QuoteWhy does it matter whether you are unlocking it for personal use or for business use? Sure, it may matter as regards the support you can expect afterwards, but whether or not that serves as sufficient reason to refrain is dependent solely on the circumstances of the individual.Like I said, it's just an opinion. Not based on law or ethics. Maybe it's based on the fact that when your business is reliant on other businesses, and your business also relies on respect of IP, then you might be more inclined to respect the IP of those other businesses on which you are reliant?
QuoteThis logic is unsound. "A purpose of a lock is to prevent/deter theft, therefore all uses of a lock are for the purpose of preventing/deterring theft, and therefore to bypass the lock indicates intent to steal".
I don't think this is a great leap at all. If the code on the Rigol was not there to deter theft of IP, why not just have a menu setting "Press 1 for 50MHz. Press 2 for 100MHz."
QuoteWhether the access is desired by someone who has a right to it or not is an independent variable.I think this ties in somehow, as well. I mean, if a lock pick hobbyist buys a lock, of course he can pick it if he wants to. In this scenario, I see no problem with a hobbyist to unlock a scope for no other reason that simply because he wants to. But to pick a lock to get what's on the other side, something which the manufacturer charges money for (in the case of Rigol, they DO sell a higher bandwidth model, but this can easily apply to Agilent or Siglent or Keysight or Lecroi, or w/e company you want to insert there, which sells upgraded features, including locking out scope input channels, entirely!), for commercial use, then I personally feel that's different.
Quotethe only truly legitimate justification for preventing either of them from doing what they want with what they purchased is active harm that may result from that use.Ok, now I'm picturing a scope that is booby trapped to permanently brick itself if the wrong code is entered, lol. Yeah, I know you meant legal/financial consequences.
QuoteWhy does it matter whether you are unlocking it for personal use or for business use? Sure, it may matter as regards the support you can expect afterwards, but whether or not that serves as sufficient reason to refrain is dependent solely on the circumstances of the individual.I brought up the example of WinZip. I wonder what you think of it. Do you think anyone who pays for WinZip is a dickhead, because there are no consequences for not paying?
Another example is free student versions of software. Or free device samples. The entire point of giving away this free stuff is so that if/when that 1 in 1000 people who get this free stuff actually starts to use this stuff in a commercial/business enterprise, then they will start to pay for it!
I am not making a legal/ethical argument. This is just my own feeling.
If you write software for a living, you might see this differently. (And besides, you did not "discover" that the seller locked the glovebox. You purchased the car knowing it did not come with a glovebox; you were also offered a car WITH a glovebox, but you were too cheap to buy it.)
QuoteAt the end of the day, the fundamental justification you're using for supporting such arbitrary constraints on the purchaser is to make it possible for the manufacturer to employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available so that the manufacturer may profit from those schemes, and to fully control the conditions under which that functionality is made available even when what is supplied to the customer is fully capable of performing the functions in question. That is the same as insisting that a car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip. You are insisting that it would be wrong for the purchaser to flip that switch. In essence, you are insisting that the manufacturer reserves every right to unilaterally tell you what to do with what you purchase from them, as long as that control results in greater profit for them. On what basis do you claim that my characterization here is incorrect?
Why you only look at the consumer end? Are you born with the right that someone creates and delivers an oscilloscope you to with the features you desire and at the price you want? Nope. Eventually someone WILL do that.... as long as it is profitable to do so.
Quoteemploy arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is availableWhat functions are even available to begin with are somewhat arbitrary. While developing this product, they invested capital to create features that they figured might be desired and profitable to specific segments of the market (and tech nerds), but which were not necessarily highly desirable or must-have features for a broader market. But these features required an initial investment AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE COST (i.e. debugging/support). But you desire they should give these features to everyone.... Why?
Does that not increase the cost for those guys that just want "a basic wrench" in order to do their job? In order to earn their income and pay for the roof over their head? Now these customers need to buy the top of the line product, so that the evil company doesn't profit as much?
Quotecar manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip.And yet, this is exactly the case. Car manufacturers routinely "detune" motors for lower end model cars and motorcycles.
In addition, In the US, the government can and does also limit the top speed of vehicles that operate on US streets. That top speed is 189 miles per hour, IIRC. (How arbitrary does that sound? )
This arbitrary limit must be put on a vehicle by the manufacturer for any vehicle that needs to be street legal, but which could otherwise exceed this limit. It seems silly that this is even necessary, since we have speed limits. Who needs a car to go faster than 120mph? (a little more than the average speed of some or our highways, lol.)
Same can be said for a scope that goes to 100MHz. I fail to see a big market for that vs 50MHz. High speed video signals, maybe? What else will fit in that bandwidth? Anything higher than a couple MHz is exotic territory for a switching PSU. 5x 2MHz is 10MHz.. which is going to cover a lot of peoples' needs for an oscilloscope. Need more, you probably need a lot more.
