Author Topic: Reasons for hacking DSOs  (Read 90981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2772
  • Country: gb
  • Occasionally active on the forum, available via PM
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #175 on: March 22, 2016, 08:17:27 pm »
Yes, if you buy a dual processor workstation and try to use Windows 9x/ME or one of the Home (XP/Vista/W7) or non/Pro (Win8.x) editions on it, which would be plain stupid.

Nobody's asking if it would be sensible or not.

Sure, but if you buy a piece of hardware (PC) and try to use it with a piece of software (Windows Home Edition) that does not fully support your piece of hardware then you have only yourself to blame. Simple as that.
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3734
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #176 on: March 22, 2016, 08:23:13 pm »
Quote
Quote
As for 24MB vs 12MB.... that is going to make what difference, exactly, in practice?

So you're confirming that the $200 memory upgrade for the Rigol scopes is pointless, thanks for agreeing! I that case it wouldn't hurt them to make it available by default.
You are completely missing the point, here. I'm saying (that in my barely informed opinion which doesn't matter, but since you're biting...) this 24MB of memory is an add-on created almost solely for the purpose of upselling to those folks that must have bigger/better. In order to offer more options and make more money. Suggesting that EVERYONE get this upgrade (and presumably pay for it)... OK, just think about it. Now you want everyone to equally pay the cost for this silly piece of faff.

If you want deep memory, buy an Owon. They have some of the deepest memory machines. And then please tell me what it's good for. Maybe one day when we are making analog computers this will come in handy. After you build the analog logic analyzer to go with it.

Quote
You Americans keep forgetting that not everyone lives in a place with all the BS and get along quite fine. This kind of rubbish is holding the economy back, rather than advancing it.
And the result is not people being rewarded for their development costs but patent trolls who make it difficult for everyone else to innovate.
Sorry. I sometimes forget my internet isn't America. This wasn't meant to be an americentric comment. It applies to the global economy, anyway. Europe is not exempt. Or Finland. Or w/e you are from.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 08:39:51 pm by KL27x »
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10332
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #177 on: March 22, 2016, 08:31:09 pm »
Quote from: fungus

What if they didn't include any of the first class perks? What if you only asked to sit there because it's a better chair? It doesn't cost them anything extra. Should they let you?
There was absolutely no nitpicking whatsoever. They are totally different things.

The number of first class seats is physically limited. It is a finite resource. Irrespective of the cost or lack of thereof to the airline.
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.

Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks

Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10435
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #178 on: March 22, 2016, 08:39:40 pm »
Buuuut nobody in their right mind would have shipped PC hardware with a version of Windows that limited usage of that hardware, as is with the scopes and is what people complain about. That's where the comparison ends, beyond that the 2 platforms are too different to compare.

Stop trying to avoid the issue: MS did limit the proportion of my hardware that could be used. You may wriggle and squirm, but MS did it.

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.


Another silly and completely invalid analogy.

By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.

Nitpicking the details to make the analogy invalid? Really?  :palm:

What if they didn't include any of the first class perks? What if you only asked to sit there because it's a better chair? It doesn't cost them anything extra. Should they let you?
There was absolutely no nitpicking whatsoever. They are totally different things.

The number of first class seats is physically limited. It is a finite resource. Irrespective of the cost or lack of thereof to the airline.

The number of users of a piece of software has no upper limit. It's just information and can be copied infinitely.

Analogies comparing software to physical space or material items are inherently flawed.

It's a "yes" or "no" answer.

Is Intel harmed by overclocking? Is Rigol harmed by hacking?
The answer is no. Intel benefits from overclocking and Rigol from firmware hacking.

And while we're on the subject of overclocking. Is it right to overclock a part, then sell it on? Rigol has done exactly that!
http://www.eevblog.com/2009/10/12/eevblog-37-rigol-ds1052e-oscilloscope-teardown/

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?
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13298
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #179 on: March 22, 2016, 08:40:36 pm »
Quote
Quote
As for 24MB vs 12MB.... that is going to make what difference, exactly, in practice?

