Bottom line is, the Marketing Folks are wanting to have it both ways... cheap and quick release of the lower-end product, while NOT paying for the cost of actually MAKING a different product, or even differentiating the products in any reasonably secure manner.
My personal opinion is that those are IMAGINED profits, and one cannot hold someone responsible for IMAGINED losses, only REAL ones.
Yes, they DID have to develop some plugins for the *NIX HAL, and the GUI must have taken all of a week to come up with... that is real and unique R&D that should be recouped. And it IS... in the base price of the cheapest models. As is the cost of the extra RAM, and the cost of the special switching hardware they use to attenuate the scope above the "Paid For" feature level.
Bottom line is, the Marketing Folks are wanting to have it both ways... cheap and quick release of the lower-end product, while NOT paying for the cost of actually MAKING a different product, or even differentiating the products in any reasonably secure manner. Or at least, so say those who keep taking the side of the Stef Murky set. My personal opinion is that those are IMAGINED profits, and one cannot hold someone responsible for IMAGINED losses, only REAL ones.
People who want to do the wrong thing will justify it every which way until the cows come home.
People who want to do the wrong thing will justify it every which way until the cows come home.
And the justifications will be difficult to distinguish from trolling.
Bottom line is, the Marketing Folks are wanting to have it both ways... cheap and quick release of the lower-end product, while NOT paying for the cost of actually MAKING a different product, or even differentiating the products in any reasonably secure manner.
For starters, it's the customer that pays. The customer is the one who wants the world in a product for a penny price - and the manufacturers are merely adapting production processes to deliver. The customer is also demanding convenience and immediacy in addressing after sales matters, such as support, warranty, repairs and upgrades.
But I smell hypocrisy...
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.
You use the word 'lazy' - but that is not what is being described. The correct word is efficient - producing the maximum result for the minimum expenditure of resources. If you honestly want manufacturers to make truly differentiated products - will you be willing to pay for it? (I can hear the screams of outrage already...)QuoteMy personal opinion is that those are IMAGINED profits, and one cannot hold someone responsible for IMAGINED losses, only REAL ones.Oh, the losses are real, alright. It's just that they are not easy to measure. Doesn't make them any less relevant.
QuoteYes, they DID have to develop some plugins for the *NIX HAL, and the GUI must have taken all of a week to come up with... that is real and unique R&D that should be recouped. And it IS... in the base price of the cheapest models. As is the cost of the extra RAM, and the cost of the special switching hardware they use to attenuate the scope above the "Paid For" feature level.
Bottom line is, the Marketing Folks are wanting to have it both ways... cheap and quick release of the lower-end product, while NOT paying for the cost of actually MAKING a different product, or even differentiating the products in any reasonably secure manner. Or at least, so say those who keep taking the side of the Stef Murky set. My personal opinion is that those are IMAGINED profits, and one cannot hold someone responsible for IMAGINED losses, only REAL ones.Wow, what a load of BS. How you do know if, say, Rigol makes a profit at all, currently? Do you do their books? Do you know their payroll? Taxes? Leases? Loan/interest payments? All their costs of operation? Any given company at any given time can be losing huge money on any given product. Huge.
Xbox... huge loser for Microsoft.
Amazon... years and years of huge losses, buying market share.
Any given year, some scope company may go out of business. At any given time, competing companies may be waging a war of attrition on each other. Or they may be selling some of their product line at a huge loss (at least for the foreseeable future) in order to gain market share while making a bigger profit on other products... Anyhow, the long development cycle being what it is for a scope, the actual profit/loss on any given model is really not applicable. It's more like social security. The current sales are paying dev for today's payroll, marketing, support, and others costs of operation, and hopefully some left for R&D future product... Sale is sale. Money is money. It could be many thousands of units before they will turn a book profit on a scope. They may NEVER make a profit. There will be some winners and some losers. A company might have spent a couple years designing a sweet 4 channel 50MHz scope for the bargain price of only $600.00 range.... only to find out they're up against Rigols latest bargain scope at 50% less. Again, not that it even matters if THIS specific product makes profit or not.
