# How to Prevent OEM Software and Hardware from Spying on You? **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/how-to-prevent-oem-software-and-hardware-from-spying-on-you/17744 **Category:** Questions **Created:** 2024-04-07T04:22:14Z **Posts:** 29 ## Post 1 by @Sprout3425 — 2024-04-07T04:22:14Z I recently found out that Lenovo Vantage, a software on my device installed by default by Lenovo, is [monitoring my WiFi network and sending data to an Israeli company](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lenovo-wifi-security-safe-labrun-kay-daskalakis). This made me worry about my privacy. How can I make sure that no software from the device manufacturer is spying on me? Would reinstalling Windows help? Can spying elements somehow survive Windows re-installations? Can there be spying elements built into the hardware, like the motherboard? Thanks! * * * Edit: > The **Windows Platform Binary Table (WPBT)** is a feature that allows PC manufacturers to install software that runs automatically when Windows starts. To see if your PC uses this feature, search for **wpbbin.exe** in the **C:\Windows\system32** folder. If this file is there, it means the software was included in the **UEFI firmware** (the system that starts your PC) and Windows is programmed to run it. If the file isn’t there, then your PC doesn’t have any WPBT-related software set to auto-run. **Solutions** : 1. Delete Windows Platform Binary Table option in BIOS. 2. Fresh install Windows (you can find out how to do so safely on Privacy Guides, I am not sure how, but I know it involves a USB installer). --- ## Post 2 by @anon73250778 — 2024-04-07T04:28:19Z Open source software cannot even guarantee you a spyware free binary (see XZ debacle). What chance does closed source software have of even offering you a guarantee that it will not spy on you? --- ## Post 3 by @dngray — 2024-04-07T04:31:12Z > [@Sprout3425](#): > > Lenovo Vantage It’s just the [typical bloatware](https://www.techfinitive.com/explainers/what-is-lenovo-vantage-should-i-get-rid-of-it-2023-update/) that comes with laptops. > [@Sprout3425](#): > > How can I make sure that no software from the device manufacturer is spying on me? Probably isn’t but Lenovo did have the [Superfish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfish#Lenovo_security_incident) incident in the past. > [@Sprout3425](#): > > Would reinstalling Windows help? > > Can spying elements somehow survive Windows re-installations? Technically this is possible with the [Windows Platform Binary Table (WPBT)](https://www.howtogeek.com/226308/the-windows-platform-binary-table-why-crapware-can-come-back-after-a-clean-install/). You can disable that in the BIOS. > [@Sprout3425](#): > > Can there be spying elements built into the hardware, like the motherboard? Run Wireshark on the network and see. That is really the only way to determine these things. You’ll need a root CA so you can decrypt any https data. --- ## Post 4 by @anon73250778 — 2024-04-07T04:35:40Z Specifically, this means you need a separate machine that will run wireshark on a managed switch that will duplicate the packets to your computer running wireshark. --- ## Post 5 by @Sprout3425 — 2024-04-07T04:52:56Z > [@dngray](#): > > Technically this is possible with the [Windows Platform Binary Table (WPBT)](https://www.howtogeek.com/226308/the-windows-platform-binary-table-why-crapware-can-come-back-after-a-clean-install/). You can disable that in the BIOS. Definitely out of my knowledge limit at the moment. However, I found this folder on my computer, which you said I could delete using BIOS: > The **Windows Platform Binary Table (WPBT)** is a feature that allows PC manufacturers to install software that runs automatically when Windows starts. To see if your PC uses this feature, search for **wpbbin.exe** in the **C:\Windows\system32** folder. If this file is there, it means the software was included in the **UEFI firmware** (the system that starts your PC) and Windows is programmed to run it. If the file isn’t there, then your PC doesn’t have any WPBT-related software set to auto-run. @dngray @anon34108895 should this be incorporated into the Windows guide? Sorry, I have one more question, should I delete the Lenovo system folder (`C:\Windows\Lenovo`)? Lastly, I will see if I can find this option in my BIOS to delete the WPBT-related software. --- ## Post 6 by @dngray — 2024-04-07T05:06:27Z > [@Sprout3425](#): > > @dngray should this be incorporated into the Windows guide? The issue I think will be that some BIOSes provide a option to disable it and some do not. Example being ASUS provide an option to [disable ASUS Grid Install Service](https://rog-forum.asus.com/t5/asus-software/how-can-i-stop-grid-trying-to-install/td-p/881565?lightbox-message-images-881568=59033iA3D6976BDD98BBB4) and [so does