This argument goes back to the PC for me. IBM introduced the PC that was open for development. Apple introduced a computer that was closed. Who won? Once a product is purchased, the owner should be able to use it as they want. The licensing agreements for hardware and especially software, do not allow this.
A great suggestion. Perhaps they should not go as far as saying that jail breaking voids the warranty, but it should certainly void the right to free tech support or the right to return the device for a refund.
If preventing service calls associated with hacked systems is the objective, Amazon could develop a function that checked whether the system was hacked and provide a clear indication that "Third party operating system is installed" or "Genuine Amazon operating system is installed". If a call to service started with a check of that parameter, there would be no misunderstandings.
Apparently you can have it all if you are willing to hack. I suspect most people will not even bother with a hack at this price point. I am not sure why they would spend much time or effort on blocking the hack for the relatively small audience of hackers.
The reason the Kindle is at te price point it is at is because of the razor/razorblade marketing that was done. If you really paid what the Kindle is worth it get the open features the hack is allowing, people wouldn't be buying it in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
I must wonder at the logic of protectionism? Are they only hurting themselves in the long run? Wouldn't a device that has the features,Operating system and software apps that the users want be MORE successful? Just wondering...
The counter-argument made in Amazon meeting rooms is: For every savvy user that wants to unlock their device for greater functionality, there's a normal user who installed the upgrade, then installed something from the Android market that crashes every time they launch it. And now that user is complaining to Amazon customer service, and screaming about how horrible Amazon products are.
Whether or not this is a valid concern is another issue.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.