9 ms·

This is really cool! However, it breaks my heart that talented people have to spend their time on something like this - companies should be required to release

This is really cool! However, it breaks my heart that talented people have to spend their time on something like this - companies should be required to release a documentation for consumers so they can fully use their products. Otherwise you don't really buy e.g. a Mac, only a privilege of using whatever Apple cooked up for you. This erosion of ownership should stop. If you bought a computer in the 80s you could get everything you need to write your own operating system etc. you could get schematics, parts and so on. Today you pay a lot of money for an illusion of owning something. I get that many people don't care, but this is not the world I want to live in. Hopefully initiatives like right to repair will change it and companies like Apple will be forced to treat consumers like consumers and not sheep that they can fleece as they please. Apple (and other big corporations) should serve consumers, not shareholders.

svenpeter 6y ago
hi, and thanks! I'm the author of this post and I'm a little bit conflicted where I stand in this discussion. In general, I agree that the world would be a better place if corporations would release documentation. But my life would be much less fun then. Reverse engineering scratches a certain itch like nothing else does! So I'm kinda happy that mysteries like this exist and gladly spend my time on something like this :-)
- rowanG077 6y ago
  Well it's not like you couldn't scratch that itch. Biology and medical sciences are the most hardcore reverse engineering club there is.
- beckman466 6y ago
  > But my life would be much less fun then. Reverse engineering scratches a certain itch like nothing else does! Totally, yet at the same time I'm worried that knowledge workers aren't aware enough of just how privileged they are to have been able to 'climb the ladder' to be able to do work like that, and how, unless you're 1) well off and 2) living in the global north, gaining such skills has been made nearly impossible because the ladders needed to climb up are often not available, despite humans having been gifted digital technology (and therefore a zero-marginal cost of information reproduction). As an example: I'm not technically skilled enough to reverse engineer the things I'd like to, and because of the way knowledge is controlled by big companies as trade secrets and patent claims [1], it's near impossible to gain these skills in an affordable way. I also cannot take apart the technology I already own since it is not modular, it voids the warranty or is it is damaged (since I'm not skilled because I didn't realize early enough how important technology is). So yes, it sounds super fun for you to reverse engineer this stuff, yet when are we going to seriously admit that this IP system has become a massive problem, and that the people who came before are literally 'kicking away the ladder' they used to climb up themselves? That when people say that the only thing people need to do to succeed is to 'work hard', that that is a lie, since information is made artificially scarce by human systems/institutions, and thus only available to a select few [2]. Edit: I just saw on your twitter that you are a console hacker, thanks for the awesome work! [1] https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-purge-elon-musk-just-another-hypocritical-tech-billionaire/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-pur... [2] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I don’t want to diminish your personal efforts, but gaining reverse engineering skills is something you can largely do on your own for free: it is, after all, a popular hobby of children who have nothing but time on their hands and access to the Internet. You certainly don’t need to buy hardware or have access to special training to get started. And, to be clear, I do think the current situation of closed systems is not great, and I do think that we do have a lot of engineers who grew up on open systems that they could tinker on going on to design things like iPhone for their children to use. These are real problems, but I just wanted to say that blog posts like these are not the problem; in fact I think they are beneficial as they allow more people to have access to this kind of information.
    - svenpeter 6y ago
      > it is, after all, a popular hobby of children who have nothing but time on their hands and access to the Internet. You certainly don’t need to buy hardware or have access to special training to get started. yup, that's how I learned all of this! > And, to be clear, I do think the current situation of closed systems is not great, Agreed! > and I do think that we do have a lot of engineers who grew up on open systems that they could tinker on going on to design things like iPhone for their children to use. These days there are also more open system like, say, the Raspberry Pi. Back in my day (oh god, I'm growing old!) we had to first exploit video game consoles to get something comparable :-) We made a slightly related argument when we didn't really feel like driving the WiiU homebrew scene almost 8 years ago (stop making me feel old!) [1] [1] https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2013/espresso/ https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2013/espresso/
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        I think the situation is complicated. For hobbyists it certainly seems like the situation has gotten much better: there's lots of well supported, cheap microcontrollers and little boards for people to play with. But I think for the average user, the situation has regressed. I've heard of many an engineer who got into programming because they played around with BASIC and system extensions on their home computer, because those systems were open and easy to get started on doing that sort of stuff. These days, a child's computing device might be an iPad, or a Chromebook; they're certainly fine for getting work done, but they don't feel like they "invite experimentation" in the same way as systems of the past might've.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  I still think there would certainly still be plenty interesting things to reverse engineer even if mainstream computing hardware would be open as it should be. Some obscure HPC stuff, vintage mainframes, old games with long lost source code, historic military computing harware, CNC controllers & industrial SCADA devices, consumer device MCUs, advanced radio hardware - lot of stuff to dive into without really knowing what to expect. :)
dylan604 6y ago
I make a thing to a function that I want it to do. I release that thing so other people can do the thing I envisioned. Someone else then realizes they might be able to use the thing I made for something else entirely, but only if I provide instructions on how to do it? How is that my problem/responsibility?
beckman466 6y ago
Serious question: could anyone please share why this plea for repairable tech is so heavily downvoted by this community?
- dylan604 6y ago
  Apple makes hardware that runs macOS. They do not make hardware to run Windows/*nix. They do not need/want to support those other OSes, else, they would make a product that would do that. They have theirs and they feel it is perfectly fine for the product they are offering "thank you very much". Since day one of Apple, the Steves argued open/closed system. Up to the Apple II, Woz won. With the Macintosh and ever since, Jobs won. It is now Apple's ethos. It is theirs to decide. You are free to not like it. Others don't like it, shrug their shoulders and choose to do it anyways. Some of them will even share what they've learned, and some of those will even do that well. If you choose to follow, thank them, and join the movement. Complaing that a company isn't doing exactly what you want just seems sad and pathetic to me.
- salawat 6y ago
  Besides the sheep bit, there's two unsaid parts that ring out to me. Understanding IC's to repair them is a failing prospect. They are black boxes by nature. If you can't actually repair it without the factory, why should they write you a manual to help you repair it? Beyond that though, there is a degree of Power lost through dispelling the blackbox (information asymmetry is Power, never forget). Explaining how it works opens up PR doors places would rather not have to deal with, and cuts off avenues of development that companies in the space thrive on. See Nvidia graphics cards for an example. Nvidia doesn't "sell" you the card, in the sense of allowing you to do whatever you want with it because they can't. They are contractually required to hide implementation details around things like HDCP and the in hardware foundations of many streaming related DRM technologies. Then you have other aspects, like their move to requiring Nvidia signed firmware to access the power control of modern cards. This ensures only their driver can feasibly compete in the market and locks out any potential competition that may be able to pull off a true innovation using their own hardware platform (see nouveau and the signed firmware issue). All of this would be undone by actually being required to support user firmware implementation, and disclosing how everything works. https://docs.nvidia.com/drive/drive_os_5.1.6.1L/nvvib_docs/index.html#page/DRIVE_OS_Linux_SDK_Development_Guide/Windows%20Systems/security_fskp.html https://docs.nvidia.com/drive/drive_os_5.1.6.1L/nvvib_docs/i... The above is a link to an offering for a self-driving processing offering (therefore safety-criticality somewhat justifies the absurd guarantees of firmware lockdown), but my experience tells me that once ypu nail down a tricky process like that, you worm it into as many parallel business vehicles as you can. Just knowing another company is even capable of doing something like that is a signal of demand to competitors. Hence the desire to hide everything possible as no one else's business.
smoldesu 6y ago
Not sure why people are downvoting you, documentation of the product that I own is one of the most basic expectations I can have going into owning something. Having every interface abstracted away and being told not to worry too much about the hardware details breaks my heart, because this stuff isn't going to leak any trade secrets: it really only serves to help developers better suit their programs to run on their hardware.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  I don't understand the trade secret concern. Reverse engineering is legal. If you're afraid someone might rip off your product that's what the law is for. All they do is lock out customers from owning their devices. It's about control- plain and simple.
  - my123 6y ago
    > If you're afraid someone might rip off your product that's what the law is for. You have two mechanisms to protect from copying: trade secrets and patents. If you document it, it’s not a trade secret anymore. If another person figures it out, it’s also not a trade secret anymore. And Apple (and others) document plenty of stuff in patents. However, those aren’t loved by this community either.
    - smoldesu 6y ago
      Don't forget that if e-ink wasn't patented, there's a good chance that it would be cheap enough to integrate into everyday utilities.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        And if it wasn't patentable, there is a good chance that it would never have been developed or industrialized. It will eventually go off patent and be widely available
      - robinsoh 6y ago
namdnay 6y ago
I think it’s just a consequence of the computer market maturing. I’m sure if you bought a car in the 1900s you got detailed schematics as well