Gigabyte](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ9ZVrgOpeE), he also mentions MSI has a similar feature on their boards. Every motherboard is different, and we really don’t know what is out there. We should probably do some research on it and find some generic way to disable it. > [@Sprout3425](#): > > Sorry, I have one more question, should I delete the Lenovo system folder (`C:\Windows\Lenovo`)? Not sure that will do any good, because you’ll need to disable services that are set to start up otherwise Windows will throw errors that the services can’t be found. Also WPBT runs on boot of Windows, so it may just re-install the missing software unless it is disabled. There is some [general documentation](https://github.com/Jamesits/dropWPBT). None of my systems actually have the feature so I haven’t had to deal with it. --- ## Post 7 by @ignoramous — 2024-04-07T11:49:00Z > [@Sprout3425](#): > > How can I make sure that no software from the device manufacturer is spying on me? Unfortunately, without open firmware (or open hardware), this is nigh on improbable. For example, OEM may not even connect through the access point (wifi) you’ve setup and embed a UICC card (or even eSIM) to connect to its servers. If that were the case, running sniffers or interceptors like Wireshark won’t reveal much, if anything. > [@Sprout3425](#): > > Would reinstalling Windows help? In cases where OEMs are in your threat model, no amount of reinstalling _software_ will help. For example, you could start using a Linux distro, and that won’t improve things one bit. > [@Sprout3425](#): > > Can spying elements somehow survive Windows re-installations? The OEM bits? Yes. They survive until you attain the ability to reflash their firmware _and_ whatever it is they’re running in privilege modes (which can be removed by replacing the bootloader). See initiatives like _CoreBoot_ and the kind of _trust base_ they want OEMs to build, for example. > [@Sprout3425](#): > > Can there be spying elements built into the hardware, like the motherboard? Yes, there are known instances of this, including Intel running an entire OS; Qualcomm, Samsung running a Hypervisor on Androids etc. Things like _Verified Boot_ (on Androids) don’t tell you anything about what the OEM is doing, just that the OEM is doing what it is supposed to and nothing has yet tampered with that. The keyword you’re looking for is _Trusted computing base_, achieving which is kind of the holy grail in computer security (not because it is technically impossible but because it isn’t economically feasible on top being technically impracticable). Daniel Micay, creator the GrapheneOS, has written about this extensively (from the perspective of Androids and Pixels in particular). --- ## Post 8 by @Sprout3425 — 2024-04-07T12:02:19Z Interesting @ignoramous, my knowledge in computer science is very vague, but I have a decent idea of what you are trying to say. _Trusted computing base_ is indeed the relevant term. I am especially concerned about third party OEMs that are running Windows (e.g., Lenovo, HP, Dell etc.) or any other OS. I would prefer that the OS and hardware are made by the same companies or at least, two or more respectable companies. What can I do to eliminate the spying abilities of third party OEMs like Lenovo, as much as possible? Coreboot looks awesome, will I be able to use them and wipe my entire computer either now or in the future? Or are they pushing for new standards, without the goal of developing a BIOS or UEFI (no idea what the diff is between these two)? --- ## Post 9 by @pinkandwhite — 2024-04-07T12:34:43Z > [@ignoramous](#): > > For example, OEM may not even connect through the access point (wifi) you’ve setup and embed a UICC card (or even eSIM) to connect to its servers. While this is _possible_, I would love to hear of concrete examples of this occurring in consumer technology[[1]](#footnote-41255-1) > [@Sprout3425](#): > > spying elements > [@ignoramous](#): > > Intel running an entire OS Intel ME FUD? really? You have a legitimate point with trusted computing base but inject some ME FUD because reasons… * * * 1. if I recall correctly, car makers love to send telemetry back via cellular radios in their cars, but I don’t recall ever hearing about e.g., computer OEMs hiding cellular radios in their laptops to “spy” on users on any large scale [↩︎](#footnote-ref-41255-1) --- ## Post 10 by @dngray — 2024-04-07T13:20:55Z > [@ignoramous](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/sprout3425/48/8_2.png) Sprout3425: > > > How can I make sure that no software from the device manufacturer is spying on me? > > Unfortunately, without open firmware (or open hardware), this is nigh on improbable. For example, OEM may not even connect through the access point (wifi) you’ve setup and embed a UICC card (or even eSIM) to connect to its servers. That