edesign Magazine, February 2003
Hackin’ the Box
What’s piracy to some electronics manufacturers is free research and development to others
WHEN MICROSOFT'S Xbox splashed into the tempestuous waters of the video game console market, thousands of hardware hackers began chipping away at millions of dollars' worth of security protecting the core of Microsoft's flagship games platform. The first to breach the hull was an MIT graduate student in electrical engineering named Andrew "Bunnie" Huang, who immediately published the Xbox's inner workings on the Web. More surprising than the speed with which it happened— barely a week—was the inevitability of it.
For new hardware platforms, getting hacked is par for the course.
Why would a preternaturally busy grad student bother taking time away from his PhD dissertation work on supercomputers to reverse-engineer what was then a $300 gaming console? Besides the prestige factor of being known in hacker circles as "the guy who hacked the Xbox," Huang discovered that the gaming console is, in fact, a graphics supercomputer.
If the power and sophistication of everyday consumer electronics are a towering monument to the achievements of the technology industry, then the hardware hacker is its mountaineer, the ferociously determined climber forever striving to plant his or her flag (usually emblazoned with a Linux penguin) on its peak.
The posting on Huang's Web site a week after the debut of the Xbox read:
"I figure there are a lot of great software hackers out there going at the Xbox to put Linux on it... I'm more of a hardware type, so here's my tiny contribution to the effort." Huang's "tiny contribution" amounted to nothing less than the disarming of the Xbox's fantastically elaborate security system. His effort paved the way for a second wave of hackers, most of whom are either enthusiasts of Linux—the much-favored, incredibly sturdy open-source operating system-looking to repurpose the gaming hardware into a functional PC, or "mod-chip" manufacturers seeking to profit from a booming underground industry of console modification and unlicensed games.
Mod-chipping allows a console to play discs that have been illegally copied (although an Australian court ruled recently that the practice of using mod-chips to make and use "back-up" copies of games is, in fact, perfectly legal) or otherwise obtained illegitimately. It also nullifies regional encoding, a feature on games and DVDs that prevents content from being played outside its region of origin. Market analysts estimate that 30 percent of all games played on the 120 million consoles worldwide are pirated. If even remotely accurate, those statistics indicate that mod-chipping is a significant factor in boosting the sales of game machines and, paradoxically, in decreasing the profitability of each one sold.
Console manufacturers, like other hardware makers, figured out long ago that they lose money on the hardware but make it back in the consumables or the software. This is why printers come free with computer purchases, and why Microsoft takes the $150 loss on each Xbox it sells.
Understandably, Microsoft and other console manufacturers are clamping down on mod-chipping because they are eager to stop the bleeding caused by pirated software. Microsoft appears to have adopted a policy of fighting hardware hackers by hacking its own box.
Allegedly, the software giant altered the internal layout on the assembly line, making it impossible to install a new chip, and thus thwarting a year's worth of mod-chip advances. In an interview with CNET's news.com, Microsoft spokesperson Molly O'Donnell acknowledged that minor changes had been made "to increase security and reduce overall costs." Huang, however, dismisses such modifications as mere cost-saving maneuvers. He sees "no visible signs of a fundamental rearchitecting of the Xbox security mechanism" and believes that even if the changes void all current mod-chip designs, reconfiguring them for the new systems "will be short work for the motivated people out there."
Indeed, so concerned is Microsoft with the potential damage to its investment that CEO Steve Ballmer suggested the console may be pulled from the Australian market altogether following the legalization of mod-chips there.
While Microsoft may be public enemy number one to many hackers who resent the company's aggressive commercialism and market dominance, it is by no means the only target in the field. Almost every major consumer electronics manufacturer has had to confront similar reconfigurations and reprogramming of its products. The industry's varied responses toward hardware hacking range from strict legal action to deliberate inaction to providing software development kits and choosing to see the "improvements" as labors of love rather than intellectual property theft.
Could hardware hacking possibly be beneficial to a company's bottom line? The hacking of Sony's artificial intelligence robot, AIBO, proved that hardware hacking can actually promote sales and attract users to spend $1500 on a sophisticated robotic toy. "AiboPet," the moniker of an AIBO owner legendary among AIBO enthusiasts for his encyclopedic knowledge of the robot, wanted more from his mechanical pets than the rudimentary behaviors Sony had preprogrammed for them. He started tinkering with his AlBOs until he could make them walk upright on two legs, fight each other, and dance to Janet Jackson. After weeks of turning a blind eye to the playful patches and diagnostic tools posted on AiboPet's Web site, Sony suddenly sent him a cease-and-desist notice, ordering him to remove his files.
The response from other AIBO owners was overwhelming: Some threatened to blow up their AIBOs on camera, while others offered passionate testimonials in defense of AiboPet's enhancements. In an online forum at AIBO-Life.org, a posting titled "An Open Letter to Sony" stated:
"This is an outrage. I bought my AIBO specifically because I found AiboPet's site. Without AiboPet's improvements, AIBO will quickly become a very expen-sive, yet utterly boring toy. ... Prepare to see my AIBO on eBay."
Eventually, Sony eased up. According to AiboPet, while "Sony still retains control over the core software that runs on the AIBO, the rest is now more open to programmers." In fact, Sony even allows users to download R-Code, the programming language for AIBO, from its official Web site.
Contrary to the common perception that all hackers are motivated by destructive tendencies, the fact is that most are just so enthusiastic about a product that they devote much of their spare time to improving and embellishing it, exploring the possibilities contained inside its shell. The AIBO is "a very complete robot platform for doing a lot of different things," says a wistful AiboPet. "I've only scratched the surface."
The TiVo Digital Video Recorder, which functions like a digital VCR, holds a special place in the hearts of many hardware hackers. Not only was it designed with a Linux operating system, it is produced by a company that has an incredibly tolerant policy toward the modification of its boxes. When the technology news site slashdot.org reported that the TiVo had been hacked to accommodate larger hard drives, TiVo responded with an encouraging post from Richard Bullwinkle, a.k.a. "TiVolutionary," who at the time was part of the company's product marketing team. TiVo's "chief evangelist"—he actively contributed to TiVo discussion boards—declared his position in no uncertain terms: "TiVo remains dedicated to cooperating with and supporting the Linux community." TiVo turns a blind eye to hacker exploration of the hardware and software as long as hackers do nothing to publicly circumvent the subscription system, TiVo's primary source of revenue. This "mutually beneficial nonrelationship," as Bullwinkle put it, has elicited praise from many in the hacking community. Some believe it should even serve as a model for a more open attitude toward the development of hardware.
For electronics companies, this type of hacking-call it tinker-happy or curiosity-driven hacking-can essentially constitute free research and development. Not only does it give manufacturers a chance to see their products from a fresh perspective, it provides valuable market research on how consumers want to use the products they buy. How could any manufacturer ignore such input?
IRWIN CHEN