Raspberry Pi blocks changing RAM chips

dannyw

That's quite disappointing. Whose hardware is it anyways? Yours, when you pay for it.

themgt

So they applied this gate in the rpi EEPROM, which is closed source. https://github.com/raspberrypi/rpi-eeprom/issues/761

functionmouse

Raspberry Pis, save for RP silicon like rp2040, have always been locked down proprietary black boxes.

Aurornis

There were sellers buying the smallest RAM units, changing the RAM chips, and then reselling them as the higher RAM SKUs. The sellers who do this don’t always care to use good RAM chips and may even use QA reject parts. When the unit doesn’t work correctly, the anger and RMA requests are directed back at the Raspberry Pi foundation.

squeegeeninja

The real story here is that people are selling modded Pis as higher-memory versions. And this check actually caught them + is circumventable. The restriction is somewhat annoying to a small subset of enthusiasts but seems to catch genuine fraud.

kingstnap

I mean the Pi currently makes little to no sense to buy anyway. So locking down parts barely moves the needle. The value proposition is unbelievably bad at spending upwards of $423 CAD for a 16GB Raspberry Pi. Which is literally just the bare board. The 2026 financial report is apparently this Thursday on Sept 24. So will see how this played out for them. Their stock is all over the place anyway with low float.

juancn

It would be much more user friendly if there was a way to check the serial of a particular PI and see it's original hardware config, manufacture date, and so on.

VCFundedGenYer

Rich of them to claim that "users will complain" when their platform is built for hobbiests and tinkerers. What a terrible stance.

speedping

Raspberry Pi is going down the way iRobot did, succumbing to pressure from chinese players like radxa or orange pi. Sad to see industry pioneers lose to players that copy them and undercut prices using cheap labor.

kmeisthax

I think this is really dumb and stupid. Not that I don't agree with their reasoning - it's actually very reasonable - but that I have a lot of distaste from "saving the customer from themselves" type antifeatures. Practically speaking, though, this antifeature doesn't affect most people, because I don't think most people are willing to take a heat gun to a microsoldered part just to save a few bucks on RAM. If the RAM was socketed somehow - which at this scale and performance tier is not possible - then I'd probably be way angrier.

liendolucas

Why not just paint the original chips with some special ink that says VOID IF TAMPERED over the RAM chips and the board? Pretty much like other hardware manufacturers do with seals or stickers, wouldn't this solve the issue?

ChrisArchitect

Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49783849

mschuster91

> raspberrypi locked and limited conversation to collaborators Way to read the room, jfc. Hardbricking hardware is not the answer, see FTDI. I get why they are doing that... but I think there should be a way for users to flash a separate firmware, maybe tied to the hardware key similar to the old h264/mpeg license, that allows the usage of a modified board. PS: Arrest Sam Altman who caused all of this mess in the first place with his market manipulation stunt.

throwa356262

I think the bigger problem is that this was pushed as a firmware update, bricking previously working devices. Remember when FTDI did this and suddenly medical equipment at some hospital stopped working?

geerlingguy

Reading through the EEPROM repo issue[1] makes me a little more sympathetic to the "feature", but I still don't like it at all. It might help in the short term to stop dodgy resellers who mod the boards with cheap upgraded RAM to make a buck or two... But the Pi itself is always taking one step forward, one step back in terms of firmware. I've been tinkering with some Qualcomm boards from Radxa and things are slightly better there, though you don't have anywhere near the ecosystem you get with Pi (or onboarding niceties). [1] https://github.com/raspberrypi/rpi-eeprom/issues/761

RandomGerm4n

I think they should instead just introduce a clear system for verifying that a Raspberry Pi is genuine. For example, a code printed directly on the device. If you enter that code on the website, you can see exactly which model it belongs to and how often it has been used. That way, you could determine whether a Raspberry Pi is new or used and whether it has been modified. I saw that once at a thermal paste manufacturer. They used it to solve the problem of counterfeit thermal paste.You just have to get people to actually use the system and tell anyone else who asks for support but doesn't have an original copy to GTFO.This would allow them to avoid the increased support burden without limiting people's ability to upgrade their Raspberry Pi.

jorritposthuma

I love how we think we own our hardware, but secretly we don't. Surprised though that even a Raspberry Pi now thinks this as well. They grew big _because_ of tinkering...

zb3

We can't normalize this cash-grab user-hostile late stage capitalism bullshit. Their argument assumes users are idiots - we had swappable components for years, and while there were cheating actors, market has invented things like brands and trust, you know? You don't have to buy models from the sellers you don't trust, nobody forces you to.

yjftsjthsd-h

Alright, what would it take to make a completely open source firmware for the pi? I think there was some prior effort that got discontinued...

mg794613

"We do it to protect you and ensure our quality" Nah, they got big enough and now you think you can pull Apple tricks, good luck with that.