In business you are either making money or losing money. There's no in between. There's nothing wrong with maximizing profit on a particular product (if there is even any to begin with).
Scopes are so cheap and quick to design, this is why Tek is now selling rebranded scopes instead of making their own, of course... No, they're doing whatever it takes to remain relevant and in business.
As for your real vs imagined profits? I was never going to pay for this music and movies, anyway, right? So I can watch it on a torrent and I'm not hurting anyone?
As an irrelevant aside, what makes you think a company did ship Windows with the hardware? It was principally a linux box, with Windows on it for occasional use.So what? There are plenty of other operating systems you can use to unlock your hardware's full functionality, which isn't the case with an oscilloscope. Microsoft didn't provide you with the hardware, only the software. If you bought them as a bundle, then it's the stupid seller's fault for providing inadequate software for the hardware. Install a new OS or complain to the seller and get a refund.
I'm having difficulty distinguising your posts from trolling. Why? Because one trolls' technique is to continually avoid the point being made, and try to get other people's attention diverted onto irrelevancies.
How would you suggest I distinguish your posts from trolling?
Huh... Ok, due to a huge group buy, we can all go to zoot.com and buy a $20.00 socket wrench for only $10.00. But only if we all buy it. This is a great deal, because for some of us, this might come in handy. The 10% of people who actually needed one are going to by happy. The rest of us are going to get a great deal on a socket wrench. Everyone happy, right?
No, you have been saying EVERYONE should get the same suite. And everyone should pay the same cost. And there should be only ONE model scope. One model DMM.
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 potential for a firmware update to brick the scope
Sales: but but but...
I'm having difficulty distinguising your posts from trolling. Why? Because one trolls' technique is to continually avoid the point being made, and try to get other people's attention diverted onto irrelevancies.
How would you suggest I distinguish your posts from trolling?I'll return the question since you just as well continuously avoid, ignore or "misunderstand" the point we make.
First off I must clarify, I never took this thread as pertaining to Rigol, specifically. A lot of good points have been made pertaining specifically to Rigol.
W/e is your opinion of that company, I do not share. I have no opinion on Rigol of their business practices. I have never used one of their scopes.
Agilent and Siglent are major players for a long time. They also piecemeal their scope and have upgradeable features. If locking your memory is annoying, you would be really annoyed buying a 4 channel scope, 4 sets of BNC, 4 sets of position and voltage control... and 2 of them don't work by default! Also, tgzzz and others have shown similar cases regarding CNC milling equipment.
I'm not sure how this is a poor Tek, bad Rigol issue. But if you're so sympathetic, why are you buying Rigol in the first place? Apparently, you can't even screw them out of any money by hacking their scope, since there is no loss of profit to them using your math? BTW, in Tek's heyday, do you ever supposed they said.. Hmmm, we can manufacture this scope for $2,000.00, now. Maybe we should lower the selling price to $2,001.00? If we well 3 million of them this year without any sales personnel and marketing, and if all the extra sales don't result in any support calls, we will break even?
And can you give me a post number where you figured out Rigol's profit of $160 per unit?
The cost of the product is set to maximize profit. OR to minimize loss. You do not know what is the case. Just because they are making money on each unit doesn't mean they will actually recoup their initial investment. They already made a huge investment and took a huge gamble. Now they're lying in that bed. Selling at significantly less than other brands might be the best way to recoup most of their investment. This is why I'm curious how you can know what is their profit to the dollar per unit and how many people in the chain must share a cut of this? And how does this relate to their operating profit? And how do you know their upfront investment in the circuit design, firmware, software, assembly and testing plant, website, support and dealer chain, plastics/molds, et al?
Yes, most manufacturers DO sell upgrade/unlock. The difference is that they ALSO spend the time & money to actually put a LOCK on stuff rather than just zip-tie it down and say "You haven't paid for this; now don't cut that zip-tie or we'll stop liking you and refuse you warranty!!!"
First off I must clarify, I never took this thread as pertaining to Rigol, specifically. A lot of good points have been made pertaining specifically to Rigol.
