I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear.
Making it software makes it all so much easier; you only have to write the software once and copy it a thousand or 100,000 times. It ENCOURAGES the Stef Murky set to try and invent new ridiculous means of making a single product fit multiple markets; even to the point of NOW altering the HARDWARE so it can be mechanically crippled by the software.
Again, most of the civilized world has decided this in the customers' favor; that SELLING a hardware product while trying to hold control over the software required to make it work amounts to not selling it at all. "Buy" means "Buy"; "Rent" means "Rent". You buy a device, you own the copy of the software that makes it work, and you have the right to reverse-engineer that software to understand how it works. If in the course of that investigation you discover that they left additional software on it, YOU OWN THAT COPY OF THAT SOFTWARE TOO; "break-seal" license BS be damned.
THIS I think is really that one step over the line; because EVERYBODY has to pay for all their R&D and the additional technology that goes into CRIPPLING the product. The bottom end customer shouldn't have to pay for the features put on his scope for the high-end customer that he can't use, and neither he nor the high-end customer should have to pay for the technology used to cripple the product.
You're right, and I did forget to mention that in my thumbnail comparison. But the Rigol is still rated 50MHz, unlockable to 100 MHz while the Hantek is rated 100MHz, unlockable to 200 MHz. I'd call that a wash.
Since every „big“ manufacturer produce in China, interesting has happened-
what have we get:
1.products from mostly lower quality,
2.products with higher prices, despite the fact of significantly cheaper working environment!
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear.
The airline seats analogy is illuminating. You prefer the SouthWest Airlines business model where everybody is in cattle class. That's reasonable. But if you choose to fly, I don't know, cattle class in United then you feel entitled to barge into first class and sit there. There are epithets for people like that, none of them complementary.Quote
Making it software makes it all so much easier; you only have to write the software once and copy it a thousand or 100,000 times. It ENCOURAGES the Stef Murky set to try and invent new ridiculous means of making a single product fit multiple markets; even to the point of NOW altering the HARDWARE so it can be mechanically crippled by the software.
This is standard practice in the corporate world. For example Oracle and IBM are famous for suing their customers if they catch them using more processors/cores that they have paid for.QuoteAgain, most of the civilized world has decided this in the customers' favor; that SELLING a hardware product while trying to hold control over the software required to make it work amounts to not selling it at all. "Buy" means "Buy"; "Rent" means "Rent". You buy a device, you own the copy of the software that makes it work, and you have the right to reverse-engineer that software to understand how it works. If in the course of that investigation you discover that they left additional software on it, YOU OWN THAT COPY OF THAT SOFTWARE TOO; "break-seal" license BS be damned.
That is an entirely different case, and it is either ignorant or disingenuous to conflate it with your other points above.
THIS I think is really that one step over the line; because EVERYBODY has to pay for all their R&D and the additional technology that goes into CRIPPLING the product. The bottom end customer shouldn't have to pay for the features put on his scope for the high-end customer that he can't use, and neither he nor the high-end customer should have to pay for the technology used to cripple the product.
You really need to have a closer look at development costing. Your model will make it more expensive for EVERYBODY.
You're right, and I did forget to mention that in my thumbnail comparison. But the Rigol is still rated 50MHz, unlockable to 100 MHz while the Hantek is rated 100MHz, unlockable to 200 MHz. I'd call that a wash.
Depends on what you use it for.Since every „big“ manufacturer produce in China, interesting has happened-
what have we get:
1.products from mostly lower quality,
2.products with higher prices, despite the fact of significantly cheaper working environment!
"Higher prices?"
Go back a couple of years and make a list of 'scopes for under $500. Compare it to today.
*FLUP!*
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear.The airline seats analogy is illuminating. You prefer the SouthWest Airlines business model where everybody is in cattle class. That's reasonable. But if you choose to fly, I don't know, cattle class in United then you feel entitled to barge into first class and sit there. There are epithets for people like that, none of them complementary.
I've omitted your rants that deliberately create strawman arguments and ignore the points being made. That leaves us with...*FLUP!*
Your moniker, a fictional dragon from young adult SF, is appropriate.
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear.
Perhaps but if you hack your scope nobody is going to say anything about it so that makes it a lot more OK than barging into first class on an airplane after which the flight attendant (and perhaps some security guy) will put you in your place.
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear.
