When the Kinetix was hacked to support the PC, Microsoft not only didn't get legal: they celebrated the achievement.
Initially they said they would pursue it legally, but it seems they thought better of that and instead realised this wasn't a bad thing. I'd say it was just the standard reaction from the legal department to any potential IP issue, which then got overruled.
So how do you explain Microsoft are able to wield the banhammer and ban people with modded XBoxes? The answer obviously is they have installed surreptitious checks in the firmware, into games and possibly during signon that test for mods and flags them for review.
And what's that got to do with a backdoor that allows remote code execution?
Dirt cheap? It costs 700 dollars to get one that only has a 64 GB hard drive. You could get a full blown Windows 7 convertible laptop/tablet for that price! And it would run far more advanced applications, be more versatile (full sized keyboard anyone?), handle any peripheral under the sun and do just about any task you want it to.
Well clearly the ipad should be failing quite badly then...oh but it isn't. The fact is a lot of people don't need the extra functionality of the laptop - especially when it's going to be relatively low-end for that price - so they go with something FAR more portable and user-friendly. And look at the launch sales figures, it's hardly a niche device with a prohibitive cost.
But it isn't any more expensive on contract than any other smartphone, which is why so many people have them. If they really were the trendy, up-market, device about image and high price then you wouldn't see masses of teens at BDO filming bands with them, or tradies down the local pub with them. They aren't confined to the wealthy and fashionable because they are priced where anyone can get them, hence their large marketshare.
They want to be the up market trendy choice, they are all about image and high price. They want to be BMW, which means you will not see Toyota levels of sales.
Apple devices are dirt cheap, these days the only people who don't have an iphone are those who don't want one. The ipad isn't exactly the highest priced tablet either, it's a pretty cheap device.
Nope, mid to late 90s were the black years, the two sectors that kept Apple going were graphic artists/DTP and education. Think back on the time when Photoshop, Pagemaker, Painter and Quark didn't run on Windows.
Quark and Photoshop came to Windows in '92, Pagemaker in '90, that's hardly 'mid to late 90s'.
That's "nothing besides the utter lock madness that handset manufacturer have thrown in". Or in other words : you're practically stopped on most handsets currently sold.
So it's obviously NOT a problem with the android platform, just a problem with some handset manufacturers.
No, but *TiVo*'s linux-based system doesn't conform to what open-source was invented for, and the GPL has been updated accordingly to fight against this kind of abuses.
This is where the open source community is fragmented, some just want 'open source' in the case where the source code is available and any improvements/modifications must be freely available too. This is the view taken by Linus and applied to Linux (hence the strong opposition to GPLv3). And then there is the more hardcore FSF views that not only should the software be open source, but also for the devices to be free and open. It's not like TiVo violated the license or anything like that.
And that's what I find very alienating in the current state of affairs with Android : all the locks that the manufacturer are inserting to please the carriers with whom they want exclusively subsidized contracts, are completely violating the initial idea of opensource, and completely prevent users who are motivated to do what they want with a piece of hardware that they have legally bought.
Well they're violating *your* idea of open source, i personally prefer Linus' take on it. If I put code out there and others benefit from it by modifying and improving it then I want access to those improvements too.
- Why can't I directly have a root access when I want ? I need to abuse a bug to start telnet, when webOS phone allow me directly so.
- Why can't I directly flash a new firmware with a proper tool over USB ? I need to gain a root-access which normally I should have if I haven't circumvented the restrictions. Meanwhile on webOS, you can flash easily a default system, and from that point on repartition, replace custom parts, etc. at no point in time does it require circumventing anything.
- Why can't I directly install a newer or better or experimental system (or at least upgrade the existing one) without initial bug exploiting ? The Dream has me exploiting a bug to gain a root shell. On the WebOS, I just click on a new kernel on the package manager I use for 3rd party & homebrew packages (PreWare). getting that to work didn't require any bug exploiting, only installing the package manager (could be done trivially with a nice Java point'n'click interface, and requires no bugs, only typing the proper command on the PalmPre).
The way lots of Androids and all iOS devices are designed, if you want to be able to do everything you want with your phone, you have to rely on some bug to gain an access which the manufacturer didn't intent you to.
Those are manufacturer, not Android issues, there is no reason WebOS couldn't be similarly locked down by hardware manufacturers with things like eFuse.
