@dangillmor If anyone with a @garmin watch is pissed off about #Garmin retroactively revoking owners' #RightToOwn in favour of #enshittification, or if anyone else is in the market for a new smart watch, ask the #UNAWatch company and its personnel what technical and legal means they will use to guarantee they can never follow Google #Fitbit and Garmin into the same anti-consensual ¹ business model.
A technical guarantee is a hardware-based means to flash the firmware which the firmware itself cannot prevent using, paired with complete published open-access documentation of the hardware for independent developers. A legal guarantee means a permanent and irrevocable commitment to a full refund if the company ever engages in coercive tied selling, as by making use of any watch feature dependent on an online service the feature can function without, on a paid or non-#E2EE online service (save only if the owner opts into sharing data, and then making that data available to those with whom the owner elects to share), or an an online service the owner cannot replace, at the owner's sole discretion, with self-hosting or a competing service of their choice.
¹ The standard word "non-consensual" means the person didn't voluntarily say "yes"; I use "anti-consensual" here to mean the person said "no"—or the perpetrator knew beforehand the person would say "no" if given a chance—and the perpetrator did it anyway. It's bad enough not to ask; companies enshittifying already-purchased goods are instead acting in knowing and direct defiance of owners' refusal. The business model Garmin is adopting, following Fitbit, is actively contemptuous of consent ².
² Burying supposed "consent" in a EULA doesn't ethically count: if the owner cannot effectively refuse the change, or if continued full use of the original functionality—or anything else for which consent isn't strictly necessary (in the GDPR sense)—is conditioned on supposed "consent," then it isn't freely given, and so isn't valid consent.