4 ms·

It seems to me that this is the risk you take when you create an unofficial add-on to any product. I've helped reverse engineer vehicle ECU's to reprogram the

It seems to me that this is the risk you take when you create an unofficial add-on to any product. I've helped reverse engineer vehicle ECU's to reprogram the fuel injection, turbo pressure, and spark timing systems. But, we wouldn't have expected the manufacturer to do anything except officially discourage the use of the aftermarket tools. That is the name of the game with unofficial add-ons with access to sensitive control systems. Disclaimer: I did work for a Middleby subsidiary at the time but I don't know anything that isn't public about this situation. We were all very separate companies.

toxik 3y ago
I somehow feel it is a very different thing with ice cream machines versus automotive applications.
- gruez 3y ago
  Yes, you can probably harm an order of magnitude more people with a contaminated ice cream machine than with a defective vehicle.
  - henriquez 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - gruez 3y ago
      Mcdonalds ice cream machines being broken all the time notwithstanding, how much ice cream cones do you think a mcdonalds will sell on a summer day?
    - Der_Einzige 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - blacksmith_tb 3y ago
    It doesn't sound like the Kytch device was claimed to cause any kind of contamination, it just exposed diagnostic data? To me hacked ECUs seem much more likely to pose a danger to human health - but that's because bad drivers kill and injure a lot of people (maybe people who have done Level 3 tunes are all excellent and responsible drivers... maybe...)
    - kube-system 3y ago
      The issue isn't a problem with the product, it's a problem with undermining the chain of responsibility and liability.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >It doesn't sound like the Kytch device was claimed to cause any kind of contamination, it just exposed diagnostic data? That's what the article says, but I vaguely remember that there were mentions of overriding the machine's safety interlocks. I searched around and sure enough, I found this: >The Kytch, based on a Raspberry Pi, offered McDonald’s franchisees insight into both their machines’ operation and failures. It could also override locks that prevent the machines from working due to non-critical errors. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/mcdonalds-ice-cream-machine-teardown-shows-error-codes-dmca-keep-it-broken/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/mcdonalds-ice-cream-... (emphasis mine) As for what the device does today, I'm not so sure. Maybe they realized that overriding locks presents a safety hazard and removed that feature. Maybe they kept it in but decided not to loudly advertise it because it'd make them look bad. Who knows.
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Again, so safety issue. Let's quit struggling so hard to slander what was essentially a monitoring device.
        gruez 3y ago
        >was essentially a monitoring device. "monitoring devices" don't "override locks".
gumby 3y ago
Sometimes the after market changes increase the incentive to buy the base product. I mean that basically is the computing industry from the 360 on.
dylan604 3y ago
Funny that this is the opinion for this product, but mere mention of this concept for Beeper accessing Apple as an add-on product is thought of in a different manner. Because it's a physical product? Because it's not Apple?
- krisoft 3y ago
  Because people commenting on HN are not a hivemind. Some people think this some people think that and there is no guarantee or requirement that these independent thoughts from independent people are consistent.
  - Skunkleton 3y ago
    There shouldn't even be an assumption that two people's definition of consistent lines up. Just because you can draw an equivalence between Taylor and Apple, doesn't mean that other people will or should.
mrpippy 3y ago
I guess the difference here is that there's 3 separate parties: McDonalds corporate, Taylor (makes the ice cream machines), and the franchisee. McDonalds requires the franchisee to buy a specific machine from Taylor (or a dramatically more $$ one from an Italian company IIRC), and places other requirements on the franchisee, but is it legal to interfere in the relationship between the franchisee and Taylor?
- bumby 3y ago
  >legal to interfere in the relationship between the franchisee and Taylor? I think the term is "tortious interference" but it is notoriously very difficult to have upheld in court. You can obviously compete but you can't deliberately undermine a contract with a competitor. IANAL, but from my reading of the article, that would rely on how substantive the safety claims that McD made are in disincentivizing the use of the 3rd party equipment. (not to mention they party wasn't explicitly named in those safety communications) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
jamestanderson 3y ago
> But, we wouldn't have expected the manufacturer to do anything except officially discourage the use of the aftermarket tools. I think the issue here is that McDonalds was discouraging the use of the tool, not Taylor (the manufacturer).

