7 ms·

That's also probably true of Nintendo. I doubt the hardware has anywhere close to the revenue margins of the games themselves, or licensing games. I think the

by sh1mmer 16y ago

That's also probably true of Nintendo. I doubt the hardware has anywhere close to the revenue margins of the games themselves, or licensing games. I think the real point in the original comment was that "serious" business is unlikely to build products competing with 360 on other platforms based on an open source driver for Kinect. E.g. Activision are extremely unlikely to build video games for PC based that require a Kinect. While there might be a small cost to Microsoft in selling a few Kinect bundles to hackers who don't have, and therefore buy games for, XBox 360 in the grand scheme of things it's hardly a threat to Mircosoft's new business model and this is just the standard corporate answer to anyone tampering with their products.

tptacek 16y ago
It's Microsoft's prerogative to make business decisions for itself. They don't have to rationalize them against the C.W. of hacker forums.
- ShabbyDoo 16y ago
  Nobody's saying it isn't their right. But, it's also my right to criticize their decision as being irrational, mean-spirited, or whatever. I do question whether Microsoft should have a "right" under the DMCA to prevent me from reverse engineering their protocols though. However, that's not an argument specific to any one product encumbered with anti-circumvention schemes.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I agree (up to the point where people try to start businesses based on circumvention techniques), but note that Microsoft actually doesn't have the right under DMCA to stop people from researching ways to break Kinect.
    - frankus 16y ago
      I for one would be delighted if someone were to start a business making the razors-and-razorblades business model untenable. It's anticompetitive, distortionary, harms interoperability, and tempts businesses into spending endless amounts of money in an arms race that could better be spent making their products better.
      - rapind 16y ago
        That's just branding. There hasn't been consumer noticeable technological advancement in that market in probably 20 years or more. Honestly, is 10 blades going to increase my quality of life?
      - tptacek 16y ago
        I'm an entrepreneur. I work in a field notorious for generating a feeling of entitlement among laypeople. So, I have a hard time sympathizing with arguments that boil down to "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability.
        orangecat 16y ago
        "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". Er, yes? Claiming the opposite eviscerates property rights even more than the DMCA already does. My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability. Barring antitrust issues I have no legal or moral issues with that.
        tptacek 16y ago
        You see the right to do whatever you want with any physical object you exchange money to possess. I see the right to design, build, and offer a product to the market under whatever terms I'd like. These rights are in conflict, and I see that, but let's not pretend that there's no other side to this.
  - pageman 16y ago
    this might fall under a look-alike of the EFF iPhone exemption: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 <startquote> In its reasoning in favor of EFF's jailbreaking exemption, the Copyright Office rejected Apple's claim that copyright law prevents people from installing unapproved programs on iPhones: "When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses." <endquote>
grav1tas 16y ago
This is not true with Nintendo. They're anti-loss leader. Their philosophy calls for them to turn a profit on everything they do. Here's a quick blurb about it: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/09/7752.ars http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/09/7752.ars
- sh1mmer 16y ago
  Not to be too pedantic, but I deliberately choose my wording. I didn't say Nintendo made a loss on the hardware I said it likely has worse profit margins than selling games on their platform. Selling hardware may not actually hurt them, but it obviously their goal is to create a platform on which to upsell games.

by sh1mmer 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

It's Microsoft's prerogative to make business decisions for itself. They don't have to rationalize them against the C.W. of hacker forums.

ShabbyDoo 16y ago
Nobody's saying it isn't their right. But, it's also my right to criticize their decision as being irrational, mean-spirited, or whatever. I do question whether Microsoft should have a "right" under the DMCA to prevent me from reverse engineering their protocols though. However, that's not an argument specific to any one product encumbered with anti-circumvention schemes.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I agree (up to the point where people try to start businesses based on circumvention techniques), but note that Microsoft actually doesn't have the right under DMCA to stop people from researching ways to break Kinect.
  - frankus 16y ago
    I for one would be delighted if someone were to start a business making the razors-and-razorblades business model untenable. It's anticompetitive, distortionary, harms interoperability, and tempts businesses into spending endless amounts of money in an arms race that could better be spent making their products better.
    - rapind 16y ago
      That's just branding. There hasn't been consumer noticeable technological advancement in that market in probably 20 years or more. Honestly, is 10 blades going to increase my quality of life?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I'm an entrepreneur. I work in a field notorious for generating a feeling of entitlement among laypeople. So, I have a hard time sympathizing with arguments that boil down to "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability.
      - orangecat 16y ago
        "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". Er, yes? Claiming the opposite eviscerates property rights even more than the DMCA already does. My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability. Barring antitrust issues I have no legal or moral issues with that.
        tptacek 16y ago
        You see the right to do whatever you want with any physical object you exchange money to possess. I see the right to design, build, and offer a product to the market under whatever terms I'd like. These rights are in conflict, and I see that, but let's not pretend that there's no other side to this.
- pageman 16y ago
  this might fall under a look-alike of the EFF iPhone exemption: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 <startquote> In its reasoning in favor of EFF's jailbreaking exemption, the Copyright Office rejected Apple's claim that copyright law prevents people from installing unapproved programs on iPhones: "When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses." <endquote>

grav1tas 16y ago

This is not true with Nintendo. They're anti-loss leader. Their philosophy calls for them to turn a profit on everything they do. Here's a quick blurb about it: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/09/7752.ars http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/09/7752.ars

sh1mmer 16y ago
Not to be too pedantic, but I deliberately choose my wording. I didn't say Nintendo made a loss on the hardware I said it likely has worse profit margins than selling games on their platform. Selling hardware may not actually hurt them, but it obviously their goal is to create a platform on which to upsell games.