this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
700 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
3387 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Christ, even Amazon refunded everyone who bought a Glow.

[–] Nawor3565@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It sounds like they literally can't refund people because the company completely ran out of money and is gonna be liquidated. Sucky situation for all parties involved.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If only there was law demanding to refund broken products before liquidation.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Or a law stating that in the case fair refunds can not be provided that the software needed for running the hardware becomes public domain and is published and released on a git maintained by the library of Congress.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

Yes please. And mandatory copy.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

And who is going to pay for that? If they could afford to refund all their customers they wouldn't be going bust.

[–] Zagorath@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

The law would probably make sure customers whose products are being bricked are counted as creditors. Ideally after employees (unpaid wages) and before investors. They may not get full refunds, but they'll be entitled to something if it's possible.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Liquidatoon doesn't mean they have no money. And they still have some assets.

Also that's why we should apply mandatory copy laws to software too.

[–] Corngood@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Surely in that case they could open their software so the community can figure out what it would take to keep it running.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Their creditors would sue because thats an asset that can be sold to refund them.

[–] Corngood@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, likely true without some sort of legislation.

Well at least there's a business opportunity for someone to reanimate these things and use them to push gacha games and energy drinks on the innocent children they've bonded with.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

I think at this point they have far more important things to worry about than that.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

What they probably can do is issue an update that lets owners point it at third-party servers, and publish the API. They might even be able to publish the source code, though there's a chance they don't own all of it.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Unless they don’t have the money in which case they can’t.

[–] clgoh@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago

And Google refunded everyone who bought Stadia.

But they both have deeper pockets than a startup.