Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

circuitbored.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

#21

Post by winternett »

rapjr9 wrote: post #17

The problem with expiration dates for software/hardware is that it's difficult to predict when they expire. A new malware attack can make an entire class of device obsolete overnight. IoT devices might be fine if you keep them on a private network but expire quickly if exposed to the internet. A device might be abandoned by a company (no more firmware updates) but later adopted by the open source movement and then up…

Companies should really get a grip on how long things last under normal conditions... They issue warranties on a lot of their goods. Software rarely comes with useful or valid warranties because it is often updated, but for business users they have fixed periods of support, where the company pays a subscription fee for membership. Developing something like that (reasonably) into the price of software could bridge the gap. Someone has to do something firm in terms of policy now that so many software makers are actively playing with the loopholes.

Re: Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

#22

Post by winternett »

nicolaslem wrote: post #12

As time passes the more I think that Stallman was right: Today there is no way I'm buying a device that a company can turn into a paperweight by flipping a switch. Tomorrow I won't probably buy anything where I'm not controlling the software.

Some instances of software truly need the Internet to run, E.G. Facebook or GTA Online. Many software tools don't need that connection to run, but are heavily embedded with connection dependencies like a calculator app (stable technology). Many of these apps and devices become totally useless if an active connection is not available. This is a bad move companies make all the time to encourage our dependence. The same goes for Hardware -- Do you really need to send a Tweet from your refrigerator?

Identifying the frivolous items that do not need to be Internet reliant and avoiding them altogether might be the key to sanity, unless you want GE logging each time you open your refrigerator door and spying on what you buy and store in it.

This discussion ties into so many issues faced in modern day society. Technology should serve in making life easier, less expensive, and more efficient for all of us, not in manipulating our emotions, costing more over time, and in tracking our decisions and movements.

Re: Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

#23

Post by tbyehl »

winternett wrote: post #18
jkmcf wrote: post #4

A perfect example: the Sonos debacle from a few weeks ago.

And they're pretty much wireless speakers... Something that really shouldn't need updates ever. But somehow they require remote updates. :[

They're not 'pretty much wireless speakers', else any Bluetooth or AirPlay speaker would be an equivalent substitute.

They're self-meshing wireless routers combined with a media streamer and packaged into a speaker. They also self-cluster / coordinate to support surround sound, grouping, and AirPlay.

Complicated stuff. Sucks that they don't provide the option to offload some of that work to a computer or appliance, letting the speakers be less smart and have increased longevity, but that's the trade-off in a smart speaker system where customers can start with just one speaker and not need to buy anything else.

Re: Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

#24

Post by anonsivalley652 »

nicolaslem wrote: post #12

As time passes the more I think that Stallman was right: Today there is no way I'm buying a device that a company can turn into a paperweight by flipping a switch. Tomorrow I won't probably buy anything where I'm not controlling the software.

Recently, Charter Communication folded up its home security business, leaving everyone with useless e-waste.

Then you have Youtubers hawking cloud IoT things like SimpliSafe, Ring, Nest, Alexa/Google Home/etc.-enabled devices that will disappear whenever they decide to end support.

It gets worse. I remember some Motorola Mobility smartphones phones from around 2008-2010 that absolutely required Motorola to continue to run its own servers for some of their social media functions to work (like Facebook) because they were skimming analytics from their customers and reselling them without their knowledge or permission. I know this because I did some consulting on-site for them. Many of the people came from Danger where a similar thing occurred, which was a muddy tarpit Microsoft later realized they shouldn't have purchased.

TBH, I think there's a market for end-to-end self-hosted products that go through a privacy-focused firewall WiFi gateway and has some computing power that can run server apps locally rather than being cloud enabled. And for work-anywhere mobile apps, there ought to be some sort of universal rendezvous protocol that supports end-to-end-encryption that the devices can talk to. And of course, the mobile apps, local servers apps and Zigbee/WiFi bridge server should all be open source.

Re: Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

#25

Post by JohnFen »

winternett wrote: post #19
JohnFen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hard drives last about 5 years. I've often heard this, but I regularly use hard drives for much longer than that. I've only ever had one fail.

SSDs now though may likely change that. If they fail early, they were likely manufactured to do so, or there was some other issue like power surges.

True, but I'm not yet comfortable with using SSDs for anything of importance.

