EDIT: The only reason why I still had it at this point was because I could use it with other apps. However, now that my Spotify Subscription is cancelled, it doesn’t work with anything. It’s mildly infuriating because today, I can’t still use it with other apps like I was able to yesterday.
Please don’t make the same mistake I made. No one should buy this.
I have a car thing, I use it at my desk for media controls. It is pretty great.
But the product description was pretty clear that you needed premium to use it. The same goes for using any third party Spotify client. Shouldn’t have expected otherwise.
Buying any physical hardware that doesn’t function without a subscription should be a illegal, not something you should expect.
But the point is that the description of the product clearly stated it needs a subscription to function. You literally buy it with that understanding. If you didn’t read the description then it’s 100% on you.
Whether it should be legal or not, or whether it’s ethical or not, is a different discussion. But the product wasn’t disingenuous about how it works, so complaining about how it works exactly as advertised is a bit silly.
deleted by creator
No, the life we’re all living is a neoliberal hellscape. The fediverse was started by people who consider liberals right wing. Read up my man
A gas stove requires a subscription.
@pjhenry1216 @MyUnclesSecret Not quite. A gas stove requires gas. I can run it from canisters if I want to. In fact, I know someone who does.
It’s much more like a stove requiring a specific gas brand to work.
He can clearly turn on his Car Thing all he wants. Spotify is the gas company in this metaphor.
You can buy gas from anyone. Even make your own in a digester.
Your gas stove is not cryptographically locked to one gas company.
…yet.
Look out! Communists are coming for your toothbrush. Better vote for harsher penalties for modifying stuff you bought. The DMCA still allows throwing away or disconnecting the computer locking you out of your heated seats.
Gotta be an easier way to blow up your house.
Yes, many much easier ways. A propane tank for one. Wet, high CO2 methane is really hard to make explode.
Do get a CO detector though.
My furnace broke this summer (thank God it was summer) so we have CO monitors all over just in case something went fucky with the new install
Option 1: The hardware is free for as long as you use pay for the service. Then you must return it. You never own anything and your ecosystem is tied to a single company and subscription. No one is allowed to sell competitive goods that work across multiple services unless they themselves offer a service. This product, who many find valuable, no longer exists.
Option 2: You purchase a life-long subscription to the service when you purchase the physical goods. Startups offer competitive pricing for early adopters but cannot sustain the ongoing costs of growing/maintaining the service. New services are spun up frequently offering lifetime access, then going bankrupt after the investors make their profit. Eventually we settle into an industry landscape where each individual music label has their own subscription service the way that tv/movie studios do now.
Option 3: Everything is free. Nothing gets produced anymore because artists are busy hunting for meat.
Option 4: You pay for goods AND services and you read the product descriptions to decide if you really need a device that requires a subscription. like an adult. If you want a competitive alternative that doesn’t require a subscription… go get or make one.
edit: congrats hivemind, you just made internet modems and cell phones illegal. What you should actually be supporting is hardware that is user serviceable, root accessible, and capable of speaking standardized communications protocols. (ie, not hardware locked to proprietary only comms)
Every single modem and cell phone I’ve ever owned have worked without a subscription to anything. My internet and ability to make cell calls were limited after my subscription ended, but the devices themselves were easily repurposed to other uses.
I too support the idea that devices should not be bound to a specific parent service. I do not support banning any device that requires one. Where we draw the line on functional/non-functional is arbitrary as long as the device has some function without a service. If they added a chip and antenna that let the Car Thing receive/play radio would that qualify it as functional? If not then how is a Modem still functional when the signals it is designed to receive are locked behind a service? It makes no sense to go down that legal and technical rabbit hole when you could simply legislate that devices be user configurable instead. There numerous industry standards that could function as the backbone of that law versus the useless feel-good sentiment of ‘ban everything I don’t like, even though I can’t rigorously define what that is’
How about a law that if the service is no longer provided then the company needs to provide a means to unlock the device?
That way companies can still have their subscription stuff, but once they inevitably stop supporting the product it doesn’t become useless.
I’d go a step further and say it should be capable of an industry standard communication protocol from the beginning and every device that has a ‘root’ or equivalent elevated access mode should be user recoverable (not easily necessarily, but there shouldn’t be any specific counter measures to prevent it). EOL unlocking would be a good first step towards that goal.
In my country nobody (or at least, most people don’t) buy their own routers, it’s always a subscription on top of the existing internet service
Just responding to the edit;
Modems work with other providers. You don’t own the infrastructure that connects the internet -> subscriptions.
Phones make it impossible to root or change batteries? I don’t own the device, byt at least it’s not e-waste yet.
The car thing you don’t own since the software makes the hardware e-waste.
So what use is a consumer modem without an internet service? How would the law banning “all physical devices that require a subscription to be functional” differentiate between products that work with one or multiple services? It’s still a subscription to a service either way.
