Its incredibly wasteful, but there is another perspective.
When that microscope was purchased, it formed part of someone’s budget throughout its service life. Support would have been guaranteed for that service life, but that life has now expired.
The company isn’t obligated to assist buyers beyond that service life, and doing so would eat into current and future profits.
There is not a single commenter (nor downvoter) in this thread who would open the source for that microscope if they owned that microscope company.
Companies used to release switchboard schematics and detailed instructions on how to maintain an repair their products all the time. Products becoming unrepairable and unsupported is a relatively new trend.
That’s why people are now trying to get the government involved to reverse that trend and go back to the old times where you had access to everything you needed to maintain your equipment.
I 100% would. It’s short term loss for long term gain.
Which microscope are you going to buy? The one with the software that’s company supported through it’s amortization period and then community supported afterwards, or the one where you’re sol after it’s paid off?
Of course you’re going to buy the one where “you’re sol after it’s service life” because that’s the one who’s manufacturer has been able to afford to invest in any R & D.
All things being equal, if there’s a company who’s model is some kind of eternal service life and another with a limited service life obviously the latter will be a better product.
Most commenters here are talking about a lab budget in the same way you’d manage household finance in some kind of “buy it for life” philosophy which is just not how org budgets work. Managers don’t work on a life long time scale, they want the best results from projects with limited scope. You buy the best microscope that you can afford, not the one which is going to have continued support 20 years after you’ve left the org.
Lots of labs don’t need the highest end equipment, and the ones that do could sell the old ones.
That would work if we didn’t have everything set up to throw out, which is a different problem all together. I’ve worked in IT procurement for a fairly big corporation, and I’ve seen dumpsters filled with slightly old iPhones because it made more sense to accounting.
This perspective is the one that is brought to you by late stage capitalism, and is pretty obviously unethical. The microscope didn’t break, your company broke it. The hardware still works, it’s still functional, your company breaking it because part of your business plan is planned obsolescence isn’t even close to something we should tolerate, and especially in a climate conscience environment should be working really hard to do away with. This is also a relatively new phenomenon, right to repair didn’t become a movement until companies started not only not supporting their products, but actively blocking attempts at support the products because of planned obsolescence and overpriced support contracts.
Which brings me to the other big problem with this comment. Everyone replying saying “no I wouldn’t do that,” including me, would probably absolutely do what you’re saying in a lot of cases. This is again, just part of capitalism. Profit must always go up, we must always feed the beast. Cultural norms now dictate this, and you can find someone justifying even the worst shit in just about every thread because our brains are so broken by this.
Our laws should take account for this. No business model should trump basic ethics. People generally fall into this behavior. If you’re outright designing it this way, please board the next rocket for the sun.
Perhaps under some kind of “intuitive ethics”. From a consequentialist perspective this model provides more R & D funding for better microscopes and is therefore the morally right action. A utilitarianist would argue that the greater public benefits from more highly developed microscopes while only the owner of the microscope benefits from opensource software.
your company breaking it
Discontinuing support is not “breaking it”. As in the OP, the owner of the microscope is still using it - it’s their responsibility support continued use, not the manufacturer.
Profit must always go up
This is a redditism and only really true of venture capital funded corporations, primarily info tech. Almost guaranteed that a microscope manufacturing company is owned by a university and as such self-sustaining profit is perfectly adequate.
our brains are so broken by this.
This is hyperbole but suppose you’re really just saying that we’re accustomed to thinking about things in a certain way. I would argue that most commenters are indeed used to thinking about things in a capitalism = evil kind of way. Certainly there are grave shortcomings of capitalism, but it is not completely without virtue. Funding for research is extraordinarily difficult under socialism for example. The inherent sink or swim mandate of capitalism ensures productive research. There’s an argument to be made that while the capitalist approach seems wasteful because the microscope becomes superseded, a socialist approach would also be wasteful because there’s no motivation for efficient research and development.
In many cases, discontinuing support is in fact breaking it, especially when (as the original post describes) the company deliberately architects things so that they cannot be maintained and arbitrarily cuts support. As the post describes, this is going to turn perfectly functioning equipment into landfill fodder, even though the company and thus their interest, may have gone out of business and gains nothing from the device artificially being forced into a state of obsolescence. Another obvious example, though much lower stakes, would be things like single-player games requiring a server component.
