4 ms·

It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive, as someone needs to prepare all the materials and resources the community wou

by vv_ 1mo ago

It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive, as someone needs to prepare all the materials and resources the community would need to continue supporting the product after official support ends. Second, there are legal restrictions, for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware. Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available. You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.

realusername 1mo ago
> Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available. You can just stop to the last reason, they don't want to give up ownership back to you. They would prefer you to throw the device in the bin and buy a new one, preferably from them again.
- vv_ 1mo ago
  > they don't want to give up ownership back to you No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them. Edit: I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you. > No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting? Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer." There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
  - realusername 1mo ago
    No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers, because that's what they are. Also I doubt that there's anything left on 2015 era hardware that will grant you an edge on current age competitors To give a reply: > Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer." Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to, it's my computer and I should be free to do whatever I want on it. Including modifying firmware, modifying the OS and modifying anything else you can think of. Do I want to do all of these? Probably not but the freedom for me to do it should be there if I change my mind. And no, it's a reasonable expectation.
    - vv_ 1mo ago
      > I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers > Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to For the components I listed, and based on my understanding of "normal computers" as desktops and laptops, you cannot do all of these things today. > it's my computer It's their firmware. They don't magically give up their intellectual property rights when you purchase a piece of hardware from them. What would be reasonable is providing access to datasheets, schematics, and manuals, where permitted by local laws, so that users can tinker with and develop for the hardware themselves. However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
      - realusername 1mo ago
        I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such, should be able to do any modification I see fit to the device, regardless if the manufacturer thinks it's a good idea or not. And yes, I also support adding laws to force manufacturers to respect my rights. > However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software. I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith (which they almost always do as there's very few legit uses on their side).
troupo 1mo ago
You've just made an argument for a bunch of regulation to force opening up and removing obstacles. E.g.: "for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware." Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available? Same goes for many, many, many other things.
- vv_ 1mo ago
  > Given that everything has a radio these days [...] this is just stupid Manufacturers need to pass certification for their radio implementations, such as FCC, CE/RED, PTCRB, Bluetooth SIG, etc. Any modification to the radio firmware can potentially change the device's RF characteristics and cause it to fall outside of the conditions under which it was certified. This is why manufacturers generally cannot simply release the radio firmware and allow users to modify it freely, as doing so could result in devices operating outside their certified RF parameters and expose them to regulatory or legal liability. Not to mention the intellectual property rights of the manufacturer and their vendors. The firmware may contain proprietary code, algorithms, or other licensed technology that the manufacturer does not have the legal right to redistribute, especially if it was developed by a third-party vendor.
  - troupo 1mo ago
    > This is why manufacturers generally cannot simply release the radio firmware and allow users to modify it freely, as doing so could result in devices operating outside their certified RF parameters and expose them to regulatory or legal liability. Why would this expose the manufacturer, and not the device owner? > The firmware may contain proprietary code, algorithms, or other licensed technology that the manufacturer does not have the legal right to redistribute As per my comment above: "Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available?" E.g. I don't buy the bullshit argument of security and legal something, and of proprietary algorithms, for example, when Philips suddenly starts requiring a log in to control its bulbs via bog standard protocols: https://hueblog.com/2023/09/21/philips-hue-soon-only-usable-with-account-2/ https://hueblog.com/2023/09/21/philips-hue-soon-only-usable-... The same goes for nearly everything else.
thefz 1mo ago
> It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive By not doing it you are basically outsourcing this cost to the environment.
xxs 1mo ago
The intellectual property is not some god given right unlike air and water. There is little need not to support a decade old hardware and effectively turning the said hardware to a door stop, or a landfill. Btw, it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
- vv_ 1mo ago
  > There is little need not to support a decade old hardware > it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument. Right back at you, I guess. I would understand the frustration if manufacturers were not upfront about how long they intend to support their hardware, although that is not always easy to predict. However, demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable.
  - xxs 1mo ago
    >demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable. nobody demands that - it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software. The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort, so the devices are not open and require designated tools for minor fixes. I can imagine it not wanting to perform a warranty repair but that's the end of it.
    - vv_ 1mo ago
      > it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software. Manufacturers have a regulatory obligation to prevent unauthorized combinations of software and hardware where those combinations could compromise the device's compliance. This is particularly relevant to radio firmware, including Bluetooth, where the manufacturer must ensure that the radio equipment remains compliant with the applicable regulatory requirements. > The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort Because they are required to do so by regulation. Those regulations exist for good reason, for example to prevent unwanted interference in the radio spectrum. Beyond regulatory requirements, manufacturers also have legitimate reasons for preventing unauthorized tampering with their devices. One concern is theft and device resale, while another is software security. You may argue that you don't care about these things, which is perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there is nothing inherently wrong with holding it. However, I would argue that this is not what the vast majority of customers expect, and that most would ultimately accept these constraints for the benefits they provide.
kenmacd 1mo ago
You are framing this as something they have to do: support it, release documentation, open source it, etc. It's not. It's something they have to stop doing. Stop adding code that specifically stops third party software from running.

