DRM in welders

[Skeptic]

I think the only difference is our visceral reaction to the idea that the specialized hardware is capable, but held back by software.

In fact, this is just as true for our general purpose computer and software feature unlocks, but it feels different, even if it is substantially the same in principle. Should we have the right to hack Microsoft or Adobe software (or whomever) to unlock premium features? Why should this outrage apply just to welders, cars and whatnot?

That being said, I do viscerally agree with the OP, but I’m not sure I can logically agree with it without having a double standard.

[anon33466019]

@Skeptic

I think the only difference is our visceral reaction to the idea that the specialized hardware is capable, but held back by software.

Keep in mind it is not only held back by software, the key point is it is criminal for you to try and change that fact without paying for the privilege.

It is the unintended consequence of a badly written law. Now where did I put my oxy-acetylene rig…

[anon68939300]

So you’re big problem isn’t with the idea, it’s with the implementation. I guess I could agree with that.

[Skeptic]

@japhroaig

Keep in mind it is not only held back by software, the key point is it is criminal for you to try and change that fact without paying for the privilege.

I get that, which is why I explicitly compared this to software on a general purpose computer, where the exact same copyright laws prevent you from “unlocking” premium features on software you have on your computer, features already on your computer that it is criminal for you to “unlock”. My point is that we have a different visceral reaction to when this exact same issue affects specialized hardware with locked out features from software on a general purpose computer with locked out features, even though the legal issues are the same.

[anon33466019]

Gotcha. I may not have the same visceral reaction, but then again I’m a shark with magnificent teeth.
Ymmv.

Internet high five.

[kwajkid]

@Nelsie

You recognise that your hypothesis is a hypothesis, without any evidence or analysis to back it up?

Um, yes. That’s why I specifically said “hypothesis.” Every company’s cost structure is different (often wildly so), so unless someone has actual data from Miller, that is the best any of us can do. Them being “a top manufacturer” and having “lots of items in their catalog” means that they are probably more attuned to these costs than a smaller manufacturer (for Office Space / Superman 3 reasons, a few pennies * millions of units = lots).

@Nelsie

I have no idea what the economics of offering n SKUs vs n+1 SKUs is, and neither do you, otherwise you’d have brought some actual data to the table.

So your argument is that barring specific facts that exonerate them for “price gouging” (sorry, you can’t snap your fingers and pretend that isn’t a pejorative), they’re guilty? I certainly have plenty of experience in n+1 SKU cost in the companies in which I’ve worked, and I have certainly seen situations where we declined to increase SKU count for stock-keeping reasons (not to mention the other reasons I listed).

@Nelsie

Meanwhile, that SKU argument does nothing to address the criminal liabilities risked by anyone who objects to the way Miller are practicing their price discrimination and does something about it, nor the contempt for the law that such addle-pated laws encourage.

I never attempted to discuss the DRM or legal aspects of their behavior. My response was merely illustrate that there are cost factors at play in SKUing even when the variable cost is zero. Legal issues aside, if companies think they can’t get their investment out of a premium product, they’re just going to do what I said at the end of my last post: cancel it and just sell the base version. In that case, a customer who was willing to pay the premium loses the option and the person who didn’t isn’t any better off either. While I don’t have specifics about their SKUing cost, I can certainly say that more SKUs = more cost and more development/features = more cost.

I’ll give you one concrete example, but I’ll have to be vague for my privacy reasons and to avoid proprietary data and it isn’t exactly related to SKUing, more to product feature inclusion decisions. I was asked to evaluate the cost of adding a specific feature into a product which was expected to sell around 100M units over its life. There was the fixed cost to design the feature (due to the volume, not that material) and incremental manufacturing cost (~2%).

Since this was going to be a base feature (slightly different than the situation here), the recommendation hinged on volume uplift, i.e. if we add this feature, will we sell enough additional units to cover the additional cost. It therefore had a strong network effect-- if we can get enough more people to buy the product, everyone gets a better product. I recommended “no” and that was the ultimate decision. Everyone lost (including me since I was also a consumer of that product).