Perhaps but if you hack your scope nobody is going to say anything about it so that makes it a lot more OK than barging into first class on an airplane after which the flight attendant (and perhaps some security guy) will put you in your place.
Umm... We have 10 pages of people saying something about it right here.
The Airline analogy is not mine, it appears to be a fixture of the internet. I've seen it more times than I can count, and as here, applied entirely inappropriately. All I did what put it in the wastebin where it belongs. You're welcome!
mnem
Yeah don't make it look like tggzzz contributed something sensible for a change Sorry I couldn't resist...
The Airline analogy is not mine, it appears to be a fixture of the internet. I've seen it more times than I can count, and as here, applied entirely inappropriately. All I did what put it in the wastebin where it belongs. You're welcome!
OP (Offending Post ) edited and annotated.
The Airline analogy is not mine, it appears to be a fixture of the internet. I've seen it more times than I can count, and as here, applied entirely inappropriately. All I did what put it in the wastebin where it belongs. You're welcome!
I believe I am responsible for introducing the airline analogy in this thread - and those who understand the concept I was trying to illustrate seemed to have done so without much hesitation.
The problem with all analogies is that they will never perfectly reflect the original subject matter and the limitations may be many. Your continued dismissal of the airline analogy as inappropriate sounds more like decree than debate. It is founded on a number of incidental factors that really have very little (if anything) to do with the question put.
Then, there's the matter of consistency. You bag the analogy - and then come up with a variation which you declare as 'comparable' and STILL don't answer the question.
I believe I am responsible for introducing the airline analogy in this thread - and those who understand the concept I was trying to illustrate seemed to have done so without much hesitation.
The problem with all analogies is that they will never perfectly reflect the original subject matter and the limitations may be many. Your continued dismissal of the airline analogy as inappropriate sounds more like decree than debate. It is founded on a number of incidental factors that really have very little (if anything) to do with the question put.
Then, there's the matter of consistency. You bag the analogy - and then come up with a variation which you declare as 'comparable' and STILL don't answer the question.
Yeah, that IS kindof what I meant when I said they were being lazy.
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear.
Making it software makes it all so much easier; you only have to write the software once and copy it a thousand or 100,000 times. It ENCOURAGES the Stef Murky set to try and invent new ridiculous means of making a single product fit multiple markets; even to the point of NOW altering the HARDWARE so it can be mechanically crippled by the software.
THIS I think is really that one step over the line; because EVERYBODY has to pay for all their R&D and the additional technology that goes into CRIPPLING the product. The bottom end customer shouldn't have to pay for the features put on his scope for the high-end customer that he can't use, and neither he nor the high-end customer should have to pay for the technology used to cripple the product.
Again, most of the civilized world has decided this in the customers' favor; that SELLING a hardware product while trying to hold control over the software required to make it work amounts to not selling it at all. "Buy" means "Buy"; "Rent" means "Rent". You buy a device, you own the copy of the software that makes it work, and you have the right to reverse-engineer that software to understand how it works. If in the course of that investigation you discover that they left additional software on it, YOU OWN THAT COPY OF THAT SOFTWARE TOO; "break-seal" license BS be damned.
On top of that, these scopes all operate on *NIX, which license specifically stipulates that you have to release your code back to the the public repository. Apps that run on it are not necessarily subject to this, but for sure any hardware extensions... the stuff that lets the OS control the scope... MUST be released back to the originating code base.
If I were a programmer capable of understanding and dismantling the code on my machine, I would be well within my rights, actually arguably bound by the GNU license, to release that code back to public code base.
And I think that too may be part of why these manufacturers don't get too oppressive with their security... they don't want to have to spend the money rewriting EVERYTHING because they pissed off the wrong hacker and s/he did exactly THAT with their entire firmware.
The developer would be foolish if they'd really prefer 100 000 users, over 1000 000 users. Those extra 900 000 users won't pay anyway, are not costing them anything and are spreading awareness of the product, attracting more paying users.
Both running the bus and writing software incur costs to the company, which need to be recouped by paying users. But you're not comparing like with like. The bus has only a limited number of seats, when an unlimited number of people could use the software, paying or otherwise.
The developer would be foolish if they'd really prefer 100 000 users, over 1000 000 users. Those extra 900 000 users won't pay anyway, are not costing them anything and are spreading awareness of the product, attracting more paying users.
