10 ms·
It's crazy that me jailbreaking a device voids its warranty, but companies can make these kinds of updates without any real consequence. Customers should have
by thr0wawayf00 5y ago
It's crazy that me jailbreaking a device voids its warranty, but companies can make these kinds of updates without any real consequence.
Customers should have the right to return a device any time if they don't like a particular update to the product. I know it's drastic, but if companies can turn what should be a basic device into an amorphous system that starts serving ads without the end-users consent after purchase, that should constitute a material change to the end product that was not appropriately advertised.
This is the exact kind of thing that consumer protection laws should be able to cover.
- thfuran 5y agoI don't want to return my TV, I want to sue them for the theft of my functional TV and replacement with a superficially similar but vastly inferior alternative.
- thr0wawayf00 5y agoI never said you couldn't sue them. Those of us who would rather not waste the kind of time and money needed to sue an electronics manufacturer would prefer a return option instead.
- thfuran 5y agoWhy should it be the retailers' problem?
- tux1968 5y agoBecause they sold it to you. They're who set the price and took your money. They sold you defective goods. Why shouldn't it be their problem?
- thfuran 5y agoBut they didn't sell defective goods. They sold goods that were fit for purpose, and then the manufacturer deliberately destroyed them.
- tux1968 5y agoThat's between them and their suppliers. They should have picked better suppliers who didn't put them into the position they now find themselves.
- heavyset_go 5y agoSounds like a reason the retailer should either work it out with, or sue, the manufacturer.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> But they didn't sell defective goods. They sold goods that were fit for purpose, and then the manufacturer deliberately destroyed them. You don't see the manufacturer's ability to reach out and destroy the item you've already purchased as a defect in the item?
- mdoms 5y agoIf I buy a Google Home from JB Hifi I am not Google's customer, I am JB Hifi's customer. If they don't want to deal with a huge load of refund claims for Google products they are free not to sell them.
- Bud 5y agoIf the retailer is the only available target, they're a fair target. Make it clear that these products will cost them money if they try to sell them, and they'll stop selling them.
- yeetsfromhellL2 5y agoIf you're lucky you'll be included in a class action and get a $5 check in a few years.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rland 5y agoA class action which may cost the manufacturer 10s of millions of dollars. Yeah, you only get a small check. Yeah, the lawyers get a lot. But what other remedy does the average consumer have against this type of subtle but abusive behavior.
- b112 5y agoSmall claims court.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> I don't want to return my TV, I want to sue them for the theft of my functional TV and replacement with a superficially similar but vastly inferior alternative. So you want to file a lawsuit for damages that would be limited to the value of your TV (possibly reduced by the value of the substitute), instead of getting a refund of the purchase price of your TV? Other than enriching a lawyer, what benefit would that provide you?
- thrtythreeforty 5y agoNo immediate benefit, but it might provide a sufficiently deleterious effect for the manufacturer to effect the desired behavior.
- johnnyanmac 5y agoMaybe. I think it brings about more schadenfreude to just see their sales tank when they realize that maybe people don't want their tv owner to show pop ups on what should simply be a means of presenting content from other services.
- nerdponx 5y agoTheir sales won't tank, because this will start to get rolled out across the industry. They might take a hit for being the first mover, but once this is normalized they will ride the same gravy train as everyone else. This is classic industrial organization economics. These companies know that they are all in tacit collusion agreements with each other. It's not hard to set up "repeated prisoner's dilemma"-type games where collusion is the dominant strategy. Basically, as long as companies know that it's in their long-term best interest to all do the same thing, then they will all do the same thing, even if it might yield some extra profit in the short term to deviate. The only way to stop this garbage is to make it so bad for companies to engage in this behavior that the costs outweigh the benefits. Given the above situation, where the supply of alternative goods is likely to dry up, the only other forms of recourse are punitive court damages or prohibitive policy/law from a suitably powerful government.
