Yet another example of a 'Smart device' company deciding that - No. You Don't actually Own The Thing.
"Smart home device maker Futurehome is forcing its customers’ hands by suddenly requiring a subscription for basic functionality of its products.
“You lose access to controlling devices, configuring; automations, modes, shortcuts, and energy services,” a company FAQ page says." - ArsTechnica
arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/0…
Futurehome smart hub owners must pay new $117 subscription or lose access
The connected devices now only work manually without a subscription.Scharon Harding (Ars Technica)
myrmepropagandist
in reply to Faintdreams • • •myrmepropagandist
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •There is a very funny (well it used to be funny) chapter in one of his books where he gets in an argument with the door to his apartment which won't let him out since he hasn't paid for it. I think he also has to argue with the fridge.
Man was a visionary.
Unfortunately.
Will electronic connected doors threaten people they will unlock if you don't pay the new monthly fee?
We already have someone sitting in the dark because of Futurehome.
myrmepropagandist reshared this.
Andrew Drake
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird when we moved into our current house, I put a smart lock on a door that goes to the garage because I figured it would be useful to be able to let contractors in, or neighbors if something happened while we were traveling, etc.
The one non-negotiable was that the lock had to be fully mechanically functional. Keyhole on the front and thumb turn inside, both working with or without power. It's amazing how many didn't meet that very basic criteria!
garland
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Dave Fischer
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird He also had a bit in a novel from the late 60s in which people had access to a global computer network, but used it to play games while they were supposed to be working.
(I wish I could send a message back in time, to tell him that I was chatting about his book with strangers on a global computer network when I was supposed to be working.)
diyelectromusic
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird Ubik iirc... yes, seemed very funny at the time - and I liked the way the occupant had to wait for a visitor to call to then lend them (again) the cash to open the front door!
As I say... at the time...
excited for the mastodon rise
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird Been hoping writers will stop writing warning dystopian futures and start writing like...soap operas set in utopian futures.
Folks'll still have people issues if and when the world is better. Let's just show that. Show the world being great, and then have like..whatever human interest set on that backdrop to tell the story.
Or just do like..ted lasso stuff, but in the future, where it's all good people and sometimes people make mistakes and there's competition to have
Just Bob ♒🇺🇲🪖🐧
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird @Faintdreams@dice.cam
I instantly thought of George Orwell...
Brian Marick
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird @GeePawHill Recently redid /Dr. Bloodmoney, or How We Got Along After the Bomb/. Of Dick futures, that one’s OK, verging on “cozy.”
Well, except for the majority of the populace who died.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Bloo…
novel by Philip K. Dick
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)