So you're confirming that the $200 memory upgrade for the Rigol scopes is pointless, thanks for agreeing! I that case it wouldn't hurt them to make it available by default.
You are completely missing the point, here. I'm saying (that in my barely informed opinion which doesn't matter, but since you're biting...) this 24MB of memory is an add-on created almost solely for the purpose of upselling to those folks that must have bigger/better. In order to offer more options and make more money. Suggesting that EVERYONE get this upgrade (and presumably pay for it)... OK, just think about it. Now you want everyone to equally pay the cost for this silly piece of faff.
Well, everyone does pay for the 24MB option, whether it's enabled or not because the memory is in the machine, along with the firmware to use it. A select few just decide to give Rigol a bit of extra money to use it because they find it useful and still want the warranty.

It's quite likely the Rigol hacks are just a marketing ploy and a very effective one at that.

Quote
If you want deep memory, buy an Owon. They have some of the deepest memory machines. And then please tell me what it's good for. Maybe one day when we are making analog computers this will come in handy. After you build the analog logic analyzer to go with it.
I agree. My main 'scope is a two channel 100MHz Owon (can't remember the exact model). I like it because it's compact, has a big display and a battery, rather memory. My Rigol doesn't get much use.

Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.

Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks

Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?

Of course the airline could allow them to use the nicer seats, at no extra cost but of course they're not obliged to. The trouble then is, when word gets round, everyone will want the seats and trouble could ensue.

Still, the question is of no relevance to the debate because you're referring to a finite resource.
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10435
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #180 on: March 22, 2016, 08:45:09 pm »
se.
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.

Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks

Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?

Of course the airline could allow them to use the nicer seats, at no extra cost but of course they're not obliged to. The trouble then is, when word gets round, everyone will want the seats and trouble could ensue.

And what should happen and could happen if the airline said "no", and the tourist passengers did it anyway?
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13298
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #181 on: March 22, 2016, 08:57:31 pm »
to continually avoid the point being made, and try to get other people's attention diverted onto irrelevancies.
I did address the point you made about Microsoft limiting access to the hardware. You just didn't notice it.

To reiterate. Although you might have purchased Windows home and the hardware as a bundle, they are still two distinct items. Microsoft are not preventing you from using your hardware. For example, you are free to dual boot with GNU/Linux and access all of the hardware.

The point you made was off topic. It is completely irrelevant to the hacking oscilloscopes debate because it referred to a generic operating system, running on generic hardware, rather than specially tailored firmware, running on specialised hardware.

se.
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.

Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks

Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?

Of course the airline could allow them to use the nicer seats, at no extra cost but of course they're not obliged to. The trouble then is, when word gets round, everyone will want the seats and trouble could ensue.

And what should happen and could happen if the airline said "no", and the tourist passengers did it anyway?
The easiest solution is to lock the door and physically stop them from gaining access. If they're there already and aren't causing any trouble, there's little point in forcing them to leave, if they refuse to do so when asked politely, as it could cause trouble.

Still, this is way off topic. . .
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3734
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #182 on: March 22, 2016, 09:08:07 pm »
Quote
Copyright very explicitly protects the distribution of the software without the right holders permission, the grey area is these "licenses" that are growing to cover more and more software, they don't have a strong track record in courts but keep getting pushed as legitimate ways to protect the copyright owner when they aren't as strong as the alternatives.
So you're saying,

1. Because a license is not as legally binding, you have no problem hacking a software to circumvent this license fee. This is not stealing.
2. The better solution would be to not give you the software until after you pay for it. After you pay, the software has to be distributed to you.
    A. you can download it. Since you recognize the significance of copyright law, you would hack a license. But you will not redistribute this software to other parties, because you recognize the distinction between licensing and copyright law. As do most of the other folks who would hack a license. This is some sort of common sense between thieves?

or B. have to send the device in to a service center in order to install the upgrade. Increasing cost and adding inconvenience to the consumer.
or C. maintain a serial number database with random individual device ID of each unit, increasing cost.