Second, this assumes that this is the only possible model that keeps new R&D happening and better microscopes being made. Many companies with specialized equipment support it through things like support contracts and the like. That they don’t support them and design in them in a way that arbitrarily makes it so they can’t be self supported does suggest they are driven by profit motive and wish to increase sales not through making a better project thanks to their model support generous R&D, but by forcing more frequent purchases of equipment or in the case of like John Deere, making it significantly more costly to repair and charging exorbitant rates which you now have no choice to pay as all other avenues of repair have been now locked out.
And I make no claims about the moral intent of capitalism as it can’t really have any. There are benefits to extremely well-regulated capitalism which is what my post suggests. I’ll also toss in that unregulated pure capitalism is a recipe for disaster and that while I do believe it’s possible to have an ethical business in capitalism, the reality shows over and over that the best of us aren’t likely to prevail and ethics are unlikely to win out. This is why we’ve regulated so much of capitalism whether through antitrust, labor laws, specific industry standards like food code (and even then we can see quite a lot of negative outcomes for the US compared to other countries which have stricter regulation.) Or, in a few cases simply replaced with socialist endeavors through the government (military, social security, medicare, education, etc.)
Funding for research is extraordinarily difficult under socialism for example. The inherent sink or swim mandate of capitalism ensures productive research.
I’d say evidence is to the contrary. The internet, for example, is essentially a socialist or even communist endeavor depending on which layer we’re talking about. Of course, the original invention of the WWW stemming from ARPAnet, which was a non-capitalist endeavor. The development of broadband infrastructure across the country is also the result of heavy regulation and significant taxpayer subsidy. Then we get to the servers, which are about 99% likely to be running on or relying on open-source software. We’re having this discussion on a server running an open source OS running open source software. Also worth noting that significant amounts of research happens through publicly funded state universities.
Last, I want to address this in a little more detail:
a socialist approach would also be wasteful because there’s no motivation for efficient research and development.
This is quite simply one of the most pervasive myths of capitalism, that somehow humans need to the fear of starvation or the pull of greed to do anything “productive.” Although I am sure there are some that would just as easily turn to full on hedonism, many of us not forced to labor in a capitalist society would find more beneficial things for ourselves and humanity in general because many of us have a driven curiosity. Like those opensource projects I mentioned above - I’d love to contribute, but in my regular capitalist job (which tbh is probably a net-loss for humanity if I’m being honest) means I work 9+ hours a day, am stuck with an additional 1.5 hours of commute each day, and so on, such that I’m not left with the time to pursue projects like this that I’d consider beneficial. But even forgetting me, the whole open source software movement and the millions of person-hours donated to research and development is nearly entirely evidence to contrary of your thesis. What is perhaps wasteful in this case is that under capitalism, those people developing software like the one that’s allowing us to have this conversation, can’t spend the effort they’d often like to.
discontinuing support is in fact breaking it, especially when (as the original post describes) the company deliberately architects things so that they cannot be maintained and arbitrarily cuts support.
On the contrary, the post is describing how they’re maintaining the equipment beyond it’s service life - it’s not broken.
Second […]
There’s no indication that the company that manufactured the microscopes does not offer support? Maybe the guy’s lab just doesn’t want to pay for it.
I make no claims about the moral intent of capitalism
You literally said that discontinuing support is unethical.
I’d say evidence is to the contrary. The internet, for example, is essentially a socialist or even communist endeavour
If you think the last 30 years of internet tech is non-capitalist I don’t know what to say to you.
[…] I’d love to contribute, but in my regular capitalist job […]
Sorry mate, you’ve kind of ranted yourself onto a tangent here.
I’m not advocating capitalism, I’m merely saying that there are reasons why things are the way that they are that commenters here seem unable to consider.
Lemmy has of course inherited reddit’s hatred of corporate profiteering. Of course we should be wary of companies pursuing profit to the detriment of the societies they function within, but that doesn’t mean that all company’s are engaging in greedy profiteering nor that all corporate behavior is an example of greedy profiteering.
I also made the incendiary claim that no one here would open source the software client for the microscope at EoL. I stand by that.
