One of the things that has been on my mind more and more over the past few years is the fact that more and more things are becoming services rather than products. While cloud and server technologies have long since given way to the dominance of software as a service (SaaS), our beloved peripherals also seem to be moving in the direction of other subscription products, such as coffee beans, TVs, printer ink, etc.

Hanneke Faber, Logitech's CEO since October 2023, recently told The Verge that "the eternal mouse is one of the things we want to get to."

Thanks to The Verge editor-in-chief Nilay Patel's candid question) we wondered, "What is it that we want to get to?" I had, Faber says that we can "probably" envision this "eternal mouse" becoming a subscription mouse.

This comes right on the heels of a discussion about ongoing service dependence, with Faber saying, "We are design-driven and provide hardware that is software-enabled. This software, of course, is often open via an ongoing service, perhaps a paid subscription.

This service component of Logitech's software seems to be justified in part by the "passion for sustainability" of its employees. This passion was discovered after the company invited "7,000 employees" to "co-creation sessions around the world" and asked them for "three things you want, three things you would add or change" about Logitech's strategy.

In theory, it makes sense that subscription mice are more sustainable: buy once, pay for updates and fixes. Buy once, pay for updates and fixes. Less manufacturing required, less waste in packaging.

The question is whether a subscription-based mouse can offer everything we currently get from a mouse. Faber's focus seems to be on keeping the software up-to-date, because the mouse itself is "great quality" and "well designed," like a Rolex watch that never needs to be upgraded.

But the difference is that no one who buys a Rolex watch wants or needs the latest physical technology. Logitech would have to believe that their eternal mouse will never be surpassed in physical technology. They will have to believe that they have reached their limits in shell material, internal design, physical sensor technology, and battery life. None of these can be radically improved with software updates. Not to mention concerns about aging.

That is, unless Logitech makes their forever mouse modular. We are already seeing the modular trend begin to take hold in other areas with the Framework 16 modular gaming laptops. In the case of mice, however, users would rather buy a new one than bother replacing shells, batteries, and sensors.

Furthermore, if Logitech were to go modular, what would that mean in terms of sustainability?

But in the end, the main problem people may find with the eternal mouse is that, let's face it, many of us don't like having to continually pay for something we used to just own, which is just another way of saying subscription mouse I think it's that many of us don't like having to continually pay for something we used to just own. Just how much of our digital space is offered as a subscription service rather than with an upfront price tag is already unsettling.

In a way, physical product-as-a-service is nothing new. Just think about a house: ever since humans realized that they could claim ownership of physical space, living and working spaces have probably been rented out. Renting, one might say, is a natural consequence of the ownership system. And while there are certainly differences, property-as-a-service is, after all, very similar to renting, since both require ongoing payments to maintain the use of the property.

But that's on a large timescale. On shorter timescales, it is arguably a bit unsettling that we always know that it is a one-time product that requires a subscription to use and maintain, with no rental or service payments required.

We all know that moving from a prepayment to a subscription model means trade-offs. For the user, it usually means paying more in the long run and not really feeling like you own it, but paying over time in more manageable chunks. It also hopefully means a guarantee of product support, including ongoing warranties and updates. It seems that it is these latter benefits that Faber is emphasizing with Forever Mouse.

In an ideal world, this would produce the best that capitalism has to offer, allowing end users, companies, and the world to benefit. Logitech could improve sustainability and reduce manufacturing costs, and we would pay less in the short term for a quality product with ongoing support. The only question is whether it will actually work.

There is also the question of whether we need it in the first place. That is, how many of us really face the problem of old mouse software?

There seems little need for a forever mouse, and the cynic in me sees this prospect as nothing more than an attempt to switch from a business model that is working well to one that takes more from the end user and gives less in return. Logitech may make the best gaming mice, but let's not forget that it is a profit-driven business just like any other.

.