Reasons for hacking DSOs

[kcbrown]

1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.

I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.

It has to be priced in regardless of whether or not they do so explicitly.  If it isn't, then they end up undercharging or overcharging for their products, and will eventually go out of business unless they first strike the right price versus sales balance.  Put another way, the market automatically takes care of this one way or another.

If the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?

It is logical that hacking on the part of hobbyists would be of benefit to the manufacturer, especially if that isn't available with other brands, because it would make the hackable products more desirable than those of the competitors (since the capability to price ratio of the hackable brand ends up being higher than that of the nonhackable brand).  And since most businesses won't hack their instruments because those instruments are mission critical to the business and therefore the business can't risk loss of support for them, the end result is that the hackability of an instrument only really makes a difference in the hobbyist market -- and the difference there is a positive one for the manufacturer.

2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.

For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.

I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business.  Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?

I think vk6zgo has it right on: people are used to the notion of being able to do what they please with hardware, but have grown up in a culture where doing what you please with software has rarely been allowed.  So they automatically come to view the two as completely different things, when they are exactly the same save for one thing: hardware cannot be copied at will and at no cost, while software can.  Supply and demand automatically applies to hardware, so the standard economic mechanisms (along with patents) provide sufficient incentive for people to build hardware devices for sale.  But because software can be copied at will at no cost, the standard economic mechanisms are insufficient to maintain a healthy software market.

This is why copyright applies to software, and why unilateral contractual terms and conditions arising from it should be no more acceptable than the same would be when applied to hardware.   Most people here would be outraged if the manufacturers of the hardware they buy forbade them from reverse engineering it or modifying it, and would be up in arms if they were forbidden from opening that hardware up at all, but they not only have no problem with those things as regards software, they support it!!   That is hypocrisy, pure and simple.  And I haven't even touched on the additional contractual terms and conditions those people will support on the software side of things (look at this thread!), when they almost certainly wouldn't support any such thing on the hardware side of things.

Software is already covered by patents as well.  That and simple prohibitions on distributing copies (be it of the original or of derivatives) would be sufficient to make software identical to hardware as regards the health of the market.  At that point, it would operate in the same way.  But software vendors (e.g., Microsoft) got greedy and used their influence to warp the law, and the end result is the ultra-restrictive software market we have today, where even reverse engineering is generally forbidden by unilaterally-imposed contract.

[Fungus]

The manufacturer:

1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.

a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.

If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.

The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".

b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.

So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? 

[Zero999]

The manufacturer:

1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.

a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.

If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.

The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".

b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.

So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? 

Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
https://www.rigol-uk.co.uk/Rigol-BW2T5-MSO-DS4000-Bandwidth-Upgrade-p/bw2t5-mso-ds4000.htm

Of course if you disagree and believe it's good value for money you're entitled to your opinion, just don't expect persuade others.

[Fungus]

Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades

Oh, for one model (MSO4000) they do. Pardon me for not knowing the entire Rigol product range in detail.

 

[tggzzz]

The manufacturer:

1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.

a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.

If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.

The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".

b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.

So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? 

Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.

When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.

In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.

[mnementh]

1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.

I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.

It has to be priced in regardless of whether or not they do so explicitly.  If it isn't, then they end up undercharging or overcharging for their products, and will eventually go out of business until they strike the right price versus sales balance.  Put another way, the market automatically takes care of this one way or another.

If the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?

It is logical that hacking on the part of hobbyists would be of benefit to the manufacturer, especially if that isn't available with other brands, because it would make the hackable products more desirable than those of the competitors (since the capability to price ratio of the hackable brand ends up being higher than that of the nonhackable brand).  And since most businesses won't hack their instruments because those instruments are mission critical to the business and therefore the business can't risk loss of support for them, the end result is that the hackability of an instrument only really makes a difference in the hobbyist market -- and the difference there is a positive one for the manufacturer.

2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.

For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.

I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business.  Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?

I think vk6zgo has it right on: people are used to the notion of being able to do what they please with hardware, but have grown up in a culture where doing what you please with software has rarely been allowed.  So they automatically come to view the two as completely different things, when they are exactly the same save for one thing: hardware cannot be copied at will and at no cost, while software can.  Supply and demand automatically applies to hardware, so the standard economic mechanisms (along with patents) provide sufficient incentive for people to build hardware devices for sale.  But because software can be copied at will at no cost, the standard economic mechanisms are insufficient to maintain a healthy software market.