Herein lies the weakness of that argument....
If 900,000 users get to use the software for free, then the 100,000 who would pay for it, will ask "Why should I pay?". You end up with everybody expecting to use it for free - and the developer gets nothing. The knife cuts both ways. You can't claim one and ignore the other.
QuoteBoth running the bus and writing software incur costs to the company, which need to be recouped by paying users. But you're not comparing like with like. The bus has only a limited number of seats, when an unlimited number of people could use the software, paying or otherwise.
This is exactly what I mean by leaning on the weaknesses of an analogy and avoiding the question. Also, that particular weakness has been covered by establishing conditions of the scenario where it is no longer relevant. This is best demonstrated with the airline analogy, where the limited number of seats is not a consideration in the scope of the question. If I can re-phrase the question it might go something like this: IF you were to buy an economy class ticket for a flight and after it has taken off you notice there are no doors or guards to prevent you from walking up to first class and taking an empty seat - do you feel 'entitled' to take advantage of the opportunity?
There's no 'limited resource' argument here - the conditions have been specified so that that argument does not apply in this example. So please don't try it on ... and just answer the question.
While the marketing folks, bean counters, management, designers, developers and warehouse might want to have it both ways - it is the customer who is DEMANDING to have it both ways.
The developer would be foolish if they'd really prefer 100 000 users, over 1000 000 users. Those extra 900 000 users won't pay anyway, are not costing them anything and are spreading awareness of the product, attracting more paying users.Herein lies the weakness of that argument....
If 900,000 users get to use the software for free, then the 100,000 who would pay for it, will ask "Why should I pay?". You end up with everybody expecting to use it for free - and the developer gets nothing. The knife cuts both ways. You can't claim one and ignore the other.
The Airline Seat analogy is completely irrelevant to this scenario. They HAVE security and bulkheads between the classes of seat, and the stewards won't serve you if you do move to the 1st class section, they'll send you back to cattle class.
This would be more like if all the classes were in the same single cabin, and the only thing stopping you from moving to an empty 1st class seat is a line of tape on the floor and the disapproving glances of other cattle class passengers. And when you DO step across the line, the stewards serve you as if you belonged there, because they don't have security to escort you back to cattle class, and because the Arline decided it was more efficient to serve a few brazen advantage-takers than to pay for Security and bulkheads that cost them 2 rows of seats apiece.
There. NOW your stupid Airline example is comparable.Quote from: mnementhThe Airline analogy is not mine, it appears to be a fixture of the internet. I've seen it more times than I can count, and as here, applied entirely inappropriately. All I did what put it in the wastebin where it belongs. You're welcome!I believe I am responsible for introducing the airline analogy in this thread - and those who understand the concept I was trying to illustrate seemed to have done so without much hesitation.
The problem with all analogies is that they will never perfectly reflect the original subject matter and the limitations may be many. Your continued dismissal of the airline analogy as inappropriate sounds more like decree than debate. It is founded on a number of incidental factors that really have very little (if anything) to do with the question put.
Then, there's the matter of consistency. You bag the analogy - and then come up with a variation which you declare as 'comparable' and STILL don't answer the question.
As for whether I would feel "entitled"... don't try to drag me into THAT recursive sophistry.
They didn't give anything to you, they only sold a licence to use it. You should be able to do anything reasonable with the things you have licenced but not the things you haven't licenced. In particular there should, of course, be a secondhand market in selling such licences, and the EU is attempting to enforce that concept.
Perhaps but if you hack your scope nobody is going to say anything about it so that makes it a lot more OK than barging into first class on an airplane after which the flight attendant (and perhaps some security guy) will put you in your place.
A manufacturer who is concerned about the kind of unlocking that we're primarily discussing here can easily implement a system that would make it impossible for the end user to determine what key he should enter into the scope to unlock a feature. The manufacturer need only cryptographically sign with its private key a packet that contains both the feature descriptor and the scope's serial number, generating a blob that contains the signature and the feature descriptor. Uploading the resulting blob to the scope would cause the scope to store the blob in its database. The bootloader would have on file the public key of the manufacturer. When the scope boots, the bootloader would go through the signed blobs and activate the features for which it is able to cryptographically verify the signature.
They probably hire more or less staff and order more or less food depending on whether first class is nearly full or nearly empty so again the airplane analogy doesn't really fit well.