I would certainly prefer that this be the case, but I also don't think it's particularly likely to pass as legislation - because there are plenty of devices that are sold at a loss, expecting to make it up on other later software sales.
I believe almost all modern game consoles live in this space, I would expect Amazon's Kindle devices are in this category, etc. And while I don't like this model and won't participate in such ecosystems, neither can I deny that such things are fairly common and popular. Forcing open firmware on those would likely generate a much larger, and, frankly, better funded response to being able to maintain a locked down firmware for the useful life of the system.
Picking specifically on the "no longer receiving firmware updates" category makes it much harder for those companies to argue that having to do this will hurt their profits or hinder their ability to recover losses on subsidized hardware - they literally don't care enough to bother updating them at this point, so it would be much harder for them to make these claims. You abandon a device once you're done earning your money back on it. I doubt Sony, for instance, still expects much return on deployed Playstation 3s. And it's exceedingly hard for Apple to argue that they're making any money on an iPhone 3GS or something, because it doesn't even run modern app store packages.
So my logic here is that "you must unlock abandoned devices for those who care" is likely to be winnable, whereas "All devices must be unlockable from day 1" isn't.
Who cares what these companies want or what their business models are? Dumb business models are dumb and it’s not our job to consider their dumb business models when making legislation.
We wouldn’t even be having a discussion like this in a functioning democracy. But instead we’re discussing whether the big corporate bribery machine will get in the way of completely reasonable legislation.
>Who cares what these companies want or what their business models are?
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. You're not going to convince Congress critters to do something that can legitimately be argued to hurt businesses. So you tweak things to create a minmax situation where the businesses can not be said to be injured and we still gain access to abandoned hardware and are able to repurpose it.
The key is to go in with carefully charged words. Abandoned hardware is a good one. So is recycling electronics to extend their usefulness. How can companies argue they're being hurt by competition from abandoned hardware that is just e-waste unless it is allowed to be recycled?
>How can companies argue they're being hurt by competition from abandoned hardware that is just e-waste unless it is allowed to be recycled?
By pointing out that the products they are currently selling could be replaced by the reanimated spirits of the products they sold last year. Labor performed without a transfer of money to go along with it is not counted in the GDP or taxed, in modern mercantilism it is better for $100 to circulate in a day to produce a little value than for $1 to circulate in a week to produce much more value.
> They can say that, but it makes them look like assholes. So it's not effective for them to do that
Unfortunately, there a lot of assholes that only act like assholes behind closed doors with other assholes that tolerate them being assholes because they spend money out the asshole.
/s
But actually my point is that public PR team can't say that but Tim Cook giving Ted Cruz a quiet phone call can totally say that (off the record), probably followed up with "this would keep us from affording that new Texas factory/office/thing we were about to build with this money we make"
I don't disagree with the idea here, but this sort of decision has to have a public facing, somewhat valid reason for opposing legislation.
An example of this would be marijuana legislation and the idea that marijuana is a "gateway drug." This is a somewhat sensible view that a political party can latch onto and push without losing too much popular support.
I have to wonder if "new firmware on old devices" has a public-facing view that won't crater a politician's popularity. I'm sure there has to be one, but I don't know what it would be.
> I have to wonder if "new firmware on old devices" has a public-facing view that won't crater a politician's popularity. I'm sure there has to be one, but I don't know what it would be.
The lack of any large important group that cares about this enough to try and smear a politician against it is enough. No one outside of nerds cares because no one knows to care. Compare it to abortion or guns, lots of regular people care or could be corralled into caring.
If a politician is quizzed about their stance on end of life firmware, they can just say "I want to not end the life... of babies! The other guys want to abort your children" and then the whole topic is lost and they deflected successfully.
Because if the question is "Would I pay $200 more for an Xbox just to be able to install Linux on it", I think you will find the vast majority of consumers would respond with a resounding and an in-unison "hell no".
If the manufacturer is selling at a loss, with the intention of making that money back through software, and that subsidy is removed, the majority of customers will see this as a loss.
It already has, and companies have based business models on it, which has led to consoles being more affordable in exchange for restrictions on what you can do with it.
It's hard to rely on the argument that 'the market decides the price of goods' if you would like to restrict what companies are allowed to offer for purchase.
Yeah I like the idea of if it’s no longer receiving firmware updates but I suspect the tech companies would get around that by releasing symbolic updates that just bump the version number.
I would prefer something like after 5 years they have to unlock the bootloader and allow people to install anything. So you have 5 years to make a profit and then you have to open up the device.
> I suspect the tech companies would get around that by releasing symbolic updates that just bump the version number.
Wouldn't that be invalidated by games no longer working? They were very eager to move to cloud gaming, always on networking style DRM but once the servers are down and the games become less and less functional or stop working altogether that excuse goes bye-bye, doesn't it?
> while I don't like this model and won't participate in such ecosystems
I've tried to keep away from ecosystems like this, but the way is very much dark and full of terrors. As far as I can tell, a smartphone is a prerequisite for participation in much of society today. What phone do you use -- an unlocked Android model, I'd guess? Or something like the Fairphone that I can't get in the USA?
I believe almost all modern game consoles live in this space
Nintendo does not sell their consoles at a loss. They make a profit on every console sold. Their hardware is never bleeding edge but they make up for it on the strength of their first party franchises and their innovative controllers/input devices.
I believe almost all modern game consoles live in this space, I would expect Amazon's Kindle devices are in this category, etc. And while I don't like this model and won't participate in such ecosystems, neither can I deny that such things are fairly common and popular. Forcing open firmware on those would likely generate a much larger, and, frankly, better funded response to being able to maintain a locked down firmware for the useful life of the system.
Picking specifically on the "no longer receiving firmware updates" category makes it much harder for those companies to argue that having to do this will hurt their profits or hinder their ability to recover losses on subsidized hardware - they literally don't care enough to bother updating them at this point, so it would be much harder for them to make these claims. You abandon a device once you're done earning your money back on it. I doubt Sony, for instance, still expects much return on deployed Playstation 3s. And it's exceedingly hard for Apple to argue that they're making any money on an iPhone 3GS or something, because it doesn't even run modern app store packages.
So my logic here is that "you must unlock abandoned devices for those who care" is likely to be winnable, whereas "All devices must be unlockable from day 1" isn't.