The model in question is the only one we have for oligopolies producing specialist equipment. There are few buyers, few producers, and the R&D costs are high in comparisson to volume sold.
Many commenters are making the absurd and unsupported claim that open sourcing software for older models is somehow “good customer service” that will inspire future sales. IMO this type of claim is the height of arrogance, as though any commenter here has more data and more experience than the management of these companies. As though no one at any of these companies has ever considered that open sourcing their client software might boost future sales. Of course they have considered it, and based on the market research and financial models that they have access to and we do not, they have concluded that whatever they’re doing right now is the best way forward.
As always in this kind of banter, commenters are looking for lazy generalisations on which to base their reasoning. Companies are greedy and bad. Open Source and Socialism is Good. There is always nuance that explains why things are the way they are. Sometimes corporate behavior is the result of excessive greed, but more often there are reasonable explanations.
I would. Not only would I do so voluntarily, but I also support STRONG consumer protection laws that would force any product or software or copyright or patent into public domain the instant it’s been unavailable for sale for 3 or more years or has gone without update for 5 years.
Our public domain and consumer protections are pathetic, and should be vigorously bolstered and defended.
If you force a company to continue support they will just give it a stupid price tag. “Sure we will continue to support this $250k microscope, if you would like us to write a windows 11 client for you that will cost $1m.”
I’m saying that you can’t legislate that abandoned software must become public domain. If you asked a company whether it was abandoned they would just say yes it’s still supported, with a completely impractical price tag for support.
I’ve been handing out free copies of shit for over a decade now. Shit that I got published as an author.
I would absolutely do the same with software. Mind you, that’s assuming I was allowed to. It’s unlikely any given code monkey is going to own the company entirely with that kind of hardware.
It is sociality absolutely equivalent to software.
You don’t have to continue adding to a book, just like a company wouldn’t have to continue development of the software involved. You let the owner of the hardware write their own fanfiction to keep the hardware alive.
And, yeah, actually, giving away free copies is absolutely denying a future sale of that publication.
However, that’s not even the point. You said nobody downvoting would do that, give away the software that was no longer being maintained. I absolutely would do so. You can debate equivalency all you want, but that has nothing to do with my statement that I absolutely would at least open source any deprecated software like the post is discussing. As you may have noticed, other people have stated that they would act based on their principles as well. If you don’t want to believe any of us, that’s on you, but calling that many people liars tends to be dumber than dammit if you don’t have a good reason to do so.
Again, me, the unnamed person behind the screen, would 100% either open source the software in question, or otherwise make it available to previous customers. That’s my principle, I fully support the right to repair.
See, the idea that planned obsolescence via lack of service and support is a good thing isn’t accepted by everyone. That theoretical future sale is only possible, and unless I held a monopoly on whatever thing I’m selling, there’s a significant chance of losing sales to competitors that give better customer service. I’d much rather have repeat customers that know they can invest in my product without worry.
I’d also much rather know that my product was doing good work, advancing research and human knowledge, than sell another and waste the previous one.
Maybe you don’t think that way. Maybe you want to maximize profits over any other concern. That’s your karma, your decision, not mine.
It is sociality absolutely equivalent to software.
We’re not talking about software, the microscope is a product involving research and development, a team of engineers, a production facility, and accompanying software. To say “this software should be open source” is to disregard the product that it’s a part of.
I’m not trying to be condescending but the investment required to produce specialised lab equipment is several orders of magnitude greater than that required to author a book.
And, yeah, actually, giving away free copies is absolutely denying a future sale of that publication.
No it’s not because of the people you give free copies, only an infinitessimal minority would actually buy one. Plus every copy you give away promotes additional sales. Also, IDK anything about you so I don’t intend this to be as condescending as it sounds - but it’s very common to buy a run of 10,000 books just to call yourself a best selling author. Giving away books is pretty meaningless I’m sorry.
If you don’t want to believe any of us, that’s on you, but calling that many people liars tends to be dumber than dammit if you don’t have a good reason to do so.
I do have some specialist knowledge in this area. I advise people on strategic business decisions in the course of my work. I don’t care very much whether you believe me or think I’m dumber than damnit but it’s safe to say that few commenters here have a better understanding of people’s behavior with business & profit decisions than I do.
