Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
discourse: why do corporations allow "jailbreaking" and "flashing" at all?
cowonoid:
--- Quote from: Chronon on August 14, 2010, 02:03:27 AM ---You seem to operate under an assumption of "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden" while I would prefer to assume "that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted."
--- End quote ---
No, that is not my assumption. (but if you've read only the first passage of my last post, you could say that)
Everything you can think of in ways of using a product is allowed! Except it offends generally accepted social or legal guidlines. (it may also change these guidlines or create even new ones. see trendsetting or atom bombs)
If someone finds out, that his new DAP is well suited for using it as throwing weapon (sorry soap!), the creator can hardly be blamed for that. However the user will face social guidlines.
If I like to disassemble my DAP, I can do that all the way. No guidline forbids this ("jus utendi et abutendi"). However, what can be reached (fun, profit, frustration) by disassembling a product lies in the circle of influence of the creator. If he a-posteriori doesn't like the effect, his product has on his customers, he can try to bend the legal guidlines directly (that's what Apple tried) to prohibit it.
Which in the special case of a DAP or an iPhone could mean, that the producer had to design his product atomically, so that it can't be seperated into hard- and software. Or - the much better way - prevent the customer from having the wish of seperating it by for example doing very well.
--- Quote from: Chronon on August 14, 2010, 02:03:27 AM ---Some sort of firmware is necessary for the basic operation of a DAP.
--- End quote ---
I would say: the firmware IS the DAP as well as the hardware. The software is not only a nonbinding suggestion, it should be the last word of the producer!
As soon as I put rockbox on my D2, it's not the D2 anymore. It's the hardware of the D2 plus a kind of artistic interpretation of something.
In my opinion this is the great thing Apple found out: the aesthetic product has to be flawless (MacOS does that, Linux as an opposite is a great toy for technophiles and Windows tries the first and ends up somewhere in the middle)
--- Quote from: Confuseling on August 14, 2010, 09:40:16 AM ---As to the original question, it might be sometimes in part that they have a free advertising and R&D service. As long as modding is sufficiently difficult that people aren't going to enter into it en masse without a clue what they're doing, break stuff, and then demand a warranty repair, the company has a large community of motivated hackers trying to figure out interesting new things they can do with the device. They tend to be early adopters, tech savvy, and able to create a buzz in the online community. They directly increase sales, but they also find interesting new solutions to problems, which the company can then incorporate into newer versions of their code - either legally by rewriting it, or illegally by pinching it, and hoping nobody notices.
--- End quote ---
That sounds reasonable. Probably with a mixture of "we don't care at all" this is what's going on.
--- Quote from: yapper ---They strive to achieve that, but flaws in the design allow exploits
--- End quote ---
I had an idea how to foolproofly secure the D2 and this idea is not very hard to implement, nor is it connected to much effort during the product lifecycle. If I would develop a DAP like the iPod, I would for sure implement this little security feature.
The only conclusion for me is, like Confuseling said, that the corporations somehow want the devices to be hacked.
Or I really didn't understand the hacking thing.
soap:
EDIT: Heavily revised as I think I understand your point better...
--- Quote from: cowonoid on August 14, 2010, 03:40:47 PM --- If he a-posteriori doesn't like the effect, his product has on his customers, he can try to bend the legal guidlines directly (that's what Apple tried) to prohibit it.
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure where Apple tried to change the law. I'd like to be informed.
--- Quote from: cowonoid on August 14, 2010, 03:40:47 PM ---Which in the special case of a DAP or an iPhone could mean...
--- End quote ---
One can not simply wave their hand and call them a "special case" and make it so. They are physical objects which have been sold, outright, to individuals. EDIT: I think you're saying they are a "special case" in that they are integrated products with the hardware and the software (firmware) tied together. I say they are not. They are general-purpose computers shipped with a custom operating system.
--- Quote from: cowonoid on August 14, 2010, 03:40:47 PM ---
I would say: the firmware IS the DAP as well as the hardware. The software is not only a nonbinding suggestion, it should be the last word of the producer!
--- End quote ---
You have no firm footing for this line of argumentation outside personal belief. Neither logical nor legal.
I'd like it very much if I could sell a spoon which, with full protection of the law, is only allowed to be used to eat Cheerios, and then sell another which is only allowed to be used to eat Wheaties. This, of course, is ludicrous. It is just as ludicrous for Steve Jobs to tell me what I can do with my iPod as it for me to tell him what he can do with his spoon. Confuseling already addressed this, and while you appear to acknowledge his words, it appears to me you're dodging around them on the other hand.
--- Quote from: cowonoid on August 14, 2010, 03:40:47 PM ---I had an idea how to foolproofly secure the D2 and this idea is not very hard to implement, nor is it connected to much effort during the product lifecycle. If I would develop a DAP like the iPod, I would for sure implement this little security feature.
--- End quote ---
EDIT: I think this is the thrust of your query? Can I paraphrase what I think you're driving at:
"Apple / Cowon / et al could 100% lock down the hardware they sell if they choose to, therefore the fact they do not implies they are "allowing" jailbreaking / flashing / hacking."
Again, I believe this premise is mistaken. The problem is much harder that it appears to me you believe.
If you have a foolproof way to insure secure loading of firmware onto hardware which allows for firmware updating and a modicum of error robustness (real world needs) which is easy and does involve much effort (or money) there is a very well paying job waiting for you at your employer of choice.
Confuseling:
Well - I'm not trying to suggest outright that they 'want them to be hacked'.
I'll defer to the coders here (I'm not one); if they say it is to all intents and purposes impossible to make a device that can have firmware updated, can install new software, and at the same time can not be hacked, I'll believe them.
All I'm suggesting is that there are interests pushing a company to want a hacker community to develop around their product - you rightly assert that a company wants to control the perception of their product in its totality, but sometimes that image might include it being a hackable, 'geek chic' device.
Corporations aren't monolithic entities - especially not the large ones. I suspect the engineers mostly want to create an interface not unlike Rockbox. The marketers tell them where to stick it, because they want a maximum of five menu options, "So your granny could use it". Some of the board want to lock down the device completely because what they know about hackers they've gleaned from Sandra Bullock films, some of them don't want to pay for the expense of trying to lock down the device when it's probably futile, and some of them have been persuaded by the engineers' argument that actually, having a few "unofficial updates" to your firmware isn't always such a bad thing...
A consensus is formed, often somewhere in the middle, and if the hackers are interested, they'll probably hack it. :)
Bagder:
--- Quote from: Confuseling on August 14, 2010, 04:57:27 PM ---I'll defer to the coders here (I'm not one); if they say it is to all intents and purposes impossible to make a device that can have firmware updated, can install new software, and at the same time can not be hacked, I'll believe them.
--- End quote ---
If they can get their firmware updated, they can get hacked. I believe that has been proven a million times if you look at other devices as well as DAPs.
In fact, in many times they can get hacked even without having a firmware update feature.
Confuseling:
I think you're probably right - Apple seems to be the acid test for me. Being traditionally a 'software company that also sells hardware', and having a culture of creating tightly controlled ecosystems, I suspect they make enough money from selling applications to override other interests. Yet their devices still fall, one by one.
But I have my suspicions that a lot of companies simply don't try as hard as they might - partly because it's expensive, and they'll lose in the end anyway, but also partly for some of the reasons mentioned above. Speculation on the interwebs... Whodathunkit? ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version