| Regarding the "right to go offline", I see an increasing trend of non-networking software that inexplicably "requires" the user to have an internet connection. This trend may have the effect of coercing users to stay connected. (Even if the "requirement" is not truly a requirement but merely a suggestion or recommendation disguised as a directive.) As such, users with the "right to go offline" may not do so because a company is telling them they must stay connected in order for some (non-networking) software to work. There are many examples of such software, and at the risk of annoying some people, I will provide some. But the nature of my question arises from the simple idea that sometimes software can accomplish it purpose without an internet connection, as will be familar to anyone who used such software before internet connections were inexpensive, "always on" or fast. This a broad concept. It applies to all software. Random example 1: Professional/hobbyist audio recording, editing software Random example 2: Unnamed operating system setting world records for number of "updates" "Office suite" software, e.g., word processor, spreadsheet, etc. Can a user record and edit audio without having an internet connection? Can a user read, create, edit a document or spreadsheet while being disconnected from the internet? There are reasons that companies want users to stay connected. However users are not always given full details on those reasons. Obviously leaving computers connected poses risks for the user. Users have to weight those risks. Should users be entitled to the full details? (Without having to use a program like "Little Snitch".) The first question to ask is: Can a given program accomplish it purpose without using the network? If yes, then the next question is: Why does a company "require" a user to have a working internet connection for the use of this software? Free use of a user's internet connection by a company enables collecting user data and potentially generating revenue from user data, e.g., through advertising. But should users give away their network bandwidth to companies to use however they see fit? Even more, should users give away their RAM as if it was an inexpensive, infinite resource? Software programs that generate revenue routinely increase "minimum RAM requirements" year by year but many times users receive no details on why the increases are needed. The reasons could be legitimate however they might also be questionable. Without consideration of the undisclosed details, how can users make informed decisions? |
The reason behind software forcing you to be on-line are quite simple: greater control and money-making potential.
- SaaS model makes a shit ton of money on the Internet; it makes deployment orders of magnitude cheaper (especially as it's cross-platform deployment), but it opens the possibility of (as the name suggests) turning what should be a product into a service - so now you get billed continuously for what you'd rather buy once, and this is ultimately possible because you can't pirate other people's servers.
- Entrepreneurs, seeing success of SaaS model, are trying to shove it everywhere. On the one hand, a lot of software that should stay native is moving into the web. On the other hand, there is this idiotic push of turning hardware into SaaS by connecting it to the cloud.
- If you're not aiming at renting your software away for money, there's at least possibility of money-making by selling data it collects.
And while I think a lot of permanently-connected software is simply designed with malicious intent, there's also developer laziness. Too lazy to learn anything but JavaScript? Let's make an Electron app. Too lazy to learn how to build native software? Let's host everything on our side and make an "embedded browser" mobile app. Too lazy to actually go out and ask users what are their problems? Let's hide "analytics" in the app[0]. And the "dev laziness" argument also explains why our applications still do mostly the same things they did 10 years ago, but max-out our current CPUs.
This all should be opposed, but I don't see it happening - the commercial and laziness incentives are all turning everything into cloud-first SaaS solutions.
--
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11566720