is pretty unlikely and would show up in physical inspection, servicing. Also any device sold in the US with cellular access needs a FCC authorization so there isn’t any way to legally hide this in a device. > [@pinkandwhite](#): > > if I recall correctly, car makers love to send telemetry back via cellular radios in their cars, but I don’t recall ever hearing about e.g., computer OEMs hiding cellular radios in their laptops to “spy” on users on any large scale I have done a bit of research into this, and yes, with cars it’s far less regulated as those onboard computers are generally coupled with navigation technology. The companies have dubious privacy policies and there doesn’t appear to be any regulation enforcing the requirement that users not have to opt into such programs. Mozilla wrote a bit about that: > **[*Privacy Not Included: A Buyer’s Guide for Connected Products](https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-privacy/)** > > All 25 car brands we researched earned our *Privacy Not Included warning label – making cars the worst category of products that we have ever reviewed and situations like this: > **[New Toyota cars collecting extensive customer data: CHOICE](https://www.choice.com.au/about-us/media/media-releases/2024/feb/toyota-investigation)** > > Vehicle location, driving data, and more could be disclosed to multiple third-parties. It uses the “Data Communication Module (DCM)” which is not a small as you might think. This is one for Toyota, but DCMs for other cars look quite similar. ![dcm-module-2-jpg-2121943289](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/e/ea60fa6163d03e100a9afece1c04cd396d31f3b1.jpeg) ![denso-data-communication-module-28dcm-29-500x500](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/1/13066047383d7914eb8228ed4c3428813fc64a93.webp) > [@ignoramous](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/sprout3425/48/8_2.png) Sprout3425: > > > Would reinstalling Windows help? > > In cases where OEMs are in your threat model, no amount of reinstalling _software_ will help. For example, you could start using a Linux distro, and that won’t improve things one bit. Except for the fact that WPBT isn’t supported in Linux :wink: So I wouldn’t say “one bit” is accurate at all. > [@ignoramous](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/user_avatar/discuss.privacyguides.net/sprout3425/48/8_2.png) Sprout3425: > > > Can spying elements somehow survive Windows re-installations? > > The OEM bits? Yes. They survive until you attain the ability to reflash their firmware _and_ whatever it is they’re running in privilege modes (which can be removed by replacing the bootloader). See initiatives like _CoreBoot_ and the kind of _trust base_ they want OEMs to build, for example. No need for anything as complicated as that when Microsoft gives WPBT. Reflashing proprietary BIOS with a free-er one like Coreboot requires very [specific hardware](https://coreboot.org/status/board-status.html), and will certainly violate vendor warranties, and it is unnecessary for a user with limited experience. > [@ignoramous](#): > > Yes, there are known instances of this, including Intel running an entire OS; Qualcomm, Samsung running a Hypervisor on Androids etc. Things like _Verified Boot_ (on Androids) don’t tell you anything about what the OEM is doing, just that the OEM is doing what it is supposed to and nothing has yet tampered with that. There is no accurate evidence that Intel ME or other SoCs running on the mainboard are actually spying on you or a privacy risk. It is not uncommon for SoCs to have an alternative processor for [out of band management](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-band_management) and other security operations. Seeing as you mentioned Intel you can read about [what AMT actually is](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology). It’s not as scary as it sounds as it’s really meant for organizations which want to manage their devices. Most of the AMT features also not included in most laptops, except for very high end business laptops and server boards. > [@ignoramous](#): > > Daniel Micay, creator the GrapheneOS, has written about this extensively (from the perspective of Androids and Pixels in particular). Link please. I doubt he has written anything saying what you wrote above. > [@Sprout3425](#): > > _Trusted computing base_ is indeed the relevant term. Simply refers to things like Secure Boot, etc. See [Trusted Computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing) for actual information about it. It is used increase security and reduce likelihood of a [rootkit tampering with the boot process](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/operating-system-security/system-security/secure-the-windows-10-boot-process), you know an actual real one not an imagined