Furthermore, if you were not going to buy it, anyway, then it isn't stealing. If I would have never paid the money to see the new Star Trek movie, it isn't stealing if I torrent it. Yeah... see how this relies on the honor system? And can you even be honest with YOURSELF? Now the new Star Wars movie is out. But you will remember how you could watch it for free....  And you can convince yourself you wouldn't have paid to see this movie, either.  :-//
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10332
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #183 on: March 22, 2016, 09:09:22 pm »
Well, everyone does pay for the 24MB option, whether it's enabled or not because the memory is in the machine, along with the firmware to use it. A select few just decide to give Rigol a bit of extra money to use it because they find it useful and still want the warranty.

As mentioned: The cost of the extra 12Mb of memory is probably less than the logistical cost of of manufacturing two separate pieces of hardware.

Of course the airline could allow them to use the nicer seats, at no extra cost but of course they're not obliged to. The trouble then is, when word gets round, everyone will want the seats and trouble could ensue.

The problem is that people in this thread seem to be telling the airline they have every right to sit there because the seats are free and it doesn't cost the airline anything.

Technically they're correct: It doesn't cost the airline anything.

It's a finite resource
Nitpicking. There IS a way to allocate those seats fairly.

Nope. The reason nobody goes up and sits there is because they have a built-in sense that they're not entitled to that, that they're only entitled to the seat they paid for.

Funny how that same sense of entitlement changes when it comes to hacking/copyright infringement, eh?
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3734
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #184 on: March 22, 2016, 09:27:35 pm »
Quote
No, everyone (from your customers) loses. By making feature X a $100 option that 10% of people will buy those who do will be ripped off, and those who don't won't have access to a tool that if it had been included by default for $10 extra could have worthy for them.
Quote
if it had been included by default for $10 extra could have worthy for them
.

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?

In reality, the guy that needs these scope features. The guy who KNOWS he needs these features. He doen't mind paying. It's the guys that think they might possibly ever use it and they simply WANT it that complain that it isn't included for free.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 09:31:27 pm by KL27x »
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2201
  • Country: au
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #185 on: March 22, 2016, 09:35:19 pm »
Quote
Copyright very explicitly protects the distribution of the software without the right holders permission, the grey area is these "licenses" that are growing to cover more and more software, they don't have a strong track record in courts but keep getting pushed as legitimate ways to protect the copyright owner when they aren't as strong as the alternatives.
So you're saying,

1. Because a license is not as legally binding, you have no problem hacking a software to circumvent this license fee. This is not stealing.
No, I never said that. As a manufacturer you get more protection by relying on the easily enforceable copyright laws, instead of just licensing. Yes it adds more cost to the business, but you get more protection. The default licenses businesses are relying on have been proven ineffective in court, you can go down that path if you like but it is not better protection than never handing over the copyright material to begin with.

Copyright covers PCB layouts just as it covers software, but only the software world decided they wanted additional contracts to further limit the end users application of their work.
 

Offline G0HZU

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2576
  • Country: gb
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #186 on: March 22, 2016, 10:22:50 pm »
That's pretty much the Siglent model for their IP protection and thus far it's been robust.

Enabling options and factory set BW's use SN #'s and unique unit ID hexadecimal codes for generation of activation codes and to date AFAIK this method has not been cracked.

Agilent use a basic S/N and keycode system for their test gear. I'm an RF engineer and only dabble in programming but I managed to reverse engineer their system in a few hours. I wanted to unlock options in an E5071 VNA I have here at home. I can probably hack a whole load of their test gear now just with access to a serial number. Note that I'm not going to release this hack into the wild or give out any free licence options :)

I did this a few months ago as you can see in post #64 in this thread here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/auction-(uk)-test-gear-from-nvidia/50/

So it's probably only a matter of time before someone (who has enough motivation) hacks the Siglent system even if it is a bit more complex than the Agilent system. I'm not volunteering to do it BTW ;D

« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 11:13:21 pm by G0HZU »
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9475
  • Country: au
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #187 on: March 22, 2016, 11:03:49 pm »
So - the next time you take a flight somewhere, you buy your economy ticket and when you get on the plane decide you want to occupy a business class seat - or maybe first class ... and your argument is 'I bought a seat on this plane - and I want that one!'

