In this age when everything can be purchased as part of a subscription, it is understandable that people complain about not being able to buy things outright. So when news broke that Logitech was considering a subscription-based mouse, it was widely met with disdain. In fact, Logitech had to deny that it had any plans to make this ridiculous idea a reality.

Last month, Logitech CEO Hanneke Faber shared his plans for a so-called "Forever Mouse" with The Verge. He claimed that Logitech engineers are developing a mouse that you will never want to part with; Faber likened it to a high-quality watch that, with proper maintenance and care, will not mind its age.

Not surprisingly, few companies, especially in the high-tech industry, sell such a superior product that you will never want to buy from that company again. Therefore, it was explained that the mouse is a service model, with ongoing subscriptions providing access to software updates over time.

Faber was speaking hypothetically in the interview, but she admitted, "I don't think we're necessarily super far from that." Faber also said that she "probably" envisions a subscription mouse, which would really be a virtual Forever mouse. This time, he likened subscriptions for software updates to modern videoconferencing software.

Obviously, this is a tremendously stupid idea, and it is no wonder that Logitech has already retracted these comments and insists that a "Forever Mouse" is not in development.

The internet uproar over the idea of subscribing mice is fairly universal. Logitech has backed away from these comments, claiming that the Forever Mouse is not something the company plans to release.

Nicole Kenyon, Logitech's head of communications, told various media outlets that "there are no plans for a subscription mouse." She later added that Faber's interview was not about "actual or planned products," but rather a peek into provocative internal thinking about the possibility of a more sustainable consumer electronics future.

Provocative is definitely the right word, but perhaps not what Logitech meant. Big tech companies like to use words like "disruptive" when talking about their products and their impact, but in this case they just offended people online.

It is not certain that Logitech was really working on a subscription mouse. We do know that, at least for now, Logitech is not dumb enough to try something like this right away. And hopefully any company thinking of doing something similar will see what happened here and back off before they find themselves in the same position.

Being asked to pay for software updates to a product is a thing, especially if it is a few years old. But hardware as a service is something people are very fed up with, because BMW requires a monthly fee to get their seat heaters working, and HP reports that their printers break when their ink contracts run out.

The fact that they are talking about mice is even dumber. Because it is a mouse. Mice are already one of those products that most people will continue to use until they break. Software updates also tend not to be thought of as a peripheral.

Especially with high-end, specialized equipment, that doesn't always happen, and I don't even know how to update the software on my own mouse, the Razer Deathadder V2. So I don't think I want new software enough to bother paying a subscription.

Besides, Faber's scenario only discusses paying for software, not what happens to the mouse itself. Does the subscription come with an ongoing warranty designed to ensure that the mouse is protected if it breaks or malfunctions? What happens if Logitech develops a better mouse? Furthermore, what would have happened if the subscription had lapsed and Logitech would have remotely bricked the mouse?

Thankfully, all of these questions are moot.

Comparing a mouse to a wristwatch is all well and good, until you remember that traditional wristwatch design and technology has been more or less static for centuries, compared to the pace at which modern technology has evolved. I'm all for sustainability and not upgrading a gadget just because a newer, shinier version comes along. But that can be easily accomplished without pushing the subscription model.