It should apply to all things period? If you buy an appliance (refrigerator, washing machine, Nest thermostat, TV), it feels like it should be required to function regardless of internet connection, availability of servers?
I get that it shouldn't be required to provide communication between the device and some app but it should at least be required to do it's basic function? (can't be remote shut off, can't stop working if no internet, can't stop working if it can't contact servers, ...)
I have gotten to the point where I assume everything with a CPU and a wireless connection is going to self-destruct at some point soon. When we were getting a new oven we paid extra for the lowest tech one we could find! Please no touch screens!
Example: My wife gave me a google mini that I use as a talking alarm clock. That's all: what time is it, please set an alarm. Period. Recently it told me it no longer works because I didn't install "Google Home" on my phone. Nothing changed on the device or its circumstances. Someone at Google decided to make a change that broke it.
You're lucky that you got it working from the store. You can't actually activate most IoT devices without a phone, a mobile number and an internet connection. All of which have to be supported by that brand, not just those physical items.
I noticed this with Nanoleaf Essential Smart LED bulbs, the ones sold by Apple. They come out of the box, requiring to you install the app and register an account before they will start going full brightness. They'll only go like 25% bright until you've installed the app. These are the bulbs Apple sells. So much for caring about privacy. If Apple cared, they wouldn't be carrying a brand that requires you to give up your privacy.
Well, I guess I can dust off my old RS232 interface dot-matrix printers and 10MB SCSI drives, then. Anyone got any paper for an old Alps dot-matrix printer?
To expand on this a little, the author of the petition felt that it HAD to be limited to just video games on its face, the idea being to sneak a toe in the door through innocuous legislation.
In reality, this would set a legal precedent for preserving everything from phone games to major enterprise software.
This was not the immediate goal though, because if it gained any traction it would get so much pushback from the major industry players that passing new regulation would be effectively impossible.
A TL;DR of the whole situation is, there are currently no laws that keep publishers from selling you software and intentionally breaking it, leaving you with nothing. Games are a unique version of this; you can't just download an open source clone because there almost never is one due to copyright issues.
(this does not apply to subscription-based software, the license terms are clear that your use expires with the subscription)
