7 ms·

Updating old products is expensive, especially as their hardware falls further behind. Unless manufacturers adopt some kind of subscription model to justify the

by vv_ 24d ago

Updating old products is expensive, especially as their hardware falls further behind. Unless manufacturers adopt some kind of subscription model to justify the cost of continued updates, which would likely be very unpopular, I don’t see how they can realistically keep older devices supported indefinitely.

NL807 24d ago
>I don’t see how they can realistically keep older devices supported indefinitely. They don't have to. Open up the platform for linux and custom OS.
seemaze 24d ago
unlock old hardware and let the community support
- 6510 24d ago
  Government could hold the keys. Sufficient weird behavior should also trigger release.
  - chocolatkey 24d ago
    You really want to trust the government with keys to the kingdom? Like what they wanted here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d... And no, I wouldn’t trust an EU government or coalition any more than the US or any other country
    - 6510 24d ago
      Could have a distributed system so physical access gives you nothing. Could have the vendor pick a time for release. If all nodes agree the time has arrived release the payload. Make it so that nothing can be released silently. Give the vendor some time to sound the alarm if something goes wrong. I don't know to what extend you could do a key update on illegitimate released. It seems you have bigger problems to worry about at that point. To do it earlier you could have judges sign for release and require one or more judge keys to decrypt the vendor keys.
- vv_ 24d ago
  It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive, as someone needs to prepare all the materials and resources the community would need to continue supporting the product after official support ends. Second, there are legal restrictions, for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware. Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available. You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.
  - realusername 24d ago
    > Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available. You can just stop to the last reason, they don't want to give up ownership back to you. They would prefer you to throw the device in the bin and buy a new one, preferably from them again.
    - vv_ 24d ago
      > they don't want to give up ownership back to you No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them. Edit: I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you. > No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting? Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer." There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
- dwaite 24d ago
  It is a nice thought, but there may not be a ton of effort in starting reverse engineering projects on a full custom silicon stack 7+ years after release (when Apple typically stops supporting hardware)
troupo 24d ago
They don't have to support it indefinitely. Allowing users install what they want on it would be the best case scenario. Instead we have bullshit like "your TV is three years old? No updates for you": https://developer.samsung.com/smarttv/develop/specifications/general-specifications.html https://developer.samsung.com/smarttv/develop/specifications...
- vv_ 24d ago
  Your link doesn't say that the device isn't getting any updates. It only says that, if I understood it correctly, pre-2023 devices don't receive OS updates. They still get guaranteed security updates for five years. > They don't have to support it indefinitely. How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
  - troupo 24d ago
    > if I understood it correctly, pre-2023 devices don't receive OS updates. Indeed. An ancient 3-year-old device isn't receiving any OS updates. Which means it doesn't get features, its core software isn't updated inculding such minor things as the browser (most apps on TVs are browser apps), store etc. Eventually its certificates will expire and it won't be able to connect to most things > How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported? Depends on device. People don't buy TVs every year. So a 10-year support isn't out of the question. That said, 10 years should probably be minimum for almost all hardware. E.g. Microsoft supports Windows for ~10 years, and for a much wider array of hardware. After that: open up, and let people do whatever they want with it.
    - mdp2021 24d ago
      > An ["]ancient["] 3-year-old device isn't receiving any OS updates In the "save the planet" times.
fhackenberger 24d ago
Well I'm quite sure the advances in LLMs abilities are going to be quite a nice change in this regard. If vendors would be required to release all firmware source code or at least full specs after devices drop out of support, it would be fairly simple and cheap now to port drivers to new kernel release or different OSs.
- vv_ 24d ago
  > If vendors would be required to release all firmware source code This may be the hope or expectation you have with regard to regulation, but I don't think it is ever going to happen because it would conflict with other regulatory requirements, especially in the realm of radio. You may say "regulation can be changed" but radio regulations exist for real reasons and I doubt anyone could convince the major governing bodies otherwise. Not to mention that such a requirement could effectively force companies to give up intellectual property that they have invested heavily in developing. What if a manufacturer outsources the firmware development to a vendor that specializes in firmware? If the manufacturer were required to release that firmware as open source, they would effectively be forcing that vendor to open-source its product. That could undermine the vendor's entire business model.
  - troupo 24d ago
    > but radio regulations exist for real reasons and I doubt anyone could convince the major governing bodies otherwise. You're saying the chips in iPads etc. are not regulation-compliant and this non-compliance can be trivially unlocked if you know the specs?
    - vv_ 24d ago
      > You're saying the chips in iPads etc. are not regulation-compliant and this non-compliance can be trivially unlocked if you know the specs? The radio modules in iPads are compliant, assuming that the software using those radio modules is compliant as well. This is why manufacturers have to enforce specific combinations of software and hardware, as not all of the functionality and regulatory constraints are implemented in the hardware itself. If you gain access to the radio module of an iPad, you can definitely make it non-compliant, depending on the level of access the module provides. In my experience, however, radio modules generally provide enough access that a user could potentially cause regulatory issues if the relevant safeguards were removed or you do not adhere to the specification of the radio protocol you are using. If you don't believe me look at Bluetooth SIG listings and you will note that they specify specific software versions: https://qualification.bluetooth.com/Listings/Search https://qualification.bluetooth.com/Listings/Search
Hendrikto 24d ago
Vendors do not have to support their product indefinitely. They have to design their products in a way that they do not become useless after support ends. E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software.
- vv_ 24d ago
  > E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software. If limited to the bootloader, such as allowing users to run their own operating system, then that is definitely a possibility, with the exception of firmware running on the device itself. But I doubt that is what most users here are expecting, and in my opinion, it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers.
  - arlcode 24d ago
    It would open up a tertiary market for smaller companies to do that (maybe even sell into a different market). Not every business venue needs to be a multi billion multi national and using some devices for a long time is better than burrying them all in a land fill.
    - vv_ 24d ago
      I'm sorry, instead of: > it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers I should have phrased it as: > it wouldn't provide enough value to their customers to create meaningful value for the company. You can argue that "ha ha, we shall enact regulation to force them to do this!" but the reality is that only a small percentage of customers would actually benefit from such regulation. Because most people are not going to tinker with their devices, especially if there is no easy or straightforward way to do so. So in the end, you'd have more regulation that makes it harder for new players to enter the market, while doing little to solve actual customer problems and ultimately imposing significant costs on manufacturers. For people who actually care about long-term device support, they can choose reputable manufacturers that already offer it. If no such manufacturers exist, that may instead represent an opportunity for someone to build a business around providing better long-term support.

