|
|
|
|
|
|
by dhm
4202 days ago
|
|
|
I think it's important to at least acknowledge the desire a "razor/razorblades" device manufacturer has for maintaining the quality of their brand by controlling to some extent the user experiences that are possible with their tool. To me, this seems similar to Sony and Nintendo wanting the right to certify titles that run on their consoles. You can argue about whether removing freedom from the user is worth the trade for a reliable user experience, and you can argue about the right place to draw the quality line, but they're trying to guarantee a certain minimum level of user experience by doing this. If Keurig coffee was somehow astoundingly good out of their machine, with their pods, would we have less of a problem with what they are doing? What Keurig is doing also doesn't prevent another manufacturer from competing with an unencumbered alternative. Shouldn't we expect such a system to compete in the marketplace on its merits? |
|
|
Not sure if this fits the definition of irony, but Keurig is the company that came up with the unencumbered 1.0 coffee pod standard. The original DRM was the idea that a scoop of ground coffee beans was incompatible with the pod brewer. 2.0 is exactly the same, but with the RFID (I'm assuming. I haven't cared to look into it) "protection". I'd imagine 3.0 will have some kind of boolean logic much like inkjet cartridges have these days that will make the thing complain that the pod has already been used.
Though, I entirely agree with you. This DRM is only present because Keurig wants to protect it's brand. It came up with the pod brewer concept, much like Apple came up with the iPhone and it's app store. Rejecting what it deems to be inferior or competitive to it's goals is it's objective. I'd wish everything was more open and available for interoperability, but it's their product up until I purchase it, so the design is out of my control.