It’s not a perfect parallel, but it’s close enough. Miller almost certainly invested more to add the extra features. They came up with their most cost effective way of delivering and charging for those features. The variable cost of the item is irrelevant.

[anon33466019]

@kwajkid

Legal issues aside,

But the entire post was about the unintended legal issues. That was the point.

[kwajkid]

True, I was more replying to the immediate series of comments about the ethics of charging different prices for ostensibly the same physical thing. Most people haven’t seen the other side, so I was trying to give an illustrative of example of why a company might do this and necessarily not be a mustache-twisting villain.

[kwajkid]

@tachin1

I fail to see how this is different from what @Nelsie wrote. You just called it something different without actually changing the evilness of the practice.

Then I failed in my hypothetical, unless you’re saying that “making more money” is inherently evil. If so, we’ll have to disagree. I’m a social capitalist, but that second word is just as important as the first.

[anon33466019]

Yeah, despicable villains are honestly very, very rare. It is usually less this:

And more this:

(I’ve had so many damn sku arguments over the years, I think I’ve earned a merit badge)

[L_Mariachi]

The problem is in applying the software model to hardware that is sold normally (as opposed to licensed.) Ownership, almost by definition, means you can do whatever you want with/to said object, without needing to obtain permission from the seller. If you can’t, you don’t really own the thing that you paid for.

If a manufacturer wants to maintain control over products after they’re in customers’ hands, it should be leasing instead of selling.

[EricE]

Another way to look at this is that people who don’t need this feature don’t have to pay for it. Without the optional software, everyone would have to pay for it.

[Skeptic]

@L_Mariachi

The problem is in applying the software model to hardware that is sold normally (as opposed to licensed.)

Except the specialized hardware has licensed software on it.

I’m actually for the right to tinker, and against nickel and diming customers. However, I’m interested in what triggers our responses. For example, years ago when external caller ID boxes became popular, some models could remember more calls, with the the lower memory being a hardware lock out (a trace, a diode, or whatnot) rather than a different circuit board. Now companies are using software to do the same thing. And I react against it, wanting those features the hardware is capable of. I feel sort of entitled to those features, because the hardware can do them. Yet I don’t have that same sense of entitlement to software on my PC that uses a license key to unlock features, yet the principle is essentially the same. The hardware has the capability, the lack of a license key to enable the licensed software to perform those features is all that is lacking.

These are not new issues, of course, but I feel that the ability to engage others on these topics is something I can achieve better by understanding the psychology.

[MeekTheGeek]

I think a bigger P.I.T.A problem is that the SD card is being used inside of a welding environment, and
SCREWED the WELDERS if it is used like a dongle/security key.

If the manufacturer is charging 400$ for upgrading the capabilities of the device,
then I can be annoyed but OK, as long as they do not lock out my choice of materials that I can use
(ex: DRM requiring Miller only wire).

The major problem here is a design issue. A welding shop is NOT friendly to fragile
electronics that need a dirt/dust-free(like the stuff that comes off from grinding off RUST
and SLAG) or SMOKE-FREE (you’re burning flux and metal) environment, I’ve built industrial monitoring equipment for monitoring energy use in
a boiler room that failed and required two trips to fix (think 200$ of time and 2-weeks of data lost) because
we used a cheap dollar-store USB key for datalogging instead of a more reliable USB key.

An SD card is waaaay more fragile/friable than a USB key, and a welding shop is
waaaay more dirty than a boiler room, and an SD card slot for an SD card is more likely to get clogged, and the welders themselves are more likely to be covered in more dirt and slag
(Quote Applejack from “Friendship is Magic” “Sometimes getting dirty is a byproduct of hard work”. )

Welding is guaranteed to put out a lot of smoke, and cleaning up welds and prepping material for welds
will make lots of fine horrible dirt and grit. If the SD card has to sit in the welder like a dongle instead of
simply uploading an upgrade code, then give the welder 6-months before he starts screaming at Miller over
a help line for damage wrecking a 3000$ job and giving him several days delay because an SD card crapped
out on him and reset his expensive welding machine, and PREVENTED HIM FROM FINISHING HIS WORK.

In that case, Miller would probably demand the welder overnight mail them the dead SD card, and
then they would overnight mail him another SD card (2-days delay). I do not know what behaviour the
welding machine would show if an SD card suddenly died in the machine, hopefully there is a graceful fail,
but maybe you have a surge that burns thru a piece (looks like these DONGLE settings are good for thin
piece welding).

If they used a USB key then they have a more reliable piece of equipment, and like the
EUROTHERM CONTROLLERS, if they have an upgrade code tied in exclusively to the serial number/MAC
address of the module, then that would provide the most reliable, least penetrable way of upgrading the equipment.

Security isn’t a big issue, because welders tend not to engage in PENETRATION-TESTING of software
(penetration testing of pressurized fluids is something else).

The evil is not in the fact that the equipment is software upgradeable to have the different features installed
(that is common),Miller didn’t DRM the welding materials. The EVIL is that the security dongle is a
REALLY LIKELY FAILPOINT FOR THIS EQUIPMENT.

I wouldn’t be this passionate, but another supplier of ours got me banned from an
installation job at a hospital when their “upgraded product” had a prettier user interface but literally took
20X the time to set up, and introduced a new/frightening fail mode that shut down the sterilizing equipment for
a major hospital.

[tachin1]

@kwajkid

Then I failed in my hypothetical,

Nah, I understood it, I just don’t see a difference in practice because in theory they’re not intending to be evil.

@kwajkid

unless you’re saying that “making more money” is inherently evil.

Non sequitur, if you work hard all day in the field for a days pay, you’d be making money, If you were to rob somebody at gunpoint you’d also be making money, the need for people to make money is not up for discussion.

In the end, I accept your hypothetical for arguments sake but reject that its appropriate to limit what consumers can do with the objects they own because it interferes with somebody’s business model.

[enso]

DJI Phantom 3’s are like this too. By all accounts, out of the three current models, at least the uppermost and middle tier are exactly the same hardware with firmware turning off functionality in the middle model, @doctorow.

[tachin1]

@Skeptic

Except the specialized hardware has licensed software on it.

Except this. Its not new.

Electronic devices have had software in it for a long time, (Arguably, forever) and no restrictions on being able to modify it.

@Skeptic

For example, years ago when external caller ID boxes became popular, some models could remember more calls, with the the lower memory being a hardware lock out (a trace, a diode, or whatnot) rather than a different circuit board. Now companies are using software to do the same thing.

I think this only feels like its different, but having had some training in electronics and programming, I find it hard to tell the difference. After all, the design of an electronic circuit is patented and programming can have the same effect as changing a resistor but operating on a higher level to do so.

The “more work to program a feature” gets some traction but it is orthogonal to saying you cannot do that extra work yourself.

@Skeptic

And I react against it, wanting those features the hardware is capable of. I feel sort of entitled to those features

That may be the case with some people, but its actually not the point here. The mechanism for unlocking the potential of the hardware has been designed to also prevent tinkering, that is, to enforce a business model.

The microprocessor built into this device can certainly be reprogrammed to do a variety of tasks unrelated to welding, it is probably in use in other devices that have nothing to do with welding. Paying for additional features is not the thing to resist here. Rather, you should resist the fact that the precedent of being able to tune the settings on your cars computer is being obfuscated by DRM.

[CapnCrunch]

Was there the same level of indignation when Tesla rolled out its $2500-to-activate autopilot feature a few months ago?

We have a CNC machine with the same type of add-on features as this welder, except in our case, turning them on requires a service call from a technician, billed on top of the price of the feature. Do I wish these features were free? Sure. Will I pay for them? No - they’re not that critical for us. Would I try to hack them to turn on? Probably not worth breaking the warranty for me.

On the other hand, I’d like to see an open season on DRM for consumables like printer ink and 3D printer filament.

[tachin1]

@CapnCrunch

Probably not worth breaking the warranty for me.

This is key, in many cases its not just a matter of braking warranty but also of breaking the law. Breaking DRM to be able to hack away at your equipment means breaking the law.

[anon8420928]

@tachin1

This is key, in many cases its not just a matter of braking warranty but also of breaking the law.

So, you don’t speed in the car?

(Because that’s a law that actually makes sense.)