No different to advanced software features.

You didn't pay for the feature, so you aren't entitled to make use of it.
Another silly and completely invalid analogy.

By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.

Thank you for that response.  I won a bet on you taking that line of argument.  Predictable.

And my response has already been presented.....

Quote from: fungus

What if they didn't include any of the first class perks? What if you only asked to sit there because it's a better chair? It doesn't cost them anything extra. Should they let you?
There was absolutely no nitpicking whatsoever. They are totally different things.

The number of first class seats is physically limited. It is a finite resource. Irrespective of the cost or lack of thereof to the airline.
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.

Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks

Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?


As for cleaning costs (I'm only guessing here) but I don't think an airline will say "Nobody sat in that seat - so it doesn't have to be cleaned."

You have been given a scenario where the constraints offer a neutral impact on the airline at that time.  (Subsequent issues arising from a precedent might be less so.)

Just answer the question.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13298
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #188 on: March 22, 2016, 11:21:00 pm »
It's a finite resource
Nitpicking. There IS a way to allocate those seats fairly.

Nope. The reason nobody goes up and sits there is because they have a built-in sense that they're not entitled to that, that they're only entitled to the seat they paid for.

Funny how that same sense of entitlement changes when it comes to hacking/copyright infringement, eh?
You could try to apply the same analogy to anything be it seats at a cinema, on a bus, train etc. but it completely ignores the fact that there are not limitless seats. Deciding on the ratio of premium vs standard seats on an aeroplane is not a simple matter. It depends on how many people are willing to pay the premium. Get the ratio wrong and the airliner loses money.

When you take into account that software can be distributed to limitless numbers of users, the analogy totally breaks down. The development cost purely depends on the complexity of the software. It is a fixed overhead, which remains the same, irrespective of how many users there maybe. Of course those development costs need to be recouped and I'm not saying it's right that everyone should get it for free but it's totally different to physical property, space, seats etc.

A bit off-topic I know. If you're very lucky or just down right manipulative and there is room in business class, you may get a free upgrade. Plenty of people do get those nice seats, they're not entitled to. Some people are cleaver.
http://www.skyscanner.net/news/how-get-flight-upgrade-15-ways-get-bumped-business
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3734
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #189 on: March 22, 2016, 11:41:14 pm »
Quote
Of course those development costs need to be recouped and I'm not saying it's right that everyone should get it for free
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. One kind of turkey dinner. That way "I" don't have to be jealous that someone else has a higher model, because he was willing to pay for it and I wasn't.... I mean I was wiling for everyone to pay a little more so we can ALL have "deluxe"... which is now just standard....   But I don't like the fact that some people will pay more than I will, because they actually need a feature where I just want to have as good a device as everyone else. lol. lol.   lol. lol.   


lol.

It's a competitive market. There are options. A manufacturer can't use a business model that doesn't work, because they will go out of business.
If you think people don't like and pay for options, you are wrong. I have been paid to make options that are meaningless... simply because people want to buy things with better numbers. I tell my client it's pointless. He says. "I know, but the other guys have it, and I need something to put on the spec sheet."

Half your customers might not even know what the hell these stats mean, but they sure as hell want what's "better."  In some cases these options are created for such ego/clueless buyers with fat wallets in the first place.


