B&N Nook Successfully Opened

garg0yle writes "A team has managed to open the Barnes and Noble Nook e-reader, gaining full access to the operating system. From the article: 'The Nook is now a computer running a full Android operating system, with a built-in, free cellular connection to the internet. It also has a battery that lasts days, not hours.' They are documenting their progress on the Nook Devs wiki."

Comments

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Abalamahalamatandra]

What does the FCC care? It's still compliant, even if it's hacked.

I daresay the wireless carrier will be a bit ticked though, but they should have seen it coming. If the data connection this thing uses isn't firewalled to only talk to the B&N servers it's their own fault.

Beware! Root access to the world.

[pikine]

If you do this, your Nook will be openly accessible to anyone who port-scanned your Nook and found that port 5555 is open.

Not really

[electricbern]

If those 3G connections are not VPNed exclusively to B&Ns servers that is criminally stupid. If they are, then there is no big deal here, they just showed how you can get full access to a device you purchased. The way it should be.

Re:Holy crap.

[OldeTimeGeek]

This begs the question of why we don't already have netbooks this awesome, with free internet and days of battery life.

Because, in the case of the Kindle and Nook, the cost of the wireless connection is subsidized by book sales. There will be no additional purchases to subsidize Netbook access so what purpose would it serve a manufacturer to have it bundled in?

Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Sycraft-fu]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. See the problem is cellular Internet costs money. Even if you don't think corporations should be allowed to make a profit, it is still going to cost money. You have to have a large network of radio towers to broadcast the signal, those have to be wired back in to a robust network to route the data, which has to be connected to the Internet at large. Of course all that doesn't maintain itself once built, things break, people need to fix it and look after it.

That all costs money, as such, access is going to have to cost money.

So, why is access "free" on things like the Kindle and Nook? Well it isn't. What happens is that Amazon or Barnes and Noble pick up the cost. There are two reasons they can do this:

1) Usage is low. Since access is used only for searching for, or downloading, new books as well as a smattering of other things like news, it isn't all that much. That means they aren't having to pay out a whole lot per device.

2) A large part of the usage has a profit associated with it, namely buying books. Thus each time you use the wireless to get a book, they make some money.

This leads to a situation where it is feasible to offer it to customers at no charge.

However, if you start using it as general purpose Internet, to browse whatever you want, to download files, to play games, that breaks down. Suddenly cost goes up a whole lot, and less (or perhaps none) of the activity generates any money. As such it can't be sustained. They have to restrict it, shut it down, or charge.

Things in life aren't free. If you think everyone should just give everything away, well that shows a real lack of understanding of how the world works (and a good indication you've never had to provide for yourself).

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Moridineas]

Hmm, that's a lot of ad hominems and anger in response to a post that was completely correct!

As the GP said, the reason Kindle/Nook are allowed free access to the cell networks is because Amazon and B&N reached an agreement with the cell networks to provide a certain level of service at a certain cost point. I don't think either Amazon or B&N whoever are currently interested in making the Kindle or Nook general purpose computers with tiered pricing schemes, etc, and I'm absolutely certain that the terms of the deals they reached with e.g. Verizon would be VERY different if this was the model they were pushing. In other words, it would completely change the cost structure of the Kindle and Nook for the consumer.

The products are locked down so that this doesn't happen. Do I like it? No. I also don't plan on getting a Kindle or Nook. It's silly to believe that fundamentally changing the nature of the Kindle or Nook wouldn't fundamentally change the price structures involved (and probably making it less attractive to many consumers)

If the devices were open to begin with, they'd be a lot more expensive.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Homer1946]

I think the point is, there ARE other products that provide general computer functionality with a cellular connection.

The Nook is an eBook reader and that is all is aspires to be. That is it's business model. There is room in this world for specialized devices (they don't ALL have to all be general purpose) and I certainly think companies should have the option of creating special business arrangements (such as a constant cellular connection supported by book purchases) to support those devices.

Of course AT&T will lock this down. That is the right think to do so that those people who DO want a device such as this is, will be able to get it.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[Rob the Bold]

However, if you start using it as general purpose Internet, to browse whatever you want, to download files, to play games, that breaks down. Suddenly cost goes up a whole lot, and less (or perhaps none) of the activity generates any money. As such it can't be sustained. They have to restrict it, shut it down, or charge.

Things in life aren't free. If you think everyone should just give everything away, well that shows a real lack of understanding of how the world works (and a good indication you've never had to provide for yourself).

If this is a free market, then as a consumer it is none of my concern how the supplier intends to make money. Nor is it my responsibility to use a product in such a way as to maintain the supplier's sustainability. This does not make me a crook. I'm merely trying to maximize the deal for myself. If this seems somehow unethical, consider that the same applies to the supplier. They need not concern themselves with such things as whether or not their products benefit society as a whole or whether a customer can really afford to buy such an offering.

So anyway, consumer wanting as much as possible for as little as he can is 1/2 of what makes a free market free. That doesn't make customer or supplier immature. To say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the free market and an indication of a lack of sophistication as a consumer -- sorry, couldn't resist the symmetrical dig ;)

Perhaps if all consumers and all suppliers were to take the long view, the socially responsible view, that might be good. But without laws to enforce this on all parties (and restrict the free market), I just can't afford to put myself at a competitive disadvantage vs. suppliers or other consumers. Can't feed my family or pay the bills with smug self-satisfaction or inner holiness.

Re:Someone else who wants somethign for nothing

[aicrules]

Buying a nook is not buying a 3G wireless data connection to the internet. It's buying a 3G wireless data connection to buy B&N ebooks. Hack the hardware all you want, but if you use that hardware to get a service you haven't paid for, that's just like stealing TV. Yes, you can choose to steal, but you have to be ready to live with the consequences if you get caught. If you're having to steal 3G internet access to be able to feed your family, you're a fucking idiot for wasting your time trying to steal 3G internet access rather than getting a job.

Giving things away is not socially responsible, and definitely not fiscally. If no one ever pays for anything, no one has a reason to maintain it and your free 3G network would very quickly be overwhelmed and be burnt to a crisp.

Re:How soon

[morari]

Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Spatial]

I think both views are far too abstract and simplified to be of any practical use. Blame isn't a true/false value that can only be assigned to a single entity.

On one hand, it's somewhat witless to leave a car like that. On the other, stealing it is a despicable thing to do. Both the situation and action are necessary so the blame for the incident goes to both. Since the action is far worse than the situation, the blame is very heavily weighted towards the criminal.

Even that's too simplified. But you get the idea.

Re:DMCA notice coming

[Jafafa Hots]

No. You do NOT get part of the blame. That's like saying "She shouldn't have been wearing that mini-skirt, it's no wonder she got raped."

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. I should be ABLE to leave my house unlocked, its MY fucking house, not yours, and you know that, and if you steal my shit it's all YOUR fault.

I should be ABLE to leave my car with the keys in it, its MY car, not yours, if you take it you're 100% responsible.

Yes, it may be predictable that if I leave my car with the keys in it some immoral asshole is likely to steal it... but the mere fact that it's predictable that you might be an asshole doesn't make me share the blame for you being an asshole.