I absolutely would at least open source any deprecated software like the post is discussing
Then you couldn’t run a viable company in an oligopoly. It’s a mistake to think of this as deprecated software. It’s a component of an earlier product. Microsoft isn’t going to opensource windows 10 just because windows 11 has been released.
That’s my principle, I fully support the right to repair.
No one is impeding the right to repair. Old mate is repairing the computers that run windows 95.
Maybe you don’t think that way. Maybe you want to maximize profits over any other concern.
I don’t think it’s really fair to make assumptions about my character just because I pointed out an alternative perspective that seems completely lost in these threads.
Frankly, assuming that every company you interact with are greedy fat cats is very lazy thinking.
For all you know the producers of this expensive lab equipment are using sales to labs in wealthy research labs to subsidise free microscopes for tertiary institutions in developing nations.
Unfortunately it seems like all you have is a right to repair hammer and you’re trying to hit everything with it even in cases where it doesn’t apply.
Forcing companies to release source code once they go bankrupt or abandon a project can only have good results. Yes, it eats into profits of successors, but something being profitable does not mean it’s good. If people would rather use decades old code rather than something new, what does that say about the quality of the new code? This would force companies to continuously improve, rather than profit from stagnation. And it would prune away the parts of the economy that contribute nothing.
This comment is based on the assumption that the company manufacturing the lab equipment is enjoying unreasonable profits, which is not necessarily the case.
You can’t force companies to support software. They will just attach an impractical though reasonable price tag to continued support. “Sure we can support that microscope, it will cost you 2x the price of our new model”.
This would force companies to continuously improve
On the contrary, there’s no money to invest in development of newer models if no one will buy them.
They can’t make huge profits if we don’t scam our customers by forcing to upgrade their perfectly fine equipment. We need planned obsolescence to be this greedy, damn it!
I’m also curious how many people in this thread have ever been involved in product development and are actual trained/professional software devs. Because not only are some of these comments absolutely ridiculous from a business perspective, they make zero sense in a technical perspective too.
Proprietary file formats show up because often times the needs of the system don’t line up with CSV, JSON, raw text or they hit some performance problem where you literally can’t write that much data to the disk so you have come to come up with something different.
There’s also that a computer program in the last 50 years is, except for extreme circumstances, never truly on its own. That microscope control software is completely dependent on how Win95 works, is almost certainly reliant on some old DOS kernel behavior that was left over in early Windows, which Microsoft later completely ripped out starting with Win Vista (tossed back in for Win7 cause so many people complained, then ripped it back out in 8 which no one seemed to care about)
And it’s not just Microsoft that pulls this, even Lemmy’s darling Linux has deprecated things over the years because even in open source projects it’s unmaintainable to keep everything working for forever.
The service life of a hard good like that was not defined at the time they bought it. Nobody told them it would be abandoned in a few years. When you buy a car, it’s your car for as long as you can keep it running. It doesn’t drop dead at the end of its depreciation schedule.
This is why right to repair matters. I will NEVER ask a company to repair something I purchased if I can do it myself. Oh wait, they’re doing everything in their power to prevent me from being independent after the purchase…
Practically every single manufacturer that makes things more complex than spoons wants to keep fucking me in the ass and for me to keep paying money for thing I already bought and “own”.
At least when the spoon breaks… Except I never witnessed it happen in my life, I’m still eating with same stainless steel spoons that I grew up with.
And no, I could easily open source that microscope, because I’m not afraid that some lackey that can’t even design his own microscope will have better equipment than I do if I’m the owner of a factory that specializes in producing microscopes. Microscopes don’t spawn from thin air just because you have blueprints, you need to build them, and manufacturer of microscopes should take pride in quality of production, not some arbitrary “intellectual property” that I can steal 98% of by simply cutting the finished product in half with my table saw.
Oh wait, they’re doing everything in their power to prevent me from being independent after the purchase
They’re not, actually. This may be subtle nuance but they’re not actively preventing you from doing whatever you want, they’re just not assisting you to undermine their IP.
As I said, this business model is built around products having a finite service life. This microscope may have been state of the art 30 years ago, but all the R & D that’s taken place in the interim is funded by the sale of new microscopes.
Its incredibly wasteful, but there is another perspective.