 

« Last Edit: March 23, 2016, 12:11:27 am by KL27x »
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13298
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #190 on: March 22, 2016, 11:46:19 pm »
Quote
Of course those development costs need to be recouped and I'm not saying it's right that everyone should get it for free
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. One kind of turkey dinner. That way "I" don't have to be jealous that someone else has a higher model, because he was willing to pay for it and I wasn't.... I mean I was wiling for everyone to pay a little more so we can ALL have "deluxe"... which is now just standard....   But I don't like the fact that some people will pay more than I will, because they actually need a feature where I just want to have as good a device as everyone else. lol. lol.   lol. lol.   


lol.
No, I didn't say any of that. You've clearly not read any of my posts properly.
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3734
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #191 on: March 22, 2016, 11:47:47 pm »
I may have confused some other posts for yours. I'm not going to go back and check. This thread has kinda become a beast. Apologies if this is the case.

Wait, here it is. Hero999 says:
Quote
No, forget the 8 firmware options. Just ship them all with exactly the same basic firmware and even the same labels/housings. [then sell additional features, sending FIRMWARE rather than UNLOCK CODES]
... err, what the hell is the difference to the average end user... not your sophisticated hacker-cum-laywer/social activist which is only 0.1% of your customers?

Also, do you know even if/how the bandwidth is actively limited by firmware? You never even responded to this other than "I don't know." But you still insist on calling it intentional crippling of the hardware (which you paid for your precious hardware, yeh I know).
« Last Edit: March 23, 2016, 12:04:07 am by KL27x »
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10435
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #192 on: March 22, 2016, 11:59:48 pm »
The development cost purely depends on the complexity of the software. It is a fixed overhead, which remains the same, irrespective of how many users there maybe. Of course those development costs need to be recouped and I'm not saying it's right that everyone should get it for free

Good. Progress towards sense.

Now take the next steps... If you were a manufacturer, how would ensure you recouped the costs? Then how would you ensure you made a sufficient profit?
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3734
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #193 on: March 23, 2016, 12:16:47 am »
If I am reading Hero999's posts, correctly:

Apparently, sending out firmware upgrades is different than sending out unlock codes. Because of copyright law. So Hero thinks the manufacturer making that change is important. Because if I were a manufacturer, I would definitely consider these outlier customers in my business plan. :)  The potential for a firmware update to brick the scope vs an unlock code that will guarantee the user is up and running (because he's buying the upgrade for a reason, usually!?)... meh, who cares about the functionality of a TOOL.

Also, he feels that putting in hardware that is not functional by default is a crime, even if that hardware is NOT NECESSARY for complete functionality of the device, and if physicaly NOT including it and adding it later would cost more than just putting it in (talking the memory thing). Even if this "feature" is just a barely meaningful "upgrade" only conceived to offer an idiot with a fat wallet more to spend on. (Or that 1 in 1000 customer who has a specific problem where this is needed.... who is GRATEFUL to overpay for this upgrade (and fatten the bill to his client!), even though he knows he is also subsidizing the cost so that EVERYONE ELSE can also have that OPTION.) So now, because of the practicality of this physical memory cost and assembly/design, Hero would rather EVERYONE should get and pay for this meaningless upgrade. Or NO one should get the option. Ok, pesto soup for everyone.

Also, he feels like bandwidth of these scopes is actively crippled by firmware in order to extort money from people, but he does not even know if this is actually the case, versus firmware changes that actually enhance the image of the trace through software algorhithms, and he can't be bothered by this possibility. I mean, today's scopes don't deflect a beam of subatomic particles onto a phosphor screen, anymore. The signals are read with ADC and converted into digital data. Which can be manipulated. By software. When frequency exceeds the limitations of the ADC/circuitry, it could be possible to extrapolate a closer approximation of how the actual signal should look by using frequency, known rise/fall curves, and other various data, perhaps?

