I wonder if it might be time for some legislation around this. Manufacturers are already required to include operating instructions with products they release, so why not protocol specs? They don't need to release anything secret, just the instructions for software to interact with their hardware.
This is an interesting point. While this would be nice for some folks that just want drivers to be functional I could also see why a manufacturer might be reluctant to offer such information. One reason they could bring up is that it may put undue burden on them to document and provide such information. Another possible issue a manufacturer may have with this is that it offers a more direct route for abuse of their software/hardware (maybe?). Or in some cases it may be a liability to offer such information (if there is a potential for misuse)
Edit: or maybe they don’t want to release that kind of info for product/brand lock-in reasons?
> it may put undue burden on them to document and provide such information.
How can documenting something be an undue burden? In order to write the drivers that they do write, for say Windows, they must have written some documentation.
And if I want to abuse some piece of hardware, such as making a musical instrument out of a pile of floppy disk drives, what business is that of the manufacturer?
The documentation is not the burden as much as the requirement, or at least expectation, to adhere to the published specs once they are published. By not releasing any info they are not burdened with having to stay consistent on driver details from one product or version to the next.
I called my ebike company and apparently my year and make could have one of three different batteries. Seems infuriating, but hardware manufacturers don't have to be consistent I guess, just release some new/updated docs?
I wonder if it has to do with any underlying 3rd-party components. Otherwise, yeah, makes no sense.
It might be worth clarifying that Wacom is not taking that approach. But their statement there suggests that the underlying reason for lack of hardware support in Linux is the OpenSource nature of the software.
Well one way that comes to mind for why it could be considered a burden is breaking down internal documentation into public and private, and making sure that the private one is never exposed. As much as we don’t want to imagine business constraints on some manufacturers, they could always come up with reasons.
> And if I want to abuse some piece of hardware, such as making a musical instrument out of a pile of floppy disk drives, what business is that of the manufacturer?
As an example (maybe not a fair one) we can ask Tesla why they don’t want to expose some/all APIs that Tesla owners might want access to. I expect they would bring up a thousand reasons why, maybe safety related, maybe not.
I generally agree with you though, you paid and own something, and you wish to use it as you see fit. Unfortunately it seems like what we think we own and what we actually own are in some cases two separate things.
Some documentation, but when the guy who wrote the hardware is down the hall from the guy writing the documentation it typically isn't very good, saving a lot of effort
Some vendors might also be bundling spyware with their drivers. In that case, releasing hardware info would take the (unjust) power over the users away from them.
> This is an interesting point. While this would be nice for some folks that just want drivers to be functional I could also see why a manufacturer might be reluctant to offer such information.
Well, yeah, the point of regulations is to make companies do things that are not in their direct self-interest, but benefit wider society.
Manufacturers would also be reluctant to comply with planned obsolescence bans, or consumer safety regulations. That's why the regulations must have teeth to them.
They already have the documents. But releasing them would make it easier for a competitor to make a cheaper drop in replacement. It would be a win for consumers though.
Please no. Get the government and their violence out. No one has an inalienable right to APIs and such. You have the right to buy what you want. If the market is not serving you, then look in the mirror and pick your priorities.
The right compromise here is that if the government is going to "protect" the company from copyright infringement, and reverse engineering, and enforce the companies' patents, then the government also has the moral right to regulate the company for the benefit of the people.
Comments like yours seem to advocate a very beneficial situation for the companies where they have all protections, all authority, without any responsibilities.
If your serious about getting the government out, including out of copyright and patents, then let's talk. Until then, let's regulate these companies.
> If your serious about getting the government out, including out of copyright and patents, then let's talk. Until then, let's regulate these companies.
I'm all for eliminating all government privileges and cronyism (which are really rights violations of the competition). In this world, there is no way we're going to get a grand bargain where all things will simultaneously change in that way. For each proposed change, ask whether we increase or decrease natural rights (especially to life and property). "Intellectual" property is a creation wholly new in human history before a few hundred years ago. Property in land and goods goes back to evolutionary times: it's basic territoriality, and respecting that keeps the peace. Free trade is the way forward to widespread prosperity.
Wouldn't being required to release hardware specs support that healthy competition though? I'm sure the market will eventually settle on the better product either way, but it will happen faster if systems are documented and interoperable enough that people can easily switch to a better competitor. Companies withholding data that would let consumers make better decisions, or deliberately making their systems incompatible, is anti-competitive and wasteful.
Of course, people having control over the hardware and software that rule their lives is a net increase in natural rights.
There is absolutely no natural justification for "intellectual property", since this travesty runs absolutely contrary to actual property -- physical property cannot be freely duplicated, whereas intellectual property in most cases cannot be used without being duplicated in some form -- its knowledge is generally enough to do so.
All this to enforce laws that terribly hinder free-market, while being abusively enforced by the violence of government? Something smells fishy about this argument...
> For each proposed change, ask whether we increase or decrease natural rights (especially to life and property).
I asked myself and answered: Requiring companies to document their hardware for right-to-repair or right-to-utilize reasons has no effect on life, and some effect on property. It would give individuals more power over their own property - more power over their old school, physical possession, basic territoriality, property. The government protecting people's right to repair and utilize their physical possessions seems like a good thing.
At this point you seem, to me, to have reversed position. Are you now okay with requiring companies to document their APIs for the benefit of consumers (in some cases at least)?
Either way, this conversation is frustrating to me, and one I wont continue here (you're, of course, welcome to respond and debate with others). I'm frustrated because the "no regulation, no government" view hides a lot of nuance and shuts down conversations. It's so easy to throw out "no government" and so hard to talk past it, and I think this is one reason libertarian views like this often cause people to just roll their eyes and ignore. I'm sympathetic to a lot of libertarian ideas, but I wish people would give more acknowledgement to why people want regulation (in this case) before a drive-by "no government please" comment.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Please don't use one travesty to justify another.
Instead answer to yourself, why I should have any right to dictate the standards of the goods you may knowingly and willingly purchase, and particularly when the consequences of your substandard purchase are born by you? Should I literally be able to force you to upgrade to a product with iFixit-approved repairability? Under what moral code is that legitimate? Protect people from themselves, i.e., I may treat you as my child?
> why I should have any right to dictate the standards of the goods you may knowingly and willingly purchase, and particularly when the consequences of your substandard purchase are born by you?
They are not born by me, as I personally have a very low influence on the market. Market is dictated by the masses, and masses are manipulated (nudged) by media, which is again controlled by the corporations.
Your argument of blaming individuals for bad choices masses make is deeply flawed and skewed in favor of corporations.
Because we live in a society, and our choices affect each other, and we have democratic systems in place to collectively decide on things? You'd have a point if you alone were deciding these standards as a dictator-for-life, but that's not how it works.
Markets by themselves tend to explore only spaces where large parts of the population take them. Because of limited information, most of us often prefer clear short term benefits over long term uncertain and often unclear benefits. Legislation is a good tool to, at least temporarely, force markets to explore parts of the state space they are extremely unlikely to explore by themselves.
The hardware manufacturer does not want to make it any easier to compete with a similar product either. If you have the protocol, you make it easier to create a drop-in replacement without bothering with any drivers.
This is why good customer support and warranties are as important as the product itself. It doesn't matter how big the company is either. It's why people pay more for certain brands, especially in the enterprise and professional creative markets.
There are a lot of people in the Free Software community that can write drivers, but not so many that can reverse engineer unknown hardware.