When that microscope was purchased, it formed part of someone’s budget throughout its service life. Support would have been guaranteed for that service life, but that life has now expired.
The company isn’t obligated to assist buyers beyond that service life, and doing so would eat into current and future profits.
There is not a single commenter (nor downvoter) in this thread who would open the source for that microscope if they owned that microscope company.
Companies used to release switchboard schematics and detailed instructions on how to maintain an repair their products all the time. Products becoming unrepairable and unsupported is a relatively new trend.
That’s why people are now trying to get the government involved to reverse that trend and go back to the old times where you had access to everything you needed to maintain your equipment.
There is absolutely no doubt that a $250k piece of lab equipment came with a detailed service manual.
Providing eternal software updates and support is not the same as providing a service manual.
I 100% would. It’s short term loss for long term gain.
Which microscope are you going to buy? The one with the software that’s company supported through it’s amortization period and then community supported afterwards, or the one where you’re sol after it’s paid off?
Goodness me.
Of course you’re going to buy the one where “you’re sol after it’s service life” because that’s the one who’s manufacturer has been able to afford to invest in any R & D.
All things being equal, if there’s a company who’s model is some kind of eternal service life and another with a limited service life obviously the latter will be a better product.
Most commenters here are talking about a lab budget in the same way you’d manage household finance in some kind of “buy it for life” philosophy which is just not how org budgets work. Managers don’t work on a life long time scale, they want the best results from projects with limited scope. You buy the best microscope that you can afford, not the one which is going to have continued support 20 years after you’ve left the org.
Lots of labs don’t need the highest end equipment, and the ones that do could sell the old ones.
That would work if we didn’t have everything set up to throw out, which is a different problem all together. I’ve worked in IT procurement for a fairly big corporation, and I’ve seen dumpsters filled with slightly old iPhones because it made more sense to accounting.
This perspective is the one that is brought to you by late stage capitalism, and is pretty obviously unethical. The microscope didn’t break, your company broke it. The hardware still works, it’s still functional, your company breaking it because part of your business plan is planned obsolescence isn’t even close to something we should tolerate, and especially in a climate conscience environment should be working really hard to do away with. This is also a relatively new phenomenon, right to repair didn’t become a movement until companies started not only not supporting their products, but actively blocking attempts at support the products because of planned obsolescence and overpriced support contracts.
Which brings me to the other big problem with this comment. Everyone replying saying “no I wouldn’t do that,” including me, would probably absolutely do what you’re saying in a lot of cases. This is again, just part of capitalism. Profit must always go up, we must always feed the beast. Cultural norms now dictate this, and you can find someone justifying even the worst shit in just about every thread because our brains are so broken by this.
Our laws should take account for this. No business model should trump basic ethics. People generally fall into this behavior. If you’re outright designing it this way, please board the next rocket for the sun.
Perhaps under some kind of “intuitive ethics”. From a consequentialist perspective this model provides more R & D funding for better microscopes and is therefore the morally right action. A utilitarianist would argue that the greater public benefits from more highly developed microscopes while only the owner of the microscope benefits from opensource software.
Discontinuing support is not “breaking it”. As in the OP, the owner of the microscope is still using it - it’s their responsibility support continued use, not the manufacturer.
This is a redditism and only really true of venture capital funded corporations, primarily info tech. Almost guaranteed that a microscope manufacturing company is owned by a university and as such self-sustaining profit is perfectly adequate.
This is hyperbole but suppose you’re really just saying that we’re accustomed to thinking about things in a certain way. I would argue that most commenters are indeed used to thinking about things in a capitalism = evil kind of way. Certainly there are grave shortcomings of capitalism, but it is not completely without virtue. Funding for research is extraordinarily difficult under socialism for example. The inherent sink or swim mandate of capitalism ensures productive research. There’s an argument to be made that while the capitalist approach seems wasteful because the microscope becomes superseded, a socialist approach would also be wasteful because there’s no motivation for efficient research and development.
In many cases, discontinuing support is in fact breaking it, especially when (as the original post describes) the company deliberately architects things so that they cannot be maintained and arbitrarily cuts support. As the post describes, this is going to turn perfectly functioning equipment into landfill fodder, even though the company and thus their interest, may have gone out of business and gains nothing from the device artificially being forced into a state of obsolescence. Another obvious example, though much lower stakes, would be things like single-player games requiring a server component.
