6 ms·

I get it, their business model is to sell the appliance for cheap and recoup the costs on the K-cups. But this DRM "solution" is anti-consumer, anti-competition

I get it, their business model is to sell the appliance for cheap and recoup the costs on the K-cups. But this DRM "solution" is anti-consumer, anti-competition, and isn't something I'm comfortable supporting. When my Keurig dies, I will be downgrading to a coffee-pot style machine, and in the meantime I will be avoiding the non-"pirate" Kcups. I hope they turn around with their next versions, I enjoy the convenience even at the higher cost. But I draw the line at new DRM. I concede there is already DRM in my home, but my goal is to eliminate it all, not add more. Edit: To be fair not all DRM is bad. DRM in Linux that prevents modules I haven't signed from loading would be a Good Thing so to clarify, my goal is to eliminate harmful DRM. Defined as anything I don't have full control over.

icebraining 12y ago
DRM in Linux that prevents modules I haven't signed from loading would be a Good Thing I don't think that has anything to do with DRM, can you explain?
- gizmo686 12y ago
  The technology required to prevent untrusted modules is the same as is required for effective DRM. In both cases, you need to keep the computer operating in a known and approved state. The difference is that in the Linux example, the user controls the keys that is necessary to determine what such a state is, whereas with DRM the user necessarily does not.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Oh, sure, the tech might be the same, but I don't think we should muddle the terms. DRM is defined by the purpose of the tech, not by implementation details. Calling security features "good DRM" is perilous.
    - ObviousScience 12y ago
      I use trusted computing channels/methods to handle sensitive documents and prevent unauthorized programs from interacting with the data. It's literally DRM, and I think it's a good thing, because it lets me protect sensitive information from theft.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        If you're not trying to protect data from the user itself, I'd still say it's not DRM. What counts is the goal, not the technology. DRM was certainly a motivation for the development of TC, but that doesn't mean all uses of TC are necessarily DRM.
        ObviousScience 12y ago
        It's a shared system, in that other people can access the same server the files are actually located on. The DRM is definitely meant to stop other users of the system from accessing the files, and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!", but I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user.
        icebraining 12y ago
        and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. Yes, which is why I wrote it's not DRM if you're not trying to protect data from the user itself. In that case, you are. I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user. I'm using the UNIX filesystem permissions for that. Is UNIX DRM now? As far as I know, DRM as a term arose to describe the technologies that tried to allow the user to view the content while preventing him/her from copying it. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!" No, I'm just trying to make sense of the fact that people are using a term in a different way than I've always seen it used, and which happens to be (in my opinion) much less useful, since it turns any authorization layer into "DRM".
cududa 12y ago
If "DRM'ing" cups was anti-competitive why haven't there been any third-party making cheap keurig-like machines for use with the cups on which the patent expired?
- Vendan 12y ago
  There's tons. My wife found one for about $20 that also has a fancy basket thing, so we don't even need the "reusable coffee pod" junk for normal coffee
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  Because there's no money in the machine. The profit comes entitely from the coffee pods.
  - FollowSteph3 12y ago
    Then the price for "standard" or "compatible" machines need to increase. A company who offered this could potentially make some good money...
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Only if they are able to convince people that paying more up front is worth while for cheaper cups. That's always been a tough sell, even if it's correct.
      - colinbartlett 12y ago
        It seems like American consumers especially, have a hard time with the "higher upfront for cheaper in the long run" way of thinking. Look at all these cell phone companies that lock consumers into a two year contract with a much higher monthly premium than an alternative prepaid service. $200 phone + $100/month is somehow much more palatable than $800 phone + $50/month.
- jaak 12y ago
  There are some K-cup compatible machines available (like http://www.amazon.com/MCU-Single-Multi-Use-Coffee-Brewer/dp/B009PLQ5H2 http://www.amazon.com/MCU-Single-Multi-Use-Coffee-Brewer/dp/... ). I think the reason you don't hear about them much is Keurig really dominates the market.
sliverstorm 12y ago
So what is the answer? Are we essentially rejecting the business model of "cheap appliance, recoup costs"?
- infogulch 12y ago
  How about rejecting "cheap appliance; recoup costs with shady, anticompetitive business practices"
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    It's inherent to the business model to block out competition on the "recoup" item. What business sells the appliance at a loss and meekly accepts being overrun by third-party suppliers? Dead businesses, that's who...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Yup, I think we should, because it leads to the world where appliances suck.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Downside: the model is "progressive", where more people can afford to use the appliance because it is subsidized by people with high usage. So if we axe that model, product X becomes inaccessible to many people.