My favorite whine is "if someone else needs it, I MIGHT need it, too. Let's ALL have it!" Some of these options are not going to do anything for you, anyway. 95% of these hackers will never see a difference in their hacked scope. If and when you DO need a feature, you will more than likely be happy and grateful to actually pay for this feature. And it will be as easy as pie. Money for unlock code. Instant. The words that come to mind are "thank" and "you!" Everyone happy but the conspiracy theorists.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2016, 03:24:31 am by KL27x »
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2169
  • Country: nz
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #194 on: March 23, 2016, 01:35:55 am »
Doesn't this argument avoid the point why the hack is possible? For Rigol, it is more profitable to engineer a 100MHz scope, and sell a 'locked' version as a 50MHz model, than it is to engineer, manufacture, sell and support a different 50MHz and 100MHz models

I assume product development went something like this...

A long long time ago
Sales : 100MHz is the new 50MHz - we need a low-end 100MHz model.

Engineer : Well, we can't upgrade the 50MHz model, we will need to R&D a 100 MHz model. It'll cost - big $.

Sales : Just do it!

A long ago
Sales : That old 50MHz model is really tired, and not selling - can you give it a refresh

Engineer : Can't we just sell the 100MHz model at the current 50MHz price point?

Sales : No! 100MHz is still a compelling feature - people pay for twice the bandwidth!

Engineer : Well, we can either design a completely new model for lots of $$$, or we can just software lock the 100MHz down to 50MHz, and the per-unit R&D cost is zero.

Sales: I like your thinking - that would give a lowest-end product refresh for almost free. Time to market - zero! Do it!

A short time later...
Sales : People are hacking our 50MHz model into a 100MHz model! It's costing us money!

Engineer : Um, but the hardware is the same? They can't afford a 100MHz model, so they by the 50MHz model. It isn't actually costing us anything (as long as we still make money on the 50MHz model for it to be economically viable, that is)

Sales : But but but... they are stealing from us! It is hurting our bottom line.

Engineer : No they aren't. It wasn't viable for us to engineer a 50MHz model, so you have already made that money by not having to pay all that R&D for a new low margin model. And it only took a week to change the sticker on the front.

Sales : But but but... if they use 100MHz, they should pay the premium - we aren't a charity!

Engineer : If the can't or won't buy a 100MHz model in the first place, what would you like our customers to do? If they 'need' 100MHz they will go and buy a knock-off 100MHz scope from Ali Express, or worse buy one from our competitor. Let them buy our 50MHz, at maybe a slight premium other other 50MHz scopes, upgrade it for free, and then feel happy that they have got something for nothing, and we made the sale while our competitors didn't. Our competitors who did engineer a new low-end product will feel the burn as they can't make back the money for their R&D costs - you know, the costs we never paid because we used an existing design?

Sales: but but but...




Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9475
  • Country: au
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #195 on: March 23, 2016, 03:02:37 am »
It's a finite resource
Nitpicking. There IS a way to allocate those seats fairly.

Nope. The reason nobody goes up and sits there is because they have a built-in sense that they're not entitled to that, that they're only entitled to the seat they paid for.

Funny how that same sense of entitlement changes when it comes to hacking/copyright infringement, eh?
You could try to apply the same analogy to anything be it seats at a cinema, on a bus, train etc. but it completely ignores the fact that there are not limitless seats. Deciding on the ratio of premium vs standard seats on an aeroplane is not a simple matter. It depends on how many people are willing to pay the premium. Get the ratio wrong and the airliner loses money.

When you take into account that software can be distributed to limitless numbers of users, the analogy totally breaks down. The development cost purely depends on the complexity of the software. It is a fixed overhead, which remains the same, irrespective of how many users there maybe. Of course those development costs need to be recouped and I'm not saying it's right that everyone should get it for free but it's totally different to physical property, space, seats etc.

You are missing the whole point of the analogy.  You are doing it deliberately.  You are nitpicking the shortcomings of the analogy that are - in the scenario specified - totally irrelevant ... and ignoring the fundamental question.  All analogies fall down at some point, so relying on using those aspects to dismiss the analogy entirely is simply weak.