Second, this assumes that this is the only possible model that keeps new R&D happening and better microscopes being made. Many companies with specialized equipment support it through things like support contracts and the like. That they don’t support them and design in them in a way that arbitrarily makes it so they can’t be self supported does suggest they are driven by profit motive and wish to increase sales not through making a better project thanks to their model support generous R&D, but by forcing more frequent purchases of equipment or in the case of like John Deere, making it significantly more costly to repair and charging exorbitant rates which you now have no choice to pay as all other avenues of repair have been now locked out.
And I make no claims about the moral intent of capitalism as it can’t really have any. There are benefits to extremely well-regulated capitalism which is what my post suggests. I’ll also toss in that unregulated pure capitalism is a recipe for disaster and that while I do believe it’s possible to have an ethical business in capitalism, the reality shows over and over that the best of us aren’t likely to prevail and ethics are unlikely to win out. This is why we’ve regulated so much of capitalism whether through antitrust, labor laws, specific industry standards like food code (and even then we can see quite a lot of negative outcomes for the US compared to other countries which have stricter regulation.) Or, in a few cases simply replaced with socialist endeavors through the government (military, social security, medicare, education, etc.)
I’d say evidence is to the contrary. The internet, for example, is essentially a socialist or even communist endeavor depending on which layer we’re talking about. Of course, the original invention of the WWW stemming from ARPAnet, which was a non-capitalist endeavor. The development of broadband infrastructure across the country is also the result of heavy regulation and significant taxpayer subsidy. Then we get to the servers, which are about 99% likely to be running on or relying on open-source software. We’re having this discussion on a server running an open source OS running open source software. Also worth noting that significant amounts of research happens through publicly funded state universities.
Last, I want to address this in a little more detail:
This is quite simply one of the most pervasive myths of capitalism, that somehow humans need to the fear of starvation or the pull of greed to do anything “productive.” Although I am sure there are some that would just as easily turn to full on hedonism, many of us not forced to labor in a capitalist society would find more beneficial things for ourselves and humanity in general because many of us have a driven curiosity. Like those opensource projects I mentioned above - I’d love to contribute, but in my regular capitalist job (which tbh is probably a net-loss for humanity if I’m being honest) means I work 9+ hours a day, am stuck with an additional 1.5 hours of commute each day, and so on, such that I’m not left with the time to pursue projects like this that I’d consider beneficial. But even forgetting me, the whole open source software movement and the millions of person-hours donated to research and development is nearly entirely evidence to contrary of your thesis. What is perhaps wasteful in this case is that under capitalism, those people developing software like the one that’s allowing us to have this conversation, can’t spend the effort they’d often like to.
On the contrary, the post is describing how they’re maintaining the equipment beyond it’s service life - it’s not broken.
There’s no indication that the company that manufactured the microscopes does not offer support? Maybe the guy’s lab just doesn’t want to pay for it.
You literally said that discontinuing support is unethical.
If you think the last 30 years of internet tech is non-capitalist I don’t know what to say to you.
Sorry mate, you’ve kind of ranted yourself onto a tangent here.
I’m not advocating capitalism, I’m merely saying that there are reasons why things are the way that they are that commenters here seem unable to consider.
Lemmy has of course inherited reddit’s hatred of corporate profiteering. Of course we should be wary of companies pursuing profit to the detriment of the societies they function within, but that doesn’t mean that all company’s are engaging in greedy profiteering nor that all corporate behavior is an example of greedy profiteering.
I also made the incendiary claim that no one here would open source the software client for the microscope at EoL. I stand by that.
The model in question is the only one we have for oligopolies producing specialist equipment. There are few buyers, few producers, and the R&D costs are high in comparisson to volume sold.
Many commenters are making the absurd and unsupported claim that open sourcing software for older models is somehow “good customer service” that will inspire future sales. IMO this type of claim is the height of arrogance, as though any commenter here has more data and more experience than the management of these companies. As though no one at any of these companies has ever considered that open sourcing their client software might boost future sales. Of course they have considered it, and based on the market research and financial models that they have access to and we do not, they have concluded that whatever they’re doing right now is the best way forward.
