Spotify Is Going To Break Every 'Car Thing' Gadget It Ever Sold (theverge.com) 65
Spotify is about to render its Car Thing dashboard accessory inoperable on December 9th. Not only is the company refusing to open-source the device, it won't offer owners any subscription credit or automatic refund. "Rather, it's just canning the project and telling people to (responsibly) dispose of Car Thing," reports The Verge. From the report: "We're discontinuing Car Thing as part of our ongoing efforts to streamline our product offerings," Spotify wrote in an FAQ on its website. "We understand it may be disappointing, but this decision allows us to focus on developing new features and enhancements that will ultimately provide a better experience to all Spotify users."
The company is recommending that customers do a factory reset on the product and find some way of responsibly recycling the hardware. Spotify is also being direct and confirming that there's little reason to ever expect a sequel. "As of now, there are no plans to release a replacement or new version of Car Thing," the FAQ reads. Car Thing went on sale to the public in early 2022 for $90. Spotify halted production several months later "based on several factors, including product demand and supply chain issues."
At the time, the company said: "Existing devices will perform as intended."
UPDATE 5/30/24: Spotify Says It Will Refund Car Thing Purchases
The company is recommending that customers do a factory reset on the product and find some way of responsibly recycling the hardware. Spotify is also being direct and confirming that there's little reason to ever expect a sequel. "As of now, there are no plans to release a replacement or new version of Car Thing," the FAQ reads. Car Thing went on sale to the public in early 2022 for $90. Spotify halted production several months later "based on several factors, including product demand and supply chain issues."
At the time, the company said: "Existing devices will perform as intended."
UPDATE 5/30/24: Spotify Says It Will Refund Car Thing Purchases
I still use Pandora (Score:4, Funny)
There oughta be a law (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to sell a product, it should come with a mandatory minimum lifetime backed by the vendor.
Or be upfront about it and rent. None of this 'best of both worlds for the company, worst of both worlds for the consumer's shit.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
CA is addressing this with mandatory media literacy classes for high schoolers. But it'll be 10-15 years before those pay off and as usual it's CA only.
Meanwhile the entire South and a good chunk of the midwest is busy banning every book
Re: (Score:3)
They'd need to be less likely to fall for moral panics & culture war issues
and
Meanwhile the entire South and a good chunk of the midwest is busy banning every book that mentions queer folk
You must surely see the irony in this. On topic, are there not consumer laws that cover 'fit for purpose'? Two years of functionality seems less than would reasonably be expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans would need to radically change how they vote and who you voter for. They'd need to be less likely to fall for moral panics & culture war issues
So we need to radically change but not out of a sense of moral panic or culture war? That seems oxymoronic. Could you help us make sense of what you're saying?
Re: (Score:3)
Fraud. Implied merchantability. Ferguson Warranty Act.
We don't need more laws, just any non-corrupt prosecutors.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean Magnuson-Moss and I don't believe that would apply unless these units are in fact still covered under the standard warranty which I have to imagine Spotify waited until existing units were out of warranty to avoid such liability.
It's still shitty but shitty isn't always illegal unless we specifically make it so. This is a case to not trust Spotify again. Not the first time early adopters got the screwjob.
Re: (Score:2)
Would that stop them enshittifying it to the point of uselessness though?
I've seen companies do that when they don't want to support something. Just make it so unbearably slow and painful to operate that the customer throws it away themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
And in addition, if and when you plan to shut down any back end service that is required in order for the device to operate, you MUST release the source code for the server and provide a final firmware update that allows the user to change the server address. Both of which would allow users to build and run their own back-end services. You also lose the right to sue anyone who goes and does exactly that.
Re:There oughta be a law (Score:5, Informative)
The ironic thing. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, there were many software agreements that stipulated exactly this, to the point where source code was placed in escrow with a third party, where if the company ever failed, the customers would be handed over all those software assets and a right to use them, so they could maintain their own stuff. Especially with UNIX flavors, where any SUID binaries actually had source code, just because if they were to be trusted, they needed to have source.