(SNIP)
All that said, my stance on "why" people hack scopes? In my opinion it is because they can, because they are not willing to afford a larger sum of money for a non-profit activity (hobbyists) or they are struggling to keep their business and decide to take this route with minimum expenditure.
What people are arguing here, however, is that the seller should be able to unilaterally dictate to the buyer what he may and may not do with what he purchased, while the buyer has no equivalent power.
you'd better read up on the history of monopolies and the abuses that have occurred at their hands. A monopoly inherently gives the seller the ability to dictate terms).
I don't desire that they should give those features to everyone. Whether they do or not is their choice. What I do insist on is that they not demand that the customer artificially limit his actions in order to satisfy the manufacturer's desire to do things a certain way.
What people are insisting on here is that the manufacturer should be artificially shielded from the consequences of being lazy
Well, seeing how I've already outlined exactly how the manufacturers can do what they want without imposing artificial limits on the actions of their customers, this objection doesn't fly.
Put another way, just because a customer can attempt to take actions to bypass a lock doesn't mean he has the right to succeed in that. I do not argue that customers have the right to succeed in their attempts, only that they have the right to make the attempt.
QuoteWhat people are arguing here, however, is that the seller should be able to unilaterally dictate to the buyer what he may and may not do with what he purchased, while the buyer has no equivalent power.He can do w/e he wants with it, sure.
Quoteyou'd better read up on the history of monopolies and the abuses that have occurred at their hands. A monopoly inherently gives the seller the ability to dictate terms).What is the monopoly, here?
QuoteI don't desire that they should give those features to everyone. Whether they do or not is their choice. What I do insist on is that they not demand that the customer artificially limit his actions in order to satisfy the manufacturer's desire to do things a certain way.Which actions are you talking about, here, being artificially limited?
QuoteWhat people are insisting on here is that the manufacturer should be artificially shielded from the consequences of being lazyNot at all... WinZip is pretty lazy about how they charge for their software. And I'd venture that the majority of users do not pay for it. I don't think anyone should burn in hell for it, anymore than anyone would care about hobbyists unlocking a Rigol scope! I don't think anyone cares! I just don't agree that unlocking features, using the manufacturers own software, is "hacking" or "improving" something you own the same way as changing/modifying a physical good. Tweaking an ECU with a custom firmware to get more horsepower, that's hacking.
QuoteWell, seeing how I've already outlined exactly how the manufacturers can do what they want without imposing artificial limits on the actions of their customers, this objection doesn't fly.Well, I think it is obvious that this increases the cost to other customers who just want the base model. So it's a tradeoff. And I already said I don't object to you hacking your scope.
QuotePut another way, just because a customer can attempt to take actions to bypass a lock doesn't mean he has the right to succeed in that. I do not argue that customers have the right to succeed in their attempts, only that they have the right to make the attempt.This is one of the most curious things about your post. Very curious. I'll have to think on that. I'm thinking of Kwikset locks. They are the most common house/door/deadbolt lock in the US. And you can pick them with a couple of bobby pins in under a minute. But that doesn't matter, because the lock is just there to keep honest people honest. * In some way I think unlocking the Rigol for business use is not exactly honest, since there are other easy options to get what you need from Rigol and from other companies. Just an opinion.
I'm also thinking back to my childhood where you could stick a pin in the bottom of the cable box and get the pay channels for free, lol.
It is all software! it is all bits. The two are, in very very deep philosophical and practical ways, completely identical.Well, strictly speaking, that's not true. It depends on the architecture of the machine.
On most modern personal computer class hardware, code executes in regions of memory that are protected from writes, while data lives in regions of memory that are not protected from writes. Of course, the operating system arranges things so that the hardware is configured in that way.
At the end of the day, what the computer executes is instructions. The gating control we're talking about can be implemented either through instructions or through data. The important thing isn't how that gating control is implemented, it's that it's a gating control we're talking about, not actual functionality beyond that.
QuoteWhat's the difference betweenAnswer: in very deep practical ways, absolutely none.
- changing one EPROM location from 0x1234 to 0xabcd - where 0x1234 is the key that causes the lower bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware and 0xabcd is the key that causes the higher bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware
- changing another EPROM location from 0x1234 to 0xabcd - where 0x1234 is a JZ opcode that causes the lower bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware and 0xabcd is the JNZ opcode that causes the higher bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware
Perhaps so, but what we're talking about here isn't that. What we're talking about is the difference between changing an EEPROM location and an NVRAM location. But as I mentioned above, in the end, that's not what really matters.
QuoteThere are no "special" bits. There are only bits. And any of those bits can be changed by an editor.Oh, this is most definitely not the case. The "specialness" of the bit isn't (necessarily) defined by where it lives during execution of the code, but (if anything at all) where it lives when the machine is turned off. But that is only an indicator, really.