As always in this kind of banter, commenters are looking for lazy generalisations on which to base their reasoning. Companies are greedy and bad. Open Source and Socialism is Good. There is always nuance that explains why things are the way they are. Sometimes corporate behavior is the result of excessive greed, but more often there are reasonable explanations.
I would. Not only would I do so voluntarily, but I also support STRONG consumer protection laws that would force any product or software or copyright or patent into public domain the instant it’s been unavailable for sale for 3 or more years or has gone without update for 5 years.
Our public domain and consumer protections are pathetic, and should be vigorously bolstered and defended.
I don’t think you’ve really thought this through.
If you force a company to continue support they will just give it a stupid price tag. “Sure we will continue to support this $250k microscope, if you would like us to write a windows 11 client for you that will cost $1m.”
That sort of thing already happens in the enterprise world. If it gets maintained because a customer wants to pay for that entirely, it happens.
But if they abandon it, even unintentionally, then it needs to become public domain.
I think you missed my point.
I’m saying that you can’t legislate that abandoned software must become public domain. If you asked a company whether it was abandoned they would just say yes it’s still supported, with a completely impractical price tag for support.
Removed by mod
Support or lose to public domain.
Sure, support costs $1m per annum.
Wanna bet?
I’ve been handing out free copies of shit for over a decade now. Shit that I got published as an author.
I would absolutely do the same with software. Mind you, that’s assuming I was allowed to. It’s unlikely any given code monkey is going to own the company entirely with that kind of hardware.
Come come. We both know that handing out free copies of something you authored is not analogous to continued support of lab equipment.
When giving away free copies you’re not denying yourself a future sale.
It is sociality absolutely equivalent to software.
You don’t have to continue adding to a book, just like a company wouldn’t have to continue development of the software involved. You let the owner of the hardware write their own fanfiction to keep the hardware alive.
And, yeah, actually, giving away free copies is absolutely denying a future sale of that publication.
However, that’s not even the point. You said nobody downvoting would do that, give away the software that was no longer being maintained. I absolutely would do so. You can debate equivalency all you want, but that has nothing to do with my statement that I absolutely would at least open source any deprecated software like the post is discussing. As you may have noticed, other people have stated that they would act based on their principles as well. If you don’t want to believe any of us, that’s on you, but calling that many people liars tends to be dumber than dammit if you don’t have a good reason to do so.
Again, me, the unnamed person behind the screen, would 100% either open source the software in question, or otherwise make it available to previous customers. That’s my principle, I fully support the right to repair.
See, the idea that planned obsolescence via lack of service and support is a good thing isn’t accepted by everyone. That theoretical future sale is only possible, and unless I held a monopoly on whatever thing I’m selling, there’s a significant chance of losing sales to competitors that give better customer service. I’d much rather have repeat customers that know they can invest in my product without worry.
I’d also much rather know that my product was doing good work, advancing research and human knowledge, than sell another and waste the previous one.
Maybe you don’t think that way. Maybe you want to maximize profits over any other concern. That’s your karma, your decision, not mine.
We’re not talking about software, the microscope is a product involving research and development, a team of engineers, a production facility, and accompanying software. To say “this software should be open source” is to disregard the product that it’s a part of.
I’m not trying to be condescending but the investment required to produce specialised lab equipment is several orders of magnitude greater than that required to author a book.
No it’s not because of the people you give free copies, only an infinitessimal minority would actually buy one. Plus every copy you give away promotes additional sales. Also, IDK anything about you so I don’t intend this to be as condescending as it sounds - but it’s very common to buy a run of 10,000 books just to call yourself a best selling author. Giving away books is pretty meaningless I’m sorry.
I do have some specialist knowledge in this area. I advise people on strategic business decisions in the course of my work. I don’t care very much whether you believe me or think I’m dumber than damnit but it’s safe to say that few commenters here have a better understanding of people’s behavior with business & profit decisions than I do.
Then you couldn’t run a viable company in an oligopoly. It’s a mistake to think of this as deprecated software. It’s a component of an earlier product. Microsoft isn’t going to opensource windows 10 just because windows 11 has been released.
No one is impeding the right to repair. Old mate is repairing the computers that run windows 95.
