Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Derek Kerton (profile), 3 Feb 2003 @ 1:25pm

  
  

  Hmmm... I'm not so sure, Mike

  Hacking also allows the hacker to circumvent the business model envisioned by the providing company. For example, Radio Shack had those ridiculous Cue Cats, which they offered for free, but cost money to produce. People who hacked them to use them as simple bar-code scanners, and didn't contribute to the business model that produced the free CueCat in the first place. The issuing companies lost $.
  
  As a consumer I'm not saying the hacking is wrong. People should be allowed to do anything they want with products they have purchased. I've hacked my Tivo, and recommend it. I would say, though, that the hacks may often conflict with the company's plan, so the company may try to prevent it, or at least not support it.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mike (profile), 3 Feb 2003 @ 1:49pm

    
    

    Re: Hmmm... I'm not so sure, Mike

    Well, if the hacks conflict with a business model, then the company needs to reevaluate the business model.
    
    In the case of the cue cats, the hacks created a ton of new uses that a smart company would have tried to capitalize on. It was just that Digital Convergence was so blindly focused on their single business model that they got blind sided.
    
    If consumers are doing something that ruins your business model, it just means you picked the wrong business model. Consumers aren't going to change their behavious. You need to change yours.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  dorpus, 3 Feb 2003 @ 5:14pm

  
  

  Legal Nuances

  If the hacked product is used to do bad things, the manufacturer can be accused of complicity. So I don't think it's as simple as you describe.
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]