Look how far we have some. /s
Re:There oughta be a law (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, before agreeing to grant them an artificial monopoly, requiring source code to be held in escrow and released when the product is out of support sounds like it would do a lot more to "advance science and the useful arts" than a 120 year copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
And in addition, if and when you plan to shut down any back end service that is required in order for the device to operate, you MUST release the source code for the server and provide a final firmware update that allows the user to change the server address. Both of which would allow users to build and run their own back-end services. You also lose the right to sue anyone who goes and does exactly that.
(You) ”Spent thousands on patent(s), only to find you can’t fund the product line anymore? Tough shit. You owe consumers even if the warranty is expired and there never was an SLA.”
Good luck selling that. Mega-corps are sitting on tens of thousands of secured-yet-unused patents in “war” chests, all for the exclusive right to sue anyone who dares even try.
Re: (Score:2)
Well not with *that* attitude ...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a great idea in theory. The "change the server" firmware is 100% doable and should be required.
Additionally at least the API/packet documentation should be released.
Unfortunately for the server backend there might be too much "other" IP, even IP that isn't owned by the developers, to make that possible. If I've licensed libraries from a third party I cannot release that source nor the actual modules without permission.
Re:There oughta be a law (Score:4, Interesting)
There have already been big court decisions around whether APIs are copyrightable; this same law could clear that up. It may still be that 3rd-party libraries remain closed source but the law could declare that the API to *use* the library is not copyrightable. Thus the source code can still be opened up because even if the actual library can't be used, examining the API will be enough to explain what it was supposed to be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
How long before streamers decide there's not enough money in this business?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to sell a product, it should come with a mandatory minimum lifetime backed by the vendor.
90% of US consumer hardware warranties are 12 months, and they stopped making these months after they hit the shelves in early 2022. The writing was on the wall for this product over a year ago.
I’m impressed they kept a dead product functional this long.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case Spotify's warranty [spotify.com] is pretty blatant about being unhelpful("This Limited Warranty only applies to hardware components and accessories of Car Thing and not to any of its software elements" is a pretty solid fuck you in the context of an embedded system whose function is mostly software; and
Re: (Score:2)
There is a law. In the UK section 14 2(A) of the Sale of Goods Act [legislation.gov.uk] says:
However to enforce such a right means going to court which takes effort and the spotify scumbags will realise that for $90 this is not worth it. But the makes this simple [www.gov.uk] and in the
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to sell a product, it should come with a mandatory minimum lifetime backed by the vendor.
Well on the upside, there's a reason this one is being discontinued. They didn't sell many at all. And I would wager that for 99.9% of Slashdot readers this is the first they'll have even heard about this product.
Early adopters get burnt.
But that said in general I agree with your ideas.
Re: There oughta be a law (Score:2)
This is why I flatly refuse to utilize any of these IOT type service tied devices. The companies offer no support and no product road map or minimum service life.
Somebody did the math (Score:3)
We can argue if they're right or wrong, but they think they're right, so that's that.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, both customers suing Spotify at once would be quickly and easily settled out of court.
Re:Well duh! (Score:5, Informative)
It appears that this was US-only thing, so there's literally nothing that EU can do about it.
Sorry to get in the way of your hate of the EU thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Explain why the EU can demand obedience to their dictates?
It is called "jurisdiction", go look it up.
The EU loves fining people
Spent half of my life under that "EU dictatorship" that you babble about, never once been fined by the EU. What did it fine you for?
More like I really enjoy trolling y'all.
Trolling? We pity your level of stupid.
Thou hast been trolled
No, you have been told. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Trolling? We pity your level of stupid.
Says the guy who can't resist replying to my trolling.
I've read your stuff as well - you troll too, at a beginners level. Practice, practice, practice, and you might get up to Youtube level trolling. You can do it - you can do the thing. I believe in you.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read your stuff as well
Oh, it appears I have a true follower, how excellent. Anyway...
What a marvelous example (Score:3)
What a marvelous example of a company pulling the rug out from under its customers.
Who knows, maybe this was the 'plan' all along. Create a mediocre product, generate some hype, cash the checks, and then dump those gullible fuckers like yesterday's trash. Just turn it off and move on to designing the next shitty, limited-lifetime product.
