4 ms·
Hmmmm. Step 1: Buy new car Step 2: Replace engine with something other than OEM. Step 3: Complain when car's ECU does not run engine.
by grecy 9y ago
Hmmmm.
Step 1: Buy new car
Step 2: Replace engine with something other than OEM.
Step 3: Complain when car's ECU does not run engine.
- ryandrake 9y agoThis seems closer to: 1. But new car 2. Replace broken windshield with something other than OEM 3. Complain when car refuses to start because its computer detected a non OEM windshield.
- snowwrestler 9y agoMost car windshields don't have sensors, microprocessors, driver code, etc.
- TYPE_FASTER 9y agoI had my rain sensing windshield replaced. The insurance company refused to replace with an OEM windshield. The windshield company said it would be fine. It was not fine. Rain sensing didn't work again for the rest of the time I owned the car.
- r00fus 9y agoSounds like you should reopen the case with the insurance company. Are they allowed to substitute a non-performing part just because it's cheaper?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- krangu 9y agoMore like Step 1: Buy a new car Step 2: Replace engine with something other than OEM Step 2.33: Car runs fine Step 2.66: Manufacturer comes to your house and 'fixes' your ECU while you're asleep Step 3: Complain when car's ECU does not run engine
- axoltl 9y agoSo the manufacturer is not allowed to make everyone's ECU better because you decided to replace your engine with an older model?
- maltalex 9y agoWhat if the manufacturer didn’t do this to make everyone’s ECU better, but specifically to discourage users from buying third party parts? I’m asking hypothetically of course...
- recursive 9y agoYou changed the premise. What's being made better? The change being discussed is broken phones. That's not better. Hypothetically, that could be from a change that makes something better. Is there any reason to believe it though?
- axoltl 9y agoFun fact, it'd actually be illegal for Apple to disable devices if it detects a replacement part. There are anti-trust laws against 'tying agreements', and forcing consumers to only buy components from Apple (due to tie-in) would be violating those laws. That said, those laws don't say anything about having to interoperate with an inferior part. So assuming Apple isn't willfully violating anti-trust laws, we can be fairly sure the change was intended to improve some aspect of the touch controller. Note: There are exceptions if the tying serves a purpose other than maintaining a monopoly (such as the security pairing between the TouchID sensor and FaceID camera).
- tajen 9y agoStep 2.66: Manufacturer pokes you until you let him upgrade...