That line will continue to blur, however, as nonvolatile storage improves and continues to gain the desirable attributes of volatile storage.
Regardless, what we're talking about is whether or not the system is configured to execute the code that implements the functionality in question.
Tell me something. If you had an oscilloscope that had a jumper on it, and that jumper controlled whether or not the oscilloscope's MSO functionality was enabled, and the scope you purchased had it set so that the functionality was disabled, would you believe it to be unethical to open the scope up and change the jumper to enable the functionality? If so, on what basis?
At the end of the day, the fundamental justification you're using for supporting such arbitrary constraints on the purchaser is to make it possible for the manufacturer to employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available so that the manufacturer may profit from those schemes, and to fully control the conditions under which that functionality is made available even when what is supplied to the customer is fully capable of performing the functions in question. That is the same as insisting that a car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip. You are insisting that it would be wrong for the purchaser to flip that switch. In essence, you are insisting that the manufacturer reserves every right to unilaterally tell you what to do with what you purchase from them, as long as that control results in greater profit for them. On what basis do you claim that my characterization here is incorrect?
Tell me something. If you had an oscilloscope that had a jumper on it, and that jumper controlled whether or not the oscilloscope's MSO functionality was enabled, and the scope you purchased had it set so that the functionality was disabled, would you believe it to be unethical to open the scope up and change the jumper to enable the functionality? If so, on what basis?
That is known to be illegal, as IBM's customers found out when they were caught doing it to increase the speed of their mainframes. (I presume you aren't going to make an arbitrary distinction between a jumper on a board and a wire jumper on a backplane).
QuoteAt the end of the day, the fundamental justification you're using for supporting such arbitrary constraints on the purchaser is to make it possible for the manufacturer to employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available so that the manufacturer may profit from those schemes, and to fully control the conditions under which that functionality is made available even when what is supplied to the customer is fully capable of performing the functions in question. That is the same as insisting that a car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip. You are insisting that it would be wrong for the purchaser to flip that switch. In essence, you are insisting that the manufacturer reserves every right to unilaterally tell you what to do with what you purchase from them, as long as that control results in greater profit for them. On what basis do you claim that my characterization here is incorrect?
All analogies are dangerous, and there are so many significant differences between that and the current discussion that it would be unprofitable to go down that rathole. There's too much heat and too little light in this discussion as it is!
All control is by bit patterns, wherever they are located and however they act.
Youngsters forget past generations of memory. It was normal to turn off a computer in the factory, ship it to the customer, plug it in, and it continued executing from the instruction where it had been turned off. Speeded up the on-site acceptance tests Core memory (you know, the origin of the "core dumps"!) was non-volatile.
For the future, HP is claiming that Samsung will manufacture their memresistor memory which will reenable the same benefits.
Youngsters forget past generations of memory. It was normal to turn off a computer in the factory, ship it to the customer, plug it in, and it continued executing from the instruction where it had been turned off. Speeded up the on-site acceptance tests Core memory (you know, the origin of the "core dumps"!) was non-volatile.
That is admittedly before my time. But I do know of core memory, and core dumps.
Sounds like you may have some mainframe experience, in which case I'd bet you have some interesting stories to tell!
One thing that I think a lot of people fail to realize is that a lot of what we think of as somewhat recent developments were actually done way back during the mainframe era. Virtualization, for example.
... but as an end user just i feel screwed over....
I have already paid for the full thing and what's inside it.
Hacking the scope will void the warranty? I'm 100% okay with that, I respect that and it's in your rights because i actualy modified the thing.
I wouldn't be okay with "pirating" the scope software if you'd have to install the addon features from an external source, so if it wasn't already there.
"Why do people hack DSOs?"
My humble opinion:
it is bullshit to pay for one product that already has all the features inside it (dave even shows us that the rigol fron panel pcbs are always populated! even if the plastic cover don't have the buttons/leds holes)
but it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?
The action under discussion, that would be artificially limited if some had their way, is the ability to enter a magic code into the oscilloscope one owns so as to enable the features that were not enabled prior to that, even if he didn't obtain the code from the seller or one of the seller's authorized representatives.
No, you're looking at only one side of the economic equation. The other side is that the customer base who have no problem with enabling the features in their scopes in this way will view a scope they can do that with as a better value for their money, and they'll thus buy the scope without hesitation. The end result is that the manufacturer gets greater sales than their competitors, and thus more profit.
If it really increased the cost of the base model to other customers, then how do you explain how Rigol manages to sell their DS1054Z for such a low price when they have arguably the most "hackable" (sorry, "easily modifiable") scope on the market?
Rigol is great for hobbyists. Hobbyists can buy and hack their Rigol. No one cares. But I don't agree with some of the reasoning/justifications that are being used.
