he will automatically eliminate scopes that are permanently limited to 50
Quotehe will automatically eliminate scopes that are permanently limited to 50I suppose all manufacturers will have to start implementing bandwidth limits with a weak code lock in order to be able to put this feature on the spec sheet.
50MHz
1GS/S
50kB memory
600x480 VGA
Ethernet
USB
unlock code to hack the bandwidth to 100MHz (code might be the last 72594 + the last 3 digits of the serial number x 2 *wink wink*!)
...something in the UI that lets you change the bandwidth to 100 MHz. It doesn't require a magic key. It's just a checkbox that says "Enable 100MHz bandwidth"
Now replace that UI setting with a jumper on the scope's motherboard.
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.)
...something in the UI that lets you change the bandwidth to 100 MHz. It doesn't require a magic key. It's just a checkbox that says "Enable 100MHz bandwidth"
Now replace that UI setting with a jumper on the scope's motherboard.
...a jumper which requires you to break the "warranty void" sticker and unscrew all that metal shielding to get access it.
Not the same thing at all.
QuoteNot the same thing at all.
So you judge the rightness or wrongness of the act on the basis of how involved it is?? I'm skeptical.
QuoteNot the same thing at all.
So you judge the rightness or wrongness of the act on the basis of how involved it is?? I'm skeptical.
Nope.
A selectable menu option is clearly intended for people to use. The manufacturer is showing intent.
Opening up the case? Not so much. The manufacturer is clearly showing they don't intend for people to do it.
Similarly: Entering a proprietary code to unlock features also shows manufacturer intent.
...and now we go full circle back to "manufacturers have no right to tell customers what to do" and "if they don't intend for people to do something, they shouldn't build it into the hardware".
And you still haven't answered the fundamental question: what's the ethical difference between a software switch and a hardware switch, when there's no copying of copyrighted content involved in flipping the software switch?
Look, I'm not arguing against copyright law itself. I'm arguing against unilaterally imposed contracts.
I promise if a hack for Siglent or Agilent was posted, the argument would now shift. Agilent/Siglent would use a better lock if they TRULY didn't want us to hack their scopes!
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
How can this be any clearer?
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
QuoteAnd you still haven't answered the fundamental question: what's the ethical difference between a software switch and a hardware switch, when there's no copying of copyrighted content involved in flipping the software switch?This isn't the question that I personally care about. I don't see any difference. There, I said it. And you can make a case that by law, you are doing nothing wrong, since Rigol didn't make you agree to a EULA or anything like that.
QuoteLook, I'm not arguing against copyright law itself. I'm arguing against unilaterally imposed contracts.This is the part that I personally care about. The fact you think it's wrong that they try, at all (and in the case of Rigol, apparently not very hard.) You are free to haggle with a manufacturer if you have a novel use for their product. If you are a big enough purchaser, you can negotiate your own terms. You can have features added or removed. If you are a single end user, you can choose other devices?
It seems like a lot of the other people who are arguing along a somewhat similar vein don't seem to have any problem with Agilent locking features (both software and hardware) on their scopes. I am not sure why it makes a difference.
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
And what says what you have bought? What the seller claims to have sold you, or the totality of what you actually possess?
I claim it's the latter, not the former.
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
And what says what you have bought? What the seller claims to have sold you, or the totality of what you actually possess?
I claim it's the latter, not the former.
I agree - you own the totality of the specific FSM that you bought. You do not own a different FSM that you did not buy.
Simple really.
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.QuoteHow can this be any clearer?
I agree; it can't be any clearer.
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
And what says what you have bought? What the seller claims to have sold you, or the totality of what you actually possess?
I claim it's the latter, not the former.
I agree - you own the totality of the specific FSM that you bought. You do not own a different FSM that you did not buy.
Simple really.
You own the totality of what you actually possess.
With the Rigol 1054Z, what you possess is a piece of hardware with a software-controllable bandwidth limit, and firmware that controls that bandwidth limit and that implements other features, with the firmware initially configured to tell the hardware to limit the bandwidth to 50 MHz and configured to enable the aforementioned features for a finite period of time. The firmware also implements a couple of different interfaces that make it possible to tell the firmware to change the configured bandwidth, and to enable other features indefinitely, by entering one or more magic codes via any of those interfaces.
You possess all of the above. What you do not necessarily possess at the time of purchase are the specific codes referenced.
There is no contract governing the acquisition of the codes, or of their application to the scope. You are free to acquire or discover those codes for yourself through whatever legal means are at your disposal, and apply them as you see fit.
Now, then: what of the above do you disagree with?
(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)
"It's wrong that manufacturers artificially limit my device. I refuse to pay for upgraded features that are "artificial," because the boards/electronics in both devices are identical!" It doesn't matter if the software engineers were asked to make different versions of the software. Or that they don't do this for free. It doesn't matter that different versions were specifically made to appeal to different customers at different price brackets. If the hardware is the same, I should own it all (for the cost of the most basic model plus a couple bucks, because let's face it, software is FREE after the very minimal initial work; the HARDWARE design is MUCH more difficult!; and the manufacturer will make MORE profit by selling MORE scopes, obviously, duh!)
Again, let's go back to hardware vs software switch. I see no difference. Similarly, I see no real difference between two devices that are differentiated by hardware and two devices that are differentiated by firmware. In either case, you are paying for the NRE that went into the product. Whether that's hardware or firmware, it doesn't matter to me, personally. I do not see any problem with having two different products with the same hardware.
You own the totality of what you actually possess.
