Hacker News Reader

Comment by class4behavior | Hacker News Reader

>I am not sure what to tell you. The situation pre-dates the secure boot.

That's an invalid argument. It doesn't matter how long this has been the case.

>As a person authorizing a product that can potentially emit unhealthy or unsafe levels of RF, or a parent of teenagers using social media, or a developer of medical applications intended for mobile phone...

You're presuming this is the only and the correct way of handling this. That is, you're arguing it is the manufacturer's affair and right to restrict one's basic rights to enforce lawful handling of their product.

I'd rather argue that in reality the manufacturer's main interests lie in reducing support costs and the enforcement of their patents and copyrights.

View on HN

> You're presuming this is the only and the correct way of handling this. That is, you're arguing it is the manufacturer's affair and right to restrict one's basic rights to enforce lawful handling of their product.

This is not really what I said (somehow people focus on the second part), but I do believe that offering this freedom (to install any image) will lead to lesser profits for the manufacturers. Quite possibly because other potential customers might find this feature unacceptable (my illustrations may be good or bad). That is, your personal freedom runs into someone else's. Then the market should decide, right?

> I'd rather argue that in reality the manufacturer's main interests lie in reducing support costs and the enforcement of their patents and copyrights.

Yes. Add there loss of face in case of hostile hacking. Etc. Since when this is condemnable?

>Since when this is condemnable?

Do not confuse the tools businesses are provided by the law with the interest to profit. For instance, 10 to 80 years long copyright terms after death are not your inherent rights as a creator but tools the current legal infrastructure offers. Hence it is not the only solution.

>This is not really what I said (somehow people focus on the second part)

No, you did, and the market decides only a share because it is already affects by numerous direct and indirect regulatory measures, e.g., patents. In the past explicit enforcement of the right to repair was rarely an issue for consumers just as net neutrality had not been a serious issue. This has obviously changed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com