this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
111 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
183 readers
101 users here now
Blacklisted Sites
List inspired by other community rules.
- Mac Rumors;
- Al Jazeera;
- NBC;
- CNBC;
- Tom’s Hardware;
- ZDNet;
- TechSpot;
- Ars Technica;
- Engadget;
- TechCrunch;
- Gizmodo;
- Futurism;
- PCWorld;
- ComputerWorld;
- Mashable;
- Fortune;
- Hackaday;
- WCCFTECH;
- Neowin;
- Jacobin;
- Yahoo;
- Freethink;
- Big Think;
- Newsweek.
Technology news, blogs and articles.
Forbidden:
- Paywalled content.
- Older than 1 month articles;
- External video links(non native videos);
- Article talking about article, research or news.(Always use original articles).
- [New] Substack links: you can link to substack blogs, but the link should be a custom domain(not XXXX.substack.com).
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Should a consumer reasonably expect any product to be supported forever and ever and ever just because they didn't say they won't?
It's not like the device is actually bricked, it continues to work offline. I think it severely hurts this lawsuit's credibility when they hyperbolize it to the point of being factually incorrect.
It's just not being maintained to preserve forwards-compatibility, and that's kind of inevitable. Nothing can truly last forever, forever is impossible. And if we can accept that there's no such thing as forever, then it's just a question of when to draw the line, when it's finally okay to eventually drop support. And the question of when could be a valid question to ask, but it doesn't sound like that's the question this lawsuit is asking, it sounds like they just expect infinity.