Quote
A bit off-topic I know. If you're very lucky or just down right manipulative and there is room in business class, you may get a free upgrade. Plenty of people do get those nice seats, they're not entitled to. Some people are cleaver.
http://www.skyscanner.net/news/how-get-flight-upgrade-15-ways-get-bumped-business

Now you are using the analogy (for which you seem to hold such contempt) to make an argument.  Can we try and be consistent?

But, to address the point being made - the fact that the airline gives the upgrade (for whatever reason) IS sufficient entitlement.  It is the airline's decision - not the passenger's.  The morality of whatever shenanigans were employed to gain that is a different question.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9475
  • Country: au
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #196 on: March 23, 2016, 03:04:53 am »
The pragmatist in me suggests arguments such as this are futile.

People who want to do the wrong thing will justify it every which way until the cows come home.
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3734
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #197 on: March 23, 2016, 03:15:39 am »
Quote
Engineer : Um, but the hardware is the same? They can't afford a 100MHz model, so they by the 50MHz model. It isn't actually costing us anything (as long as we still make money on the 50MHz model for it to be economically viable, that is)

I know this is all hypothetical. But did you forget this part of your hypothetical story?
Quote
Engineer : Well, we can't upgrade the 50MHz model, we will need to R&D a 100 MHz model. It'll cost - big $.
And to fill in the blanks: 100MHz is the new 50MHz. Every day we don't have one, we are losing business to our competitors. Projections estimate we are millions of dollars in the red in 10 years and the company will be sold for parts.

It's a mistake to assume people/companies can sit on their laurels and continue to make what they have. And that they only do things to make MORE money. It takes work just to keep what you have.

And let's take a quick peek at reality. A $400.00 Rigol has 50MHz and 4 channels. 6 years ago, the cheapest 25MHz 2 channel DSO was close to that price. Even two years ago, this would be incredible news. These greedy scope manufacturers.... they're so greedy they are trying to put each other out of business by undercutting each other and throwing scopes at us for peanuts. How awful.

Quote
People who want to do the wrong thing will justify it every which way until the cows come home.
Yes. I guess this is the reason why we have to explicitly make murder illegal and actually enforce it.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2016, 03:54:05 am by KL27x »
 

Offline mnementh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5635
  • Country: ca
  • *Escaping The Suck*
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #198 on: March 23, 2016, 04:51:04 am »
Doesn't this argument avoid the point why the hack is possible? For Rigol, it is more profitable to engineer a 100MHz scope, and sell a 'locked' version as a 50MHz model, than it is to engineer, manufacture, sell and support a different 50MHz and 100MHz models

I assume product development went something like this...

A long long time ago
Sales : 100MHz is the new 50MHz - we need a low-end 100MHz model.

Engineer : Well, we can't upgrade the 50MHz model, we will need to R&D a 100 MHz model. It'll cost - big $.

Sales : Just do it!

A long ago
Sales : That old 50MHz model is really tired, and not selling - can you give it a refresh

Engineer : Can't we just sell the 100MHz model at the current 50MHz price point?

Sales : No! 100MHz is still a compelling feature - people pay for twice the bandwidth!

Engineer : Well, we can either design a completely new model for lots of $$$, or we can just software lock the 100MHz down to 50MHz, and the per-unit R&D cost is zero.

Sales: I like your thinking - that would give a lowest-end product refresh for almost free. Time to market - zero! Do it!

A short time later...
Sales : People are hacking our 50MHz model into a 100MHz model! It's costing us money!

Engineer : Um, but the hardware is the same? They can't afford a 100MHz model, so they by the 50MHz model. It isn't actually costing us anything (as long as we still make money on the 50MHz model for it to be economically viable, that is)

Sales : But but but... they are stealing from us! It is hurting our bottom line.

Engineer : No they aren't. It wasn't viable for us to engineer a 50MHz model, so you have already made that money by not having to pay all that R&D for a new low margin model. And it only took a week to change the sticker on the front.

Sales : But but but... if they use 100MHz, they should pay the premium - we aren't a charity!