With the Rigol 1054Z, what you possess is a piece of hardware with a software-controllable bandwidth limit, and firmware that controls that bandwidth limit and that implements other features, with the firmware initially configured to tell the hardware to limit the bandwidth to 50 MHz and configured to enable the aforementioned features for a finite period of time. The firmware also implements a couple of different interfaces that make it possible to tell the firmware to change the configured bandwidth, and to enable other features indefinitely, by entering one or more magic codes via any of those interfaces.
You possess all of the above. What you do not necessarily possess at the time of purchase are the specific codes referenced.
There is no contract governing the acquisition of the codes, or of their application to the scope. You are free to acquire or discover those codes for yourself through whatever legal means are at your disposal, and apply them as you see fit.
Now, then: what of the above do you disagree with?
Very little, since it is more accurate.
I will, however note two key words in your post: "legal means". I will also note two additional constraints: moral and ethical behaviour. Both are dependent on geography/culture and the individual's preference.
Quote(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)
Good to see someone negatively advertising thumpapost; shame if you gave them them something in order to do it
"It's wrong that manufacturers artificially limit my device. I refuse to pay for upgraded features that are "artificial," because the boards/electronics in both devices are identical!" It doesn't matter if the software engineers were asked to make different versions of the software. Or that they don't do this for free. It doesn't matter that different versions were specifically made to appeal to different customers at different price brackets. If the hardware is the same, I should own it all (for the cost of the most basic model plus a couple bucks, because let's face it, software is FREE after the very minimal initial work; the HARDWARE design is MUCH more difficult!; and the manufacturer will make MORE profit by selling MORE scopes, obviously, duh!)
Again, let's go back to hardware vs software switch. I see no difference. Similarly, I see no real difference between two devices that are differentiated by hardware and two devices that are differentiated by firmware. In either case, you are paying for the NRE that went into the product. Whether that's hardware or firmware, it doesn't matter to me, personally. I do not see any problem with having two different products with the same hardware.I agree with having copyright and don't believe that all software should be free but there's a very big difference between hardware and software, especially when scale is concerned.. It is true that both software cost money in non-recurring engineering costs. The difference is how the cost reduces vs the number of units produced: as the number of units rises towards infinity, the cost of the hardware reaches the lower limit of the cost of the raw materials, energy, labour, transport etc. but with software, the cost per unit falls towards zero. I feel that this point is often neglected, when people think about software vs hardware.
You own the totality of what you actually possess.
With the Rigol 1054Z, what you possess is a piece of hardware with a software-controllable bandwidth limit, and firmware that controls that bandwidth limit and that implements other features, with the firmware initially configured to tell the hardware to limit the bandwidth to 50 MHz and configured to enable the aforementioned features for a finite period of time. The firmware also implements a couple of different interfaces that make it possible to tell the firmware to change the configured bandwidth, and to enable other features indefinitely, by entering one or more magic codes via any of those interfaces.
You possess all of the above. What you do not necessarily possess at the time of purchase are the specific codes referenced.
There is no contract governing the acquisition of the codes, or of their application to the scope. You are free to acquire or discover those codes for yourself through whatever legal means are at your disposal, and apply them as you see fit.
Now, then: what of the above do you disagree with?
Very little, since it is more accurate.
I will, however note two key words in your post: "legal means". I will also note two additional constraints: moral and ethical behaviour. Both are dependent on geography/culture and the individual's preference.Yes. Legal means. Because there is no copyright involved in acquiring the keys or in using them, if you or someone else can legally reverse engineer the product and figure out how to generate those codes, then those codes are free game.
Yes. Legal means. Because there is no copyright involved in acquiring the keys or in using them, if you or someone else can legally reverse engineer the product and figure out how to generate those codes, then those codes are free game.
Two mistakes: you are assuming that the position in the USA is the same everywhere (I explicitly noted "geography"), and that those are the only laws that might be brought to bear. The first mistake is a classic Merkin mistake, the second also has elements of geography in it.
In what jurisdictions is the generation or acquisition and use of these codes illegal? It certainly isn't in the United States. The DMCA doesn't apply to this, as I've already described previously.
"It's wrong that manufacturers artificially limit my device. I refuse to pay for upgraded features that are "artificial," because the boards/electronics in both devices are identical!" It doesn't matter if the software engineers were asked to make different versions of the software. Or that they don't do this for free. It doesn't matter that different versions were specifically made to appeal to different customers at different price brackets. If the hardware is the same, I should own it all (for the cost of the most basic model plus a couple bucks, because let's face it, software is FREE after the very minimal initial work; the HARDWARE design is MUCH more difficult!; and the manufacturer will make MORE profit by selling MORE scopes, obviously, duh!)
Again, let's go back to hardware vs software switch. I see no difference. Similarly, I see no real difference between two devices that are differentiated by hardware and two devices that are differentiated by firmware. In either case, you are paying for the NRE that went into the product. Whether that's hardware or firmware, it doesn't matter to me, personally. I do not see any problem with having two different products with the same hardware.I agree with having copyright and don't believe that all software should be free but there's a very big difference between hardware and software, especially when scale is concerned.. It is true that both software cost money in non-recurring engineering costs. The difference is how the cost reduces vs the number of units produced: as the number of units rises towards infinity, the cost of the hardware reaches the lower limit of the cost of the raw materials, energy, labour, transport etc. but with software, the cost per unit falls towards zero. I feel that this point is often neglected, when people think about software vs hardware.
Oh, they think about it, call it "amortised NRE costs", and come to the conclusion - while there is some truth in it - that it is an academic chain of thought, irrelevant, or wrong.
Academic: most products are not sold in sufficiently large numbers for it to be useful, i.e. the amortised NRE costs are still a significant part of the product's price.
Irrelevant: laws and legal systems are involved, and they trump any such argument.
Wrong: because of the above, and because of some ethical/moral considerations.