The way all the webOS, Maemo/MeeGo, and the unlocked Google edition of the Androids are designed, if you want to do anything with your phone, well you can. The phone aren't designed in a way that prevents you and you don't need to exploit a bug to gain the necessary access rights.
Exactly! It's the way the *phone* is designed, not the Android platform. Read the passage i was originally replying to (and quoted), which was with regard specifically to the Android OS, not handset manufacturers.
The reason why it got through though is because carrier unlocking - which is protected - is not possible without it. That said you still cannot distribute tools or methods to help others jailbreak, which seems a bit dodgy, and that ruling only protects the user from being sued, so if you still cannot even sell or distribute instructions for a PSJailbreak dongle.
Fair use is the common ground between PS3 and the iPhone, but until we can get some carrier-unlock equivalent that is protected from DMCA and is shown to be the primary use for the jailbreak - of course this would be Game Backups - we're pretty stuck.
Well that is in part the nature of software (continious maintenance), and in some other part it is the "Cost of doing business". So it is already accounted for -somehow- in the retail price.
No, it is accounted for as part of the average amount of return they expect, per console, in game sales.
Using that argument one might say that Danon is subsidizing their yogurt (Trasnport, refregeration, R&D, Marketing.... etc). And by that account even the dev kit is subsidized.
No you wouldn't, because it is not sold simply 'at cost', the price at which they sell it has to cover those other costs because they have no profit model for after they sell it to you, unlike the console gaming industry.
That said, assuming that in fact it is still subsidized, what does that change??? do I (you or anyone else) still owe them something?? They set that price assuming that some might buy games some might not. That assumption is not set in stone, they were ready to let go the console for said price and nobody forced them to.
The only reason they can afford to sell them so cheaply is because the *can* make the assumption that there will be an *average* return on game sales that will cover the costs. Otherwise we would end up paying huge amounts of cash for the console outright.
It's the fact that if they didn't restrict the usage of it then many consoles would go out the door without making them any money, of course this would mean there would be no future for making games consoles...so in the end consumers get nothing or they would have to pay the full un-subsidized price for the hardware.
IPhone jailbreak decision might disagree ?? seams the same to me.
It wouldn't if you actually knew what the iphone jailbreak case was about. It was specifically about carrier unlocking, of course there is no PS3 equivalent to this (and no you can't use it as analogous to another feature because it was **specifically** carrier unlocking).
But let's explore some other scenario:...
Why bother? You don't need to try and convince me that it would be a good thing, i thought i already stated my position earlier. I don't believe what they are doing is right, but the fact is that what they are doing is quite legal and there is a reason for it that benefits us as consumers. We get a gaming console with significant capabilities for a subsidized price, sure it would be nice for Sony to subsidize hardware for us regardless of whether we used it with software that profits them and allowed us free access to the software, but i don't see that happening. In any case you need to convince *Sony* that there is a viable business case for it, not me.
The software may be licensed, but the hardware not in a long shot.
Obviously, no-one is debating that.
Either way even if the software in question is not mine, If it doesn't do what I expect it to do I think I have a right to tinker with it in the privacy of my living room
You might think that, but you'd be wrong, as per the license agreement, which has of course been upheld by courts.
What I don't -since it is not mine- have a right to is to redistribute that said software in any form. (b is obviously subject to licensing terms and debatable before a judge given sufficient resources -time/monney-).
Correct, you don't have that right either.
If I'm paying 300$ for a PS3 and with that price they are making profit I fail to see how it is still subsidized. (please explain).
Because the idea that they are 'making a profit' is based solely on the fact that the cost of the hardware is less than the cost it is sold at. This doesn't factor in distribution costs, R&D, a workforce for continual updates, etc... All of those costs are subsidized by sony, they are willing to subsidize those costs based on their assumption that you'll buy games and that some of the cost of those games will go to them to pay for the costs they subsidized on the console itself.
China is flooding the market with low-end, very slow hardware. People are getting frustrated and getting the perception that Android is garbage and not user friendly. It doesn't help when the high-end tablet makers can't seem to sell anything that doesn't cost $2-300 more than an iPad.
That's the core issue, the average consumer isn't going to be able to justify spending $600 on an Android tablet that has a 7" touchscreen, GPS, wifi, 3G, etc... when they can get one with the same features for $159, nevermind the fact that the hardware in the cheap one is rubbish and slow and only runs Android 1.6.
They need to try them out side-by-side, but even then once they've been lured in with dirt-cheap prices the chances of actually spending 400% of the cost of the cheap one are quite slim.
I would love to see Google try to reign some of the uncontrolled nature of Android back in.
That's the downside of the free open source nature of Android though, anyone can use it, anyone can build a device that runs it and anyone can lock it down on the device they sell.
it's not required, but it helps a lot. It's one the major advantage of opensource over proprietary. being compatible means a lot of code re-use.
Nothing stops code re-use as far as android goes. You can build native libraries from existing open source apps and utilise that functionality in Android applications.
and having to *root* your very own phone you bought yourself and which is running opensource software ? That I find not exactly acceptable.
The difficulty in getting root access is a part of the handset manufacturer modifications, the fact that it's not easy to put your own linux kernel on your tivo doesn't affect the linux kernel's conformity to the open source definition.
But there's no rooting/jailbreaking madness required to run custom code on it.
That's a disingenuous comment, im not sure whether you're doing that intentionally or you just have never used the Android SDK.
Then why has Nintendo never had that problem. their consoles are NEVER sold at a loss. They are not stupid that way.
It's not about whether they sell it at a loss, it's about whether they sell it at a cost that covers the hardware, the development costs and all other costs, which they don't. They run the exact same model, it's just that their hardware is a lot cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
When the Kinetix was hacked to support the PC, Microsoft not only didn't get legal: they celebrated the achievement.
Initially they said they would pursue it legally, but it seems they thought better of that and instead realised this wasn't a bad thing. I'd say it was just the standard reaction from the legal department to any potential IP issue, which then got overruled.
So how do you explain Microsoft are able to wield the banhammer and ban people with modded XBoxes? The answer obviously is they have installed surreptitious checks in the firmware, into games and possibly during signon that test for mods and flags them for review.
And what's that got to do with a backdoor that allows remote code execution?
I'm pretty sure the 360 has a similar feature that has been there for a while now... why only bash Sony for it?
No they don't have such a feature.
Its not like MS has a history of empowering consumers.
So it doesn't matter how bad you are, you shouldn't be attacked unless you're worse than Microsoft?
Fair call, perhaps the device is even perceived as just so good most people can justify the extra expenditure.
Dirt cheap? It costs 700 dollars to get one that only has a 64 GB hard drive. You could get a full blown Windows 7 convertible laptop/tablet for that price! And it would run far more advanced applications, be more versatile (full sized keyboard anyone?), handle any peripheral under the sun and do just about any task you want it to.
Well clearly the ipad should be failing quite badly then...oh but it isn't. The fact is a lot of people don't need the extra functionality of the laptop - especially when it's going to be relatively low-end for that price - so they go with something FAR more portable and user-friendly. And look at the launch sales figures, it's hardly a niche device with a prohibitive cost.
But it isn't any more expensive on contract than any other smartphone, which is why so many people have them. If they really were the trendy, up-market, device about image and high price then you wouldn't see masses of teens at BDO filming bands with them, or tradies down the local pub with them. They aren't confined to the wealthy and fashionable because they are priced where anyone can get them, hence their large marketshare.
A whole lot more than what?
No they aren't. It only looks like that because you can't buy them in the US without agreeing to a 2 year contract with enormous monthly fees.
Bullshit. Why do morons always assume people must only be talking about the US?
Go ask someone who lives outside the USA. Go ask some Indians for example.
Don't make assumptions, i'm not american. I *am* someone who lives outside the USA.
They want to be the up market trendy choice, they are all about image and high price. They want to be BMW, which means you will not see Toyota levels of sales.
Apple devices are dirt cheap, these days the only people who don't have an iphone are those who don't want one. The ipad isn't exactly the highest priced tablet either, it's a pretty cheap device.
Gee, they really have it in for Nokia. Symbian is "ailing" at slightly less than 2 million units less than the market leader.
Pretty obvious they mean the rate at which Nokia's market share has dropped.
no wonder you posted as AC.
We all know what 'stolen' means in the context of data, it means 'copied without permission of the owner', im sorry you fail to understand that.
I don't understand how anyone can consider OSX to be closed.
How can you *NOT* consider it to be closed? Can i download the OSX source and build the operating system? No.
