6 ms·

There's nothing wrong with the appliance business model - embedded devices that use microcontrollers are Turing complete and yet no one complains about those. I

There's nothing wrong with the appliance business model - embedded devices that use microcontrollers are Turing complete and yet no one complains about those. It's only when devices are marketed as general-purpose (i.e. smartphones, PCs) but are locked down to prevent running arbitrary user-loaded code that it becomes a problem.

horsawlarway 5y ago
I disagree. I also mind when things like my tractor or my car are locked down to prevent my ability to use a 3rd party repair shop, repair it myself, or make changes so the item better suits me: The person who fucking owns that computer. I think there's a very real risk that the concept of "ownership" is going to die if we continue in this fashion. Do you own a thing if you're prohibited, intentionally - by the manufacturer - from making any changes? I'd say no. Do you own a thing if it has to check in to an online service controlled by someone else before it works? I'd say no. Instead you're just renting, and these companies are intentionally rent-seeking (in the worst possible way).
- Grimm1 5y ago
  Add that on to the fact that almost everything is rent to buy with "incentives" shoved in your face for never actually finishing out the contract to own something, like your phone. I think ownership for everyone outside of some select few is in very real danger and I've thought so for some time.
- adreamingsoul 5y ago
  I agree.
- kube-system 5y ago
  I still like my car to have an immobilizer, and locks on the ignition and doors. There is certainly some level of access controls that most people definitely want.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    That's not what people are taking about, though. Certainly people want security features that make it more difficult for someone else to steal their car. But those features should be under the control of the owner of the car, not the manufacturer.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      It's really hard to do that and make the thing a consumer-friendly product. We've been trying to solve this problem for most of the history of computers, yet, attacking authentication (often indirectly) is still the #1 way that computers are compromised. Most people simply are unable to properly handle private keys. All of the systems with the highest levels of consumer satisfaction have third parties that manage (or at least can override) keys on the user's behalf. Systems that do what you're suggesting are notoriously plagued with issues surrounding key management to the point where they never reach mainstream use. i.e. PGP, bitcoin, etc.
  - dTal 5y ago
    And who owns the keys to those things? You, or the manufacturer?
    - kube-system 5y ago
      Many vehicles have the keys stored in their ECU/Immobilizer signed/encrypted with the manufacturers' key. There are some (mostly older) where you can directly reprogram the eeprom but those cars are easier to steal, because anyone can also do this.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Those are still "yours" in a sense, so don't fall into the feature set the poster you are replying to is talking about. Though the immobilizer somewhat skirts the line. (Or at least from my personal view). Think John Deere implementing software lockouts in the tractor ECU. That is nothing more than forcing their business model onto the end user through digital logic.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  I think as long as you're willing to give up your warranty on your tractor/car/whatever because you're hacking on it with 3rd party tools/firmware you should be able to do whatever you want with it. Just remember it's a two way street and everything has a price, you will have to give up something to get something.
glsdfgkjsklfj 5y ago
> no one complains about those YOU do not complain about those. I complain about my TV showing me ads. I complain about my car not resetting one annoying light when i change the oil. I complain about the proprietary connectors on my generic batteries that restrict me to one brand of power tools (that get's discontinued for new proprietary connectors every 2 years). It's fine if you love exploitation capitalism. But don't go assuming crap about others.
pdkl95 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization So many people complained about not being able to run their on firmware on the TiVo that it caused the GPL to be updated to version 3. While Turing machines are universal, there are practical limitations of the hardware. A tiny embedded microcontroller with kilobytes (or less) of memory is not an attractive target for customization or repurposing. Today it is probably easier/cheaper to simply buy a Rasberry PI or similar. Also, some companies understand that they are in the business of selling hardware and don't particularly care what you do with it.
CivBase 5y ago
As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you've publically released an SDK and invited third parties to form businesses off of developing software for your device, you have no right to represent the device as an appliance. At that point it is obviously a general purpose computer.
- criddell 5y ago
  Would you call things like the Amazon Echo and Sony Playstation general purpose computers?
  - CivBase 5y ago
    Yes.
dalbasal 5y ago
>> There's nothing wrong with the appliance business model Do you mean that literally? There is daylight between "appliances shouldn't exist" and "there's nothing wrong with appliances." I mean, I agree that microcontrollers and smartphones/PCs are different. There's obviously something wrong if problems emerge at some point along a scale. There's no real defining line between GPCs and microcontrollers. I also don't think it's a problems if someone somewhere has a locked down PC. It is a problem if most people do.