"Why do people hack DSOs?"
My humble opinion:
it is bullshit to pay for one product that already has all the features inside it (dave even shows us that the rigol fron panel pcbs are always populated! even if the plastic cover don't have the buttons/leds holes)
but it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?
No.
What if it wasn't already there? What if the prices/models/specs were exactly the same as they are now but the DS1054Z had a cheaper chip inside compared to the DS1104Z?
Would you still feel "ripped off", even though you pay the same and get the same?
"Why do people hack DSOs?"
My humble opinion:
it is bullshit to pay for one product that already has all the features inside it (dave even shows us that the rigol fron panel pcbs are always populated! even if the plastic cover don't have the buttons/leds holes)
but it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?
No.
What if it wasn't already there? What if the prices/models/specs were exactly the same as they are now but the DS1054Z had a cheaper chip inside compared to the DS1104Z?
Would you still feel "ripped off", even though you pay the same and get the same?You mean you pay less, you get less?
I wouldn't be getting the same because i would have a different, inferior scope in the series for the lesser price, which requires REAL modifications to become the better spec'd model. And that would be ok.
I'll say that again: if i had to pay X to get a medium which has the additional software features i then have to install into my scope, that can only be installed on my scope because it's associated with my scope serial number, i would be firmly against people pirating it.
But I am paying for something that already have everything inside it, that already is the best model, it only need the magic words to become it. And i have to pay for the magic? bullshit, i say.
QuoteThe action under discussion, that would be artificially limited if some had their way, is the ability to enter a magic code into the oscilloscope one owns so as to enable the features that were not enabled prior to that, even if he didn't obtain the code from the seller or one of the seller's authorized representatives.Wow, this is really hamstringing the customers' ability to use the device as they see fit! Who'd a thunk on my list of features when buying a scope I would be specifically looking for "the ability to enter a magic code... so as to enable features [that many customers willingly pay for]."
QuoteNo, you're looking at only one side of the economic equation. The other side is that the customer base who have no problem with enabling the features in their scopes in this way will view a scope they can do that with as a better value for their money, and they'll thus buy the scope without hesitation. The end result is that the manufacturer gets greater sales than their competitors, and thus more profit.I disagree. There is no way you can make this conclusion.
QuoteIf it really increased the cost of the base model to other customers, then how do you explain how Rigol manages to sell their DS1054Z for such a low price when they have arguably the most "hackable" (sorry, "easily modifiable") scope on the market?What does one have to do with the other? "Increased" cost is relative.
Yes, they sell the DS1054Z at a very attractive price, even if you leave out the "hackability." For a 4 channel 50MHz DSO, you will be shocked at how cheap this is compared to the competition. How cheap they sell it has no bearing on the fact that introducing a stronger key lock will increase their cost..... and how they distribute that cost is up them, but the most likely scenario, IMO, is an increase to the cost of the base unit.
Rigol is great for hobbyists. Hobbyists can buy and hack their Rigol. No one cares. But I don't agree with some of the reasoning/justifications that are being used.
but it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?
Quotebut it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?Personally, no. I respect your opinion, but mine is not the same.
I can buy a car that has Navstar capability. But perhaps I don't want to pay for the service and don't use it.
I can buy a smart phone with a GPS. But perhaps, I don't wish to agree to the EULA to use free nav software, and I don't wish to buy a paid app.
I can buy a milling machine with certain upgrades built in, and if/when I need them maybe I'll pay the money for the additional features. I'm not sour grapes, because I wouldn't have bought the machine if the existing functionality did not represent a positive functionality:cost ratio to begin with.
Again, I respect your opinion, but to me hardware in a DSO is absolutely NOTHING by itself. I am not in the least bothered if the hardware COULD do more with a different firmware. I do not feel "cheated" in the least. The way I see it, the fact that some people BUY the unlocked model, because they want to, this makes the base model cheaper. Why/where/how the money gets passed around does not matter to me.
As I said before, it is quite possible that Rigol makes next to nothing on the base model. As in, they would need to sell an unrealistic number of units in order to make back their initial investment. But the sales of the "unlocked" variety enable them to sell at that price.
Agreed. And as for the person who buys the model with the capabilities already enabled, they may well have good reason to do that instead of buying the less expensive version and enabling the functionality themselves. Such as after-the-sale support.
QuoteAgreed. And as for the person who buys the model with the capabilities already enabled, they may well have good reason to do that instead of buying the less expensive version and enabling the functionality themselves. Such as after-the-sale support.I have another reason. It's because they can afford it and they want it. It's that simple.
(I would say that it's because they NEED it, and it's going to be paid back in spades through the increased utility in commercial enterprise, but I would venture that 1% of the people that even buy the 100MHz model ever found a use for the 50MHz-100MHz range or the double sample memory.)