zlacker

>>pictur+(OP)
I want to see meaningful pushback on this indefensible move of forcing customers to establish and maintain a relationship with the manufacturer in order to use the products they sell.

Other examples are: Wahoo, who locked the control of their products behind an account and login requirement for devices which had been working perfectly fine for years prior.

Roche, who killed their blood glucose app at the start of 2023 and forced all their users to move to a third party app, developed by one of their subsidiaries, which requires you to accept a data exfiltration clause, if they wish to continue the automagic on-device logging.

>>1ncorr+P4
Don't use their products then? Nobody is forcing you to.

>>Daz1+C8
Fair enough. But what if you bought the product, paid a fair amount for it (i.e., you can't just shit-can it) and *then* X months later the brand suddenly require a sign up, subscription fee, etc.

Then what?

>>chiefa+ub
Exactly. I have hundreds of dollars tied up in MY hue products. I paid the market price for a device that didn't require me to sign up for an account.

As far as I'm concerned these companies should get hit with deceptive advertising charges. Yes, I realize that buried somewhere two or three hundred paragraphs deep in the TOS I "agreed" to let them do this. Then again maybe I didn't, because I also likely "agreed" to have the TOS changed at any time for any reason without warning. That is key here.

IMO These companies get away with this because they can toss out one of the basics of contract law. It is unconscionable that one party can _unilaterally_ change the terms of the contact (the "terms of service") without prior warning or input from the other party (me, as the purchaser of said device/service).

Basic contract law should apply here. What _tangible_ benefits are there to me