830
Smart sous vide cooker to start charging $2/month for 10-year-old companion app (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
209 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Honestly, after a decade of keeping compatibility and stuff, and that the sous vide still works fine without the apk, I don't really see this as much of a big deal. An apk for a sous vide is nearly useless, anyhow. What are you going to do with it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It’s more about the principle. Why is it ok for a manufacturer to remotely disable a feature that was bought & paid for by a decades worth of customers?

    Now that they’ve done it once, what’s stopping future attempts to gin up higher profits using the same tactics?

    I don’t think anyone here is angry enough to go all Kid Rock on their Sous Vides, but I do think there are plenty who will look at a different brand when it is time for a replacement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Well they're on v3 now and this ends the version 1, so I doubt they've sold the v1 for the past 5 years or so, but again, it's not an apk that you need to use it. If it were a device like a garage door opener that let's you open/close or see when the door is opened or closed I'd be bitching up a storm. Same if it were like a door deadbolt to lock/unlock your front door. But a water cooker? What do you need the apk for? It couldn't functionally do anything over bluetooth to be of any help.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Would you buy a refrigerator from a manufacturer that wanted to make the ice maker a subscription service out of nowhere?

    I get that the app isn’t a requirement for the device, but neither is an ice maker required for a refrigerator to function as designed.

    They’re both features advertised as part of the original purchase price. Why does one get an expiration date out of the blue?

    The people who are likely to be losing Bluetooth functionality are also the most likely to be from the original kickstarter batch.

    Even if some-many of them have already upgraded to a newer model, that’s still one hell of a statement to make to your original backers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Your analogy is terrible. The cooker still works. Does the icemaker still work without the apk? If so, then what good is the apk on an icemaker in a fridge?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    My analogy isn’t terrible, it’s spot fucking on. You just use the ice maker & wouldn’t want to lose it so you’ve attached more value to it than the Anova App.

    Does the refrigerator not refrigerate without the ice maker? You didn’t buy an ice maker, you bought a refrigerator.

    No one is pissed about the device not working. People are pissed that Anova is taking away a FEATURE.

    Anova App = Feature included in original purchase price

    Ice Maker = Feature included in original purchase price.

    This isn’t about the value of what’s being taken away. It’s about the principle of taking away something that was already paid for.

    If Anova wants a subscription based model, they’re welcome to it, but…

    Their current customers did not buy into a subscription model & have the absolute right to be pissed off about being forced into one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent