[parasubvert]

The hardware yes. Bambu's software, not quite. If you want to flash it with 3rd party firmware & use 3rd party slicers, have at it.

If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS, OK you wouldn't be alone in that, but there's no moral high ground in it.

[shakna]

Sure there is. When purchased, it was able to do something. Due to an update, the customer has now been misled, because a feature was removed.

In most countries, that would violate consumer rights. There's an ethics argument here.

[parasubvert]

That's a highly creative interpretation of events. The software license agreement usually upfront covers what can or cannot not change. It is pretty rare in most countries to see successful legal action for changed features, but best of luck.

[shakna]

The ACCC is more than happy to explain unenforceable terms, if you'd like to do business with Australia.

Feel free to consult Steam, Google, Meta and others, if a software license is enough to ignore consumer rights.

[parasubvert]

I look forward to them sternly changing Bambu Labs' practices!

[tankenmate]

They will just fine them into oblivion; they are known to fine companies AUD10M to AUD50M for this sort of thing, and from 1st April this year they can now fine up to AUD100M.

Will this mean that Bambu will withdraw from the Australian market? Possibly maybe probably, but the ACCC takes a very hard stance against bait and switch.

[anakaine]

The largest ACCC fine to date for a company undertaking anti consumer practices is $483m against an educational provider for misleading students.

I'd be reasonably happy to lodge a complaint if I could find a version that's reasonably articulated. As a Bambu customer in Australia I switched my printer to local mode and its been great.

[autoexec]

It's a whole lot better than the US, but AUD100M isn't enough to scare a lot of companies. A law with real teeth would go after an increasing percentage of their revenue for each offense.

[DoesntMatter22]

Australia is a small enough market to not matter much

[ga_to]

Australian customer protection laws were the initial reason why Valve introduced refunds into Steam.

[shakna]

Then why did those company fight, and not just leave...?

Worth pointing out also that the US is the odd one out, here. Europe also enforces consumer rights.

[realusername]

The only place you can change contracts at will on the company side is the US, and even there it probably depends on the state.

This kind of firmware update to remotely disable feature is also illegal in the EU

[bayindirh]

A small, more ethical company filling the void Bambu Lab left can grow much faster and eat into Bambu's market share in a relatively short time.

Yes, it's not as simple as that, but it's not that impossible either.

[josephg]

Taking functionality away from a product after you bought it is a scum move. If the law lets them get away with it, the law should be changed.

When I buy a product, I look at reviews and make my purchasing decision on the features and functionality at the time of sale. If a software update later ruins that, I want the option to get my money back.

[mttpwll]

No, it’s not creative at all, it’s what happened — I have first hand experience to corroborate this.

Regardless, at least in the US, not only are software-based ToS becoming unenforceable, but there’s a large upswing towards “right to repair” legislation, which, I think, is what you’re arguing against here… and I really think you’re going to be on the wrong side of history with your current line of thinking (despite what Bambu Labs does).

[mystraline]

The "agreement" is at best coerced, and under blackmail of hardware you bought and paid for.

At worst, its a fraudulent indefinite rental masquerading as a 'sale'.

And lets discuss 'updates that fuck over your hardware'. In dwcent countries, thats hacking, and a serious criminal charge. But lol, companies are somehow exempt.

[tannertech]

The license agreement being the AGPLv3?

[vrganj]

> If specific terms in a contract are unfair, they are not binding on you and the trader may not rely on them.

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...

[armchairhacker]

Maybe legally, but morally “you have permanent physical access to this but don’t ’own’ it” and anti-circumvention are debatable.

There’s a small benefit of anti-circumvention where businesses sell hardware for cheaper with restrictions and a TOS that prevents bypassing them. But even that doesn’t apply here because Bambu changed the software after purchase.

[tannertech]

Its the people's software though, used under AGPL by Bambu. It never was Bambu's software.

[shevy-java]

This reminds me of RMS and GPLv3. Now I personally don't use GPLv3, but this here is literally a case-in-point, and it is not even only limited to the "cloud-only". Because this now includes a company threatening to sue a developer. If they sue one developer, they, by proxy, sue all of them in principle. So RMS was kind of right.

> If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS

How does the TOS get involved here? I don't use their TOS. Why would or should they be able to enforce it? Note that it also depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, Microsoft's EULA never had any legal bearings in the EU.

[marcus_holmes]

Isn't their software based on AGPL'd code?

If so, then yes, the software too

[nwallin]

"Bambu's software" is forked from an AGPL project and is therefore itself AGPL. I have a right to fork, modify, and use it how I wish subject to the terms of the AGPL. Bambu's TOS is irrelevant. Their TOS is superceded by the terms of the AGPL.

[IshKebab]

There's absolutely a moral high ground in it. That's the point.

Nobody is arguing against Bambu's legal right to be arseholes.

[dirasieb]

ESL? look up the definition of the word moral