W/e is your opinion of that company, I do not share. I have no opinion on Rigol of their business practices. I have never used one of their scopes.
Agilent and Siglent are major players for a long time. They also piecemeal their scope and have upgradeable features. If locking your memory is annoying, you would be really annoyed buying a 4 channel scope, 4 sets of BNC, 4 sets of position and voltage control... and 2 of them don't work by default! Also, tgzzz and others have shown similar cases regarding CNC milling equipment.
I'm not sure how this is a poor Tek, bad Rigol issue. But if you're so sympathetic, why are you buying Rigol in the first place? Apparently, you can't even screw them out of any money by hacking their scope, since there is no loss of profit to them using your math? BTW, in Tek's heyday, do you ever supposed they said.. Hmmm, we can manufacture this scope for $2,000.00, now. Maybe we should lower the selling price to $2,001.00? If we well 3 million of them this year without any sales personnel and marketing, and if all the extra sales don't result in any support calls, we will break even?
And can you give me a post number where you figured out Rigol's profit of $160 per unit?
The cost of the product is set to maximize profit. OR to minimize loss. You do not know what is the case. Just because they are making money on each unit doesn't mean they will actually recoup their initial investment. They already made a huge investment and took a huge gamble. Now they're lying in that bed. Selling at significantly less than other brands might be the best way to recoup most of their investment. This is why I'm curious how you can know what is their profit to the dollar per unit and how many people in the chain must share a cut of this? And how does this relate to their operating profit? And how do you know their upfront investment in the circuit design, firmware, software, assembly and testing plant, website, support and dealer chain, plastics/molds, et al?
I didn't say Rigol's net profit is $160... I said that the price the market will bear for those additional features is $160 right now. They are getting $160 MORE for this unit than the closest competitor, when their base specs are actually 1/2 what the Hantek lists at.
The 100MHz Hantek DSO5102 and the 50Mhz Rigol DS1054 have very similar featureset, very similar BOM and are manufactured In China, so actual tooling and supply chain are very similar. If these costs are NOT very nearly identical, then they are DOING SOMETHING WRONG and the customer should NOT be expected to pay the difference.
The current market value difference between the two, from reputable vendors, is $160. And yet, I've been told repeatedly in this very forum that the Rigol, rated at 1/2 the bandwidth, is a better value at $160 more BECAUSE of this additional software that can easily be unlocked.
That is $160 per unit, MINIMUM, plus free advertising due to brand loyalty, that they get for all their R&D on that additional software. Not too shabby, really. And the best part is that they STILL get to sell the same exact scope for more, at a dozen different prices in a dozen different market segments. And the law of Supply & Demand is still fulfilled, unlike here in the US, where a corporation is now rewarded for attempting to gain Monopoly power to circumvent that law.
Yes, most manufacturers DO sell upgrade/unlock. The difference is that they ALSO spend the time & money to actually put a LOCK on stuff rather than just zip-tie it down and say "You haven't paid for this; now don't cut that zip-tie or we'll stop liking you and refuse you warranty!!!"
THAT, IMO, is deliberately encouraging you to whip out the ol' MacGyver knife. This is no different in principle from the dozen or so upgrades I've done myself on my own Tek gear from used parts and softwares bought on fleaBay. I'm not afraid to void warranties; that is part of the price I pay for modding my stuff.
Cheers!
mnem
Do these pants make my ass?
I am not a lawyer or legal scholar, but I am pretty sure that a software license is considered a valuable product and that if it is used without the proper permission - it's stealing.
This assumes there is a license. I've never seen an scope or any other instrument that requires agreeing to a license before using it. This means plain vanilla copyright and patent law applies - you can't make copies of the software, and you can't reimplement patented functionality and sell it. You can of course make copies for your own use and reimplement patented functionality in your lab to your heart's content. Without explicitly agreeing not to, you can also reverse engineer to your heart's content.
A software license is a contract. If you haven't agreed to a contract then one doesn't exist and you're purely bound by the letter of the law, which in no way prevents you from modifying the software in your scope in any which way you like. Maybe you think that's immoral and should be illegal, but that doesn't make it so.