icebraining 12y ago

DRM in Linux that prevents modules I haven't signed from loading would be a Good Thing I don't think that has anything to do with DRM, can you explain?

gizmo686 12y ago
The technology required to prevent untrusted modules is the same as is required for effective DRM. In both cases, you need to keep the computer operating in a known and approved state. The difference is that in the Linux example, the user controls the keys that is necessary to determine what such a state is, whereas with DRM the user necessarily does not.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Oh, sure, the tech might be the same, but I don't think we should muddle the terms. DRM is defined by the purpose of the tech, not by implementation details. Calling security features "good DRM" is perilous.
  - ObviousScience 12y ago
    I use trusted computing channels/methods to handle sensitive documents and prevent unauthorized programs from interacting with the data. It's literally DRM, and I think it's a good thing, because it lets me protect sensitive information from theft.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      If you're not trying to protect data from the user itself, I'd still say it's not DRM. What counts is the goal, not the technology. DRM was certainly a motivation for the development of TC, but that doesn't mean all uses of TC are necessarily DRM.
      - ObviousScience 12y ago
        It's a shared system, in that other people can access the same server the files are actually located on. The DRM is definitely meant to stop other users of the system from accessing the files, and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!", but I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user.
        icebraining 12y ago
        and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. Yes, which is why I wrote it's not DRM if you're not trying to protect data from the user itself. In that case, you are. I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user. I'm using the UNIX filesystem permissions for that. Is UNIX DRM now? As far as I know, DRM as a term arose to describe the technologies that tried to allow the user to view the content while preventing him/her from copying it. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!" No, I'm just trying to make sense of the fact that people are using a term in a different way than I've always seen it used, and which happens to be (in my opinion) much less useful, since it turns any authorization layer into "DRM".

cududa 12y ago

If "DRM'ing" cups was anti-competitive why haven't there been any third-party making cheap keurig-like machines for use with the cups on which the patent expired?

Vendan 12y ago
There's tons. My wife found one for about $20 that also has a fancy basket thing, so we don't even need the "reusable coffee pod" junk for normal coffee
colinbartlett 12y ago
Because there's no money in the machine. The profit comes entitely from the coffee pods.
- FollowSteph3 12y ago
  Then the price for "standard" or "compatible" machines need to increase. A company who offered this could potentially make some good money...
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Only if they are able to convince people that paying more up front is worth while for cheaper cups. That's always been a tough sell, even if it's correct.
    - colinbartlett 12y ago
      It seems like American consumers especially, have a hard time with the "higher upfront for cheaper in the long run" way of thinking. Look at all these cell phone companies that lock consumers into a two year contract with a much higher monthly premium than an alternative prepaid service. $200 phone + $100/month is somehow much more palatable than $800 phone + $50/month.
jaak 12y ago
There are some K-cup compatible machines available (like http://www.amazon.com/MCU-Single-Multi-Use-Coffee-Brewer/dp/B009PLQ5H2 http://www.amazon.com/MCU-Single-Multi-Use-Coffee-Brewer/dp/... ). I think the reason you don't hear about them much is Keurig really dominates the market.

sliverstorm 12y ago

So what is the answer? Are we essentially rejecting the business model of "cheap appliance, recoup costs"?

infogulch 12y ago
How about rejecting "cheap appliance; recoup costs with shady, anticompetitive business practices"
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  It's inherent to the business model to block out competition on the "recoup" item. What business sells the appliance at a loss and meekly accepts being overrun by third-party suppliers? Dead businesses, that's who...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Yup, I think we should, because it leads to the world where appliances suck.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Downside: the model is "progressive", where more people can afford to use the appliance because it is subsidized by people with high usage. So if we axe that model, product X becomes inaccessible to many people.