I don’t think it’s really fair to make assumptions about my character just because I pointed out an alternative perspective that seems completely lost in these threads.
Frankly, assuming that every company you interact with are greedy fat cats is very lazy thinking.
For all you know the producers of this expensive lab equipment are using sales to labs in wealthy research labs to subsidise free microscopes for tertiary institutions in developing nations.
Unfortunately it seems like all you have is a right to repair hammer and you’re trying to hit everything with it even in cases where it doesn’t apply.
Forcing companies to release source code once they go bankrupt or abandon a project can only have good results. Yes, it eats into profits of successors, but something being profitable does not mean it’s good. If people would rather use decades old code rather than something new, what does that say about the quality of the new code? This would force companies to continuously improve, rather than profit from stagnation. And it would prune away the parts of the economy that contribute nothing.
This comment is based on the assumption that the company manufacturing the lab equipment is enjoying unreasonable profits, which is not necessarily the case.
You can’t force companies to support software. They will just attach an impractical though reasonable price tag to continued support. “Sure we can support that microscope, it will cost you 2x the price of our new model”.
On the contrary, there’s no money to invest in development of newer models if no one will buy them.
But think of the shareholders!
They can’t make huge profits if we don’t scam our customers by forcing to upgrade their perfectly fine equipment. We need planned obsolescence to be this greedy, damn it!
I’m also curious how many people in this thread have ever been involved in product development and are actual trained/professional software devs. Because not only are some of these comments absolutely ridiculous from a business perspective, they make zero sense in a technical perspective too.
Proprietary file formats show up because often times the needs of the system don’t line up with CSV, JSON, raw text or they hit some performance problem where you literally can’t write that much data to the disk so you have come to come up with something different.
There’s also that a computer program in the last 50 years is, except for extreme circumstances, never truly on its own. That microscope control software is completely dependent on how Win95 works, is almost certainly reliant on some old DOS kernel behavior that was left over in early Windows, which Microsoft later completely ripped out starting with Win Vista (tossed back in for Win7 cause so many people complained, then ripped it back out in 8 which no one seemed to care about)
And it’s not just Microsoft that pulls this, even Lemmy’s darling Linux has deprecated things over the years because even in open source projects it’s unmaintainable to keep everything working for forever.
Yeah, unfortunately Lemmy seems to have inherited reddit’s penchant for adopting an established view and becoming unable to see the nuance.
“I’m gonna down vote this asshole because he didn’t condemn corporate profiteering”
@DogMuffins @fossilesque There are many companies that are happy to support their products for decades *for a price*.
That’s what I’m saying.
You can’t force a company to support something. They will just quote an unreasonable price for support.
The service life of a hard good like that was not defined at the time they bought it. Nobody told them it would be abandoned in a few years. When you buy a car, it’s your car for as long as you can keep it running. It doesn’t drop dead at the end of its depreciation schedule.
Soo… exactly like this microscope? It hasn’t dropped dead, it’s just no longer actively supported.
But generally, you can find car parts, either OEM or aftermarket, for decades after you buy it.
This is why right to repair matters. I will NEVER ask a company to repair something I purchased if I can do it myself. Oh wait, they’re doing everything in their power to prevent me from being independent after the purchase…
Practically every single manufacturer that makes things more complex than spoons wants to keep fucking me in the ass and for me to keep paying money for thing I already bought and “own”.
At least when the spoon breaks… Except I never witnessed it happen in my life, I’m still eating with same stainless steel spoons that I grew up with.
And no, I could easily open source that microscope, because I’m not afraid that some lackey that can’t even design his own microscope will have better equipment than I do if I’m the owner of a factory that specializes in producing microscopes. Microscopes don’t spawn from thin air just because you have blueprints, you need to build them, and manufacturer of microscopes should take pride in quality of production, not some arbitrary “intellectual property” that I can steal 98% of by simply cutting the finished product in half with my table saw.
They’re not, actually. This may be subtle nuance but they’re not actively preventing you from doing whatever you want, they’re just not assisting you to undermine their IP.
As I said, this business model is built around products having a finite service life. This microscope may have been state of the art 30 years ago, but all the R & D that’s taken place in the interim is funded by the sale of new microscopes.
Haha yes, apple totally doesn’t put DRM in their computer parts…