I am somewhat worried about what will happen when they do decide they need protection. it will probably be a lot of PITA efforts to prevent hacking which will add to the initial cost and add more process and procedure to the ownership experience.
QuoteI am somewhat worried about what will happen when they do decide they need protection. it will probably be a lot of PITA efforts to prevent hacking which will add to the initial cost and add more process and procedure to the ownership experience.
For various reasons I think that medium to large companies would prefer to pay the extra for features rather than hack for them. This probably explains why the feature unlock system only needs to be basic. Therefore, the majority of customers will simply pay up for the options they need.
I'm not sure how the 'hack' I did on my Agilent E5071 VNA would be categorised (other than cheating the system). I reverse engineered the main VNA program code and worked out that the VNA options could be added by other means when compared to the usual keypad entry. i.e. I worked out the file format for a text based licence file and then debugged the running VNA code to get the licence key code to include in the file.
So to hack it I ended up placing a text file with the right filename and right contents with the right keycodes in it to unlock the options permanently. The VNA looks for this file and then releases the options if the key is valid for each option and expiry date listed in the file.
This time you spent figuring this out is not going to be reuseable. It's specific to this unique device. And you're not going to do it again. So in a way it's a waste of your time.
Rigol is 4 channel, Hantek is 2 channel. There is at least $160 right there.
I am not a lawyer or legal scholar, but I am pretty sure that a software license is considered a valuable product and that if it is used without the proper permission - it's stealing.This assumes there is a license. I've never seen an scope or any other instrument that requires agreeing to a license before using it. This means plain vanilla copyright and patent law applies - you can't make copies of the software, and you can't reimplement patented functionality and sell it. You can of course make copies for your own use and reimplement patented functionality in your lab to your heart's content. Without explicitly agreeing not to, you can also reverse engineer to your heart's content.
A software license is a contract. If you haven't agreed to a contract then one doesn't exist and you're purely bound by the letter of the law, which in no way prevents you from modifying the software in your scope in any which way you like. Maybe you think that's immoral and should be illegal, but that doesn't make it so.
QuoteYes, most manufacturers DO sell upgrade/unlock. The difference is that they ALSO spend the time & money to actually put a LOCK on stuff rather than just zip-tie it down and say "You haven't paid for this; now don't cut that zip-tie or we'll stop liking you and refuse you warranty!!!"Ok, this is different from a lot of people saying something to the effect of:
"I paid for the hardware, hence I already paid for the features. It's mine to unlock." These are the comments that drew myself and tgzzz and some others into the thread, and the defense of this stance is still a little shabby, IMO. (Other than some EU laws, maybe, lol.) In reality, the honest fellas who purchased the upgrade are the ones who paid (the extremely trivial cost in the case of this memory deal) for your additional hardware! And don't cry for them, because they were happy to do it. No one forced them to buy a particular scope.
You are saying, if you want people to pay for the upgrade, you should make it more difficult to get for free. Morality and legality is not a part of this "better lock" argument, at all, then. So that's fine. I can't argue with that. Although I still see a lot of valid reasons why they would choose to use a single firmware and a simple code unlock, even if their goal is to actually encourage people to pay. If you want to sell a cheaper door, you put a cheaper lock on it. And the end users benefits from a cheaper price... whether they leave it alone or they break the lock. I'm sure there are a lot of buyers who do not break this lock. Whether morality reasons, or they can't be bothered, or they don't even care what's on the other side of the door. And there are still a lot of buyers that just pay for the higher model without a second thought. So Rigol will probably continue using the cheap lock as long as it works enough of the time. Nothing immoral or lazy or stupid on the part of Rigol, there. Whether this is actually a marketing ploy and they are subliminally encouraging people to unlock their scope... uhhmm, yeah I agree it's not beyond the realm of possibility, but why go to such lengths to make a crazy theory strung together with unproveable assumptions to justify what you are doing?
In your specific case, if you would have purchased the Hantek, then I suppose it IS a win-win. This isn't the same page I was writing on.