4 ms·
How about using the same tactic many smartphone makers use: "We're allowing you to unlock your bootloader, but if you do, you're voiding your warranty." Simil
by mtgx 10y ago
How about using the same tactic many smartphone makers use:
"We're allowing you to unlock your bootloader, but if you do, you're voiding your warranty."
Similarly car makers could say as soon as the user unlocks the car's systems for modification, the company is no longer responsible for any accident that might happen.
It seems like a rather good compromise to me.
- sneak 10y agoThe car company is already not responsible for any accident that might happen. The operator of the vehicle is responsible for safe operation, period.
- jacalata 10y agoYea, that's why nobody blamed Toyota for any crashes caused by faulty brakes and they didn't have to spend millions recalling all those cars at all.
- dhimes 10y agoNo, car companies are sued when defective equipment causes an accident. They would have to take measures to ensure that consumer-modified equipment that causes an accident is not blamed on them.
- sneak 10y agoDefective equipment is not the issue here.
- mveety 10y agoExcept for failures not caused by poor maintenance or poor/reckless driving. Like if your rear diff falls out because the bolts weren't done up at the factory, etc.
- zekevermillion 10y agoI'm sure user modification of functional systems would void the warranty. That is a separate issue from third-party liability, though, because the third-party victims are not party to the warranty.