horsawlarway 5y ago

I disagree. I also mind when things like my tractor or my car are locked down to prevent my ability to use a 3rd party repair shop, repair it myself, or make changes so the item better suits me: The person who fucking owns that computer. I think there's a very real risk that the concept of "ownership" is going to die if we continue in this fashion. Do you own a thing if you're prohibited, intentionally - by the manufacturer - from making any changes? I'd say no. Do you own a thing if it has to check in to an online service controlled by someone else before it works? I'd say no. Instead you're just renting, and these companies are intentionally rent-seeking (in the worst possible way).

Grimm1 5y ago
Add that on to the fact that almost everything is rent to buy with "incentives" shoved in your face for never actually finishing out the contract to own something, like your phone. I think ownership for everyone outside of some select few is in very real danger and I've thought so for some time.
adreamingsoul 5y ago
I agree.
kube-system 5y ago
I still like my car to have an immobilizer, and locks on the ignition and doors. There is certainly some level of access controls that most people definitely want.
- kelnos 5y ago
  That's not what people are taking about, though. Certainly people want security features that make it more difficult for someone else to steal their car. But those features should be under the control of the owner of the car, not the manufacturer.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    It's really hard to do that and make the thing a consumer-friendly product. We've been trying to solve this problem for most of the history of computers, yet, attacking authentication (often indirectly) is still the #1 way that computers are compromised. Most people simply are unable to properly handle private keys. All of the systems with the highest levels of consumer satisfaction have third parties that manage (or at least can override) keys on the user's behalf. Systems that do what you're suggesting are notoriously plagued with issues surrounding key management to the point where they never reach mainstream use. i.e. PGP, bitcoin, etc.
- dTal 5y ago
  And who owns the keys to those things? You, or the manufacturer?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Many vehicles have the keys stored in their ECU/Immobilizer signed/encrypted with the manufacturers' key. There are some (mostly older) where you can directly reprogram the eeprom but those cars are easier to steal, because anyone can also do this.
- salawat 5y ago
  Those are still "yours" in a sense, so don't fall into the feature set the poster you are replying to is talking about. Though the immobilizer somewhat skirts the line. (Or at least from my personal view). Think John Deere implementing software lockouts in the tractor ECU. That is nothing more than forcing their business model onto the end user through digital logic.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
I think as long as you're willing to give up your warranty on your tractor/car/whatever because you're hacking on it with 3rd party tools/firmware you should be able to do whatever you want with it. Just remember it's a two way street and everything has a price, you will have to give up something to get something.

glsdfgkjsklfj 5y ago

> no one complains about those YOU do not complain about those. I complain about my TV showing me ads. I complain about my car not resetting one annoying light when i change the oil. I complain about the proprietary connectors on my generic batteries that restrict me to one brand of power tools (that get's discontinued for new proprietary connectors every 2 years). It's fine if you love exploitation capitalism. But don't go assuming crap about others.

pdkl95 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization So many people complained about not being able to run their on firmware on the TiVo that it caused the GPL to be updated to version 3. While Turing machines are universal, there are practical limitations of the hardware. A tiny embedded microcontroller with kilobytes (or less) of memory is not an attractive target for customization or repurposing. Today it is probably easier/cheaper to simply buy a Rasberry PI or similar. Also, some companies understand that they are in the business of selling hardware and don't particularly care what you do with it.

CivBase 5y ago

As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you've publically released an SDK and invited third parties to form businesses off of developing software for your device, you have no right to represent the device as an appliance. At that point it is obviously a general purpose computer.

criddell 5y ago
Would you call things like the Amazon Echo and Sony Playstation general purpose computers?
- CivBase 5y ago
  Yes.

dalbasal 5y ago

>> There's nothing wrong with the appliance business model Do you mean that literally? There is daylight between "appliances shouldn't exist" and "there's nothing wrong with appliances." I mean, I agree that microcontrollers and smartphones/PCs are different. There's obviously something wrong if problems emerge at some point along a scale. There's no real defining line between GPCs and microcontrollers. I also don't think it's a problems if someone somewhere has a locked down PC. It is a problem if most people do.