Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

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

   

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

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

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

   

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

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Legal Nuances

   

   dorpus, Feb 3rd, 2003 @ 5:14pm

   
   

   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.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment