2 ms·
My initial counterargument was going to bring up that Garmin example GP added, since largely the same valuable code is likely shared across many devices. Refle
by hansvm 2y ago
My initial counterargument was going to bring up that Garmin example GP added, since largely the same valuable code is likely shared across many devices.
Reflecting further though, the harm of a manufacturer crippling a physical device does seem worth guarding against regardless, and if the code is really that valuable then such a law might encourage longer support lifetimes (or, at the very least, not crippling a perfectly good piece of hardware).
- juicypt 2y agoI think there's a reasonable middle ground here. I would think it's fine for them to keep their algorithms closed-source, but be required to opensource the minimum amount of firmware to allow access to all of the hardware: bootloader, CPU, storage, memory, display, and sensors. No need to reveal any trade secrets at all. The above stuff is not the secret sauce that makes people buy their watches anyway: they use some of the most basic hardware in the market at their price point.
- palata 2y agoThis is exactly what I meant. I don't want Garmin to give me access to their algorithms. I want to have a way to flash a minimal system on it if I want to play with it. For something like Marshall smart speakers, it may end up making those products actually good: I could totally imagine an open source system for smart speakers. And that would be infinitely better than the crap Marshall put on the one I own. It works well for routers: on many routers you can install openwrt or opnsense.