Design for hackability

This is also risky: you must be 1000% sure that this never accuses legitimate users of "cheating". Thus, at some point, it's a marketing and accounting decision: how many devices do you expect to be hacked, how much does it cost to develop a perfect hacking detection, how much does a support case involving a hacked device cost.

Now, with Internet, it's quite easy to develop a reputation of "their support sucks".

I guess that's one of the reasons why companies now offer public "modding" or "app" interfaces instead of waiting for people to hack their device. By making the ability to add something public, you can also make the ability to remove it public, and people have no reason to conceal it from you.

I frankly don't know what ways this tool ultimately went. I just get forwarded requests every once in a while from people I never heard of. (I wrote the tool.)

It's also a marketing decision. If you develop the 4G version and the 1G version in parallel, their development costs are the same. But you may not be able to sell the 1G version at the price that follows from that.

Think cars: the 1.6 liter engine doesn't cost less to develop than the

2.0 liter engine, but depending on your market segment, you just have to have some "entry-level" car in the EUR 10000 range if you want to be recognized as an "affordable car" maker.

Same thing with, say, MP3 players. Unless you're a premium brand, you just have to have some small cheap device to compete with China, even if it costs you the same engineering costs as your "regular" device.

Stefan

You never accuse the (possible) customer of cheating. Instead, after you have verified that his "code" appears bogus, you suggest he return the item for repair (presumably, it is a problem that isn't just one of "how do I *use* this"). You can even prepay for shipping!

If the user is legitimate, this looks like an acceptable practice. You'll fix his problem and ship him the repaired unit. Aside from the inconvenience of not having it for a few days...

For the *hacked* machine, the user will probably be wary of doing this -- since his hacks will be discovered ("VOID if removed" seals will have been removed, visible changes to the internals, etc.). So, he'll just silently slink away.

Any that *do* ship their devices to you now have lost control of those devices. You can then inform them that there are signs of tampering which void the warranty. For $X you will return the device to its original working condition (where $X is at typical repair rates). Or, for $Y (essentially the cost of return shipping), you will return the device to them.

[if you did NOT prepay their original shipping, then you can simply chose to return the device -- they will have lost the money they fronted for shipping *and* not received any "service" -- i.e., their behavior isn't rewarded]

EVERY COMPANY has a "bad rep" when it comes to support *IF* you search long enough. :> (i.e., folks are quick to complain when they don't get what they want -- even if they don't DESERVE it). People who research before purchasing and rule out products with any "bad commentaries" quickly discover that they have ruled out

*everything*.

Companies should strive to be *fair*. Charging me $10 for a tiny piece of plastic and $8 shipping is "not fair" -- even if you are losing money on the transaction (someone has to take the order, process the payment, pull the part, pack it, etc.). If you design a product that is likely to have this sort of post-sale costs, redesign your product (*you* will be happier because you aren't forced into the spare parts business *and* your customer will be happier because they aren't spending an exhorbitant amount of money on "low value" parts/repairs)

You're still stuck with the guy who damages his device and then whines because you won't fix it for him. And, once you open the door to this, it will be expecteed of all your future product offerings -- else you'll hear folks grumbling about how you've "suddenly" locked them out: "They *used* to be a good company and supported these sorts of things. But, now they are money grubbers..."

You also open the door to litigation as you *facilitated* these actions. The fact that you may not have explicitly facilitated *all* (potential) uses for the product won't give you any "cover" if later sued for something outrageous that the user attempted (that you didn't foresee)

Good point.

Yes. OTOH, folks probably don't "hack" that 1.6L vehicle to a 5.0L offering and expect to have no problems along the way. (yet wouldn't even consider approaching the manufacturer for assistance when they ran into a problem)