one. Another part of it is the [TPM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module) which can be used to store encryption keys such as those for Bitlocker or LUKS. Then you only have to remember a shorter password which has hardware rate limiting preventing brute force attacks. > [@Sprout3425](#): > > Coreboot looks awesome, will I be able to use them and wipe my entire computer either now or in the future? Or are they pushing for new standards, without the goal of developing a BIOS or UEFI (no idea what the diff is between these two)? It will however only work on [some devices](https://coreboot.org/status/board-status.html) so no, you can’t just throw Coreboot at the problem. > [@Sprout3425](#): > > What can I do to eliminate the spying abilities of third party OEMs like Lenovo, as much as possible? Look in your BIOS see if there is a feature that relates to WPBT. It may not be entirely obvious. Reinstall windows with that feature disabled. The only other viable alternative is to build windows media with the [registry key that disables it](https://github.com/Jamesits/dropWPBT?tab=readme-ov-file#from-windows). --- ## Post 12 by @curious78 — 2024-04-07T23:19:50Z > [@Sprout3425](#): > > How can I make sure that no software from the device manufacturer is spying on me? > [@dngray](#): > > Run Wireshark on the network and see. That is really the only way to determine these things. You’ll need a root CA so you can decrypt any https data. 1. Would it be accurate to say that an outbound firewall like OpenSnitch on Linux or Little Snitch or Lulu on MacOS can detect OS and app/package connections but Wireshark would be needed for theoretical hardware-level connections? 2. A few years back it was discovered on MacOS that [Apple had connections that were excluded from outbound firewalls](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24838816) like Little Snitch and Lulu. Does anyone know if this is occurring on any Linux distros? I’ve been pleased at how few outbound connections occur on my Fedora box in OpenSnitch (I need appx 13 rules only) compared to my past Macs and Little Snitch (dozens and dozens of rules needed, Macs are very chatty). Can I feel good that Opensnitch has captured all of the outbound traffic or could Fedora be bypassing the outbound firewall? Thanks --- ## Post 13 by @eqrlzo8t — 2024-04-08T03:11:49Z OpenSnitch/Little Snitch, at the most, can only observe the domains/IPs that your device is connecting to. They cannot see the whole URL nor request payload of those connections (which is what https is built for). You need software like Wireshark (with a root CA) to do that. It’s not really about “hardware-level connections”. --- ## Post 14 by @dngray — 2024-04-08T03:22:13Z > [@deadorbit](#): > > **EDIT** No idea why this was hidden. I’m simply trying to education this person on the sobering reality of the fact that hardware can have backdoors built in. Sheesh. Because it’s entirely off topic read OP’s original question and think about how that does not have anything to do with _their_ threat model. The post was lazy at best, just listed a bunch of ancient programs from the snowden leaks that have nothing to do with the topic. --- ## Post 15 by @dngray — 2024-04-08T03:33:51Z > [@curious78](#): > > 1. Would it be accurate to say that an outbound firewall like OpenSnitch on Linux or Little Snitch or Lulu on MacOS can detect OS and app/package connections but Wireshark would be needed for theoretical hardware-level connections? Probably, manufacturers don’t go to a lot of effort to do this. The purpose of creating a self signed cert or rootca and then signing it is so that you can perform [MITM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack) on yourself would be required _if_ they are sending data to https ([TLS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security) encrypted) domains and you want to look inside. The one I use for this kind of research is [`mitmproxy`](https://docs.mitmproxy.org/stable/concepts-howmitmproxyworks/) > [@curious78](#): > > 1. A few years back it was discovered on MacOS that [Apple had connections that were excluded from outbound firewalls](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24838816) like Little Snitch and Lulu. Does anyone know if this is occurring on any Linux distros? Everything has to go through the kernel so it’s not really possible to “hide” much. This seems like something implemented on macOS and Little Snitch - specifically related to Apple domains. The other option is of course to route traffic through a router and do the sniffing there. > [@eqrlzo8t](#): > > OpenSnitch/Little Snitch, at the most, can only observe the domains/IPs that your device is connecting to. They cannot see the whole URL nor request payload of those connections (which is what https is built for). You need software like