Halfway through he describes this as malicious compliance with the “right to repair” law. Apple and others are making a mockery of the law.

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It is like paying to unlock satellite TV reception (even though we are receiving the signals the whole time).

    It’s reasonable to charge for this because the value is in copyrighted content and a service that costs the provider money to operate. The same would apply for satellite radio in a car or an internet-based streaming service. It is not reasonable to charge for access to the adaptive suspension or seat warmers that are already in a car a customer bought. That breaks the traditional model of ownership.

    An interesting middle ground might be to allow the owner to install arbitrary software on the car, and charge for the OEM adaptive suspension app. I think I would like a world where things work like that; OEMs would whine about security to no end.

    I think it should be legal to attempt to decrypt satellite signals without paying; if the satellite service is designed well, it won’t be possible. All the anticircumvention laws should be repealed.

    • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I’d argue that I bought the car, if they are maintaining a cellular connection to the vehicle to collect telemetry data, I should be allowed to access it as well (I own the car), alternatively they could let me pay for the data connection and not collect stuff.