It's not the only imaginable way, but it is the society we (in the vast majority of the world) live in, and I agree it doesn't really make sense to bash something not continuing to exist unprofitably when it was developed for profit.
It's annoying when software support ends for anything, phones, Nest Protect, (any Google product!), but I think best to bear it in mind in buying anything that it's a possibility, who are you relying on for what and what's their incentive to keep going.
The problem is that companies are deliberately kneecapping their products by making cloud subscriptions mandatory and third-party repairs impossible. Refusing out-of-warranty repairs or discontinuing cloud services for obsolete products because it is no longer profitable wouldn't be such a big deal if third-party providers were able to replace OEM support.
Traditionally, if I buy a $500 dishwasher, the OEM is responsible for repairs under warranty. When the warranty lapses it'll still keep working perfectly fine, and if something breaks I can go to one of a dozen repair shops in my local area. Same if the manufacturer goes bankrupt: it'll keep working, and I can still get it repaired.
These days, if I buy a $500 tech product, it can turn into an expensive brick literally the next day, and there's nothing I could do about it. Even worse, it can happen because the OEM feels like it, not just because they went bankrupt! The fact that I own and possess the product has become completely meaningless, its fate is permanently in the hands of the manufacturer.
Somehow we've ended up with all the downsides of renting/leasing, and all the costs of purchasing. It'll only get worse unless we start punishing companies for behaving like this.
As an old post on usenix I liked (paraphrased) went “of course they shit on the floor, it’s a corporation, it’s what they do, the job of government is to be the rolled up newspaper applied to their nose when they do”.
That’s the fundamental problem, our governments don’t stand up to businesses enough when they should and roll over too easily when they shouldn’t.
The relationship is far too cosy at the top levels as well.
The mixed market economy is how most of the productive world operates, with varying degrees of mixed. Laissez-faire capitalism has led to disaster time and time again, but even the US is not that system (far from it - arguably China is closer by many metrics).
It is a reasonable argument for the regulatory state though - which is to say, delays to market from regulation could have reasonable origins - like requiring sustainment plans when you're going to do human implants which aren't removable. With the obvious counter-balance that the government and by extension the taxpayer should take on some of the risk if they truly want "rapid to market" development.
I’d agree that China is more of a laissez-faire system than the US with one proviso, the CCCP mostly stays out of it until it doesn’t and then they descend like the wrath of an angry and vengeful god.
If you avoid that you have more freedom to operate as a corporation in China than in the US, of course in the US the corporations just buy sorry lobby the politicians.
It used to be much more understated than it has been recently though, that they’ve pulled the mask off more over time suggests they think they can get away it.
Of course sight is more serious than smartphone; my point is that if you rely on a for-profit company, then you should take that consideration (familiar from smartphones) more seriously for your sight.
Occurs to me there was actually a Black Mirror episode on basically this in the latest season - not sight exactly, but a neurological implant of some kind. (Jacking subscription fees, removing features, etc., with real-world consequence.)
Except when these guys pays millions in marketing to make you believe you can rely on them. If at least they would just say nothing instead of propagating their distorted vision.
