I personally think it’s perfectly reasonable for a company to eventually start charging for a service they provide that costs them money to provide. They might bakenin some number of years into the product price, but they can’t keep providing the service for free forever.
It seems like something that should be expected if we do want certain services to be provided and maintained. Heck, I also think that offering a subscription is better than the usual alternative, which is that the company just shuts the service down.
However, the way this is done is almost always slimy and shitty and likely is only going to get solved by regulation.
It’s incredibly rare that IOT devices NEED cloud integration. Most of the time it really SHOULD just be local-only, or have a local option.
If they are going to start charging for something to continue to work, unless there was already an explicit agreement that - and when - this would happen, they need to provide an alternative.
Either documentation or open software for how an alternate cloud - including local - could be used instead.
That info really should be mandatory to be made available beforehand in case the company shuts down.
The subscription fee needs to be reasonable.
Personally, I think $24/year is still far too much, but it’s still WAY more reasonable than some I’ve seen.
Thing is they needed to factor this j to the cost of selling the device.
It basically costs them nothing to ru the service for this device. If they failed to calculate that as part of the sale price, that’s not the consumers fault.
Part of the problem comes when companies go out of their way to provide a service on their end that could be covered reasonably easily on the consumer’s side of things. Why put a few cents worth of storage in a device and make it locally accessible when you can make it cloud-connected and hosted to turn it into a revenue stream?
Another example, GM has had OnStar for ages. It does the same things your cell phone does, so it’s hard to justify the subscription. Plus Android Auto/Car Play works really well and relies on something you update more often. So naturally, GM revamped their infotainment to do the things you’d have your phone do and got rid of Android Auto/Car Play.
I personally think it’s perfectly reasonable for a company to eventually start charging for a service they provide that costs them money to provide. They might bakenin some number of years into the product price, but they can’t keep providing the service for free forever.
It seems like something that should be expected if we do want certain services to be provided and maintained. Heck, I also think that offering a subscription is better than the usual alternative, which is that the company just shuts the service down.
However, the way this is done is almost always slimy and shitty and likely is only going to get solved by regulation.
Should be a no-brainer.
People who made accounts before they start charging will be grandfathered in for free.
OK, cool, that’s also better than normal.
Until that changes, or they shut it down.
Edit: ah, I missed that in the article and everything.
Thing is they needed to factor this j to the cost of selling the device.
It basically costs them nothing to ru the service for this device. If they failed to calculate that as part of the sale price, that’s not the consumers fault.
Part of the problem comes when companies go out of their way to provide a service on their end that could be covered reasonably easily on the consumer’s side of things. Why put a few cents worth of storage in a device and make it locally accessible when you can make it cloud-connected and hosted to turn it into a revenue stream?
Another example, GM has had OnStar for ages. It does the same things your cell phone does, so it’s hard to justify the subscription. Plus Android Auto/Car Play works really well and relies on something you update more often. So naturally, GM revamped their infotainment to do the things you’d have your phone do and got rid of Android Auto/Car Play.