Wireshark (with a root CA) to do that. It’s not really about “hardware-level connections”. :100: --- ## Post 16 by @Sprout3425 — 2024-04-08T03:42:04Z > [@dngray](#): > > Look in your BIOS see if there is a feature that relates to WPBT. It may not be entirely obvious. I will try again, I will disappointed if I can’t find it, I did a lot of research and still no luck, if anyone knows anything about Lenovo let me know. --- ## Post 17 by @dngray — 2024-04-08T03:47:05Z It won’t necessarily be called WPBT. It might have some sort of reference to some “Lenovo specific sounding” features though. --- ## Post 18 by @Sprout3425 — 2024-04-08T03:47:46Z > [@dngray](#): > > unch of ancient programs from the snowden leaks that have nothing to do with the topic. I am not speaking from a place of knowledge, but I think the subject the poster was talking about sounds relevant, or is at the very least interesting, in all honesty you might have been a bit too harsh. I may be wrong and the post could have been harmful, but I doubt it, especially if it was in good faith. Anyway, not trying to stir up drama. --- ## Post 19 by @Sprout3425 — 2024-04-08T03:48:37Z I’ll try look for it again, thanks so much! This has been an informative conversation to say the least. --- ## Post 20 by @jonah — 2024-04-08T04:12:33Z > [@pinkandwhite](#): > > Intel ME FUD? really? I mean… that is just a fact, security vulnerabilities caused by Intel ME are well documented. It’s not just the subject of security researcher theory either, cybercrime groups have exploited IME in the wild :flushed_face: Probably a better discussion for [How can I have a computer without Intel ME? - #3 by jonah](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/intel-me-and-more/14803/3) though, since this topic is more about OEM software. --- ## Post 21 by @dngray — 2024-04-08T04:20:19Z > [@jonah](#): > > security vulnerabilities caused by Intel ME There are bugs with any code, that’s just the way things are. > [@jonah](#): > > It’s not just the subject of security researcher theory either, cybercrime groups have exploited IME People like that will exploit anything that is viable. This isn’t relevant to this specific topic. --- ## Post 22 by @Average_Joe — 2024-04-23T20:41:19Z > [@Sprout3425](#): > > Interesting @ignoramous, my knowledge in computer science is very vague, but I have a decent idea of what you are trying to say. > > _Trusted computing base_ is indeed the relevant term. > > I am especially concerned about third party OEMs that are running Windows (e.g., Lenovo, HP, Dell etc.) or any other OS. I would prefer that the OS and hardware are made by the same companies or at least, two or more respectable companies. > > What can I do to eliminate the spying abilities of third party OEMs like Lenovo, as much as possible? > > Coreboot looks awesome, will I be able to use them and wipe my entire computer either now or in the future? Or are they pushing for new standards, without the goal of developing a BIOS or UEFI (no idea what the diff is between these two)? Wow, as someone who’s looking to build a new PC Tower this is very scary!! Is it possible to buy safe OEM hardware components for a new PC? If not, how can we check that the hardware components are not sending information back to someone on the Internet??? This Microsoft article talks about “a secured core PC” but it doesn’t give suggestions for where to buy such hardware components which is really annoying: > **[Windows 11 Secured-core PCs](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/device-experiences/oem-highly-secure-11#what-makes-a-secured-core-pc)** > > This document provides an overview of the Windows 11 Secured-core PCs and Baseline Windows security for device purchase decision makers. I just hope I can find some safe hardware :sob: --- ## Post 23 by @foolclown — 2025-06-29T21:46:19Z Hello, I’m sorry to resurrect this but I recently got a ThinkPad with Lenovo Commercial Vantage preinstalled on it. I set it up and saw that it installed some missing firmware, incl. a critical BIOS update specific to my device. I’ve been trying to find info re: potential privacy issues with this. I do believe that a lot of this service is not just bloatware, as I can already see it has tools to manage my Windows system that native Windows does not have, as well as the ability to install firmware that optimizes security that I wouldn’t know how to easily get elsewhere. My knowledge of computer science is minimal. All I’m concerned with is that I prefer that no identifying data that can be used for mass/dragnet surveillance (e.g. live location data, detailed network and web data and histories) is not shared with at least 3rd parties outside of Lenovo. Obviously, it’s also preferable that Lenovo itself doesn’t collect and retain more data than it needs for providing basic security and