[magnat]

1. They might have used IP cores with license that forbids disclosing any technical details, including firmware implementation.

2. Manipulating RF registers could cause the device to operate outside of regulatory parameters, perhaps invalidating FCC certification for the whole device. By not disclosing how to use MAC directly, they can claim they did their best to prevent device from misbehaving.

[luma]

Item 1 is certainly the case here. Espressif licensed most of their original IP from tensilica, and this is completely normal for building a commercial microcontroller. If you don't have the in-house skill to build a complete WiFi radio stack from the ground up, you simply license the IP core and roll it into your product.

Nice work by the presenters here, it's a good idea and might help the community, but the current state is not the result of Espressif trying to be jerks.

[KennyBlanken]

The second item has been trotted out for roughly two decades as an excuse for why router companies block open source firmwares.

In those two decades there's been no evidence the FCC or other regulatory bodies follow that theory, and no evidence that open source firmware causes "misbehavior."

Please stop talking about it like it's an issue. It isn't.

[MadnessASAP]

The chaos that surrounded the Flipper Zero clearly indicates that it is an issue.

[xattt]

There’s many devices that can get uncapped (Yaesu handhelds for example) without losing FCC certification.

[Eduard]

"uncapped"?

[xattt]

To open up capabilities outside of intended function.