- gruez 5y ago>I want to sue them for the theft of my functional TV and replacement with a superficially similar but vastly inferior alternative. You're free to sue them, but I suspect the lawsuit is going to get tossed almost immediately. Do you really think a multi-billion dollar company is going to expose themselves to a theft lawsuit?
- KennyBlanken 5y agoThis arguably falls under the implied warranty for fitness / merchantability and I don't think it's remotely a given that a lawsuit would be tossed.
- judge2020 5y agoJailbreaking a device doesn’t void its warranty in many/most places; consumer protection laws override those illegal warranty lines that say otherwise. If you ever have real trouble getting something fixed on your device just reset it to a non-jailbroken stare and they won’t know the software was ever modified.
- hsbauauvhabzb 5y agoSome jailbreaks blow fuses in devices. Pretty sure Samsung phones do this.
- Siira 5y agoHow do they notice the jailbreak?
- hsbauauvhabzb 5y agoI think they provide the tools to jailbreak. With a kernel exploit to trigger it may be possible to bypass, but then it becomes a cat and mouse game, which would presumably be easier for the vendor to win (detect any program running as root, any root kits, etc, all which can be added in surprise patches). Plus, if you provide an official jailbreak, that removes some incentive for security researchers to discover new jailbreaks.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
- sen 5y agoI comment this under any similar threads in the past and will continue to for any Australians who don’t know, but this would be a valid reason for a return/refund under Australian law. A company can’t remove or “functionally change” features after you’ve bought a product, or if they do, you’re allowed to return it for a refund. I’ve done this in the past with a few different pieces of tech already, such as Bose speakers and a Samsung TV.
- fernly 5y agoWhat kind of "functional change" did Bose do to your speakers, and how? And what happened when you took them -- where? -- to return them?
- mdoms 5y agoIn both NZ and Australia all returns/refunds and most warranty claims can be done through the retailer who sold you the product. Part of doing business in these markets is being the middle man between the manufacturer and the end customer.
- spookthesunset 5y agoSo how does this law affect smartphones?
- mdoms 5y agoSame way it affects anything else, not sure I understand your question.
- dylan604 5y agoSmart phones are ~annually getting major updates that change the functionality of the device. You typically can't revert back either. Some people might not like how the new method of doing something is different than the old. However, you are not forced to apply the update. So that's a bit different. So how does this affect smart phones? ;-)
- stavros 5y agoSimilarly, my Sony TV updated and now freezes when I try to watch Netflix (I have to unplug it from mains). I hate that I can't return it because it's not in warranty, but this isn't the TV breaking, it's Sony deliberately ruining it.
- db48x 5y agoYou have the option of small claims court if they won’t refund you or repair it.
- stryker7001 5y agoif its not in warranty, why would small claims court matter?
- db48x 5y agoThe warranty is irrelevant. If Sony (or whoever it was) sent an employee to your house to break your TV, you would sue them. The fact that they broke your TV via the internet doesn’t change that. The size of the loss would probably be the price of a new TV, so you would qualify for small–claims court rather than the normal civil court.
- mrjin 5y agoWell, seems Sony TVs have lots of issue related with Apps. Mine had tones of problems with YouTube. Didn't know that we could actually try to return it then. Was thinking of get a new one and kids cracked the screen. So we got a Samsung. In general we are happy with it but there is one thing drove me nuts: there is no dedicated button to switch video sources. As long as it can show images and play sound correctly, those are really non-issues as I'm using Android TV boxes anyway. So disconnect the TV from internet and use a TV box instead, all issue resolved.
- stavros 5y agoWe have one, but there are issues with CEC and we can't use one remote, and two is not as convenient.
- nescioquid 5y agoThis is the precise sentiment that I've had each time I've found PlayStation wants to update itself. With each update, I found the device I purchased to be worth less. If silicon could be depressed, I'd call it Sony.
