I think you are right to sound the alarm. We are quickly moving towards greater and greater levels of integration. This seems to be one of the clearest and earliest examples of a concrete non-security-related downside to IoT.
Something else that comes to mind is the legal framework that made Google’s decision feasible.
In terms of software licensing models, prior to the move towards SaaS made possible by the Cloud, you would have had a perpetual license and ownership of the software that you purchased.
Even if a company decided to move beyond Office 2007, if you had the disk and a functioning laptop/desktop you could continue to use your aging software to your heart’s content.
The subscription model to software eliminates ownership. Today, if a software or an app is discontinued or automatically upgraded, you can’t go backwards and you don’t get a refund for the many months or years that you invested in the program. If you are fortunate, you receive sufficient warning to export your data.
Your case is different but the justification for the outcome is the same.
In this case, you purchased hardware where the functionality depended on the maintenance of software for which you possessed neither a limited nor perpetual license.
I wonder even if the warranty had not expired, what the grounds for a refund would be.
The hardware was not defective in materials or workmanship.
Unfortunately, I think the laws lag behind the technology to such an extent that the consumer, at this stage, is likely to lose.
But regardless of the fact that I think the law would support Google’s decision whether the warranty was expired or unexpired, you make us question whether we want companies to be able to decide on a whim when and for how long the things we purchase will be allowed to function.
I stand with you in saying no: We are not interested in Hardware as a Service.