I don't understand the Mac vs. Windows comparison either, because windows is still a closed environment too.
Because he's talking about the whole platform, not the operating system. You can run Windows on any desktop PC, you can only run OSX on a Mac.
Nope, mid to late 90s were the black years, the two sectors that kept Apple going were graphic artists/DTP and education. Think back on the time when Photoshop, Pagemaker, Painter and Quark didn't run on Windows.
Quark and Photoshop came to Windows in '92, Pagemaker in '90, that's hardly 'mid to late 90s'.
That's "nothing besides the utter lock madness that handset manufacturer have thrown in". Or in other words : you're practically stopped on most handsets currently sold.
So it's obviously NOT a problem with the android platform, just a problem with some handset manufacturers.
No, but *TiVo*'s linux-based system doesn't conform to what open-source was invented for, and the GPL has been updated accordingly to fight against this kind of abuses.
This is where the open source community is fragmented, some just want 'open source' in the case where the source code is available and any improvements/modifications must be freely available too. This is the view taken by Linus and applied to Linux (hence the strong opposition to GPLv3). And then there is the more hardcore FSF views that not only should the software be open source, but also for the devices to be free and open. It's not like TiVo violated the license or anything like that.
And that's what I find very alienating in the current state of affairs with Android : all the locks that the manufacturer are inserting to please the carriers with whom they want exclusively subsidized contracts, are completely violating the initial idea of opensource, and completely prevent users who are motivated to do what they want with a piece of hardware that they have legally bought.
Well they're violating *your* idea of open source, i personally prefer Linus' take on it. If I put code out there and others benefit from it by modifying and improving it then I want access to those improvements too.
- Why can't I directly have a root access when I want ? I need to abuse a bug to start telnet, when webOS phone allow me directly so. - Why can't I directly flash a new firmware with a proper tool over USB ? I need to gain a root-access which normally I should have if I haven't circumvented the restrictions. Meanwhile on webOS, you can flash easily a default system, and from that point on repartition, replace custom parts, etc. at no point in time does it require circumventing anything. - Why can't I directly install a newer or better or experimental system (or at least upgrade the existing one) without initial bug exploiting ? The Dream has me exploiting a bug to gain a root shell. On the WebOS, I just click on a new kernel on the package manager I use for 3rd party & homebrew packages (PreWare). getting that to work didn't require any bug exploiting, only installing the package manager (could be done trivially with a nice Java point'n'click interface, and requires no bugs, only typing the proper command on the PalmPre).
The way lots of Androids and all iOS devices are designed, if you want to be able to do everything you want with your phone, you have to rely on some bug to gain an access which the manufacturer didn't intent you to.
Those are manufacturer, not Android issues, there is no reason WebOS couldn't be similarly locked down by hardware manufacturers with things like eFuse.
The way all the webOS, Maemo/MeeGo, and the unlocked Google edition of the Androids are designed, if you want to do anything with your phone, well you can. The phone aren't designed in a way that prevents you and you don't need to exploit a bug to gain the necessary access rights.
Exactly! It's the way the *phone* is designed, not the Android platform. Read the passage i was originally replying to (and quoted), which was with regard specifically to the Android OS, not handset manufacturers.
The reason why it got through though is because carrier unlocking - which is protected - is not possible without it. That said you still cannot distribute tools or methods to help others jailbreak, which seems a bit dodgy, and that ruling only protects the user from being sued, so if you still cannot even sell or distribute instructions for a PSJailbreak dongle.
Fair use is the common ground between PS3 and the iPhone, but until we can get some carrier-unlock equivalent that is protected from DMCA and is shown to be the primary use for the jailbreak - of course this would be Game Backups - we're pretty stuck.
Well that is in part the nature of software (continious maintenance), and in some other part it is the "Cost of doing business". So it is already accounted for -somehow- in the retail price.
No, it is accounted for as part of the average amount of return they expect, per console, in game sales.
Using that argument one might say that Danon is subsidizing their yogurt (Trasnport, refregeration, R&D, Marketing .... etc). And by that account even the dev kit is subsidized.
No you wouldn't, because it is not sold simply 'at cost', the price at which they sell it has to cover those other costs because they have no profit model for after they sell it to you, unlike the console gaming industry.
That said, assuming that in fact it is still subsidized, what does that change??? do I (you or anyone else) still owe them something?? They set that price assuming that some might buy games some might not. That assumption is not set in stone, they were ready to let go the console for said price and nobody forced them to.
