Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by shawnz 2133 days ago
Can you still say it runs arbitrary games if you need a license to be able to run them?

For example, is my microwave a general purpose computing device just because I can upgrade the firmware, even if the firmware has to be signed by the manufacturer?
1 comments
loup-vaillant 2132 days ago
If the vendor requires a license to let you run software on a powerful multi-media (sound, image, input, network) device they sold you, then I can tell you they put restrictions on what would otherwise be a general purpose computer. In my opinion, such crippling should be illegal.

For instance: the iPhone. It would definitely be general purpose if you didn't have to go through the App Store™.

Your microwave oven is different: minimum input, minimum display, one main purpose (heat food). Properly constructed ones can easily be bug-free on the first try, no need for patches. The firmware may even be fused into a strictly read-only chip. Clearly single purpose.

Personally, I'd tentatively set the limit at programmability: if there's any way to reprogram a machine, the user should be able to do it without authorization from the vendor. (We could make exceptions, for instance break control software in cars: such software should probably be tested to death and vetted by regulation. Preventing users from rolling their own may be justified to avoid untimely deaths on the road. Though "preventing" here could mean "legally disallow" rather than "use DRM". Not sure which is best.)

link
dleslie 2132 days ago
> In my opinion, such crippling should be illegal.

But I want that, as a consumer. For example: part of the benefit, perhaps one of the greatest benefits, is knowing that everyone using the device is subject to the same constraints. This makes cheating in online games on consoles much harder on consoles. It still happens, but it's much harder.

Why should it be illegal to sell me a device that limits the use of arbitrary code? I _want_ that in the product I'm buying.

link
loup-vaillant 2132 days ago
Ah, yes, cheating. Yet somehow, we have competitive games on the PC. So no, I don't buy that argument.
link
dleslie 2132 days ago
PC competitive games are rampant with cheating; the cost of keeping cheaters off games is so astronomical that only major studios can afford to do it, and even still, cheating remains rampant. It's why cash prizes are fought over in hardware controlled venues.

While on consoles... It's much better.

link
loup-vaillant 2132 days ago
Oh, I totally get that it's harder. At some point though, if you're serious about competition, you organise a LAN. (Too bad games gradually moved away from LAN altogether.)

More generally, locked down hardware means you have to trust a central third party. The cypherpunk in me doesn't like that. There has to be a better way (though I don't know what).

link
dleslie 2132 days ago
LANs are just a way of locking down the hardware and software of the competitors; they also aren't a viable option if you're unable to be physically near to your opponents.

The better way is to buy a general computing device if that's what you prefer, and let others buy their locked down devices if that's what they prefer.

link