You don’t even have to, squeezebox owners never got a choice. It was cool that a hacker community built it even better after logi abandoned it 😁
Comment on Logitech will brick its $100 Pop smart home buttons on October 15 - Ars Technica
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 week ago
how many times does logitech specifically, and these companies in general, have to do this before idiots stop buying this shit?
dangercake@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 week ago
There need to be strong regulations to prevent this sort of Ewaste. As long as companies can get away with this they will.
And no, voting with your pocket book isn’t going to change their behavior.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 week ago
if idiots stop buying this shit, they wont keep making it.
the problem is the idiots keep buying
Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 week ago
No, this requires regulations to prevent massive amounts of Ewaste. Consumers can’t change this behavior.
Like right to repair or privacy. We need real regulations. Corporations are too big and powerful and even something like choice has been turned into choosing which shitty corp you want to buy from.
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
You know how the US government has 3 branches that are supposed to check and balance each other? We should teach that Corporations, Government, and Individuals/Unions operate similarly.
Corporate terms of service check individuals against abusing others. So do government laws.
Government is supposed to check corporations from abusing their customers. And customer boycotts moderate corporate behavior.
And corporations… Apparently moderate the flow of information to individuals so the companies always manufacture consent. And lobby for their own advantage.
If nothing else, by describing how it is, we can have a real conversation about how fucked/okay all of this is, and examine what parts of this framework are actually functioning.
And in that, we can explore where Unions fit - as 3rd party bosses steeped in corruption, or as genuine representatives of their people. And explore how to rebound in just the one context, because we are good citizens.
BanMe@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Blaming consumers for the behavior of corporations is a fallacy of capitalism… consumers act in their best interests, not necessary in everyone’s best interests, so we all suffer if everyone does that.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 week ago
if consumers acted in their best interest, none of this shit would exist.
tuhriel@infosec.pub 1 week ago
That doesn’t work. The amount of research people need to do to get enough information which product can currently just be shut down by the manufacturer is crazy…also it doesn’t matter: the corps can just change the contract afterwards and you loose access to the features anyway…it needs regulations to stop this.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 week ago
🙄 covered here
Only person that thinks reading the packaging is a mountain of effort, is the kind of lazy person who buys stupid home automation devices to avoid walking five feet to turn off a lightbulb.
fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Are you buying these u/a_random_idiot? /Jk
Honestly though how are consumers supposed to know which ones will be a bust and which ones won’t?
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Very simple.
Does the product say requires an internet connection? Does it say on the packaging that it requires an app to use? Do you get home and find out it needs those things despite the packaging not saying it?
Then don’t buy it/Return it.
Its not that hard to avoid falling into this pit. But I guess if you are too lazy to walk the five feet to turn your living room lights off, maybe you’re too lazy to actually read anything… and if you’re that lazy, then I dont give a fuck about how you get screwed.
nosuchanon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
We agree that something needs to be done. Stronger regulations will just be in an added requirement for the development of these devices, which will make it more expensive. You can’t have fast development, cheap things and longevity. Companies will not invest in making those products because they’ll be out of business by the time their market is saturated.
buddascrayon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That’s the point. If your business has to create a mountain of un-recyclable trash in order to thrive, it should absolutely fail.
nosuchanon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
There has to be some sort of reasonable balance between new developments and longevity.
Asking any engineer for a device that’s near indestructible but will continue to have software updates for 10 years is a hard ask.
For a lot of devices right to repair would work just fine. Being able to swap out battery extends the life of most cell phones. But it’s an unreasonable request for that cell phone, for example, to be able to be supported for 10 years worth of software updates.
It will slow the development cycle for a lot of devices down quite a bit. Which honestly is fine. I feel like a lot of products have reached maturity, and companies are reinventing them just for the sake of reinventing them and selling a “new” product with a new battery. I’m looking at you, Apple.
The problem with determining what is an acceptable lifecycle for a product is that there will be no one left to support the product in 10 years if the company folds in the meantime. It is a significant drag on companies to support legacy products while also innovating and creating new products. It’s just a fact a fact.
And from a consumer perspective, If you want cool, new fancy, shiny shit every year and for it to be reliable and last for 10 years, it’s just not gonna happen. We have been trained To buy new shit every year and desire that new shiny upgrade Without understanding that we’re getting cheap shitty products for a premium.
Your $100” iPhone is now going to become a $3000 iPhone that lasts for five years instead of two. Tell me how that’s a win for anybody?
Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I see your point. I would like to add that you probably can’t ever have fast or cheap without negative externalities. I think this is the missing part of the equation that perverts these systems and produces the garbage results we have to deal with like ewaste.
Unregulated capitalism seems to thrive by externalizing as many costs as possible. So we end up with a systems that ignores the environment and social costs.