Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Handspring Hides Flash ROM in Handspring Treo

Posted by timothy on from the plus-it-has-a-pot-of-gold dept.

miradu writes: "TreoCentral has just posted an intriguing article about how the Handspring Treo has Flash ROM - something that Handspring claims it doesn't. They've worked with Brayder Technology to create applications to utilize this newly discovered feature. It brings up the question, Why do developers lie about features in a device - especially if they are features that are wanted? Does anyone know any other examples?" Strange -- hardware manufacturers don't often underestimate their products' capabilities, do they?

3 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. That one is easy by fidget42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It allows them to remove the Flash at some point in the future and replace it with a cheaper ROM. If they don't tell you that they have a Flash, then you won't complain when it is removed. I would expect the next version to be missing the Flash.

    --
    The dogcow says "Moof!"
  2. Samsung i300 by The+Jake · · Score: 5, Informative

    Users of the Samsung i300 for the longest time were told that there was no flash rom, and that the operating sytem was not upgradable.

    Then FlashPro came out and proved that there was flash in the i300.

    Upgrading the OS is still not an option, considering that there are lots of propreitary extensions to the OS.

    However, the flash capabilities of the devices were hidden for quite a while.

    Jake

  3. Re:Some Earlier Examples by alienmole · · Score: 4, Informative
    That might be the earliest example in the "PC" industry, but IBM was much earlier - they used to (perhaps still do) charge big bucks to perform "upgrades" on customer mainframes by enabling hardware that was already in the machine.

    Mainframes would ship with various disabled features. Remember these were room-size devices (well, multiple large cabinets which would fill up a big room). When the customer wanted an upgrade, an IBM technician would be sent out, he would rearrange some jumpers, enabling a feature, and the customer would receive a bill for e.g. $100,000 for a memory upgrade.

    IBM made no apology for this: you were charged for the functionality you received, and the fact that the "upgrades" already existed inside the boxes in your computer room was irrelevant.

    So perhaps one can blame IBM for having started the ball rolling on the idea of strong control of "intellectual property" by the vendor... I wonder if anyone back then "hacked" their own mainframes?