When asked for comment, a Spotify spokesperson said, "Tough shit, those losers shoulda known betta".
Re: (Score:2)
All five of them.
Seriously look what this thing is. It's a single app packed into a smartphone like package. It's not wonder they're discontinuing. This thing is utterly useless unless you're that weirdo that doesn't have a smartphone, but wants a smart device that constantly listens to him.
Why wouldn't you just use your smartphone?
You mean all six of them?!!! (Score:2)
There's got to be at least a half dozen actually in use. How could they do that!
What's an acceptable product life? (Score:2)
Seems like a car stereo type thing, so what, 5 to 10 years?
A lot of people would be due a refund in countries with consumer protection laws, providing they bought it locally.
Maybe Spotify only sold it in jurisdictions that hate consumers?
Such seems to be the nature of streaming.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... but the devil is in the details, isn't it. You paid somewhere in the neighborhood of a dollar per song for those permanent units. Leaving aside the possibility of bit rot, physical damage, or just plain misplacement, let's just go with that figure.
Streaming on Spotify gives you access to what... millions of songs? Just guessing. I don't actually know. Now of course most of what's available is useless to each person. The question is how much if the catalog is valuable to you. And the great majority o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A 12 song cd or record for $12 is not a bad estimate for averaging. As for bit rot, I have cds from the 90s with visible holes in them that have unrecoverable errors.
I took care to talk about "most people". There are obviously folks who have unusual music that never made it to streaming services. I have some myself. Those are the cases where ownership of physical media matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Open source is a legal problem I think (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And/or they've used proprietary code that doesn't allow them to open source it.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the more common problem. Or it is both - there's proprietary code AND there's GPL code, meaning they are in violation of the GPL and they know it.
But even if the code is just proprietary+MIT/ISC/BSD, their own code (or licensed proprietary code) may have patents in it that restrict them releasing it for free since the patent holders won't be able to easily trace where the code goes to ensure the patent licenses are paid.
Sadly the jailbreak didn't go anywhere... (Score:3)
Moar popcorn please. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you met 'people'? They are dumber than a box of rocks and they live for vanity and popularity.
Bleed the gullible.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you met 'people'?
I try not to. Most of them only disappoint me and make me not want to live on this planet anymore.
Cloud (Score:2)
Never purchase anything tied to someone else's computer. You WILL get screwed.
Responsibly recycling the hardware (Score:4, Interesting)
Ship it back to Spotify CEO's home address.
C.O.D.
It comes down to effort. (Score:2)
The enshitification continues. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just another variant of the enshitification that has overwhelmed our modern world and the Internet in general. I'm reminded of the Steve Miller Band's "Take the Money and Run."
Please stop throwing that word around. This isn't enshitification. This is a software company releasing a hardware product that was wildly unpopular, didn't sell well, and deciding actually they aren't good at it and give up.
Spotify still works the way it did before for everyone else. Every single product on the market not being a successful hit isn't "enshitification". If you want "enshitification" look to Spotify's stupid tiktok video bulllshit, or pushing podcasts to the front of the app even for users w
Greenwashing and patronizing: responsible recyclin (Score:5, Insightful)
If they actually cared about responsible recycling, they should help people or make recommendations. They know very well that most people will just put their hands up in the air and toss the thing straight in the trash, which makes their choice of words meaningless and patronizing. People should mail these devices back to Spotify's HQ and let them find a way to "responsibly recycle" the devices. if they really care, the sight of such a large pile of waste, even for a poorly selling product, will make them stop and think. It will also put some of the cost of this decision back on them. In theory, the economy of scale should mean they can recycle more efficiently and effectively.
If you are in the EU. (Score:2)
Noooo! (Score:3)
subscribers don't need new features.. (Score:2)
..like seriously. they're collecting and making money on music but they pretend that they require a lot of software development resources to maintain the app and develop features for subscribers, except, we're not the subscribers they're talking about.
the reality is that they're collecting usage data and reselling that for additional revenue. the features they're developing aren't for ordinary consumers, but it's for advertisers that want more depth and want to influence the way subscribers consume the mus
Superbird (Score:2)