by vv_ 1mo ago

realusername 1mo ago

> Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available. You can just stop to the last reason, they don't want to give up ownership back to you. They would prefer you to throw the device in the bin and buy a new one, preferably from them again.

vv_ 1mo ago
> they don't want to give up ownership back to you No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them. Edit: I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you. > No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting? Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer." There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
- realusername 1mo ago
  No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers, because that's what they are. Also I doubt that there's anything left on 2015 era hardware that will grant you an edge on current age competitors To give a reply: > Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer." Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to, it's my computer and I should be free to do whatever I want on it. Including modifying firmware, modifying the OS and modifying anything else you can think of. Do I want to do all of these? Probably not but the freedom for me to do it should be there if I change my mind. And no, it's a reasonable expectation.
  - vv_ 1mo ago
    > I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers > Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to For the components I listed, and based on my understanding of "normal computers" as desktops and laptops, you cannot do all of these things today. > it's my computer It's their firmware. They don't magically give up their intellectual property rights when you purchase a piece of hardware from them. What would be reasonable is providing access to datasheets, schematics, and manuals, where permitted by local laws, so that users can tinker with and develop for the hardware themselves. However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
    - realusername 1mo ago
      I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such, should be able to do any modification I see fit to the device, regardless if the manufacturer thinks it's a good idea or not. And yes, I also support adding laws to force manufacturers to respect my rights. > However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software. I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith (which they almost always do as there's very few legit uses on their side).

troupo 1mo ago

You've just made an argument for a bunch of regulation to force opening up and removing obstacles. E.g.: "for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware." Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available? Same goes for many, many, many other things.

vv_ 1mo ago
> Given that everything has a radio these days [...] this is just stupid Manufacturers need to pass certification for their radio implementations, such as FCC, CE/RED, PTCRB, Bluetooth SIG, etc. Any modification to the radio firmware can potentially change the device's RF characteristics and cause it to fall outside of the conditions under which it was certified. This is why manufacturers generally cannot simply release the radio firmware and allow users to modify it freely, as doing so could result in devices operating outside their certified RF parameters and expose them to regulatory or legal liability. Not to mention the intellectual property rights of the manufacturer and their vendors. The firmware may contain proprietary code, algorithms, or other licensed technology that the manufacturer does not have the legal right to redistribute, especially if it was developed by a third-party vendor.
- troupo 1mo ago
  > This is why manufacturers generally cannot simply release the radio firmware and allow users to modify it freely, as doing so could result in devices operating outside their certified RF parameters and expose them to regulatory or legal liability. Why would this expose the manufacturer, and not the device owner? > The firmware may contain proprietary code, algorithms, or other licensed technology that the manufacturer does not have the legal right to redistribute As per my comment above: "Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available?" E.g. I don't buy the bullshit argument of security and legal something, and of proprietary algorithms, for example, when Philips suddenly starts requiring a log in to control its bulbs via bog standard protocols: https://hueblog.com/2023/09/21/philips-hue-soon-only-usable-with-account-2/ https://hueblog.com/2023/09/21/philips-hue-soon-only-usable-... The same goes for nearly everything else.

thefz 1mo ago

> It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive By not doing it you are basically outsourcing this cost to the environment.

xxs 1mo ago

The intellectual property is not some god given right unlike air and water. There is little need not to support a decade old hardware and effectively turning the said hardware to a door stop, or a landfill. Btw, it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.

vv_ 1mo ago
> There is little need not to support a decade old hardware > it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument. Right back at you, I guess. I would understand the frustration if manufacturers were not upfront about how long they intend to support their hardware, although that is not always easy to predict. However, demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable.
- xxs 1mo ago
  >demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable. nobody demands that - it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software. The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort, so the devices are not open and require designated tools for minor fixes. I can imagine it not wanting to perform a warranty repair but that's the end of it.
  - vv_ 1mo ago
    > it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software. Manufacturers have a regulatory obligation to prevent unauthorized combinations of software and hardware where those combinations could compromise the device's compliance. This is particularly relevant to radio firmware, including Bluetooth, where the manufacturer must ensure that the radio equipment remains compliant with the applicable regulatory requirements. > The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort Because they are required to do so by regulation. Those regulations exist for good reason, for example to prevent unwanted interference in the radio spectrum. Beyond regulatory requirements, manufacturers also have legitimate reasons for preventing unauthorized tampering with their devices. One concern is theft and device resale, while another is software security. You may argue that you don't care about these things, which is perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there is nothing inherently wrong with holding it. However, I would argue that this is not what the vast majority of customers expect, and that most would ultimately accept these constraints for the benefits they provide.

kenmacd 1mo ago

You are framing this as something they have to do: support it, release documentation, open source it, etc. It's not. It's something they have to stop doing. Stop adding code that specifically stops third party software from running.