This is why copyright applies to software, and why unilateral contractual terms and conditions arising from it should be no more acceptable than the same would be when applied to hardware.   Most people here would be outraged if the manufacturers of the hardware they buy forbade them from reverse engineering it or modifying it, and would be up in arms if they were forbidden from opening that hardware up at all, but they not only have no problem with those things as regards software, they support it!!   That is hypocrisy, pure and simple.  And I haven't even touched on the additional contractual terms and conditions those people will support on the software side of things (look at this thread!), when they almost certainly wouldn't support any such thing on the hardware side of things.

Software is already covered by patents as well.  That and simple prohibitions on distributing copies (be it of the original or of derivatives) would be sufficient to make software identical to hardware as regards the health of the market.  At that point, it would operate in the same way.  But software vendors (e.g., Microsoft) got greedy and used their influence to warp the law, and the end result is the ultra-restrictive software market we have today, where even reverse engineering is generally forbidden by unilaterally-imposed contract.

This is almost precisely what I was arguing earlier... the only thing we disagree upon is interpretation of the law as it now. I based my arguments on what I knew the law to be last time I looked into it, and upon how the relevant law is evolving in the rest of the world, which I see as inevitable here as well, just taking longer because of the socially retarded Calvinist pro-corporate culture that is prevalent in the USA. I too agree that the law here is in general ridiculously warped in favor of corporate greed rather than any real interest in protecting IP rights in any way.


That said... I think the whole moral and legal debate is only tangentially relevant to the original point of this thread, which was "WHY do we choose to hack these 'scopes?"

The base premise of the question is that we DID or DO or WOULD... and the actual question was "WHY?"

Don't get me wrong; I've enjoyed the spirited debates on both angles... and I'd be a fool to imagine anybody could get us all to stop. But I think we've beaten this particular into a fine paste, and I'd really like to see SOME time... a few posts at least... spent on the ORIGINAL question TOO, which I've already answered from my own perspective.

Anybody?


Bueller...?

Bueller...?

Bueller...?


mnem
Not gonna say it... nope, nope, nope... ya cain't make me...

[rsjsouza]

1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.

I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.

It has to be priced in regardless of whether or not they do so explicitly.  If it isn't, then they end up undercharging or overcharging for their products, and will eventually go out of business until they strike the right price versus sales balance.  Put another way, the market automatically takes care of this one way or another.

As you said, in the early days this was most probably not factored into the product price, but nowadays I would expect Rigol, Keysight, Tek to be already doing that while LeCroy, Siglent, Hantek, Owon are not - but we can only guess.

In any case, in my experience the hackability will certainly have consequences for further product development given the lower margins to be spent in R&D.

If the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?

It is logical that hacking on the part of hobbyists would be of benefit to the manufacturer, especially if that isn't available with other brands, because it would make the hackable products more desirable than those of the competitors (since the capability to price ratio of the hackable brand ends up being higher than that of the nonhackable brand).  And since most businesses won't hack their instruments because those instruments are mission critical to the business and therefore the business can't risk loss of support for them, the end result is that the hackability of an instrument only really makes a difference in the hobbyist market -- and the difference there is a positive one for the manufacturer.

In my experience desirability on itself is an aspect that goes further than hobbyists, but it probably has the hardest influence on this market as well as small businesses that don't have much capital expenditure. In general desirability can come in several different ways: Rigol with the possibility for "free" upgrades, Keysight with their scopemonth or LeCroy with the lavish posts by Wuerstchenhund For larger corporations the desirability is lowered as "free" upgrades are sometimes already incorporated into the negotiations (ask Wuerstchenhund about it).

2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.

For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.

I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business.  Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?

People don't see businesses completely "amoral": the perception is they have at least a minimum code of honor: I am making money with your product and expect my customers don't try to torpedo my business strategy. In turn, I will not torpedo your business strategy by circumventing your offers.

I think vk6zgo has it right on: people are used to the notion of being able to do what they please with hardware, but have grown up in a culture where doing what you please with software has rarely been allowed.  So they automatically come to view the two as completely different things, when they are exactly the same save for one thing: hardware cannot be copied at will and at no cost, while software can.  Supply and demand automatically applies to hardware, so the standard economic mechanisms (along with patents) provide sufficient incentive for people to build hardware devices for sale.  But because software can be copied at will at no cost, the standard economic mechanisms are insufficient to maintain a healthy software market.

