Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Otherwise it's a service and not a product.

I think this is a distinction without a difference unless there's something legally relevant to that distinction. I don't disagree semantically, but I also doubt Phillips cares whether they call their lightbulbs a product or a service.

My solution would be to require refunds for hardware if the underlying software materially changes in terms of features, excepting safety features (I'm fine with disabling features because of an unknown risk of fire or something).

To me, the underlying issue is information asymmetry. The vendor knows when they're going to make changes, and users don't. The vendor knows which features get used and which don't, impacting the features they change, but users would have to guess whether they're a major usecase or not. The vendor likely has a list of lines in the sand they won't cross, but users don't know where those are.

Those used to be irrelevant because it wasn't possible to live-update the features of hardware, but it has become relevant. The free market is lacking information to make informed purchasing decisions.



Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: