This remarkable event, along with the an accessible history of the evolution of precision manufacturing is covered in Simon Winchester's excellent book The Perfectionists[0]. The audiobook is narrated by the author, which is quite enjoyable as well.
It is a nice thought, but there may not be a ton of effort in starting reverse engineering projects on a full custom silicon stack 7+ years after release (when Apple typically stops supporting hardware)
You really want to trust the government with keys to the kingdom? Like what they wanted here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
And no, I wouldn’t trust an EU government or coalition any more than the US or any other country
Could have a distributed system so physical access gives you nothing. Could have the vendor pick a time for release. If all nodes agree the time has arrived release the payload. Make it so that nothing can be released silently. Give the vendor some time to sound the alarm if something goes wrong.
I don't know to what extend you could do a key update on illegitimate released. It seems you have bigger problems to worry about at that point.
To do it earlier you could have judges sign for release and require one or more judge keys to decrypt the vendor keys.
It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive, as someone needs to prepare all the materials and resources the community would need to continue supporting the product after official support ends. Second, there are legal restrictions, for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware. Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available.
You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.
> they don't want to give up ownership back to you
No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
Edit:
I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
> No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting?
Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers, because that's what they are.
Also I doubt that there's anything left on 2015 era hardware that will grant you an edge on current age competitors
To give a reply:
> Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer."
Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to, it's my computer and I should be free to do whatever I want on it. Including modifying firmware, modifying the OS and modifying anything else you can think of.
Do I want to do all of these? Probably not but the freedom for me to do it should be there if I change my mind. And no, it's a reasonable expectation.
> I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers
> Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to
For the components I listed, and based on my understanding of "normal computers" as desktops and laptops, you cannot do all of these things today.
> it's my computer
It's their firmware. They don't magically give up their intellectual property rights when you purchase a piece of hardware from them.
What would be reasonable is providing access to datasheets, schematics, and manuals, where permitted by local laws, so that users can tinker with and develop for the hardware themselves. However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such, should be able to do any modification I see fit to the device, regardless if the manufacturer thinks it's a good idea or not.
And yes, I also support adding laws to force manufacturers to respect my rights.
> However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.
I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith (which they almost always do as there's very few legit uses on their side).
> I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith
Again with the abstract. Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith." It is very likely that what you view as a "bad faith" action actually has a reasonable explanation from the manufacturer's perspective. This is especially true in cases of chain-of-trust and anti-tamper protections.
> I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such
Technical specifications, datasheets, and similar materials can also constitute intellectual property of the manufacturer. Without access to these, you may not be able to "do any modification I see fit," especially when phrased so broadly that it could mean almost anything.
The only option I can see being somewhat feasible is for manufacturers to eventually release APIs with closed-source binaries, allowing users to create their own applications or operating systems.
This would, however, require regulation to ensure that manufacturers are allowed to provide these interfaces, as in some cases even the APIs themselves may be considered intellectual property, and manufacturers may not always be legally allowed to disclose them. Although it could be argued that if this is regulated, manufacturers would select vendors that can meet these regulatory demands.
The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach. However, if there were no expectation that users would continue to have access to the manufacturer's software or services, I think these issues could be resolved.
> Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith."
Sure, any app not running because of artificial software restrictions (and no, I won't buy the claims of """security""" when even the manufacturer doesn't have a real picture of what's running on the phone and cannot assess it's security - or sometimes even includes built-in adware!).
Another example of bad faith could be Apple removing true tone on official screen replacement.
Again, I'm not against the concept of chain of trust, it's just I've never seen any software restriction which I would think justified, so a good use case might exist in theory, I'm just not aware of it.
> The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach
I have serious doubts that integrity checks and anti-tamper mechanisms are legal in the current environment anyways as there's no real competition in the mobile space and these are further barrier to create competitors (and were even created for this purpose in the first place in some cases, like in Android)
It's definitely against current anti trust laws. These companies are just too large and too wealthy for the laws to be applied at the moment.
> I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you.
There's a 10 minute timer on HN to avoid discussions becoming too heated (at least AFAIK that's the reason).
> You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them.
...and nothing wrong with that. The right-to-repair is mainly aimed at discontinued products anyway, at that point the "IP" is so old it doesn't require protection (and to be honest, the whole concept of long term "intellectual property" is bullshit anyway, just as long-term "copyright" - about 3 to 5 years is a reasonable time frame for 'exploiting' a novel idea, after that it should be free for all - at that time your competitors will have figured it out anyway).
In the 80s it was entirely normal to get parts lists, schematics and ROM listings when buying a computer for instance (and I guess other electronic devices too), there is absolutely no reason why access to the same information should be restricted today.
> ...and nothing wrong with that. The right-to-repair is mainly aimed at discontinued products anyway, at that point the "IP" is so old it doesn't require protection
What you consider "old" may not be what I, or the manufacturer, consider "old." A lot of embedded development is incremental: you start with an existing codebase and continue building on it to meet new requirements. Occasionally, the entire system is rewritten from scratch, but that is not necessarily the case. Therefore, even software running on a discontinued product may contain code and intellectual property that is still actively used in newer products.
> and to be honest, the whole concept of long term "intellectual property" is bullshit anyway, just as long-term "copyright" - about 3 to 5 years is a reasonable time frame for 'exploiting' a novel idea, after that it should be free for all - at that time your competitors will have figured it out anyway
I believe you are confusing intellectual property and copyright with patents. If that is the case, I would largely agree. I would even go further and argue that many things that are allowed to be patented are ridiculous and not particularly novel at all. Some are so obvious that even a layperson could arrive at the same solution, which arguably should disqualify them from being patented in the first place. This is especially egregious in the standards world, where some companies hold patents on solutions that are intended to be standardized and used globally.
If, however, you are not confusing these terms, then I find your position absolutely ridiculous. It would be akin to asking Microsoft to release the source code for Windows, Office, Teams, Azure (although who wants to see that mess, am I right? lol) simply because "intellectual property" isn't a thing. That would outright destroy countless business models, and I can assure you that no major global or regional regulatory body is going to adopt that position.
> >>there is absolutely no reason why<< access to the same information should be restricted today.
There are plenty of reasons. You simply don't agree with them. That's perfectly fine, but claiming that there is "no reason" for things to work differently from how you want them to is simply ridiculous. Many of them I've mentioned in this post.
The intellectual property is not some god given right unlike air and water. There is little need not to support a decade old hardware and effectively turning the said hardware to a door stop, or a landfill.
Btw, it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
> There is little need not to support a decade old hardware
> it's difficult to believe the post is a good faith argument.
Right back at you, I guess.
I would understand the frustration if manufacturers were not upfront about how long they intend to support their hardware, although that is not always easy to predict. However, demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable.
>demanding that they support hardware indefinitely is unreasonable.
nobody demands that - it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software.
The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort, so the devices are not open and require designated tools for minor fixes. I can imagine it not wanting to perform a warranty repair but that's the end of it.
> it's more of the fact the hardware is locked and serialized, e.g. it won't accept a blue tooth module unless it's unlocked with proprietary software.
Manufacturers have a regulatory obligation to prevent unauthorized combinations of software and hardware where those combinations could compromise the device's compliance. This is particularly relevant to radio firmware, including Bluetooth, where the manufacturer must ensure that the radio equipment remains compliant with the applicable regulatory requirements.
> The hardware manufacturers spend quite the effort
Because they are required to do so by regulation. Those regulations exist for good reason, for example to prevent unwanted interference in the radio spectrum.
Beyond regulatory requirements, manufacturers also have legitimate reasons for preventing unauthorized tampering with their devices. One concern is theft and device resale, while another is software security.
You may argue that you don't care about these things, which is perfectly fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there is nothing inherently wrong with holding it. However, I would argue that this is not what the vast majority of customers expect, and that most would ultimately accept these constraints for the benefits they provide.
You've just made an argument for a bunch of regulation to force opening up and removing obstacles.
E.g.: "for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware." Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available?
> Given that everything has a radio these days [...] this is just stupid
Manufacturers need to pass certification for their radio implementations, such as FCC, CE/RED, PTCRB, Bluetooth SIG, etc. Any modification to the radio firmware can potentially change the device's RF characteristics and cause it to fall outside of the conditions under which it was certified.
This is why manufacturers generally cannot simply release the radio firmware and allow users to modify it freely, as doing so could result in devices operating outside their certified RF parameters and expose them to regulatory or legal liability.
Not to mention the intellectual property rights of the manufacturer and their vendors. The firmware may contain proprietary code, algorithms, or other licensed technology that the manufacturer does not have the legal right to redistribute, especially if it was developed by a third-party vendor.
> This is why manufacturers generally cannot simply release the radio firmware and allow users to modify it freely, as doing so could result in devices operating outside their certified RF parameters and expose them to regulatory or legal liability.
Why would this expose the manufacturer, and not the device owner?
> The firmware may contain proprietary code, algorithms, or other licensed technology that the manufacturer does not have the legal right to redistribute
As per my comment above: "Given that everything has a radio these days (everything is wifi- and/or bluetooth- enabled), this is just stupid. Why is firmware for basically essential infra not legally available?"
E.g. I don't buy the bullshit argument of security and legal something, and of proprietary algorithms, for example, when Philips suddenly starts requiring a log in to control its bulbs via bog standard protocols: https://hueblog.com/2023/09/21/philips-hue-soon-only-usable-...
Not in tech, so does the authority granting license to proceed do code reviews?
Because when I submit building plans, they are manually reviewed and approved (or denied) by registered architects, engineers, and planners employed by the authority for just this purpose.
Gaming Commissions oversee gambling machines and will audit code to ensure the RNGs are accurate, return to player meets the expected requirements, and so forth.
I'm sure other highly regulated industries also have their code audited.
reply