... Direct memory access for end users is a very dangerous field, do we want to give each and every user that level of access? How do we decide if somebody is "intelligent" enough to use it properly and won't blame us for their mistakes?
This issue is not a matter of determining "Intelligence." It is a matter of legal liability. Who will be held responsible when a user defeats a safety system? Who will be responsible when the lack of that safety system results in a death?
Ross-Tech has been very mindful of these issues. Sure, advanced users are limited by the lack of this ability but at the same time, RT has to protect it's derriere. In this litigious world in which we live, RT has to error on the side of caution. We have too much invested to have it ripped from our hands over a bit that was flipped!
Unless someone can show us a legal means by which the responsibility for damages caused by this feature of modifying bits that were
not intended to be modified by the OE be placed on the party making the change rather on the party enabling the ability to make the change, I think RT has to follow the route we are following - no EEPROM change for you.
Enriquez said:
Sebastian that is the problem which _YOU_ need to resolve. If You want to keep Your product safe for all it will not meet the requirements of more advanced users. Then we will have to go to the other products such as VCP or just use VAS to complete the work.
As to RT not keeping up with the needs of the advanced users, we are not the OE. The OE can take the liability for changes their engineers
tell a technician to make. But when a tool allows any user to make such changes, then the liability issue comes into play. We'll accept the criticism that our tool is not keeping up with the needs of the advance user. The advanced users may have to have other tools. VCP will allow users to defeat safety systems and I doubt the creators of VCP will care about the legal liability. Their business model is not the model of RT as they already do things that are dubious in the legal realm such as providing flashes that are the property of VAG (distributing Intellectual property of others). They obviously do not care about the legal ramifications. As users who want the capability to flip any bit, we understand your desire. But, the big picture says that Ross-Tech must consider all legal aspects of how it's product might be used.
Uwe has a huge investment in this product. To risk it to meet the desire of a few users would be penny wise and pound foolish.
Uwe, chime in if what I have written is incorrect.