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  If you brought anything by 1980 you'd get detailed schematics. It doesn't matter if the thing was recently invented or existed for centuries. And if you buy anything nowadays you will get undocumented locked-down hardware. It doesn't happen if it's recently invented or existed for centuries.
  - inb4_cancelled 6y ago
    1980's computers compared to today's computers are like an IKEA chair compared a nuclear aircraft carrier.
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      So what? (But no, they had way more discrete components.) Compare 1980's sound systems to today's sound systems. Or 1980's fridges to today's fridges. Or washing machines, circuit breakers, whatever.
systemvoltage 6y ago
The gist of your argument is sound, but consumer culture is equally to blame as manufacturers. Consumers are used to throw-away cheap goods. People HN != consumers. Apple's consumer base is mostly iPhone users and non-techie crowd. If you bought a $30000 server, you'll get schematics and a lot of information of the product. Including motherboard traces and gerber files: https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Server/ProjectOlympus https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Server/ProjectOlympus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXZJ6jrpIKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXZJ6jrpIKU
- smoldesu 6y ago
  If these people are willing to provide schematics and motherboard traces to < 10,000 users, why can't Apple provide schematics and traces for devices being used by tens of millions of people?
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Just because we know enough to know when we are getting shafted why is that an excuse to shaft other people who don't? Intel have done some really shady things, and yet they still publish extensive documentation on how their processors work and how to get the best from them - Apple? Nothing.
  - simonh 6y ago
    That's hardly surprising. Intel sell their chips as components to be used by third parties who clearly need that information to do so, whereas Apple uses them only internally for their own products.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Not my problem.
      - simonh 6y ago
        Right, so don't buy Apple products. Again, not a problem.
yalogin 6y ago
What has repairability do with OS security? They are two different topics. You have a valid gripe about the first one but it’s misplaced in this thread
kingsuper20 6y ago
There's no point in the hivemind downvoting you, but it is an interesting question on product philosophy. One way to look at it is as ('at it is as'? English is weird) general purpose computer vs. appliance. Apple probably feels no more obligated to give you schematics, chip internals, etc. than Garmin does for a GPS. Another angle is that hardware companies are becoming more secretive over time. There weren't many secrets in a Marantz receiver or a shortwave radio. Perhaps there's been a change in approach due to low-cost Asian manufacture and the tendency to ignore IP.
- salawat 6y ago
  The IP I'd say is the core of the problem. There are only so many way ways to skin a cat (in nuts and bolts engineering). When constrained by physics, everyone is going to converge on the same fundamental designs. You therefore have two or three options. Take or leave the licensing agreement of the IP holder, which need not be reasonable or effective; say screw it, use the IP and hide the schemata behind enough trade secret bs red tape that no one is comfortable leaking it, or give up. I wager the second option contributes to things when number 1 fails. At least, it's the only reason that holds water for me, then again, I haven't gotten into that industry enough to vouch for the presence of skeletal remains in the closet.
- Someone 6y ago
  There also is a lot more to document. That Marantz receiver or shortwave radio probably had less than 100 transistors. Your smartphone has billions. The cost of providing documentation alone may be sufficient reason not to provide it to customers (yes, they have documentation, but that may not be sufficiently checked for use in a B2C setting, where you likely can’t provide documentation with a “reality may be different” disclaimer) I also think that, historically, electronics were documented because they broke down so often. You just had to be able to spot a broken tube in your radio, clean a potentiometer, etc.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Note that these features exist on the M1.
troutmskreplica 6y ago
If you bought a PC-compatible clone in the 80s you had a good chance of being able to find documentation of some kind to tell you about how pieces of the hardware itself worked. Not at all the case for other kinds of hardware, or any software. Companies being required to release documentation would increase the cost of development (passed on to the consumer) by a non-trivial amount. As it is, people inside companies usually cannot get good documentation for the things the company develops that they need to interface with. Been there, seen that. It’s unfortunate, because that can also increase costs, but usually people just muddle through with poor documentation and many email chains to ask questions about the things that are poorly documented.
mr_toad 6y ago
It’s easy to produce crap documentation though, and I think that if companies were forced to produce it, most of it would be pretty worthless. It’s the sort of job you’d give an intern if you couldn’t find something else for them to do.
imwillofficial 6y ago
This like of reasoning is absurd. I’m assuming you drive a modern car, yet can do nothing much of value in running your own software on that computer. Or your fridge, or TV, or toaster… In fact, I’d hazard a guess that the large majority of compute capable devices you own, you do not “own” according to your definition of ownership.

