Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I deign to mention it, but if you were to add in a "bug" that would safely 'crash' at sparse but random-ish intervals, you could charge for maintenance.

Maintenance would consist of lowering the multiplier of "crash" occurance. So your Program is always improving. I see little difference between this and the way hardware makers cripple lower end hardware

You can sell maintenance then. Slimy, i know. But business is business.




This tactic might exist in the wild, based on some stories I've seen on DailyWTF, but I would be amazed if it didn't result in lawsuits. One of these days those "no liability" clauses are going to be removed by legislation or a blockbuster court case and whole sewerage plants are going to smash into fan factories.


Using the car analogy, crippling hardware to make it slower is an equivalent of putting speed limiter on an engine (admittedly for different reasons) which still makes it fully operational. Purposefully introducing bugs is like making airbags go off at random times so you could charge for service. Nice business practice.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: