I don't think we're going to stop them from price gouging or setting broadband caps if they want to. We should respond by:
1) Killing zero-rating (You want to limit usage and effect a price hike? Fine but everything counts.) 2) Regulating usage metering (So it's, you know, accurate.) 3) Making them advertise the ACTUAL cost of their services (no more "we'd like to charge you more" fees) 4) Busting open local-loop unbundling (We don't need more competition in infrastructure, just in service and pricing.
Absolutely, I'm not saying the Revolv owners shouldn't be pissed. I'm saying you should know when something you buy is completely dependent on outside resources; especially when it's run by a small start up that may not be around in another year.
I'm a Panono backer, still waiting on my hardware 27 months later. Yes it sucks that it's taken that long, but I'm most concerned that photo processing is cloud-only. That's a major fail-point in the system. But I knew I was buying into an unknown, that's on me. All these people saying not to buy things that connect to the Internet are missing the real lesson here, which is to know what features of your purchases are services and which are independent functions. This isn't new.
There's FAQs on the Nest site about what happens when you lose connection. Spoiler: the thermostat is still a thermostat, and the Protect is still a mesh networked smoke and carbon monoxide alarm, but the drop-cam is dead. My Amazon Echo will be dead in the water one day, but my chrome-casts will still work. The traffic updates in my car will fold with Sirius but my maps and routing will still work. I could go on.
Doing that may be an easy solution, but Nest bought these guys for their cloud based service integration chops; i.e. the code that makes revolv go. Giving that code away might not be feasible, but allowing customers to flash new firmware would be a nice send off before the servers go dark. That said, it seems like they're trying to stop bleeding money so it may not be any more feasible.
Yes, "bricking" is overly harsh. They're no longer supporting a device which was previously sold by a company they acquired.
It's like when a video game discontinues multi-player support, surely the single player mode should still work, but the features that require servers are gone. Well what if, as in this case, the game is online only?
Sure, it sucks but when you live on the bleeding edge you've got to have the possibility of failure in the back of your mind.
I agree, the writing was on the wall. I've found multiple articles from the 2014 acquisition that said Nest was interested in the developers not in the hub product. They immediately stopped selling it and froze account creation. That sucks if you just plunked down for one, but not unheard of.
And yes, it sounds like these customers had no idea how the product worked. Seems like they would have had an Internet outage or read some troubleshooting docs to see that the brains are entirely cloud based.
Go ahead and take a gander at their website. There's no way they're advertising prices that are $30 higher than if you let them spy on you. You probably need an advanced degree in B.S. to interpret what they are advertising, but I don't see anything about a tracking credit.
Re: Shoot first, ask questions only if it makes it to court
Yup, exactly this. If your precious song is too good for the Internet then fine, it's gone.
However I would be much more likely to go along with "notice and stay down" if one of the possible outcomes was loss of copyright. Whoops, that notice wasn't filed in good faith. Your intellectual property now belongs to the Public.
My mind went the other way, they'll have to use these exploits like they did the stingrays with similar "just drop the case if someone might find out" NDA pacts. That's the way 0-day exploits work; if you want to keep using them you can't tell anyone about them. Unfortunately for them that's not the way our judicial system works.
No, not at all. I'm apparently the only one on the Internet who has a problem with everyone calling this practice "throttling." It's a misnomer, and it lead exactly to this resultant attack from the Bit-Delivery Industry. They would love nothing more than to further conflate the distinction between content providers, who choose what to send, and content deliverers, who choose how to send it.
"effectively throttling itself"
This is the only concession I've seen in the coverage; not just calling it outright throttling. Maybe it's confusing because Netflix and other large providers' engineered response to bandwidth throttling is the resolution reduction we're talking about. But just because the end result is similar doesn't mean we can or should call them the same thing.
I was sure TechDirt would cut through all the press release BS that referred to this as "throttling" and explain clearly and concisely why it is not throttling. It may seem very similar to what BingeOn was doing but it's not the same. Netflix was sending smaller files to customers known to have arbitrary usage limits set by their ISP. They were not slowing network throughput. T-Mobile sought to achieve the same result with throttling, which is unacceptable as a data carrier; Netflix was engaged in quality degradation or data usage minimization or whatever other name you'd like. But it's not throttling and calling it that, even if you're pissed that Netflix was being deceptive or selfish, muddies the waters of our network neutrality discussion.
Exactly, there may be some anti-police sentiment (I'd argue it's more anti-corruption than anti-police) out there but there's essentially NO anti-police rules or regulations. We're just trying to get the anti-corruption laws actually enforced.
And if you think that pro-citizen's rights rules are anti-police, you need to reconsider the purpose of law enforcement agencies.
Yes, we're headed towards Aero duck/not a duck territory with much more dire consequences. It's unlawful to create systems that you're unable to help the govt crack, because doing so would be sidestepping the law by following it.