by vv_ 24d ago

NL807 24d ago

>I don’t see how they can realistically keep older devices supported indefinitely. They don't have to. Open up the platform for linux and custom OS.

seemaze 24d ago

unlock old hardware and let the community support

6510 24d ago
Government could hold the keys. Sufficient weird behavior should also trigger release.
- chocolatkey 24d ago
  You really want to trust the government with keys to the kingdom? Like what they wanted here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d... And no, I wouldn’t trust an EU government or coalition any more than the US or any other country
  - 6510 24d ago
    Could have a distributed system so physical access gives you nothing. Could have the vendor pick a time for release. If all nodes agree the time has arrived release the payload. Make it so that nothing can be released silently. Give the vendor some time to sound the alarm if something goes wrong. I don't know to what extend you could do a key update on illegitimate released. It seems you have bigger problems to worry about at that point. To do it earlier you could have judges sign for release and require one or more judge keys to decrypt the vendor keys.
vv_ 24d ago
It is not always possible to provide the required support. First, it is expensive, as someone needs to prepare all the materials and resources the community would need to continue supporting the product after official support ends. Second, there are legal restrictions, for example, you may not be allowed to provide access to the radio firmware. Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available. You could make the argument that manufacturers only need to provide the means for the community to support the device, rather than extensive documentation. However, these communities are often so small that this would never be a priority for most companies. Combined with the IP-related issues, I don't think this is really feasible.
- realusername 24d ago
  > Finally, most companies simply do not want to make their intellectual property publicly available. You can just stop to the last reason, they don't want to give up ownership back to you. They would prefer you to throw the device in the bin and buy a new one, preferably from them again.
  - vv_ 24d ago
    > they don't want to give up ownership back to you No, it's simply that your demand is completely unreasonable. You are essentially asking them to adopt an open-source model. That can mean giving up control over its intellectual property and potentially exposing proprietary technology to competitors, especially when some products are valuable precisely because of the software that runs on them. Edit: I don't know why it is not allowing me to reply to you. > No, I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers What exactly is a "normal computer," and what specific behavior are you expecting? Can you freely tinker with your motherboard's firmware? Can you modify the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi firmware on your motherboard? Can you modify and independently update the internals of Windows itself? These are all examples of components that are proprietary and subject to limitations, even on what we would consider a "normal computer." There may be some exceptions to the above, but the same generally applies to mass-produced, commercially distributed devices. They are often locked down for technical, legal, and security reasons, and "unlocking" them is simply not a reasonable expectation in many cases.
dwaite 24d ago
It is a nice thought, but there may not be a ton of effort in starting reverse engineering projects on a full custom silicon stack 7+ years after release (when Apple typically stops supporting hardware)

troupo 24d ago

They don't have to support it indefinitely. Allowing users install what they want on it would be the best case scenario. Instead we have bullshit like "your TV is three years old? No updates for you": https://developer.samsung.com/smarttv/develop/specifications/general-specifications.html https://developer.samsung.com/smarttv/develop/specifications...

