I agree, but there can be IP rights involved that make this difficult.

big-and-small a day ago | parent | next [-]

It's not like consumer electronics contain top secret tech like EUV machines. All supply chain for firmware / software of 99.99% devices is very boring, contains absolutely nothing secret and the only reason why it's "difficult" is because IP owners was not bothered.

Once single EU / US legislation introduced that force manufacturers into opening end-of-life products all IP right owners will either immediately make it possible or go out of business.

Since everyone will be forced to do the same no one will gain any advantages.

▲

layer8 a day ago | parent [-]

I’m more thinking of patents and licensed third-party technology and firmware. There are standard tech stacks controlled by industry associations that you simply can’t open source because the association would sue you and kick you out.

	▲	big-and-small a day ago \| parent [-]
		These associations do not just exist in vacuum. They have licenses like this because law allow it and it's beneficial to them. Once there are regulation that demand something else they'll just follow the law. Also it's not like every single bit of firmware / software must be open sourced - it's could very much be trade off where devices just need to be unlocked for modification and documentation made available.

▲

jan_Sate a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They're just publishing API documentation. No source code of the device got published.

At least people can create their own implementation of the API tho.

▲

stavros a day ago | parent [-]

If the publish the API for the server, as well as allow the device to specify the API hostname to connect to, that's all I need. We can write our own server implementation fairly easily, and this saves us the hassle of having to reverse-engineer the API, plus makes setup much easier if we can just tell the device where to connect.

I wish more manufacturers would unlock their devices for local use when they don't want to support them any more. Or maybe even, hear me out, before support ends! Maybe we could even vote with our wallets and buy open stuff instead of walled gardens.

▲

monocasa a day ago | parent | next [-]

They did not publish enough API docs to write an alternative backend.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/bose-open-sources-it...

▲

ryandrake a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Exactly. Open source is great and all, but all 99% of these devices need is simply a way to configure them to connect to a different server, when the manufacturer inevitably turns their own server down (usually) bricking devices.

The open source community will happily reverse-engineer the protocol and clean-room develop their own server code.

▲

thewebguyd a day ago | parent | next [-]

> 99% of these devices need is simply a way to configure them to connect to a different server, when the manufacturer inevitably turns their own server down (usually) bricking devices.

The same can be said about a lot of games, and should be the case with them as well. Big MMOs for example. See the plethora of WoW private servers as an example of how it can be done.

I think the stop killing games initiative in the EU was pushing for it but not sure how far they've gotten, but like with hardware, once a game studio no longer wants to run the servers for their game, they should be forced to turn it over to the community so the players can continue playing long after the studio is gone.

	▲	eadwu a day ago \| parent [-]
		This is not applicable to games. Bose's brand is built on audio quality. There is close to little negative impact open sourcing the API (server) in this case will bring to their brand. For a game, open sourcing the server generally means anyone can basically mess it up and with the internet make it available to everyone to see. Then the responsibility is on the developer to protect their "brand". The plethora of WoW private servers is not a good example. These are from individuals, or groups of people who willfully reverse engineered it on their own. This is different from a company expressly permissing and implicitly giving a grant on allowing a similar product to exist - the difference is that one gives credibility, which the other does not.

▲

EvanAnderson a day ago | parent | prev [-]

That's exactly what the "NoLongerEvil" Nest thermostat server did[0]. They just injected their own CA bundle and modified the /etc/hosts file to "free" the devices.

[0] discussed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45813343

▲

randall 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure but that should be an up front conversation. "OK, how do we make sure as few of these turn into bricks?"

▲

mrguyorama a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If IP rights make doing the right thing too onerous, we can always reduce IP rights powers in this specific situation.

Or across the board, since they are absurdly powerful right now. Nintendo could not legally keep you from hacking a console before the DMCA.

▲

jahnu a day ago | parent | prev [-]

If they know they have to do it up front the ip rights issue disappears.

	▲	layer8 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I’m all for that, but also the product might not exist if they can’t use third-party protected IP for it.