this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
288 points (84.1% liked)

Technology

59421 readers
2842 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 164 points 7 months ago (14 children)

This is gonna end up like those people who got an implant to be able to see, and when the company went under, they lost support and their eyesight

[–] [email protected] 77 points 7 months ago (12 children)

That's the first thing I said when this was first posted, all those people who had the implants that enabled sight are left with no parts and no support since the company went under.

There should be laws in place stating these companies will provide support and parts for the entire life of the users. Anything less is criminal.

[–] [email protected] 105 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Better to mandate open hardware and software standards, so if the company goes under others can make parts or even upgrade the devices.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago

If nothing else, mandate the opening of the standards must coincide with the end of support. I realize it would mean a service blackout while another company tries to pick them up, but it would be a lot better than nothing and it doesn't hit the bottom line if a company operating now quite so much which would make it more palatable.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)