4 ms·

I agree with this however there are some caveats: 1 - In order to unlock the device the vendor should be able to charge a reasonable fee. 2 - The vendor shoul

I agree with this however there are some caveats: 1 - In order to unlock the device the vendor should be able to charge a reasonable fee. 2 - The vendor should not be liable for the device once unlocked. Lets take the PS3 as a base platform. It's sold at less than cost and Sony should be able to recoup that money (if they so wish) to unlock the device. The PS3 is a carefully balanced device and if you install another OS on it, which pushes the parameters of the initial device (internal heat, HD usage, Flash usage) why should they cover the costs. It was not designed for that use, it was not sold for that use and thus should no be under warranty for that use. Now I would like to be able to install anything on anything and I agree that when I buy a PS3 it is mine to do what I want with. However I have to acknowledge that I am buying the PS3 Sony has sold me (with all of it's compromises) and not the one I necessarily want (a kick ass Cell architecture beat of a processing machine). Of course none of this is limited to Sony. It applies to all hardware out there. If I buy a car and it has a warranty there are many caveats about driving style and condition. This seems reasonable and it should apply to consumer electronic devices as well.

dalke 14y ago
1) is a question of business model. If they want to sell for less than cost, then they need to factor in that others can unlock the device, without paying, and use the device for something other than their store. Just like they factor in that people might buy a machine and do nothing with it. 1) also has a problem in that is puts a post-sale obligation on the company. Suppose the company goes out of business; can people unlock the device? For that matter, do they have to provide telephone/email support in order to unlock, or will postal mail (with 6-8 weeks response time, to the factory in Korea) suffice? As for 2), you rightly point out that there are reasonable concerns. The submitted proposal to the members of the German Pirate Party says "Weiterhin darf die freie Softwareinstallation nicht zu einem Verlust der Gewährleistung oder anderen Nachteilen für den Verbraucher führen" - Furthermore the installation of Free Software does not result in the loss of warranty or other disadvantages for the consumer." Though it also has clauses which exclude "devices for industrial and safety-critical applications as well as devices where erroneous or malicious software can cause direct physical damage." Your observation fits right in the middle of those two. I think it's not so complicated though. Do overclockers sue Intel when an overclocked chip melts? I think that excluding the use of "erroneous or malicious software" from warranty coverage is enough.

dalke 14y ago

1) is a question of business model. If they want to sell for less than cost, then they need to factor in that others can unlock the device, without paying, and use the device for something other than their store. Just like they factor in that people might buy a machine and do nothing with it. 1) also has a problem in that is puts a post-sale obligation on the company. Suppose the company goes out of business; can people unlock the device? For that matter, do they have to provide telephone/email support in order to unlock, or will postal mail (with 6-8 weeks response time, to the factory in Korea) suffice? As for 2), you rightly point out that there are reasonable concerns. The submitted proposal to the members of the German Pirate Party says "Weiterhin darf die freie Softwareinstallation nicht zu einem Verlust der Gewährleistung oder anderen Nachteilen für den Verbraucher führen" - Furthermore the installation of Free Software does not result in the loss of warranty or other disadvantages for the consumer." Though it also has clauses which exclude "devices for industrial and safety-critical applications as well as devices where erroneous or malicious software can cause direct physical damage." Your observation fits right in the middle of those two. I think it's not so complicated though. Do overclockers sue Intel when an overclocked chip melts? I think that excluding the use of "erroneous or malicious software" from warranty coverage is enough.