svenpeter 6y ago

hi, and thanks! I'm the author of this post and I'm a little bit conflicted where I stand in this discussion. In general, I agree that the world would be a better place if corporations would release documentation. But my life would be much less fun then. Reverse engineering scratches a certain itch like nothing else does! So I'm kinda happy that mysteries like this exist and gladly spend my time on something like this :-)

rowanG077 6y ago
Well it's not like you couldn't scratch that itch. Biology and medical sciences are the most hardcore reverse engineering club there is.
beckman466 6y ago
> But my life would be much less fun then. Reverse engineering scratches a certain itch like nothing else does! Totally, yet at the same time I'm worried that knowledge workers aren't aware enough of just how privileged they are to have been able to 'climb the ladder' to be able to do work like that, and how, unless you're 1) well off and 2) living in the global north, gaining such skills has been made nearly impossible because the ladders needed to climb up are often not available, despite humans having been gifted digital technology (and therefore a zero-marginal cost of information reproduction). As an example: I'm not technically skilled enough to reverse engineer the things I'd like to, and because of the way knowledge is controlled by big companies as trade secrets and patent claims [1], it's near impossible to gain these skills in an affordable way. I also cannot take apart the technology I already own since it is not modular, it voids the warranty or is it is damaged (since I'm not skilled because I didn't realize early enough how important technology is). So yes, it sounds super fun for you to reverse engineer this stuff, yet when are we going to seriously admit that this IP system has become a massive problem, and that the people who came before are literally 'kicking away the ladder' they used to climb up themselves? That when people say that the only thing people need to do to succeed is to 'work hard', that that is a lie, since information is made artificially scarce by human systems/institutions, and thus only available to a select few [2]. Edit: I just saw on your twitter that you are a console hacker, thanks for the awesome work! [1] https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-purge-elon-musk-just-another-hypocritical-tech-billionaire/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-pur... [2] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I don’t want to diminish your personal efforts, but gaining reverse engineering skills is something you can largely do on your own for free: it is, after all, a popular hobby of children who have nothing but time on their hands and access to the Internet. You certainly don’t need to buy hardware or have access to special training to get started. And, to be clear, I do think the current situation of closed systems is not great, and I do think that we do have a lot of engineers who grew up on open systems that they could tinker on going on to design things like iPhone for their children to use. These are real problems, but I just wanted to say that blog posts like these are not the problem; in fact I think they are beneficial as they allow more people to have access to this kind of information.
  - svenpeter 6y ago
    > it is, after all, a popular hobby of children who have nothing but time on their hands and access to the Internet. You certainly don’t need to buy hardware or have access to special training to get started. yup, that's how I learned all of this! > And, to be clear, I do think the current situation of closed systems is not great, Agreed! > and I do think that we do have a lot of engineers who grew up on open systems that they could tinker on going on to design things like iPhone for their children to use. These days there are also more open system like, say, the Raspberry Pi. Back in my day (oh god, I'm growing old!) we had to first exploit video game consoles to get something comparable :-) We made a slightly related argument when we didn't really feel like driving the WiiU homebrew scene almost 8 years ago (stop making me feel old!) [1] [1] https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2013/espresso/ https://fail0verflow.com/blog/2013/espresso/
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I think the situation is complicated. For hobbyists it certainly seems like the situation has gotten much better: there's lots of well supported, cheap microcontrollers and little boards for people to play with. But I think for the average user, the situation has regressed. I've heard of many an engineer who got into programming because they played around with BASIC and system extensions on their home computer, because those systems were open and easy to get started on doing that sort of stuff. These days, a child's computing device might be an iPad, or a Chromebook; they're certainly fine for getting work done, but they don't feel like they "invite experimentation" in the same way as systems of the past might've.
m4rtink 6y ago
I still think there would certainly still be plenty interesting things to reverse engineer even if mainstream computing hardware would be open as it should be. Some obscure HPC stuff, vintage mainframes, old games with long lost source code, historic military computing harware, CNC controllers & industrial SCADA devices, consumer device MCUs, advanced radio hardware - lot of stuff to dive into without really knowing what to expect. :)

dylan604 6y ago

I make a thing to a function that I want it to do. I release that thing so other people can do the thing I envisioned. Someone else then realizes they might be able to use the thing I made for something else entirely, but only if I provide instructions on how to do it? How is that my problem/responsibility?