This is why copyright applies to software, and why unilateral contractual terms and conditions arising from it should be no more acceptable than the same would be when applied to hardware.   Most people here would be outraged if the manufacturers of the hardware they buy forbade them from reverse engineering it or modifying it, and would be up in arms if they were forbidden from opening that hardware up at all, but they not only have no problem with those things as regards software, they support it!!   That is hypocrisy, pure and simple.  And I haven't even touched on the additional contractual terms and conditions those people will support on the software side of things (look at this thread!), when they almost certainly wouldn't support any such thing on the hardware side of things.

And that is precisely why there is a strong differentiation between the HW and SW: you may consider hypocritical, but the influence the hacking activity imposes on each is widely different. Modified SW has orders of magnitude more potential for financial damage to a business when compared to HW given the speed and ease of distribution. Is greed the sole reason why the laws were created or modified? Not sure, but stay afloat in a pure SW company is a tough business. 

Software is already covered by patents as well.  That and simple prohibitions on distributing copies (be it of the original or of derivatives) would be sufficient to make software identical to hardware as regards the health of the market.  At that point, it would operate in the same way.  But software vendors (e.g., Microsoft) got greedy and used their influence to warp the law, and the end result is the ultra-restrictive software market we have today, where even reverse engineering is generally forbidden by unilaterally-imposed contract.

I disagree. Again, the SW market is more sensitive to enforcement gaps. To clone a HW product it takes quite some investment and time but SW is orders of magnitude more easier to modify and replicate, thus the system is easier to circumvent regarding pure patents. Also, prohibiting copy is something that never worked.

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. 

[Zero999]

The manufacturer:

1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.

a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.

If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.

The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".

b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.

So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? 

Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.

When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.

In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.

Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.

To those who believe it is immoral to hack an oscilloscope: Do you think it's right for someone have a website, along with videos showing people how hack Rigol oscilloscopes and gain advertising revenue from it?

If it's that bad, then why not stop visiting this site?

[tggzzz]

The manufacturer:

1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.

a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.

If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.

The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".

b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.

So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? 

Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.

When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.

In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.

Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.

No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.

[Zero999]

The manufacturer:

1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.

a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.

If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.

The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".

b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.

So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? 

Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.

When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.

In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.

Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.

No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.

No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.

[hamster_nz]

No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.

I can't believe I am bothering to post on this thread again, but....

So are you also saying that you have the right to 'unlock' Microsoft Office trials that ship on a new PC or Laptop? or the right to upgrade from Windows Home for free, or to 'unlock' anything else that is controlled by license keys? After all, it is after all it is only a bit of data, and the manufacture provides the feature.

Oh, and how about entering forged prepay vouchers into your cell phone?, or use a cloned pay-TV smartcard - where does your "it is only data" rule of thumb stop?

[tggzzz]

The manufacturer:

1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.

a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.

If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.

The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".

b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.

So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? 

Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.

When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.

In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.

Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.

No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.

No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.

Nonsense.

There are no "variables" in the customer's purchase - there are only bit patterns in a EPROM. Those bit patterns are interpreted by a hardware "universal machine" to perform a function. There might have been concepts that could be identifed as "variables" in the source code, but that is irrelevant since the customer has not bought the source code.

There is no difference between changing a few of the bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted as a JNZ or a JZ instruction) or a few other bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted by the hardware as input to a JNZ or JZ instruction).

The key is instructions that determines the machines function. The source code is an instruction that determines the source code instruction.

The machines' operation is the interpretation of bits, all the way down (with apologies to Terry Pratchett).

[KL27x]

I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business.  Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?

I feel like there is a difference. Not that it's based on ethics or law. The distinction here is that an oscilloscope is essentially a tool. Now music and movies and video games are often "consumed" by the end-user for their own sole pleasure. Unless that music or movie is played in a place of business or illegally shared/sold to other parties, it is simply a consumption item, not a tool.

Very few people (outside of say the members of this forum, which is a very small and unique demographic) purchase an oscilloscope for fun or hobby use. The vast majority of purchasers use a scope as a tool. To make money. 99.9 percent of the world wouldn't buy a scope as a "comsumption item" anymore than they would buy a colonoscope.

It's like if you use a free version of a software for your own personal use... because you don't make money/living with it, that's fine. They distributed the software for free so you could SEE if it helped you before paying. And if you are making money with it (using it for business purposes), you could maybe pay back to the guy who made your work easier? I mean it's your own call.

There are many "free" softwares that are supported by essentially "donations." Such as, say, WinZip. Sure, you can just keep on clicking that tab to make it continue working for free. But once I started to use it for business, it struck me that this software is very useful. And now that I have a business and am using it for said business, it is in fact helping me to make money.  And someone spent a lot of time and resources to make it. The price was reasonable. So I bought it. Does anyone at WinZip know me? Do I get "credit" in some way? No, I'm just happy to have this program and I like the fact that I could fully evaluate it before I bought it. And I want to support that business model.

If the retail cost of a scope with the specs you require is priced reasonably for one's business, a lot of people will buy it. If it's "expensive" for you, you probably don't need it. Because it's a competitive market, and the market sets the correct price. But your circumstances might be unique, of course.

 

[Zero999]

The manufacturer:

1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.

a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.

If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.

The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".

b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.

So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? 

Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.

When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.

In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.

Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.

No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.

No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.

Nonsense.

There are no "variables" in the customer's purchase - there are only bit patterns in a EPROM. Those bit patterns are interpreted by a hardware "universal machine" to perform a function. There might have been concepts that could be identifed as "variables" in the source code, but that is irrelevant since the customer has not bought the source code.

There is no difference between changing a few of the bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted as a JNZ or a JZ instruction) or a few other bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted by the hardware as input to a JNZ or JZ instruction).

The key is instructions that determines the machines function. The source code is an instruction that determines the source code instruction.

The machines' operation is the interpretation of bits, all the way down (with apologies to Terry Pratchett).

No there is a big difference. Changing an instruction would require modification of the software. Entering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interface. From the firmware's point of view it is no different to changing any other setting on the oscilloscope.

When you unlock more bandwidth on your oscilloscope, you're just enabling functionality which already exists within it.

[KL27x]

Entering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interface

Please add some context here. Because to unlock any software (Windows, games, et al) that is distributed through CD's or downloads (and doesn't require constant internet connection/verification, anyway), all you need to do is enter the right code.... it's just a hell of a lot harder to crack in most cases.

you're just enabling functionality which already exists within it.

This might be true in one way of looking at it. But it's overly simplistic.

I'll give an example of, say, healthcare equipment. There are a lot of instances where a machine's cost is charged by number of uses. The number of uses are recorded electronically. When you "run out," you have to buy more. The intrinsic functionality of the machine is locked. And punching in the right "code" (or in some cases simply resetting a fuse!) will make the machine work again. It has nothing to do with "wear and tear" or operating costs. It's purely a business model.But if you make MONEY using the machine, you will probably just continue to pay. Because if you are caught tampering with the machine, maybe you will lose your support. Or maybe you will continue to pay, simply because this business went out of their way to find you and sell you something that is paying for itself plus more. And you're happy with the arrangement.  I'm sure there's a difference in EULA and contract and all, but you do make some broad sweeping statements like they're fact.

Now that company probably won't care at all if you buy the machine for $30,000.00 and hack it for personal use. They do care if you are billing a patient or insurance company $500.00 per use and not paying your tribute. So if you hack your scope because it gets your jollies off, then that's fine to me. IMO. But if you are using it for business, I think you're in some way biting the hand that feeds you.

[Zero999]

Entering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interface

Please add some context here. Because to unlock any software (Windows, games, et al) that is distributed through CD's or downloads (and doesn't require constant internet connection/verification, anyway), all you need to do is enter the right code.... it's just a hell of a lot harder to crack in most cases.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rigol+hack

[KL27x]

So if I stumble on the right unlock code, I'm good? If I stumble on the right combination on someone else's locker, I guess I can take their stuff. I'm just unlocking the feautures that were already in there.

If I put my key in another person's car and it happens to fit, I can take it?

Locks are there to prevent deter theft. If you bypass the lock, no matter how simple, what does that make you?

Sure, if you bought the scope because you KNEW how to unlock it, and that's the only reason you bought it, and the only reason you are unlocking it is for personal use, then I see no problem. Again not legal or ethical. Just common sense. This is a small minority of customers, and it won't make a difference to anyone. I wonder if this discussion would be different if the company in question were HP or Tek.

[tggzzz]

The manufacturer:

1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.

a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.

If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.

The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".

b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.

So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? 

Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.

When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.

In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.

Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.

No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.

No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.

Nonsense.

There are no "variables" in the customer's purchase - there are only bit patterns in a EPROM. Those bit patterns are interpreted by a hardware "universal machine" to perform a function. There might have been concepts that could be identifed as "variables" in the source code, but that is irrelevant since the customer has not bought the source code.

There is no difference between changing a few of the bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted as a JNZ or a JZ instruction) or a few other bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted by the hardware as input to a JNZ or JZ instruction).

The key is instructions that determines the machines function. The source code is an instruction that determines the source code instruction.

The machines' operation is the interpretation of bits, all the way down (with apologies to Terry Pratchett).

No there is a big difference. Changing an instruction would require modification of the software. Entering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interface. From the firmware's point of view it is no different to changing any other setting on the oscilloscope.

When you unlock more bandwidth on your oscilloscope, you're just enabling functionality which already exists within it.

It is all software! it is all bits. The two are, in very very deep philosophical and practical ways, completely identical.

What's the difference between

• 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

Answer: in very deep practical ways, absolutely none.

There are no "special" bits. There are only bits. And any of those bits can be changed by an editor.

[vk6zgo]

So if I stumble on the right unlock code, I'm good? If I stumble on the right combination on someone else's locker, I guess I can take their stuff. I'm just unlocking the feautures that were already in there.

If I put my key in another person's car and it happens to fit, I can take it?

Locks are there to prevent deter theft. If you bypass the lock, no matter how simple, what does that make you?

Sure, if you bought the scope because you KNEW how to unlock it, and that's the only reason you bought it, and the only reason you are unlocking it is for personal use, then I see no problem. Again not legal or ethical. Just common sense. This is a small minority of customers, and it won't make a difference to anyone. I wonder if this discussion would be different if the company in question were HP or Tek.

Sorry,that doesn't quite work!

It would be more like:-

I buy a car in which for some reason the seller has locked the glovebox.
I discover that I really need the glovebox,& also that the same glovebox key fits all of that model.
I borrow my neighbour's key,unlock the glovebox & leave it unlocked.

Have I unlocked functionality?
Of course I have,but seeing I own the car,is it still the manufacturer's glovebox?

If the Manufacturer is a drug addict & has left his paraphernalia in the locked  glovebox,is that a defence in law if the cops search my car?
Can I charge the Manufacturer rent for keeping "his" glovebox in my car?

See how quickly  these things become silly?

The number of corporate users who unlock their Oscilloscopes is likely to be vanishingly small.
If they want a 100MHz Rigol,they'll buy the thing---the manhours used to unlock them would have been used for much more productive things.

Hobbyists & "quasi-hobbyists" will spend the time,but they probably are too poor to buy the full-featured one anyway.

[kcbrown]

I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business.  Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?

I feel like there is a difference. Not that it's based on ethics or law. The distinction here is that an oscilloscope is essentially a tool. Now music and movies and video games are often "consumed" by the end-user for their own sole pleasure. Unless that music or movie is played in a place of business or illegally shared/sold to other parties, it is simply a consumption item, not a tool.

I think you misunderstood my meaning.  I wasn't referring to the difference between a tool (something used for productivity) and a toy (something used for fun).  I was referring to the difference between a business customer and a home/hobby customer.   While it is true that the former is using the tool strictly for business productivity while the latter is using the tool for education or entertainment, that doesn't change the fundamental point that, aside from the fact that creators of easily-copied works could not survive in a marketplace that allowed unfettered and immediate copying of those works, the 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.   Put another way, there is no justification for treating the two differently that isn't arbitrary.

[kcbrown]

So if I stumble on the right unlock code, I'm good? If I stumble on the right combination on someone else's locker, I guess I can take their stuff. I'm just unlocking the feautures that were already in there.

If I put my key in another person's car and it happens to fit, I can take it?

Locks are there to prevent deter theft. If you bypass the lock, no matter how simple, what does that make you?

This 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".

No.  Locks are tools.  Like anything else, they serve multiple purposes.  At their heart, they control access.  Whether the access is desired by someone who has a right to it or not is an independent variable.  And whether or not the person who lacks the access is one who should lack the access is yet another variable.

Sure, if you bought the scope because you KNEW how to unlock it, and that's the only reason you bought it, and the only reason you are unlocking it is for personal use, then I see no problem. Again not legal or ethical. Just common sense. This is a small minority of customers, and it won't make a difference to anyone. I wonder if this discussion would be different if the company in question were HP or Tek.

So the question is: why is that particular set of circumstances one you do not object to?

Why 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.

[kcbrown]

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.

What's the difference between

• 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

Answer: in very deep practical ways, absolutely none.

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.

There 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?

[KL27x]

Why 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?

I think you misunderstood my meaning.  I wasn't referring to the difference between a tool (something used for productivity) and a toy (something used for fun).  I was referring to the difference between a business customer and a home/hobby customer.

Well, I made this connection myself. Home/hobby = fun/entertainment. Learning. Experimenting/playing. Fixing the occasional thing. Designing the occasional thing (for personal use). Whereas business customer is earning money through the use of the tool.

Music and movies can be a business tool, too... whether you are charging people or playing media in a place of business for the enjoyment of your customers.

This 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."

Whether 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.

the 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.

Why 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? On the one hand, you have casual users who open their email and someone sent them a zipped file full of funny cat pictures. OTOH, a law firm regularly zips large documents to organize and distribute large documents. Maybe look at the reverse? On the one hand, if WinZip takes away your cat pictures, you don't lose anything. If they take away an important tool from a business, they hurt them financially.

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.

I buy a car in which for some reason the seller has locked the glovebox.
I discover that I really need the glovebox,& also that the same glovebox key fits all of that model.
I borrow my neighbour's key,unlock the glovebox & leave it unlocked.

No one here is so dense that they cannot understand this. This has been repeated in varying forms many times in the thread. This is not a clear cut analogy to me. 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.)

You can make a case that Kim Dot Com didn't do anything illegal. He only profited on a system (allegedly) designed to allow other people to break the law. And oddly, the FBI went after HIM, and not the people who were breaking the law with the help of his severs and website. (Business/profiter vs hobbyist/consumer). I'm not a lawyer, but I am not too concerned with the potentially wrongful shutting down of his business. For no other reason than I would rather the global economy remain healthy for my own personal benefit. And for the fact I rather the future of movies not be low budget crap because no one can get paid for their investment.

[vk6zgo]

I think you misunderstood my meaning.  I wasn't referring to the difference between a tool (something used for productivity) and a toy (something used for fun).  I was referring to the difference between a business customer and a home/hobby customer.

Well, I made this connection myself. Home/hobby = fun/entertainment. Learning. Experimenting/playing. Fixing the occasional thing. Designing the occasional thing (for personal use). Whereas business customer is earning money through the use of the tool.

Indeed!---see my comments on the likelihood of a corporate customer bothering to "buy a bit cheaper & unlock".
This might happen with office software,where it would be a "do it once,then use everywhere" situation,but to have to mess with every instrument--Nah!

I buy a car in which for some reason the seller has locked the glovebox.
I discover that I really need the glovebox,& also that the same glovebox key fits all of that model.
I borrow my neighbour's key,unlock the glovebox & leave it unlocked.

No one here is so dense that they cannot understand this. This has been repeated in varying forms many times in the thread. This is not a clear cut analogy to me. 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.)

You have missed my point:-
I was commenting on your analogy.
"If I put my key in another person's car and it happens to fit, I can take it?"

And,I did not "discover" the glove box was locked--I knew that from the start.
What I said was: "I discover that I really need the glovebox," ,which you will agree is something else,again---perhaps I should have said "realise",or "found" instead of "discover".
I was sold a car with a glovebox,otherwise there would be a big hole in the dash!

My whole comment was really to point out how easy it is for analogies to go astray---like the drug stuff & rent bit!

[KL27x]

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?

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.

employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available

What 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?

Why do you think "higher profits" for the company means a lower cost to you? This is not the same thing. Unless you happen to specifically need all the features that they arbitrarily chose to develop. If you can independently develop as good a scope with all the features and profitably sell it for the cost of a base model Rigol, then you would do it, and Rigol would be forced to change their pricing structure and/or go out of business. No one needs to stop them from their evil ways. The market will do that.

There are approximately 69,000 arbitrary decisions that had to be made to even create the product. Why do most people prefer the firmware/hardware/layout of Rigol over Owon? Is their an unlock code to make the Owon interface less shitty?

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.   

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.

You can also complain that evil companies are making things that break in 3 years in order to increase their own profit. And you'd be right. But look at it from a wider perspective, and you will see that this is in fact necessary in today's economy. If you try to break that mold, you are welcome to try... and go broke. Making one great product that lasts for generations is fine, but you won't have any repeat customers. You won't have a next product cycle to design. You won't be able to keep your workforce employed. You'll sell out your one hit wonder, then sit on your ass with your money. And no one will have a job, lol, so you will have nothing to buy with your profits. You'll be the only person that can afford bread, though, so there's that. If people in your country are healthy and not starving, you have nothing to complain about regarding evil corporations trying to make profit. If you are concerned for the quality of life for the laborers in third world countries, then you have somewhere to start, at least. You and I, spending leisure time debating stuff on the internet, on our personal computers, under our (bank-owned) roofs, we are the ones benefiting from the system.

*I think it might be some manufacturers that are arbitrarily limiting top speeds, rather than the government, actually.