Engineer : If the can't or won't buy a 100MHz model in the first place, what would you like our customers to do? If they 'need' 100MHz they will go and buy a knock-off 100MHz scope from Ali Express, or worse buy one from our competitor. Let them buy our 50MHz, at maybe a slight premium other other 50MHz scopes, upgrade it for free, and then feel happy that they have got something for nothing, and we made the sale while our competitors didn't. Our competitors who did engineer a new low-end product will feel the burn as they can't make back the money for their R&D costs - you know, the costs we never paid because we used an existing design?

Sales: but but but...

And this is the point I was making with my statement that it was just plain LAZY to NOT make an actual DIFFERENT Firmware for each model. Even if all you do is comment out the disabled modules in the version with less features, it's STILL reasonably small R&D. But NO... they want to make it even CHEAPER and LAZIER.

Bottom line is this FW is *NIX based, and their code base is ALREADY 3/4 written by other folks before they even started. They never returned their code base (The apps are a grey area; but the hardware extensions are SPECIFICALLY included in the CopyLeft) to the common repository as per the GPL, so they're already in violation of CopyLeft law... but hey, who gives a SHIT about that?!?

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.

Probably, much more likely, Rigol, et al are deliberately looking the other way because they know that their bottom of the line scopes' popularity are largely derived from this VERY STATE of HACKABILITY... just as MicroSoft has admitted that they deliberately look the other way while their software is "Pirated" by the Chinese Government (which does not recognize about 3/4 of the Copyright and Licensing BS law that corporations have saddled us poor fools in the US with) because it is still better to them than letting.... BING! BING! BING! *NIX get a foothold.

They consider it better to gain market penetration via "Piracy" than not at all.

And guess what?

That "hackability" is a LARGE part of what makes the Rigol, for example, WORTH MORE. In another thread, I ask about a Hantek 100mHZ scope "hackable" to 200 MHz for $240 vs the Rigol 50Mhz "hackable" to 100MHz for $400.

By and large, the response is that the Rigol is a much better value BECAUSE OF THE HACKABLE SOFTWARE.

Half the bandwidth, 2/3 ($160) MORE EXPENSIVE, yet STILL a better deal.

The BOM Between the two machines is very similar. So, in truth, are the specs. The difference is the software. They ARE getting it both ways already; Rigol is selling the "extra" software for $160 on EVERY 50MHz machine.

THIS is what is REALLY happening:

The scopes that sell to clients who need to maintain factory service with them are making them lots of money in upgrades and added software modules, and service contracts on top of that. SOME of the general everyday users are buying the higher end scopes and paying full price as well; this is historically where the "profit margin" is.

Meanwhile, the bottom-end scopes, the ones that "keep the doors open", are selling for WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR. Right now, they are getting an extra $160 for that software. Whether the customer USES IT OR NOT.

And Rigol gets to do this ALL with ONE product across a dozen different market segments, just by "looking the other way" when some of us "hack" our scopes, knowing full well they'll NEVER have to provide warranty on at least half of the entry-level scopes they sell as a result. Overclocked ADC... Who cares? Effed-up master clock PLL circuit... DILLIGAF? MORE profit margin.

And they're doing this with base code that THEY are using in violation of the GPL. And PROBABLY, also stolen COPYRIGHTED code as well. In CHINA... which laws don't support 3/4 of the CopyRight and Licensing BS laws WE do in the US; and you can see what they think of CopyLeft.

I can tell you this... if any of them see this thread, they're going to be laughing their ASSES OFF at you guys defending their Licensing Rights. SERIOUSLY.


mnem
Everybody needs something to believe in... I believe I'm going to bed.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10332
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #199 on: March 23, 2016, 05:00:47 am »
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.

Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks

Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?


As for cleaning costs (I'm only guessing here) but I don't think an airline will say "Nobody sat in that seat - so it doesn't have to be cleaned."

Please stop avoiding the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.

 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf