- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I bet the app requires cloud hosting for it to run, and its starting to eat away at the profits they made.
If it needs nothing but bluetooth, then this a pure money grab.
Usually, if it needs cloud hosting, it’s because they’re collecting your data. That presumably is a revenue stream for them.
I have one of these, and I haven’t touched the app. Works perfectly fine without it.
I personally think it’s perfectly reasonable for a company to eventually start charging for a service they provide that costs them money to provide. They might bakenin some number of years into the product price, but they can’t keep providing the service for free forever.
It seems like something that should be expected if we do want certain services to be provided and maintained. Heck, I also think that offering a subscription is better than the usual alternative, which is that the company just shuts the service down.
However, the way this is done is almost always slimy and shitty and likely is only going to get solved by regulation.
- It’s incredibly rare that IOT devices NEED cloud integration. Most of the time it really SHOULD just be local-only, or have a local option.
- If they are going to start charging for something to continue to work, unless there was already an explicit agreement that - and when - this would happen, they need to provide an alternative.
- Either documentation or open software for how an alternate cloud - including local - could be used instead.
- That info really should be mandatory to be made available beforehand in case the company shuts down.
- The subscription fee needs to be reasonable.
- Personally, I think $24/year is still far too much, but it’s still WAY more reasonable than some I’ve seen.
Should be a no-brainer.
Thing is they needed to factor this j to the cost of selling the device.
It basically costs them nothing to ru the service for this device. If they failed to calculate that as part of the sale price, that’s not the consumers fault.
Translation:
“Fuck you for not replacing your perfectly fine and still working 10 year old machine and making our line go up more. We’re gonna do our best to brick it because we want all of your money.”
Fuck capitalism. I will (and have been) doing my absolute to avoid buying any kind of physical device that requires an app to function
I will (and have been) doing my absolute to avoid buying any kind of physical device that requires an app to function
Same. It’s becoming more difficult every day.
And that’s so sad. There are a lot of (mainly Elderly people) who don’t even have a smartphone who now often can’t use the most basic stuff necessary because it needs an app.
A lot of this stuff is only useful if you have money, anyway. And poverty rates among the elderly have been climbing since the Housing Crash of '08
This is the absolute worst possible way for me to first hear about a product and company that I would have otherwise been interested in
Same. I’ve been thinking of replacing the cheap immersion circulator we have, and was going to go with Anova. This blatant enshittification is enough to make me look elsewhere.
I’ve had one for years, use it often and honestly didn’t know it had an app until today.
Fair point. I just don’t like the move, and don’t want to support a company doing it. Even putting that aside, it really makes me worried that they’re at the point that they’re trying to ride on their reputation while increasing profit margins. It makes me think that, if I buy their newer models, they’re more likely to cheap out but charge more.
Ten years before they pulled this. Hopefully the cookers can be used without the app.
