2 ms·

Software is not different from hardware. Digital parts aren't magic, bring no magic rights, it's still just boring old parts someone invested in engineering i

Software is not different from hardware. Digital parts aren't magic, bring no magic rights, it's still just boring old parts someone invested in engineering into a product. Even in digital, beige box server, IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, FaaS, applications, devices, apps, screens... different waterlines, none of them magic. Which waterline do you have the right to "run whatever you want"? Which waterline is a business ok to say, from here down, it's my product? Anti-circumvention laws saying DRM means hands off altogether are different from saying a maker must take extra steps to make it easier for you to mod the device they invested R&D in, must allow your mod at potential harm to other mods on the device, or a maker must change their business model to facilitate malware and benevolent app devs alike. There's a market segment for beige boxes and Raspberry PIs. Not every device with digital parts supporting digital mods, plug-ins, add-ons, cartridges, apps, whatever you call them, has to be forced to be a Raspberry Pi. You have a right to remove the warning label from your mattress, or root your phone, but Sealy doesn't have to perforate the tag and Samsung doesn't have to give you a toggle.

jacquesm 5y ago
> Software is not different from hardware. I'm sorry but this is where I'm going to have to bow out of the conversation.
EMIRELADERO 5y ago
I don't see this as a "features" problem. I think the correct way to approach this is in terms of "control". By designing their devices that way (non-unlockable bootloaders, signature verification on every app or executable with hardcoded public keys etc) companies have essentially introduced a new paradigm in which the legal owner of the device has less control over it than its manufacturer. That is the issue here.
- jrockway 5y ago
  Yeah. What people are complaining about is cryptography to prevent them from using their thing as they wish. Nobody is demanding API documentation from Sony, people are happy to reverse engineer that. But it doesn't matter because you can't give the machine valid code and have it execute, for no good reason other than that you don't know a magic number. The problem is that building platforms is expensive and if people can use your thing for whatever they want, that thing that they want is often not giving you money. My conclusion is that there shouldn't even be game consoles. They're just a tax on everyone that wants to play games.

jacquesm 5y ago

> Software is not different from hardware. I'm sorry but this is where I'm going to have to bow out of the conversation.

EMIRELADERO 5y ago

I don't see this as a "features" problem. I think the correct way to approach this is in terms of "control". By designing their devices that way (non-unlockable bootloaders, signature verification on every app or executable with hardcoded public keys etc) companies have essentially introduced a new paradigm in which the legal owner of the device has less control over it than its manufacturer. That is the issue here.

jrockway 5y ago
Yeah. What people are complaining about is cryptography to prevent them from using their thing as they wish. Nobody is demanding API documentation from Sony, people are happy to reverse engineer that. But it doesn't matter because you can't give the machine valid code and have it execute, for no good reason other than that you don't know a magic number. The problem is that building platforms is expensive and if people can use your thing for whatever they want, that thing that they want is often not giving you money. My conclusion is that there shouldn't even be game consoles. They're just a tax on everyone that wants to play games.