4 ms·
Many products with embedded systems ship with the same firmware regardless if it’s the basic/mid/pro model where features are enabled/disabled with a flag set i
by simonbarker87 6y ago
Many products with embedded systems ship with the same firmware regardless if it’s the basic/mid/pro model where features are enabled/disabled with a flag set in the EEPROM. So to charge a customer $XX more the company just has to flip a bit at production time. Is that ethically ok do you think? Not sure I have an opinion either way so just curios, but it’s not a million miles from this scenario above .
- Jasper_ 6y agoIt's certainly not the same. In one case, the client had already paid for the feature but weren't aware, and a salesperson told them they needed to upgrade to unlock it (a lie). In the latter case, they simply didn't pay for the feature. Is it ethically wrong to ship chicken bits like that? You can make arguments either way (e.g. a device might not have been QA'd or tested for the disabled features, and the feature itself might be faulty, e.g. that's extra support labor they didn't pay for). But that's a different question to whether the salesperson should have sold them a feature they already had access to.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y agoThose features cost money to develop, but if someone is paying you for a feature and isn't using it, it's probably unethical to charge them.
- throwaheyy 6y agoIt’s totally fine. They’re not paying for the bits burned into the EEPROM, they’re paying for the effort it took to develop the capabilities.