functionality - but I’ve given up a say in this already by buying their product in the first place. And obviously, I have no illusions about Windows itself. I’m just trying to minimize the threats, so to speak. I have read posts about the Israeli OEM but they seem to be upwards of 2 years old. I also read posts advising to disable the “wifi network security” feature as it does appear to be bloatware, but also about 1-2 years dated. Does anyone have any updates on this and maybe some advice for a standard user who may just have a bit more understanding and ability to FAFO than an average user? --- ## Post 24 by @Average_Joe — 2025-12-19T11:47:55Z > [@foolclown](#): > > Does anyone have any updates on this and maybe some advice for a standard user who may just have a bit more understanding and ability to FAFO than an average user? I appreciate your reply! **I wish there were more hardware related threads on PrivacyGuides because what’s the point of having secure software if your hardware device is uploading personal data back to the Internet?** I’m always looking for hardware devices that I can trust. --- ## Post 25 by @anon73250778 — 2025-12-19T13:49:25Z I would agree that hardware should also be a significant discussion but i think there are more software leaning individuals here than hardware leaning individuals. Getting expert opinion is difficult to what I perceive to be its rarity. --- ## Post 26 by @kissu — 2025-12-19T18:49:01Z > [@Average_Joe](#): > > what’s the point of having secure software if your hardware device is uploading personal data back to the Internet I think the answer to this is simple: sometimes there is just no alternative. Take an Nvidia GPU, like an RTX 4090. What would be an alternative with Open Source hardware, with all the schematics and with a similar performance/price ratio? Answer: there is nothing similar. > Thread closed, have a nice day. :joy: This would unfortunately be 99% of the time, the answer for this kind of question. And it probably never will be available because Risc V is not making as much money as Jensen, period. Different goals/business models whatsoever and unfair competition. Just like you cannot compete with a Tesla and build your own open hardware/software tomorrow out of thin air while being competitive in terms of price. Most people do care only about the prices of things anyway, without even thinking about privacy. :sweat_smile: --- ## Post 27 by @anon39279085 — 2025-12-19T19:21:42Z > [@kissu](#): > > Most people do care only about the prices of things anyway, without even thinking about privacy. This, you have to make it as affordable as possible if a person doesnt have unlimited budget, privacy or not its why I said there are brand that I like their value for money but open to options --- ## Post 28 by @Average_Joe — 2025-12-25T17:49:28Z > [@kissu](#): > > Take an Nvidia GPU, like an RTX 4090. I appreciate your reply! But just because it’s a big name brand like NVIDIA doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily lacking in user privacy? By paying extra for a premium product there seems to be more of a chance that the product will be respecting of user privacy. I think this is why low cost laptops come with so much bloat wear and advertising: the low cost laptops need a way to earn money back at the expense of the user? --- ## Post 29 by @kissu — 2025-12-25T18:58:27Z > [@Average_Joe](#): > > But just because it’s a big name brand like NVIDIA doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily lacking in user privacy? Big tech usually doesn’t become trillion company based on human conservative good actions. Selling chips to Palantir (military US company) isn’t a sign of healthy business model AFAIK. :slight_smile: So yes, big name doesn’t mean that it’s good or bad. But paying something with a lot of money upfront doesn’t mean it won’t try to F you up either (there is no “good capitalism” here). Also, you are never truly guaranteed that the thing won’t be locked down remotely or downgraded. History showed a lot of those examples in the past years of such practices with the trendy Enshitiffication[[1]](#footnote-129700-1). :poop: > [@Average_Joe](#): > > I think this is why low cost laptops come with so much bloat wear and advertising: the low cost laptops need a way to earn money back at the expense of the user? True for the most part. [Framework laptops](https://frame.work/) are good hardware, repairable and with open software on it. It doesn’t **need** to be shit if it’s accessible. Also, if it’s expensive a company could (read: will, given enough time) try to juice you up by selling you some sort of subscription down the road because otherwise, you paid them once and might never need a device from them ever. :man_shrugging:t2: * * * 1. currently reading that very nice book myself [↩︎](#footnote-ref-129700-1)