▲ 525 ▼ Raspberry Pi is intentionally blocking RAM capacity upgrades (www.notebookcheck.net) submitted 1 week ago by empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world 114 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 53 points 1 week ago (8 children) EnshittyPi. permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] buddascrayon@lemmy.world -39 points 1 week ago (7 children) If you had read the article instead of just blindly reacting to the title you would have seen that this is actually to prevent that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] chewypoops@lemmy.world 96 points 1 week ago (2 children) I read the article. Fuck Raspberry Pi. Yes, they are claiming that this is to protect us, the consumers, by preventing us from buying unofficially upgraded boards that may be unreliable or use counterfeit parts on the secondhand market. But here's the fun part: That's a lie. They just don't want you upgrading your own hardware when you could pay them more instead. It's a hobbyist product. If you put "safeguards" in to block tinkerers, you're dead to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] black0ut@pawb.social 13 points 1 week ago (1 child) The funniest thing about this is that Apple used the same excuse to defend parts locking. And every other company that limited the user's right to repair and upgrade their purchased products. It's all BS. A company cares only about money, and they couldn't care less about your product performing slightly less than optimally, if it ever does. Apple did it for profit, car manufacturers did it for profit, John Deere did it for profit and Raspberry Pi did it for profit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago There's a bit of a difference in that your iPhone is (used to be) more likely to be swiped for parts (since the whole phone is unuseable, but the screen e.g is still worth a couple hundred) than anyone is to sell counterfeit raspberry pis for profit - and if anyone did do that, why's that even a problem? I know someone who successfully upgraded a Macbook Air to 8 GB back when they had the 4 GB option and that was also soldered RAM. All for his personal use, but the thing continued working and it's trivial to implement a check for original config by serial number. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zo0@programming.dev 41 points 1 week ago I read the article, their 'reasoning' is bs I bought the hardware, I as a consumer should be able to do whatever I want with it. If they were actually worried about resellers selling bad ram, they could have just left the detection in and warn the user of the modification instead of blocking it entirely. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 1 week ago (1 child) Nahh, their reasoning is BS IMO. It's not an iPhone or something it's a hobby product for tinkering with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago If someone modifies an asic by soldering a new ram chip on it, that's grounds to null warranty, no? So their undue support claims is BS, ditto to the reputational damage (as if they aren't doing that right now). Or better yet, why don't they modularize this component from the rest of the device? permalink fedilink source parent [–] 0x0@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago Want to buy a bridge? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] buddascrayon@lemmy.world -39 points 1 week ago (7 children) If you had read the article instead of just blindly reacting to the title you would have seen that this is actually to prevent that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] chewypoops@lemmy.world 96 points 1 week ago (2 children) I read the article. Fuck Raspberry Pi. Yes, they are claiming that this is to protect us, the consumers, by preventing us from buying unofficially upgraded boards that may be unreliable or use counterfeit parts on the secondhand market. But here's the fun part: That's a lie. They just don't want you upgrading your own hardware when you could pay them more instead. It's a hobbyist product. If you put "safeguards" in to block tinkerers, you're dead to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] black0ut@pawb.social 13 points 1 week ago (1 child) The funniest thing about this is that Apple used the same excuse to defend parts locking. And every other company that limited the user's right to repair and upgrade their purchased products. It's all BS. A company cares only about money, and they couldn't care less about your product performing slightly less than optimally, if it ever does. Apple did it for profit, car manufacturers did it for profit, John Deere did it for profit and Raspberry Pi did it for profit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago There's a bit of a difference in that your iPhone is (used to be) more likely to be swiped for parts (since the whole phone is unuseable, but the screen e.g is still worth a couple hundred) than anyone is to sell counterfeit raspberry pis for profit - and if anyone did do that, why's that even a problem? I know someone who successfully upgraded a Macbook Air to 8 GB back when they had the 4 GB option and that was also soldered RAM. All for his personal use, but the thing continued working and it's trivial to implement a check for original config by serial number. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zo0@programming.dev 41 points 1 week ago I read the article, their 'reasoning' is bs I bought the hardware, I as a consumer should be able to do whatever I want with it. If they were actually worried about resellers selling bad ram, they could have just left the detection in and warn the user of the modification instead of blocking it entirely. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 1 week ago (1 child) Nahh, their reasoning is BS IMO. It's not an iPhone or something it's a hobby product for tinkering with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago If someone modifies an asic by soldering a new ram chip on it, that's grounds to null warranty, no? So their undue support claims is BS, ditto to the reputational damage (as if they aren't doing that right now). Or better yet, why don't they modularize this component from the rest of the device? permalink fedilink source parent [–] 0x0@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago Want to buy a bridge? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chewypoops@lemmy.world 96 points 1 week ago (2 children) I read the article. Fuck Raspberry Pi. Yes, they are claiming that this is to protect us, the consumers, by preventing us from buying unofficially upgraded boards that may be unreliable or use counterfeit parts on the secondhand market. But here's the fun part: That's a lie. They just don't want you upgrading your own hardware when you could pay them more instead. It's a hobbyist product. If you put "safeguards" in to block tinkerers, you're dead to me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] black0ut@pawb.social 13 points 1 week ago (1 child) The funniest thing about this is that Apple used the same excuse to defend parts locking. And every other company that limited the user's right to repair and upgrade their purchased products. It's all BS. A company cares only about money, and they couldn't care less about your product performing slightly less than optimally, if it ever does. Apple did it for profit, car manufacturers did it for profit, John Deere did it for profit and Raspberry Pi did it for profit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago There's a bit of a difference in that your iPhone is (used to be) more likely to be swiped for parts (since the whole phone is unuseable, but the screen e.g is still worth a couple hundred) than anyone is to sell counterfeit raspberry pis for profit - and if anyone did do that, why's that even a problem? I know someone who successfully upgraded a Macbook Air to 8 GB back when they had the 4 GB option and that was also soldered RAM. All for his personal use, but the thing continued working and it's trivial to implement a check for original config by serial number. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] black0ut@pawb.social 13 points 1 week ago (1 child) The funniest thing about this is that Apple used the same excuse to defend parts locking. And every other company that limited the user's right to repair and upgrade their purchased products. It's all BS. A company cares only about money, and they couldn't care less about your product performing slightly less than optimally, if it ever does. Apple did it for profit, car manufacturers did it for profit, John Deere did it for profit and Raspberry Pi did it for profit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago There's a bit of a difference in that your iPhone is (used to be) more likely to be swiped for parts (since the whole phone is unuseable, but the screen e.g is still worth a couple hundred) than anyone is to sell counterfeit raspberry pis for profit - and if anyone did do that, why's that even a problem? I know someone who successfully upgraded a Macbook Air to 8 GB back when they had the 4 GB option and that was also soldered RAM. All for his personal use, but the thing continued working and it's trivial to implement a check for original config by serial number. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 week ago There's a bit of a difference in that your iPhone is (used to be) more likely to be swiped for parts (since the whole phone is unuseable, but the screen e.g is still worth a couple hundred) than anyone is to sell counterfeit raspberry pis for profit - and if anyone did do that, why's that even a problem? I know someone who successfully upgraded a Macbook Air to 8 GB back when they had the 4 GB option and that was also soldered RAM. All for his personal use, but the thing continued working and it's trivial to implement a check for original config by serial number. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zo0@programming.dev 41 points 1 week ago I read the article, their 'reasoning' is bs I bought the hardware, I as a consumer should be able to do whatever I want with it. If they were actually worried about resellers selling bad ram, they could have just left the detection in and warn the user of the modification instead of blocking it entirely. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 1 week ago (1 child) Nahh, their reasoning is BS IMO. It's not an iPhone or something it's a hobby product for tinkering with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago If someone modifies an asic by soldering a new ram chip on it, that's grounds to null warranty, no? So their undue support claims is BS, ditto to the reputational damage (as if they aren't doing that right now). Or better yet, why don't they modularize this component from the rest of the device? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago If someone modifies an asic by soldering a new ram chip on it, that's grounds to null warranty, no? So their undue support claims is BS, ditto to the reputational damage (as if they aren't doing that right now). Or better yet, why don't they modularize this component from the rest of the device? permalink fedilink source parent