beckman466 6y ago

Serious question: could anyone please share why this plea for repairable tech is so heavily downvoted by this community?

dylan604 6y ago
Apple makes hardware that runs macOS. They do not make hardware to run Windows/*nix. They do not need/want to support those other OSes, else, they would make a product that would do that. They have theirs and they feel it is perfectly fine for the product they are offering "thank you very much". Since day one of Apple, the Steves argued open/closed system. Up to the Apple II, Woz won. With the Macintosh and ever since, Jobs won. It is now Apple's ethos. It is theirs to decide. You are free to not like it. Others don't like it, shrug their shoulders and choose to do it anyways. Some of them will even share what they've learned, and some of those will even do that well. If you choose to follow, thank them, and join the movement. Complaing that a company isn't doing exactly what you want just seems sad and pathetic to me.
salawat 6y ago
Besides the sheep bit, there's two unsaid parts that ring out to me. Understanding IC's to repair them is a failing prospect. They are black boxes by nature. If you can't actually repair it without the factory, why should they write you a manual to help you repair it? Beyond that though, there is a degree of Power lost through dispelling the blackbox (information asymmetry is Power, never forget). Explaining how it works opens up PR doors places would rather not have to deal with, and cuts off avenues of development that companies in the space thrive on. See Nvidia graphics cards for an example. Nvidia doesn't "sell" you the card, in the sense of allowing you to do whatever you want with it because they can't. They are contractually required to hide implementation details around things like HDCP and the in hardware foundations of many streaming related DRM technologies. Then you have other aspects, like their move to requiring Nvidia signed firmware to access the power control of modern cards. This ensures only their driver can feasibly compete in the market and locks out any potential competition that may be able to pull off a true innovation using their own hardware platform (see nouveau and the signed firmware issue). All of this would be undone by actually being required to support user firmware implementation, and disclosing how everything works. https://docs.nvidia.com/drive/drive_os_5.1.6.1L/nvvib_docs/index.html#page/DRIVE_OS_Linux_SDK_Development_Guide/Windows%20Systems/security_fskp.html https://docs.nvidia.com/drive/drive_os_5.1.6.1L/nvvib_docs/i... The above is a link to an offering for a self-driving processing offering (therefore safety-criticality somewhat justifies the absurd guarantees of firmware lockdown), but my experience tells me that once ypu nail down a tricky process like that, you worm it into as many parallel business vehicles as you can. Just knowing another company is even capable of doing something like that is a signal of demand to competitors. Hence the desire to hide everything possible as no one else's business.

smoldesu 6y ago

Not sure why people are downvoting you, documentation of the product that I own is one of the most basic expectations I can have going into owning something. Having every interface abstracted away and being told not to worry too much about the hardware details breaks my heart, because this stuff isn't going to leak any trade secrets: it really only serves to help developers better suit their programs to run on their hardware.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
I don't understand the trade secret concern. Reverse engineering is legal. If you're afraid someone might rip off your product that's what the law is for. All they do is lock out customers from owning their devices. It's about control- plain and simple.
- my123 6y ago
  > If you're afraid someone might rip off your product that's what the law is for. You have two mechanisms to protect from copying: trade secrets and patents. If you document it, it’s not a trade secret anymore. If another person figures it out, it’s also not a trade secret anymore. And Apple (and others) document plenty of stuff in patents. However, those aren’t loved by this community either.
  - smoldesu 6y ago
    Don't forget that if e-ink wasn't patented, there's a good chance that it would be cheap enough to integrate into everyday utilities.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      And if it wasn't patentable, there is a good chance that it would never have been developed or industrialized. It will eventually go off patent and be widely available
    - robinsoh 6y ago

namdnay 6y ago

I think it’s just a consequence of the computer market maturing. I’m sure if you bought a car in the 1900s you got detailed schematics as well

marcosdumay 6y ago
If you brought anything by 1980 you'd get detailed schematics. It doesn't matter if the thing was recently invented or existed for centuries. And if you buy anything nowadays you will get undocumented locked-down hardware. It doesn't happen if it's recently invented or existed for centuries.
- inb4_cancelled 6y ago
  1980's computers compared to today's computers are like an IKEA chair compared a nuclear aircraft carrier.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    So what? (But no, they had way more discrete components.) Compare 1980's sound systems to today's sound systems. Or 1980's fridges to today's fridges. Or washing machines, circuit breakers, whatever.

