Slashdot Mirror
Handspring Hides Flash ROM in Handspring Treo
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?
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!"
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
I think at least in Handspring's case, they've had a philosophy of planned obsolescense by building their products with hard ROMs.
Obviously, they can't be upgraded that way, so in their all knowing marketing minds, they're hoping users will continue to upgrade to newer products from Handspring.
Originally, they claimed that the lack of a flash ROM was a price saving measure, but I tend to think that in some cases, a flash rom would actually be cheaper.
Now that the treo has a flash rom, and they're lying about it, what do they expect? Of course users are going to make use of that 'hidden feature' now!
Handspring, you ought to 'embrace and extend' now that the gig's up.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Take a look at the cars with the 1.8 Turbo engine.
By changing the ECU programming, they can add power by adjusting boost pressure, air/fuel/spark maps...
The car can magically gain 10-20hp between model years, all with the click of a mouse.
Aftermarket ECU tuners can get the same results out of the cars that are just a few years older.
But, "15 more HP than last year" is a great selling point for a car.
My favorite quote from the article:
I ask all these rhetorical questions for a reason: I want to know what you think.
er... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Whats the chance they license Palm-OS on a reduced rate because it isn't 'upgradable'?
It's common for the aspirations of engineers to be lobotomized a little by the larger marketting beast. I've read several articles on the web where a Celeron motherboard could be greatly sped up by placing celophane tape over a single pin of the Celeron's card edge connector. But then we stray into the area of overclockers...
THE EARLIEST EXAMPLE that springs to mind is on Radio Shack's TRS-80 Color Computers. There was some story about doubling the RAM by bending two pins on a socketted IC chip. The story was that the onboard capacity was crippled for the sake of easy in-store upgrades.
The developers of the hardware usually aren't the ones who are lying. I work for a fairly large company and I can safely tell you that the engineers (that's me) don't sit around and plot to hide features. The way it usally goes down is that some guy in marketing gets a hold of technical documentation that is being developed along with the product. Once he gets it, he gives us a call and starts asking if feature so and so should really be documented. One thing is for certain though, marketing seems to get the final say as to what gets published and what doesn't.
The corperate benifit of some of this stuff is fairly easy to see. For instance, say we make a chip called the Wizbang 3900. Now, this chip is going to be released in the 3901, 3903 and 3909 flavors each with different features. Since a run through the fab can cost upwards of $500k, it is much easier to just make one version, then just label them differently. The same thing is true with the development boards. A lot of times the board is only populated with the parts to allow that feature set. By populating more/different parts of the board, different features can be achived with out requiring a different board spin. All of this saves money and development costs, but does lead to some documentation holes.
So in short, blame it not marketing not the engineers. We're the good guys.
Do you seriously thing that an automaker would advertise their engine as having only 140 hp if with a small software change they could get 160 hp? I mean come on.
No, they spec the engines out based on a number of factors relating to emissions, fuel economy and reliability. So by tweaking you adjust the compromise. Automakers do refine engines over time to gain more power, but they try do so in ways that don't effect it negatively. By that I mean, decreasing reliability or not allowing the car to meet US regulations regarding emissions and fuel economy.
>Do you seriously thing that an automaker would
>advertise their engine as having only 140 hp if
>with a small software change they could get 160
>hp? I mean come on.
Single brand (Porsche, BMW) companies usually don't - but those who have luxury brands and ordinary brands (Toyota, Honda, VW, Nissan, Ford, GM...) do. They want to share parts to reduce cost, but have to intentionally downtune the cheaper brands to prevent it from competing with its own luxury brands.