vv_ 24d ago
Your link doesn't say that the device isn't getting any updates. It only says that, if I understood it correctly, pre-2023 devices don't receive OS updates. They still get guaranteed security updates for five years. > They don't have to support it indefinitely. How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported?
- troupo 24d ago
  > if I understood it correctly, pre-2023 devices don't receive OS updates. Indeed. An ancient 3-year-old device isn't receiving any OS updates. Which means it doesn't get features, its core software isn't updated inculding such minor things as the browser (most apps on TVs are browser apps), store etc. Eventually its certificates will expire and it won't be able to connect to most things > How long should support for devices last in that case? And what should be supported? Depends on device. People don't buy TVs every year. So a 10-year support isn't out of the question. That said, 10 years should probably be minimum for almost all hardware. E.g. Microsoft supports Windows for ~10 years, and for a much wider array of hardware. After that: open up, and let people do whatever they want with it.
  - mdp2021 24d ago
    > An ["]ancient["] 3-year-old device isn't receiving any OS updates In the "save the planet" times.

fhackenberger 24d ago

Well I'm quite sure the advances in LLMs abilities are going to be quite a nice change in this regard. If vendors would be required to release all firmware source code or at least full specs after devices drop out of support, it would be fairly simple and cheap now to port drivers to new kernel release or different OSs.

vv_ 24d ago
> If vendors would be required to release all firmware source code This may be the hope or expectation you have with regard to regulation, but I don't think it is ever going to happen because it would conflict with other regulatory requirements, especially in the realm of radio. You may say "regulation can be changed" but radio regulations exist for real reasons and I doubt anyone could convince the major governing bodies otherwise. Not to mention that such a requirement could effectively force companies to give up intellectual property that they have invested heavily in developing. What if a manufacturer outsources the firmware development to a vendor that specializes in firmware? If the manufacturer were required to release that firmware as open source, they would effectively be forcing that vendor to open-source its product. That could undermine the vendor's entire business model.
- troupo 24d ago
  > but radio regulations exist for real reasons and I doubt anyone could convince the major governing bodies otherwise. You're saying the chips in iPads etc. are not regulation-compliant and this non-compliance can be trivially unlocked if you know the specs?
  - vv_ 24d ago
    > You're saying the chips in iPads etc. are not regulation-compliant and this non-compliance can be trivially unlocked if you know the specs? The radio modules in iPads are compliant, assuming that the software using those radio modules is compliant as well. This is why manufacturers have to enforce specific combinations of software and hardware, as not all of the functionality and regulatory constraints are implemented in the hardware itself. If you gain access to the radio module of an iPad, you can definitely make it non-compliant, depending on the level of access the module provides. In my experience, however, radio modules generally provide enough access that a user could potentially cause regulatory issues if the relevant safeguards were removed or you do not adhere to the specification of the radio protocol you are using. If you don't believe me look at Bluetooth SIG listings and you will note that they specify specific software versions: https://qualification.bluetooth.com/Listings/Search https://qualification.bluetooth.com/Listings/Search

Hendrikto 24d ago

Vendors do not have to support their product indefinitely. They have to design their products in a way that they do not become useless after support ends. E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software.

vv_ 24d ago
> E.g. by opening up the bootloader and letting users install custom software. If limited to the bootloader, such as allowing users to run their own operating system, then that is definitely a possibility, with the exception of firmware running on the device itself. But I doubt that is what most users here are expecting, and in my opinion, it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers.
- arlcode 24d ago
  It would open up a tertiary market for smaller companies to do that (maybe even sell into a different market). Not every business venue needs to be a multi billion multi national and using some devices for a long time is better than burrying them all in a land fill.
  - vv_ 24d ago
    I'm sorry, instead of: > it wouldn't provide much value to the vast majority of customers I should have phrased it as: > it wouldn't provide enough value to their customers to create meaningful value for the company. You can argue that "ha ha, we shall enact regulation to force them to do this!" but the reality is that only a small percentage of customers would actually benefit from such regulation. Because most people are not going to tinker with their devices, especially if there is no easy or straightforward way to do so. So in the end, you'd have more regulation that makes it harder for new players to enter the market, while doing little to solve actual customer problems and ultimately imposing significant costs on manufacturers. For people who actually care about long-term device support, they can choose reputable manufacturers that already offer it. If no such manufacturers exist, that may instead represent an opportunity for someone to build a business around providing better long-term support.