Isn't this symptomatic of a much deeper problem with the tech industry today, though? Consumer protection laws are useful up to a point, but even in places with relatively strong consumer protections, the problems of closed systems, ephemeral external dependencies and built-in obsolescence are widespread. Almost nothing is made to be long-lasting any more. Compatibility and interoperability are often seen as dirty words that imply loosening the stranglehold you have on your customers. Standards are great, so we should have our own because they will be better than everyone else's.
There's an old saying that you can't implement a technological solution to a social problem. I'm increasingly of the view that this holds the other way around as well.
Unfortunately, there is a vicious circle here. To support makers of products that can be repaired and upgraded, and that don't depend on remote facilities that can disappear but can't be replaced, and that respect user privacy and control, and that play nicely with other products, we need to buy their stuff. That stuff is likely to be more expensive up-front, even if it might work out better and cheaper in the long term, so buyers need to perceive some advantage to justify the extra cost. But until those buyers have been stung by the deliberate limitations and user-hostile behaviours of the competing products, which typically only happens later, they often won't be very aware of the choices they're really making. They might experience buyer's remorse further down the line, but by then it's too late. This effect makes it difficult to compete if you want to offer good quality, future-proof products, which in turn limits how many people have those products and how many people see that those products can be advantageous.
There's an old saying that you can't implement a technological solution to a social problem. I'm increasingly of the view that this holds the other way around as well.
Unfortunately, there is a vicious circle here. To support makers of products that can be repaired and upgraded, and that don't depend on remote facilities that can disappear but can't be replaced, and that respect user privacy and control, and that play nicely with other products, we need to buy their stuff. That stuff is likely to be more expensive up-front, even if it might work out better and cheaper in the long term, so buyers need to perceive some advantage to justify the extra cost. But until those buyers have been stung by the deliberate limitations and user-hostile behaviours of the competing products, which typically only happens later, they often won't be very aware of the choices they're really making. They might experience buyer's remorse further down the line, but by then it's too late. This effect makes it difficult to compete if you want to offer good quality, future-proof products, which in turn limits how many people have those products and how many people see that those products can be advantageous.