systemvoltage 6y ago

The gist of your argument is sound, but consumer culture is equally to blame as manufacturers. Consumers are used to throw-away cheap goods. People HN != consumers. Apple's consumer base is mostly iPhone users and non-techie crowd. If you bought a $30000 server, you'll get schematics and a lot of information of the product. Including motherboard traces and gerber files: https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Server/ProjectOlympus https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Server/ProjectOlympus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXZJ6jrpIKU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXZJ6jrpIKU

smoldesu 6y ago
If these people are willing to provide schematics and motherboard traces to < 10,000 users, why can't Apple provide schematics and traces for devices being used by tens of millions of people?
mhh__ 6y ago
Just because we know enough to know when we are getting shafted why is that an excuse to shaft other people who don't? Intel have done some really shady things, and yet they still publish extensive documentation on how their processors work and how to get the best from them - Apple? Nothing.
- simonh 6y ago
  That's hardly surprising. Intel sell their chips as components to be used by third parties who clearly need that information to do so, whereas Apple uses them only internally for their own products.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Not my problem.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Right, so don't buy Apple products. Again, not a problem.

yalogin 6y ago

What has repairability do with OS security? They are two different topics. You have a valid gripe about the first one but it’s misplaced in this thread

kingsuper20 6y ago

There's no point in the hivemind downvoting you, but it is an interesting question on product philosophy. One way to look at it is as ('at it is as'? English is weird) general purpose computer vs. appliance. Apple probably feels no more obligated to give you schematics, chip internals, etc. than Garmin does for a GPS. Another angle is that hardware companies are becoming more secretive over time. There weren't many secrets in a Marantz receiver or a shortwave radio. Perhaps there's been a change in approach due to low-cost Asian manufacture and the tendency to ignore IP.

salawat 6y ago
The IP I'd say is the core of the problem. There are only so many way ways to skin a cat (in nuts and bolts engineering). When constrained by physics, everyone is going to converge on the same fundamental designs. You therefore have two or three options. Take or leave the licensing agreement of the IP holder, which need not be reasonable or effective; say screw it, use the IP and hide the schemata behind enough trade secret bs red tape that no one is comfortable leaking it, or give up. I wager the second option contributes to things when number 1 fails. At least, it's the only reason that holds water for me, then again, I haven't gotten into that industry enough to vouch for the presence of skeletal remains in the closet.
Someone 6y ago
There also is a lot more to document. That Marantz receiver or shortwave radio probably had less than 100 transistors. Your smartphone has billions. The cost of providing documentation alone may be sufficient reason not to provide it to customers (yes, they have documentation, but that may not be sufficiently checked for use in a B2C setting, where you likely can’t provide documentation with a “reality may be different” disclaimer) I also think that, historically, electronics were documented because they broke down so often. You just had to be able to spot a broken tube in your radio, clean a potentiometer, etc.
saagarjha 6y ago
Note that these features exist on the M1.

troutmskreplica 6y ago

If you bought a PC-compatible clone in the 80s you had a good chance of being able to find documentation of some kind to tell you about how pieces of the hardware itself worked. Not at all the case for other kinds of hardware, or any software. Companies being required to release documentation would increase the cost of development (passed on to the consumer) by a non-trivial amount. As it is, people inside companies usually cannot get good documentation for the things the company develops that they need to interface with. Been there, seen that. It’s unfortunate, because that can also increase costs, but usually people just muddle through with poor documentation and many email chains to ask questions about the things that are poorly documented.

mr_toad 6y ago

It’s easy to produce crap documentation though, and I think that if companies were forced to produce it, most of it would be pretty worthless. It’s the sort of job you’d give an intern if you couldn’t find something else for them to do.

imwillofficial 6y ago

This like of reasoning is absurd. I’m assuming you drive a modern car, yet can do nothing much of value in running your own software on that computer. Or your fridge, or TV, or toaster… In fact, I’d hazard a guess that the large majority of compute capable devices you own, you do not “own” according to your definition of ownership.