Too many hardware products are being tethered to opaque "updates" delivered via untrusted computer network, namely, "the Internet". Security issues of the delivery mechanism aside, purchasers of these products are given no options on whether and how they may choose to "update" the manufacturer's software, or replace the manufacturer's software with an open source alternative.
For example, if the manufacturer's software is closed source, the purchaser cannot verify what is in an "update". The manufacturer is under no legal obligation to tell her. As such, she may not be in a position to decide
[ ] YES, I could use this modification or
[ ] NO, this modification serves me no benefit
The modification may serve some benefit to the manufacture, e.g., collecting data, but no benefit to the purchaser.
It may be bundled with some other modification that benefits the purchaser but the purchaser cannot choose to accept or reject the modifications individually.
Or the manufacturer may simply state a possibility that breeds fear among certain purchasers: that if purchaser does not accept all updates, then the hardware may "cease to function". Consideration by the purchaser of whether this is actually probable may be superseded by a perceived risk of not being able to use the hardware to its full capabilities.
(For example, a router company may inform the purchaser that only the router company's software will allow certain performance specificatons to be met. If the purchaser installs an open source alternative software, then she will not be able to obtain the same performance. Of course there may be other benefits to the open source alternative besides performance, but the perceived "loss" of not reaching the performance specs advertised by the manufacturer is enough to convince many purchasers to tether the router to the manufacturer's "updates".)
Purchasers own the hardware they purchase. It is the software, including "firmware", pre-installed by manufacturers that gives rise to these shenanigans. The less access and control, including choice of alternatives, that the purchaser has to such software, the better for the manufacturer who wishes to continue to exploit the sale of the hardware well-beyond the purchase date.
When the purchaser of hardware is forced to accept the manufacturer's software, then I tend to agree with the comment. Regardless of whether the purchaser owns the hardware, if the manufacture controls the software, e.g. the manufacturer can "update" it at will or break it at will for anyone who does not "update", then with all due respect I submit that the manufacture ultimately controls the hardware.
Thought experiment: Apply the above view to every item of hardware you have ever purchased. Consider whether it will apply to the next item you purchase.
Too many hardware products are being tethered to opaque "updates" delivered via untrusted computer network, namely, "the Internet". Security issues of the delivery mechanism aside, purchasers of these products are given no options on whether and how they may choose to "update" the manufacturer's software, or replace the manufacturer's software with an open source alternative.
For example, if the manufacturer's software is closed source, the purchaser cannot verify what is in an "update". The manufacturer is under no legal obligation to tell her. As such, she may not be in a position to decide
The modification may serve some benefit to the manufacture, e.g., collecting data, but no benefit to the purchaser.It may be bundled with some other modification that benefits the purchaser but the purchaser cannot choose to accept or reject the modifications individually.
Or the manufacturer may simply state a possibility that breeds fear among certain purchasers: that if purchaser does not accept all updates, then the hardware may "cease to function". Consideration by the purchaser of whether this is actually probable may be superseded by a perceived risk of not being able to use the hardware to its full capabilities.
(For example, a router company may inform the purchaser that only the router company's software will allow certain performance specificatons to be met. If the purchaser installs an open source alternative software, then she will not be able to obtain the same performance. Of course there may be other benefits to the open source alternative besides performance, but the perceived "loss" of not reaching the performance specs advertised by the manufacturer is enough to convince many purchasers to tether the router to the manufacturer's "updates".)
Purchasers own the hardware they purchase. It is the software, including "firmware", pre-installed by manufacturers that gives rise to these shenanigans. The less access and control, including choice of alternatives, that the purchaser has to such software, the better for the manufacturer who wishes to continue to exploit the sale of the hardware well-beyond the purchase date.
When the purchaser of hardware is forced to accept the manufacturer's software, then I tend to agree with the comment. Regardless of whether the purchaser owns the hardware, if the manufacture controls the software, e.g. the manufacturer can "update" it at will or break it at will for anyone who does not "update", then with all due respect I submit that the manufacture ultimately controls the hardware. Thought experiment: Apply the above view to every item of hardware you have ever purchased. Consider whether it will apply to the next item you purchase.