toxik 3y ago

I somehow feel it is a very different thing with ice cream machines versus automotive applications.

gruez 3y ago
Yes, you can probably harm an order of magnitude more people with a contaminated ice cream machine than with a defective vehicle.
- henriquez 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - gruez 3y ago
    Mcdonalds ice cream machines being broken all the time notwithstanding, how much ice cream cones do you think a mcdonalds will sell on a summer day?
  - Der_Einzige 3y ago
    [flagged]
- blacksmith_tb 3y ago
  It doesn't sound like the Kytch device was claimed to cause any kind of contamination, it just exposed diagnostic data? To me hacked ECUs seem much more likely to pose a danger to human health - but that's because bad drivers kill and injure a lot of people (maybe people who have done Level 3 tunes are all excellent and responsible drivers... maybe...)
  - kube-system 3y ago
    The issue isn't a problem with the product, it's a problem with undermining the chain of responsibility and liability.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >It doesn't sound like the Kytch device was claimed to cause any kind of contamination, it just exposed diagnostic data? That's what the article says, but I vaguely remember that there were mentions of overriding the machine's safety interlocks. I searched around and sure enough, I found this: >The Kytch, based on a Raspberry Pi, offered McDonald’s franchisees insight into both their machines’ operation and failures. It could also override locks that prevent the machines from working due to non-critical errors. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/mcdonalds-ice-cream-machine-teardown-shows-error-codes-dmca-keep-it-broken/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/mcdonalds-ice-cream-... (emphasis mine) As for what the device does today, I'm not so sure. Maybe they realized that overriding locks presents a safety hazard and removed that feature. Maybe they kept it in but decided not to loudly advertise it because it'd make them look bad. Who knows.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Again, so safety issue. Let's quit struggling so hard to slander what was essentially a monitoring device.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >was essentially a monitoring device. "monitoring devices" don't "override locks".

gumby 3y ago

Sometimes the after market changes increase the incentive to buy the base product. I mean that basically is the computing industry from the 360 on.

dylan604 3y ago

Funny that this is the opinion for this product, but mere mention of this concept for Beeper accessing Apple as an add-on product is thought of in a different manner. Because it's a physical product? Because it's not Apple?

krisoft 3y ago
Because people commenting on HN are not a hivemind. Some people think this some people think that and there is no guarantee or requirement that these independent thoughts from independent people are consistent.
- Skunkleton 3y ago
  There shouldn't even be an assumption that two people's definition of consistent lines up. Just because you can draw an equivalence between Taylor and Apple, doesn't mean that other people will or should.

mrpippy 3y ago

I guess the difference here is that there's 3 separate parties: McDonalds corporate, Taylor (makes the ice cream machines), and the franchisee. McDonalds requires the franchisee to buy a specific machine from Taylor (or a dramatically more $$ one from an Italian company IIRC), and places other requirements on the franchisee, but is it legal to interfere in the relationship between the franchisee and Taylor?

bumby 3y ago
>legal to interfere in the relationship between the franchisee and Taylor? I think the term is "tortious interference" but it is notoriously very difficult to have upheld in court. You can obviously compete but you can't deliberately undermine a contract with a competitor. IANAL, but from my reading of the article, that would rely on how substantive the safety claims that McD made are in disincentivizing the use of the 3rd party equipment. (not to mention they party wasn't explicitly named in those safety communications) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

jamestanderson 3y ago

> But, we wouldn't have expected the manufacturer to do anything except officially discourage the use of the aftermarket tools. I think the issue here is that McDonalds was discouraging the use of the tool, not Taylor (the manufacturer).