3 ms·
I know a common line for vehicles was basically: 3rd party parts (and service) can't be guaranteed to be to the same quality as 1st party parts (and service) wh
by greycol 7y ago
I know a common line for vehicles was basically:
3rd party parts (and service) can't be guaranteed to be to the same quality as 1st party parts (and service) which can cause extra wear and disruptions to other parts of the vehicle even if they're not immediately apparent. Since we can't control what part 3rd parties use (or level of service) we restrict repair to our licensed repairers (via drm, patents, custom tooling, and/or lack of documentation).
It's somewhat justified in that it theoretically protects customers and the companies reputation.
Personally I don't disagree with this argument but I don't believe it to be sufficient to justify the extra cost and inconvenience to customers over a percentage of poor acting repairers and part suppliers.
- magduf 7y agoThe problem with that argument is that the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 clearly gives consumers the right to repair their own devices, and prevents manufacturers from denying warranty claims unless they can prove that 3rd-party parts of service caused the specific problem. These arguments have been used before with cars, and they've been shot down.