Cat Litter Boxes and DRM
This is a relatively interesting situation imo. And it's tragically not unique. Another example is the Keurig machines. The latest model has DRM such that you can only use officially licensed  Keurig cups. Suffice to say people were displeased. A delightful video showing how to get around it has 670,000 views. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e0yCq1AEeY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e0yCq1AEeY</a><p>So, here's why I think it's interesting. The companies that sell these products likely make the bulk of their profit from the consumables. That makes it economically viable to sell the machine at break even or possibly a loss. Then the money comes from the consumables. This is a pretty attractive business model both to the manufacturer and possibly even the consumer.<p>The downside, of course, is that competitors can swoop in and make consumables as well. So now you're selling hardware for a loss and other people are selling consumables for razor thin margins and you're screwed.<p>I don't think there is an obvious answer here. Some of these markets might not be viable if the hardware has to be sold for a profit. So that kinda sucks. But the DRM also treats consumers like shit, so that <i>really</i> sucks.<p>Is perhaps the issue just that it isn't clearly stated up front? Amazon sells two flavors of Kindle readers. One with ads for less money and one without ads for more ($20). Once upon a time Apple sold DRM mp3s for 99 cents and DRM free mp3s for $1.29. Would you pay an extra $50 for a DRM free kitty litter box? Or an extra $100 (33%) on a fancy coffee maker?<p>Here's my take away. Some products are subsidized by consumables. DRM enables that subsidy. Without DRM that product may not be viable. DRM can be minimally negative (Steam) but can also be maximum hostile (Keurig). Finding the balance is tough and we should talk more about it.