you ever tried to negotiate a form contract with a megacorporation?).

We protect people because they have failed. These regulations tend to follow actual injuries; they are rarely promulgated in anticipation of them.


> Consider, too, the unequal bargaining power between vendors and individual consumers (have you ever tried to negotiate a form contract with a megacorporation?).

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.


> 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.

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.


> And arguable, open source couldn't exist without it.

Couldn't you just include selling a product or a licence for it as a requirement?


The GPL is a license.


selling a product or license

Generally most GPL'd software isn't sold (terms and conditions may apply).


IBM used to sell you the computer, and the software was free. The industry could resurrect that practice as a loophole.


If you sell the computer with the software preinstalled it would still fall under the selling a product part. So if you'd want to actually have a loophole you'd at best be selling the product without any software, and we both know how well that would go with the masses.


> [...] and we both know how well that would go with the masses.

Pretty well, actually, as long as you can download the software for free.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: