• LemmyBe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I disagree - definitely not OK by me, though likely legal. People bought this because they wanted and paid extra for an internet connected device, and a regular thermostat is not that. I mean, would you be OK if your TV manufacturer disabled the screen and streamed radio stations instead?

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I bought my first HDTV in like 2011 because the prices were absurd and I didn’t want to waste perfectly fine TV’s I already had. You must have paid $3200 to get that first of its kind TV. Definitely seems like you got lucky for it to last so long

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                I misremembered, it’s a 2006 TV that I bought on clearance.

                I paid £500, which at the time would’ve been $1,000, as I remember the exchange rate being around 1:2 back then. Might’ve been £600 actually. The details are fuzzy.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      If my TV was 16 years old, and the manufacturer cut off the internet function to it, id be ok with that.

      These thermostats still work as thermostats, just without the smart features. Comparing that to turning a TV to a radio is disingenuous. 16 years is a long time, and there are security protocols amongst other things that go obsolete over time and can’t be updated at a certain point on legacy devices.

      • LemmyBe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 months ago

        I honestly can’t understand why anyone would be OK with it. I think our society has been getting trained to just accept whatever they throw at us. “Buying” something no longer means fully owning it, and I’m not OK with that, I just have to live with it.

        • businessfish@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          i say something like this often in real life, but despite it being plainly observable in daily life other people still don’t agree.

          it’s on all scales too, or at least it feels like it. moving everything to streaming, always online, etc. want to play a competitive video game with your friends? give a corporation root-level access to your home computer. ads everywhere some greedy ass in a suit can think to stick them whether you pay or not, yet everyone complies like this is normal and i get singled out for caring about our rights as consumers.

          i love capitalism i love money

        • BassTurd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The problem is that it’s impossible to support all products forever. There has to be a time that something turns EoL, and IMO 16 years is a reasonable amount of time for almost anything, but especially a small electronic device. As others have mentioned, it would be awesome if they opened the API for personal use, but there’s a million reasons why that may not have been possible. Ideally everything would work and be supported forever, but it’s impossible.

    • impure9435@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      I didn’t say it was ideal, but it’s ok. And it’s definitely better when compared to other companies. Sure, in an ideal world they would have published the source code for their server ensuring that anyone could run their own instance at home. But we don’t live in an ideal world.