4 ms·
The issue is more about where on the functionality vs usability/support costs graph you draw the line. If there's a desirable feature that also has significant
by shabble 15y ago
The issue is more about where on the functionality vs usability/support costs graph you draw the line. If there's a desirable feature that also has significant drawbacks (maybe accidentally racking up heavy data charges because you unintentionally created a public unsecured WiFi WAP, or shitty battery life, or something) then it might get the chop just because it costs (too much) money to support, rather than because the general public don't want or need it.
I think the most practical solution, given that people are always going to want to push the limits of the devices, is to permit, but disclaim responsibility/liability where possible. "By accessing the root features of this phone, you're no longer eligible for $x direct support, and you're aware of $bignum ways in which this could be a Bad Idea"
The problem with that is too many people are going to put on their disclaimer-blinders, and click straight through anything that isn't Making Their Damn Internet/Facebook/Game Work, and call you anyway when it screws up. Maybe a certain barrier to entry does have some merit after all...
- ajross 15y agoI'm sorry, but the "expensive support" argument is a red herring. Is there any example anywhere of an otherwise-successful product (in any realm) whose profitability was impacted by users hacking/modifying/diddling the hardware? Carriers and platform vendors (but not, in general, hardware manufacturers) don't want users running unauthorized code because they don't want to lose access to revenue streams therein; and by extension that they fear the loss of control means they will lose access to any future revenue streams.
- bmj 15y agoI wonder how Apple did this math? I look at this way: Microsoft pushed tier-1 support, at least, to the resellers, right? I buy a Windows laptop and do Bad Things via the admin account, what do I do? Go back to where I bought it, or I call the Geek Squad. In the case of Apple products, I'd take my shiny laptop back to the Apple store, and they'll deal with it (generally). So is that support cost baked into the already-high cost of Apple hardware+software? That said, your argument is probably a good one, too--the carriers and platform vendors really do like lock-in, so they would likely do whatever they could to turn off root access.
- ajross 15y agoApple is a content provider. They get a cut of iTunes downloads. So they aren't a pure hardware manufacturer. Samsung frankly doesn't care if you root their phones once they leave the factory, but Apple loses money when you jailbreak an iPhone and start dropping torrent-sourced videos on it.