This is intolerable. You own the device. You must be able to run whatever you want on it. Locking or limiting your access to the stuff you bought is not only unacceptable, it's basically like saying you don't really own anything. You're basically leasing a device until the OEM decides you can't run anything on it anymore. Would people accept if a car manufacturer prohibited you from driving their cars in certain places?

▲

p0w3n3d 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Meanwhile: VW is already limiting horsepower when the yearly subscription is ceased to be paid

It's already happening. The greediness of vendors, the ignorance of users...

▲

generic92034 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Do not forget the inaction and/or corruption of lawmakers.

	▲	lioeters 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Now is a time in history where any corporation worth its ill-gotten billions should take advantage of the government's whole-hearted encouragement to push through anti-competitve and anti-consumer decisions to dominate the market and the public.

▲

AnonymousPlanet 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Back in the 90s Sun sold you computers with X amount of space. There was an option to upgrade. If you took it, they sent a technician around to do the upgrade. All they did was making the already existing space available. Sun always sold hardware with all the space installed but gave you only what you paid for.

▲

p0w3n3d 2 days ago | parent [-]

I wonder if such actions can become a reason for persecution. Let me make an allegory: if I sold someone thing that is designed to break on purpose, and then requested pay for fixing it, it would be a felony. Why the remote downgrading is not considered a felony?

	▲	nicce 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Has someone ever tried this in the court? Only question is the definition of 'broke'.

▲

jasonfrost 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What's crazy is I can buy a video game license on steam and am permitted to mod it. Leasing precedence seems hidden in there sonewhere