dessant

Anyone in Wi-Fi range can exploit the device. The sensors of the air purifier can be used for spying, and the device could also serve as a hopping point for exploiting other devices in your home.

The issue is what happens to these toothbrushes in a couple of years when their vulnerabilities will be discovered. Their inevitable exploitation could be prevented by simply allowing to turn off bluetooth. Or even better, only enable bluetooth if the user wants to set up and use these smart features, at least in that case the vulnerable firmware can be updated using the smartphone app.

A warning about Philips electric toothbrushes: you cannot turn off Bluetooth on them, even if you are not using the smart features.

Also be careful with all Philips air purifiers that support Wi-Fi, because the remote control feature cannot be disabled. They create a Wi-Fi hotspot that you need to connect to with a smartphone to finish setting up the device, but if you don't use these features, the air purifier will create a permanent Wi-Fi hotspot, waiting to be exploited.

Of course, but these are thinner and prettier because of the pre-cut shapes.

Through a series of unfortunate events I ended up briefly owning seven brand new Beoplay Portal PC/PS headphones in the summer of 2022, and keeping the last one that was purchased in exasperation.

The products were all bought from three different authorized dealers across the EU, and despite the serial numbers and manufacturing dates being spread out, mostly all of the headphones had manufacturing deffects:

- The clamping force of the headbands had considerable variation, some of the headphones were very comfortable, one fell off from your head if you looked down, while two of them caused headaches after wearing them for 20 minutes

- The firmness of the foam inside the earpads and of the lambskin also had variations

- Some of the products made a popping sound if you slightly pressed the cushion on the headband

- The painted white L and R letters inside the earcups had various brown spots

- Three headphones made a squeaking sound when you adjusted the length of the arms, one of them was also squeaking during normal use

- The material of the storage bag was half as thick if the product had a later serial number

- One of the products had a broken BLE module and would not connect

I got some casual use out of the headphones I have kept for about 6 months, and despite treating the product like jewelry, the headband cushion material has started separating from a hidden seam. The product was quickly replaced by Bang & Olufsen.

An app is required to adjust the EQ and access other features that are advertised on the sales page, but the app forces you to sign up for a B&O account and share personal information such as your name and email address, then register the product. You couldn't find any information about the requirement for account setup and product registration anywhere, not on the sales page, and not in the user manual. I believe this is at least a GDPR violation.

The headphones sometimes forget the customized settings, and after a couple of months of use, the app now has a hard time connecting to the paired device.

The headphones all sounded great, but from what I've read and experienced, Bang & Olufsen seems to hide shoddy manufacturing tolerances behind bespokeness, even for their most expensive products, and I doubt this is the user experience the rich are craving.

From a quick look on GitHub the projects were not just an initial effort with little time invested in after release, but were actively developed for years. This year alone there are several releases which contain new features.

If I'm not mistaken, they were publishing the exact same version on both app stores, and the apps could be purchased or some of the features were put behind in-app purchases on Google Play. This is a reasonable funding model that has allowed many open source apps to thrive, though in this developer's case maybe it did not meet their needs.

Maybe it's not your intention, but from your comments it comes across like you're putting very little value on other people's work. It was probably a substantial effort that took years to bring these projects to the usability and popularity that they achieved. Again, i'm not sure why did the user above find it problematic to have a paid version of the app on Google Play, and the same version with the same features distributed for free on F-Droid.

I'm not familiar with these projects, so I'm not sure how much time it would take to just keep them afloat, but I've seen they are popular and beloved apps. Looking at the GitHub activity, they have been actively developed for years, and several releases a year also contain new features. This was more than likely a full-time job for the developer.

It's regrettable that the funding model of these projects did not work out, and that the developer sold these apps without informing users about the change of ownership.

Though it feels like at this point we are bargaining for the amount of free work we are expected to get from this person, while sneering at the prospect of there being a paid version of the app published on Google Play as part of the original funding model that was in place long before the sale.

Some of the largest projects on F-Droid are all funded either by having a paid version on Google Play, accepting donations, or a company funding their development by hiring the maintainers. Most of the software you can install from a distro repository are also developed in large part by people that are compensated in some form, if the project requires continued development.

Money always ends up in the equation when you have to invest years of your life maintaining and supporting a project. And that's perfectly fine and healthy, because it means you can find a path that does not result in either side being exploited.

As for your last point, I was not responding to developers selling out their users, which is unfortunate, but to the expectation to not have a premium/paid version of a software project distributed. I think the developer even shared the pro version for free on F-Droid (OsmAnd does the same), yet the existence of a paid version was regarded as something negative by the user above.

If you're uncomfortable with the taught of you or at least someone else funding the development of the software you use, you're only setting yourself up to be exploited.

> Exactly what kind of funding does it need?

I assume your time also has value. Open source software does not have to be shared free of charge, especially not when you need to invest your time and money to package and distribute the software and offer support for the project. The kind of puritan definition of open source that you're alluding to is only playing into the hands of the megacorps that are exploiting their users.

People deserve to be compensated for their work, especially when their work finds an active audience, even if they maintain an open source project.

> Oh, no. I liked those tools, but I don't let them update since they started having "premium versions".

Expecting project maintainers to solely fund the development of open source projects used by millions of people is the leopard that keeps eating our faces.

> Yes, and it's people's prerogative to write reviews criticizing the software that is published, regardless of whether it's paid or not.

Do you think that review was respectful, now that you know that the donation prompt was not obtrusive nor randomly shown (see my other comments, it has been explained in detail)? Don't you feel that the way this person expressed themselves was rather demeaning, and perhaps somewhat unjust?