Phones, arguably, don’t perform their primary function without cell services. Where in this proposed law are we going to draw the line between ‘functional enough’ and ‘useless brick’? Come up with any line in the sand and it is trivially easy for a company to comply with the law while changing nothing about the actual functionality of the device. In many cases this would look like additional chips on the board that ‘work’ but don’t add any value to the device. Think 7/11 selling single roses in glass tubes… that just so happen to be the perfect dimensions of a meth pipe. It’s just a rose so it doesn’t need to comply with any drug paraphernalia laws, right? Well now it’s “Car Thing the Radio Mixer” (with optional spotify). Now there’s even more e-waste and nothing has changed. At best the law does nothing, at worst it actually makes the problem worse.
I totally agree with you about Car Thing being e-waste because of its software, that’s why I think it should be root-able, serviceable, and speak in standard open protocols so that you can point it to your own servers/service of choice. But poorly thought out legislation will only hurt consumers, the industry, and the planet. Blanket bans on buzzwords with no consideration for practical nuance is foolish.
Public companies obviously intentionally want to make everything as shitty as possible, just to extract money, but lets accept the hypothetical that subscriptions will actually be banned. Wouldn’t that be great?
You would basically be treated the same as Tier 1-3 ISP’s, pay for the cost of the routing to the company. That phone plan that costs ?? €/$ a month becomes “Pay as you use it”. Flat fee per gigabyte / message etc. These plans were at least here in Finland, and I think my phone bills were around 4-5 EUR a month and a cap that you cannot exceed that month, though smartphones and data plans weren’t a thing. Now everything is a subscription.
Now back to hardware vs software. You obviously pay for the software also when buying the hardware, but for whatever reason the user doesn’t own any kind of rights around it. This has obviously become much worse the past few years (TV’s have ads etc). I really don’t think that the issue is anything you listed, the issue is that greedy companies want to use the subscription model rather than play fair. Phones and modems are EOL at best in a year. I have a PFSense router that cost me less than a router from my ISP used and it’s EOL and security is something I don’t have to worry about.
Modems and routers have most of their features dedicated to home networking and are not usually made by the ISP. Them connecting to the internet is one of the smallest features they have. The other features are related to offline networking and tight security, you can actually just plug an ethernet cable to the wall and get connection from your ISP. Same as using a modem and putting it in “bridge mode”, which will completely bypass the features of the modem/router.
The issue here is that the companies don’t want to provide value, they just want to extract as much money as possible, which is wrong. Laws and regulations are desperately needed and even something as radical as banning subscription services for user devices would be a net positive. Renting Tier 1-3 operator infrastructure for your router/modem to work is completely different than “You have the device and the software, but we block you from using it, since you don’t pay”, which in my opinion is ransomware, not subscriptions.
For right to repair and owning these devices, I completely agree with you.
I actually totally agree with all of that. I think it even supports my sentiment. The issue I have is that to make the system work well like it does in Finland you need a ton of well thought legislation that all works towards those goals. What I am specifically opposing is half-measures that are easily subverted and poorly thought out. I’m actually totally fine with banning subscriptions, but that alone doesn’t guarantee neutral access to equal rates, or reasonable $/gig or even network mobility. You need a large suite of laws all designed to be pro consumer from the ground up. I like the sentiment of “ban devices that require subscriptions to function” but that just isn’t a well thought out or realistic idea. If that was all Finland did then solving our issues in America would be much much easier. We need to do a lot more.
You can still use it to network with other computers over the telephone network. Heck you don’t even need to do that via the actual telephone service you can just run some wire.
But I think what was actually meant by OP is “tied to a specific subscription service” as well as “disables features that don’t need a subscription service when you aren’t subscribed”.
You can use them as e.g. smart home remote. The cellular modem is going to go unused (at least apart from emergency services) but that’s only a small portion of the hardware, and modems were only ever locked to subscriptions (at least over here) if the phone is subsidised by that subscription. I don’t think they even do that any more, they replaced it with minimum contract durations. In any case even back in the days you could unlock it after some time or coughing up some money.
Yep I wish rootability was included in the new EU regulations, it would solve so many issues at once. OTOH: It would solve the issue for people who are tech savvy enough to do such things, gotta be careful with our own elitism there. Enjoying consumer rights should not hinge on being a grease monkey.
I know this is a hard sell for many, but consider this: You aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are.
Tell me wise sage, how smart do I think I am? How smart am I? Gee I hope you say “very” so that I can feel good about myself. I hope I can remain one of the intellectual elite so that I can call out stupid ideas on the internet, since normal folk aren’t allowed to.
You misunderstand. I have no knowledge about how smart you are. You could easily be smarter than me. What im saying is you need to reassess your tone and delivery, because it, and your edit only shows me and others that you are arrogant and therefore unable to properly assess other points of view.
Address the possibility that i have a point on your own time, after your ego-required final comment to me. Whether you will address youself or remain as you are, it’s completely up to you.
Goodbye