The hardware itself is cheap. 50-80% of the price is R&D. It's cheaper for them to only develop one hardware version and limit the features in the software, than develop multiple versions of the hardware.
The hardware itself is cheap. 50-80% of the price is R&D. It's cheaper for them to only develop one hardware version and limit the features in the software, than develop multiple versions of the hardware.
Corporations aren't gonna buy a camera and hack it. If a professional thermographer is telling her customers that she's using an E8, the bezel had better say E8 on it. But today's hobbyists may be tomorrow's corporations (My employer bought a C2 after I got sick of bringing in my E4/8), and brand recognition and experience have value.
And as has been said, if they have more of the high-spec units than they're selling (or the low-spec ones were a way to use up crap-binned sensors but might get good sensors too), then selling "the same" hardware cheaper might make good market sense. As long as they're not losing money on it...
I do wonder if someone might've wink-wink-nudge-nudge hinted that these units can do more than they're specced, Mike, you should tear one down... and then sales of that unit went absolutely through the roof. I know tons of people who have one now, and not a single one of us would've paid the E8 MSRP for it, and maybe only two of us would've found the E4 crap resolution useful.
Rigol took a different tack, and started simply giving away the decoders that everyone was hacking them to enable anyway.
(these questions probably show how little I know about these things and I know how someone who doesn't know anything shouldn't be messing with electrical installations. Humor me.)
That one is probably obsolete now, but if you search around you may find that this is still possible for whatever is Rigol's current entry-level scope.
Most user doesn't care about repairability. I don't see a lot of people buy the Fairphone. They complain about John Deere but don't look for alternatives. They always chose the cheaper alternatives.
If we could somehow separate the development cost and the manufacturing cost, we could get super repairable hardware. Just like with OSS. If someone sponsors the development the product is great otherwise commercial software wins.
The market will always steer everyone to the lowest common denominator and as a result fails when the externalities of pollution and e-waste are concerned.