Disabling online features in retaliation: Difference between revisions

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==Why it is a problem==
-{{Ph-T-WIIAP}}
+'''Manufacturer directly inflicts harm'''
+The manufacturer has the ability to inflict immediate and direct harm by reducing the utility and value of the product whenever the manufacturer sees fit, based on terms that the manufacturer imposed.
+Even if the customer has any recourse available, the manufacturer can decide to keep online features disabled during the dispute.
+'''Chilling effect'''
+Customers may refrain from using their product in otherwise legal ways, due to fear of the manufacturer retaliating.
+'''Anti-competitive'''
+Business may use this tactic to force the consumer to only buy only first party accessories / replacement parts. Regardless of whether the third party products can be legally put on the market, the manufacturer can still threaten the customer with an online ban. This stifles competition in the product's after-market.
+'''Perverse incentive to add online features'''
+Manufacturers may design their products with an unnecessary reliance on online features to use it as an enforcement mechanism, rather than adding value to the product.
+[[File:Bricked Switch 2.png|thumb|A screenshot from a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgYTA18_vo&t=656s video by Scattered Brain], displaying his Switch 2 console being bricked]]
 ==Examples==