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.