Re: Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

#26

Post by alkaline9 »

ailideex wrote: post #13
alkaline9 wrote: post #3

Perishable software is a huge problem - things keep operating only in dynamic equilibrium, such that they would fall apart as soon as we stop putting energy into fixing flaws. I have been thinking for years that as a society, we need 100-year products. It would be a global good to counteract the local incentives for producing perishable software. However, over time I have realized that there are legitimately unforese…

> It would be a global good to counteract the local incentives for producing perishable software. What are we talking about here? Asking people to not write bugs?

No, it is asking people to design and test systems for the long-term. It would require establishing strong interfaces between components that will hold up when subcomponents are swapped out.

I think of it like a car where parts can be replaced if those parts have an issue, but the designs of the connectors stays the same, and replacements are available. A 100-year car isn't one that requires no maintenance for 100 years; it is one that can be maintained, and replacement parts can be acquired, and it will still continue working.

If a car depends on a remote server, such that the car stops operating when the remote server is shut down, then that car is perishable.

Re: Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

#27

Post by LeftHandPath »

winternett wrote: post #22
nicolaslem wrote: post #12

As time passes the more I think that Stallman was right: Today there is no way I'm buying a device that a company can turn into a paperweight by flipping a switch. Tomorrow I won't probably buy anything where I'm not controlling the software.

Some instances of software truly need the Internet to run, E.G. Facebook or GTA Online. Many software tools don't need that connection to run, but are heavily embedded with connection dependencies like a calculator app (stable technology). Many of these apps and devices become totally useless if an active connection is not available. This is a bad move companies make all the time to encourage our dependence. The same…

I’ve been harassing my dad for ages over his purchase of a WiFi-enabled LG fridge.

Neither of us know why it’s connected - but it is, and it proudly displays a WiFi icon with a backlit LED right above the water dispenser.

The only thing you can possibly gain from a WiFi-enabled fridge (it has no voice commands, no screen, etc) is just being monitored and/or hacked. There is literally no benefit to the consumer from having WiFi on that device.

Re: Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

#28

Post by viklove »

alkaline9 wrote: post #3

Perishable software is a huge problem - things keep operating only in dynamic equilibrium, such that they would fall apart as soon as we stop putting energy into fixing flaws. I have been thinking for years that as a society, we need 100-year products. It would be a global good to counteract the local incentives for producing perishable software. However, over time I have realized that there are legitimately unforese…

> such that they would fall apart as soon as we stop putting energy into fixing flaws

This is not true. The only reason software needs constant updates is because new features are constantly being added to stay competitive. If you stop adding features, in theory you will eventually run out of bugs to fix as well.

The problem is feature creep. Software doesn't "decay," and thus does not need infinite maintenance.

Re: Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

#29

Post by LeftHandPath »

alkaline9 wrote: post #26
ailideex wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be a global good to counteract the local incentives for producing perishable software. What are we talking about here? Asking people to not write bugs?

No, it is asking people to design and test systems for the long-term. It would require establishing strong interfaces between components that will hold up when subcomponents are swapped out. I think of it like a car where parts can be replaced if those parts have an issue, but the designs of the connectors stays the same, and replacements are available. A 100-year car isn't one that requires no maintenance for 100 ye…

There are a lot of cars that were maintainable, and built to be maintained, that can’t be maintained anymore simply because the manufacturer went defunct and there are no more parts (e.g. Saab, Datsun) or because the cost of manufacturing more parts for a car with a dwindling owner-base began to outweigh the profit, and thus, there are no more parts (e.g. older Ford models).

Unless the car is built primarily with 3rd-party parts (from manufacturers like Bosch, Brembo, etc) - which is something that consumers usually hold against a car, like how many people are upset that the new Toyota Supra is actually a BMW - then the problem is almost completely analogous to the shutting down of remote servers; if the manufacturer goes defunct or can no longer make a profit by continuing service, the car’s life has perished.

And in fact, the only way to avoid this is super conglomerates and monopolies - Lamborghini parts should always be available, because they come from the Audi parts bin, which comes from the Volkswagen parts bin.

Re: Software-dependent devices: do they now need expiration dates?

#30

Post by [deleted] »

JohnFen wrote: post #25
winternett wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SSDs now though may likely change that. If they fail early, they were likely manufactured to do so, or there was some other issue like power surges.

True, but I'm not yet comfortable with using SSDs for anything of importance.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN