undefined

points

[-]

> You shouldn't be remotely disabling hardware features

I don't know what current case law is but I think that ought to be explicitly illegal. A physical product should be required to maintain the features that it had when it was purchased. Anything else is clearly cheating the consumer.

by embedding-shape9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Yeah, basically you'd trade uncertainty for the ability to remotely enable/disable hardware features not ready at launch I understand, which totally makes sense as a position, I probably agree with you. I think from AMD's side they like the option of being able to remotely enable things though, so new software updates in the future could be major releases enabling functionality that wasn't quite ready at launch. But, I suppose the uncertainty is the tradeoff here.

by fn-mote6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

How hypothetical is this situation?

Even if you have the ability to remotely enable new features:

1. You shouldn’t use the same ability to disable existing features.

2. You shouldn’t enable them, either! It should be opt-in. Any kind of change has the potential to break something. Just don’t be changing my hardware without me initiating the change.

by embedding-shape6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Overall I agree with you, and aim for the same, as a professional user I can't really have my environment and hardware change automatically, I really despise that too!

> Just don’t be changing my hardware without me initiating the change

In this case it seems to have been disabled in future firmware, so "you" did initiate the change, as you did an firmware upgrade that included the change. Still, shitty to sneak it in, I agree, but the feature wouldn't literally be there one day then not the next, requires human initiation at least.