Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used To Be (eff.org)

Alphabet-owned Nest recently announced that it will be turning off Revolv Hub next month. An anonymous reader shares an article on EFF, a privacy rights group: Nest Labs, a home automation company acquired by Google in 2014, will disable some of its customers' home automation control devices in May. This move is causing quite a stir among people who purchased the $300 Revolv Hub devices -- customers who reasonably expected that the promised "lifetime" of updates would enable the hardware they paid for to actually work, only to discover the manufacturer can turn their device into a useless brick when it so chooses. This is far from the first time that customers' software and electronics have been downgraded by manufacturers. Updates can disable features the customer paid for that have fallen out of favor with the vendor, as when Google disabled privacy settings on Android or Sony took away the ability to run GNU/Linux on a Playstation 3. Manufacturers can even render a device unusable until the customer "agrees" to new terms of use, as Nintendo did with the Wii U. Other software and devices, including some video games, are designed so they simply stop working when they can no longer dial home to a server run by the vendor.

Comments

To any Canadians

[Mashiki]

Dear Canucks, under your provincial consumer protection laws(varies by province) you are likely entitled to a full refund of the product price regardless of when you bought it. Revocation of a lifetime agreement, even when the company is bought out is considered a breach of said warranty and support agreement under the law, and you are permitted to a full refund. Remember, if refused it only costs $20-40 to file in small claims court over this, and you do not have to settle for arbitration in Canada, jumping through that hoop is not required.

Why don't they release the source?

[hawguy]

Why doesn't Google just release the source code and/or the protocols needed to make it work? They can keep proprietary bits that they don't own the source for (radio drivers, etc) as closed source blobs and open the rest of the code that they own.

Re:Why don't they release the source?

[mungtor]

Because it isn't worth the effort for a product that obviously isn't selling?

As it is, it's just safer (from a liability standpoint) to brick the devices and pay off the owners. If they just leave them "unsupported", what happens 2-3 years down the road when somebody discovers a vulnerability that allows remote access? Who is liable when somebody remotely unlocks your front door and walks off with all your stuff?

Better to just brick them and force people to find a supported solution.

Verizon just did the same thing!

[MikeDataLink]

Verizon just recently discontinued their XBOX and Smart TV apps, giving us exactly two weeks notice. I was using this service to avoid renting cable boxes at $10/mo each. When I called to complain they said "Rent some cable boxes." Instead I used the opportunity to cut the cord. Bye Bye Verizon!