The only reason they can afford to sell them so cheaply is because the *can* make the assumption that there will be an *average* return on game sales that will cover the costs. Otherwise we would end up paying huge amounts of cash for the console outright.
It's the fact that if they didn't restrict the usage of it then many consoles would go out the door without making them any money, of course this would mean there would be no future for making games consoles...so in the end consumers get nothing or they would have to pay the full un-subsidized price for the hardware.
IPhone jailbreak decision might disagree ?? seams the same to me.
It wouldn't if you actually knew what the iphone jailbreak case was about. It was specifically about carrier unlocking, of course there is no PS3 equivalent to this (and no you can't use it as analogous to another feature because it was **specifically** carrier unlocking).
But let's explore some other scenario: ...
Why bother? You don't need to try and convince me that it would be a good thing, i thought i already stated my position earlier. I don't believe what they are doing is right, but the fact is that what they are doing is quite legal and there is a reason for it that benefits us as consumers. We get a gaming console with significant capabilities for a subsidized price, sure it would be nice for Sony to subsidize hardware for us regardless of whether we used it with software that profits them and allowed us free access to the software, but i don't see that happening. In any case you need to convince *Sony* that there is a viable business case for it, not me.
The software may be licensed, but the hardware not in a long shot.
Obviously, no-one is debating that.
Either way even if the software in question is not mine, If it doesn't do what I expect it to do I think I have a right to tinker with it in the privacy of my living room
You might think that, but you'd be wrong, as per the license agreement, which has of course been upheld by courts.
What I don't -since it is not mine- have a right to is to redistribute that said software in any form. (b is obviously subject to licensing terms and debatable before a judge given sufficient resources -time/monney-).
Correct, you don't have that right either.
If I'm paying 300$ for a PS3 and with that price they are making profit I fail to see how it is still subsidized. (please explain).
Because the idea that they are 'making a profit' is based solely on the fact that the cost of the hardware is less than the cost it is sold at. This doesn't factor in distribution costs, R&D, a workforce for continual updates, etc... All of those costs are subsidized by sony, they are willing to subsidize those costs based on their assumption that you'll buy games and that some of the cost of those games will go to them to pay for the costs they subsidized on the console itself.
China is flooding the market with low-end, very slow hardware. People are getting frustrated and getting the perception that Android is garbage and not user friendly. It doesn't help when the high-end tablet makers can't seem to sell anything that doesn't cost $2-300 more than an iPad.
That's the core issue, the average consumer isn't going to be able to justify spending $600 on an Android tablet that has a 7" touchscreen, GPS, wifi, 3G, etc... when they can get one with the same features for $159, nevermind the fact that the hardware in the cheap one is rubbish and slow and only runs Android 1.6.
They need to try them out side-by-side, but even then once they've been lured in with dirt-cheap prices the chances of actually spending 400% of the cost of the cheap one are quite slim.
I would love to see Google try to reign some of the uncontrolled nature of Android back in.
That's the downside of the free open source nature of Android though, anyone can use it, anyone can build a device that runs it and anyone can lock it down on the device they sell.
Because they're really freakin' expensive ($2k or more I think)
Of course they are, they are a non-subsidized version.
and because Sony doesn't just sell dev kits to anyone.
And not just anyone wants one.
it's not required, but it helps a lot. It's one the major advantage of opensource over proprietary. being compatible means a lot of code re-use.
Nothing stops code re-use as far as android goes. You can build native libraries from existing open source apps and utilise that functionality in Android applications.
and having to *root* your very own phone you bought yourself and which is running opensource software ? That I find not exactly acceptable.
The difficulty in getting root access is a part of the handset manufacturer modifications, the fact that it's not easy to put your own linux kernel on your tivo doesn't affect the linux kernel's conformity to the open source definition.
But there's no rooting/jailbreaking madness required to run custom code on it.
That's a disingenuous comment, im not sure whether you're doing that intentionally or you just have never used the Android SDK.
Then why has Nintendo never had that problem. their consoles are NEVER sold at a loss. They are not stupid that way.
It's not about whether they sell it at a loss, it's about whether they sell it at a cost that covers the hardware, the development costs and all other costs, which they don't. They run the exact same model, it's just that their hardware is a lot cheaper.