You're arguing for features that would be genuinely challenging for companies to implement and support.
I'd love to have the freedom to modify the software in every gadget I own. But the $40 digital toaster oven with absolute crap firmware coded by idiots doesn't even have a USB port or any way to attach it to a computer; it's probably got its code permanently burned into ROM and isn't even software upgradable even with the right hardware.
If it were programmable, it probably would have cost 5x as much.
Say it's a device that already supports updates, like your smartband likely does. By locking down, say, a smartband, you've made it much easier for your support personnel to be able to answer questions -- and they won't have to say, "Sorry, you've modified the device, so I can't help you." And they won't have to field questions from hackers who are trying to follow the poor instructions that engineers pieced together on how to rebuild the firmware.
And that's if they even have the right to distribute the firmware to begin with. Just because your smartband manufacturer wants to do the right thing (in this theoretical universe) and make it hackable, doesn't mean that the chip manufacturers are happy with that. So they might need to switch to another, possibly more expensive chip.
And that means the goal of "hackable" needs to be a design goal from the start. Shortcuts they might have been able to make with a closed system are now off the table. You've added another constraint to the design, and every constraint takes time. And money.
Advocate that companies produce modifiable devices, sure. But don't pretend that it won't increase their cost at some level. It's not ethics; it's simply good business to lock down products that 99.9% of users won't try to hack.
And I'm a fan of hacking devices. I just can see the other side of the argument.
There's a difference between the financial aspects versus the legal aspects of software freedom.
You can make the argument that it's too financially expensive for most companies to make their devices more modifiable, but that same argument cannot explain why people are banned, by risk of government punishment, from decrypting their programs, which would be the first step to investigation.
>You can make the argument that it's too financially expensive for most companies to make their devices more modifiable, but that same argument cannot explain why people are banned, by risk of government punishment, from decrypting their programs, which would be the first step to investigation.
Because they're shortsighted and afraid, in short. Legacy companies feel that control is crucial.
But GPL and other Copyleft software requires you to make the code modifiable. That's an expense most companies don't want to take on. Hence, companies avoid GPL.
I'd love to have the freedom to modify the software in every gadget I own. But the $40 digital toaster oven with absolute crap firmware coded by idiots doesn't even have a USB port or any way to attach it to a computer; it's probably got its code permanently burned into ROM and isn't even software upgradable even with the right hardware.
If it were programmable, it probably would have cost 5x as much.
Say it's a device that already supports updates, like your smartband likely does. By locking down, say, a smartband, you've made it much easier for your support personnel to be able to answer questions -- and they won't have to say, "Sorry, you've modified the device, so I can't help you." And they won't have to field questions from hackers who are trying to follow the poor instructions that engineers pieced together on how to rebuild the firmware.
And that's if they even have the right to distribute the firmware to begin with. Just because your smartband manufacturer wants to do the right thing (in this theoretical universe) and make it hackable, doesn't mean that the chip manufacturers are happy with that. So they might need to switch to another, possibly more expensive chip.
And that means the goal of "hackable" needs to be a design goal from the start. Shortcuts they might have been able to make with a closed system are now off the table. You've added another constraint to the design, and every constraint takes time. And money.
Advocate that companies produce modifiable devices, sure. But don't pretend that it won't increase their cost at some level. It's not ethics; it's simply good business to lock down products that 99.9% of users won't try to hack.
And I'm a fan of hacking devices. I just can see the other side of the argument.