Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
discourse: why do corporations allow "jailbreaking" and "flashing" at all?
JdGordon:
--- Quote from: Confuseling on August 14, 2010, 12:21:20 PM ---People removing their software doesn't directly affect their bottom line... People buying their hardware to put different software on it does.
--- End quote ---
This is *only* true when they sell the hardware at a loss and expect to make it up on peripheral sales (like the PS3 and games at the beginning), but the only reason that happens is because the company doesnt have the market share and somehow needs to build it up, which means they are selling it at a loss with the knowledge that a *tiny* proportiion of the sales will never buy anything but the rest will still make it profitable.
Or in other words, companies have nothing to lose from quietly acknowledging hacker communities, sure they bang fists about it but it is all free advertising for them.
Confuseling:
I think you've misunderstood what I was saying (which is partly my fault for phrasing it oddly...)
A sale is a sale, is what I was getting at. People buying the hardware to install different software affects the bottom line in the same way as people buying the hardware to take it home and stick it in the microwave at full power for twenty minutes.
Jus abutendi, and all that... :P
Except, as you say, in the 'loss leaders' case. Makes you wonder whether the 'app store' model will lead to us being deluged by cheap (hopefully hackable) portable hardware... :)
cowonoid:
--- Quote from: soap on August 14, 2010, 04:41:01 PM ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Oh, I derived that from the EFF link you sent me and in general from Apples attitude. Maybe "that's, what Apple tried" is kind of hard written. What I mean is more like "they would change the law to prohibit jailbreaking if they could"
--- Quote from: soap on August 14, 2010, 04:41:01 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: soap on August 14, 2010, 04:41:01 PM ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Okay, that's where our opinions distinguish very concretely.
If I imagine myself developing a DAP, I would like to develop the software as rigorous as the hardware. I don't differentiate between "adding a feature to the while-playing-screen" and "soldering an additional IC to free µC-pins"! And if I would say it's the hardware general-purpose *product* plus the custom software, then I also must say it's the custom hardware (and thus just a suggestion how to interpret the product) because people could also have enough know-how to see the hardware as customizable.
If BMW sells a car, it's not a general purpose bodywork with a customizable engine; (maybe the minority of car tweakers sees it like this) for the masses its just a car. Or the old cassette or CD players. It's a complete system, which is seen as customizable in respect of different cassettes or CDs.
--- Quote from: soap on August 14, 2010, 04:41:01 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Don't missunderstand me: however both, car and cassette player *can* and are allowed to be modified!
--- Quote from: soap on August 14, 2010, 04:41:01 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
But I don't. I stick to his words insofar, that I can do all the things I want to my property if I am not "hurting somone". What I am growing more and more curious about is
- the definition of the system limit of (for example) a DAP: "computer plays audio software plays music" or "audioplayer plays music"? What is the point of view dependent of? The technical qualification of my customers? If I am creative with my newly bought scissors, then I cut funny and artistic holes in a carpet. If I am creative with my DAP, I either can do the same (while hearing music) OR disassemble it and play doom on it!
- can I cause interpretations of products intentionally? How? Am I to prevent certain interpretations? How far reaches my responsibility if my product has the power to change guidlines instead of just being constrained by them?
- would my idea of securing the device work out?
--- Quote from: soap on August 14, 2010, 04:41:01 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Bagder on August 14, 2010, 05:24:47 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Come on, I could even train my grandmother in verifying digital signatures of e-mails! All the same I could implement it on my DAP, so that it just takes *my* firmware. And apps are nothing else than pieces of additional firmware, which can be signed, too. So the update feature cannot honestly be the hard thing to do, can it? And as for I know, there is no MP3 which can content malicious code and cause a buffer overflow! As well as the classic webbrowser, which only translates HTML code directly into lines and text. And if every app process is additionally embedded into a nice rights management... (I hope this wasn't a good idea which I could have sold!)
--- Quote from: Confuseling on August 14, 2010, 04:57:27 PM ---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...
--- End quote ---
So you think, it's not even that they don't care; their intention is just.... not yet decided. Internal, democratical delay of things..
I think if I would be Steve Jobs, I would be very happy if my device was not yet hacked. Both reasons would be okay for me: no one had the idea because of my OS being so good and/or having good security on the devices (which *I* could sell him for 1MIO$... Hello Steve, read this!!!! ;))
soap:
--- Quote from: cowonoid on August 15, 2010, 12:00:13 AM --- And as for I know, there is no MP3 which can content malicious code and cause a buffer overflow!
--- End quote ---
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZirKy2NefJIJ:tools.cisco.com/security/center/viewAlert.x%3FalertId%3D21022
saratoga:
--- Quote from: cowonoid on August 15, 2010, 12:00:13 AM ---
--- Quote from: Bagder on August 14, 2010, 05:24:47 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Come on, I could even train my grandmother in verifying digital signatures of e-mails! All the same I could implement it on my DAP, so that it just takes *my* firmware. And apps are nothing else than pieces of additional firmware, which can be signed, too. So the update feature cannot honestly be the hard thing to do, can it?
--- End quote ---
Digital signing is fairly rare, but even so many devices that use it have been cracked.
--- Quote from: cowonoid on August 15, 2010, 12:00:13 AM --- And as for I know, there is no MP3 which can content malicious code and cause a buffer overflow! As well as the classic webbrowser, which only translates HTML code directly into lines and text. And if every app process is additionally embedded into a nice rights management... (I hope this wasn't a good idea which I could have sold!)
--- End quote ---
I'm guessing you've either never looked, or else don't really understand what a buffer overflow is.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version