- sva_ 5y ago> jailbreaking a device voids its warranty In the EU, I'm fairly sure it doesn't.
- systemvoltage 5y agoI’m usually against any legislation for government interfering in a free marketplace but this I can get behind. It won’t be a loss for the vendor since they get their TV back, just teaches them a lesson to not fuck with my stuff. One question though, “liking” something is subjective and ripe for abuse. Use the TV for 5 years and then return it back because consumer wants to take unfair advantage of the law. It can grossly backfire.
- messe 5y agoI’m curious, why are you usually against government interference given that you’ve apparently managed to identify at least one instance in which it is a benefit to the consumer? My own view on regulation of markets is that it is just an incorporation of externalities into the market (better reflecting the actual “costs”)
- systemvoltage 5y agoBecause it usually leads to terrible implementation. Lawmakers have very little clue about technology, have you see our Congressmen (assuming you're American)? No one thinks about externalities or loopholes. The entire house-of-cards is built for better polling and public approval, not about actually improving anything. Ultimately public loses, politicians gain polling points, and corporations exploit loopholes that are designed into the system. But HN usually never fails to have a kneejerk reaction to any discomfort with "let's legislate it".
- nicoburns 5y agoWorth noting that a lot of HN lives in Europe which seems to manage to legislate these things a lot better. My own view is that the US failings in this area are in large part the fault of the “small government, no regulations” crowd hamstringing legislation and giving lobbying groups a chance to influence proceedings. If government jobs were considered higher status (a cultural issue) then there likely wouldn’t be nearly as much corruption.
- 5y ago
- notatoad 5y agopeople underappreciate how much big-box stores are willing to take returns. if you bought a TV at wal-mart and years later it started showing ads, you can take it back. smaller retailers might not have the same terms with their vendors, but for the big ones they can and will pass that through to the original vendor, and that stuff is all tracked. return rates are a big metric that vendors use to measure customer satisfaction and figure out what they can get away with.
- charcircuit 5y agoMost people already would have thrown away the box / packaging / manuals after some years.
- yumraj 5y agoBox is not required in such cases, at least not with Costco.
- beagle3 5y agoI know someone who kept “updating” their TV every year by taking advantage of Costco’s generous return policy. After the 4th time, they let him know they won’t be doing it anymore — I don’t know if that was a whole-store change or it applied specifically to him.
- wccrawford 5y agoCostco was saying they wouldn't do it for that person any more. It's still very much their policy to take back returns for products you don't like or that broke. You just can't abuse the policy. It may take them years to detect that abuse, but they'll stop you when they do.
- stryker7001 5y agowhat is the point of this comment?
- 5y ago
- yumraj 5y agoI wonder if someone can take this to small claims court over this. At best the company will take the TV back, at worst you can approach the local TV station to publicize this issue.
- gumby 5y agohow will the local news station feel when they discover that the TV can show ads during the local news? Possibly overwriting the local ads?* And the local news doesn't get a cut? * most of local news is just "native advertising" anyway, like that piece on the latest kitchen shelves or the upcoming "fleet week" or the local basketball team's star.
- stryker7001 5y ago
- gumby 5y agoSo what do you think the answer is? Odious as I think this feature is, I would hope that the local tv channels would not have a leg to stand on (same reason I can run an ad blocker — the sender doesn’t have the right to control how I watch). But they can whip up local opinion.
- xtracto 5y agoI thought these type of comments weren't allowed on HN.
- the_only_law 5y agoGP is flagged.
- kragen 5y ago> Customers should have the right to return a device any time if they don't like a particular update to the product. I know it's drastic That's not nearly drastic enough. Customers should have the right to know what potential updates to the product do in advance, to refuse any particular update to the product, and to roll it back if they don't like it, as well as making any other update to the product they want. That's how products have worked for thousands of years, it's how computer products work when they're running free software, and it's an absolute bare minimum to preserve basic liberal rights like freedom of speech and freedom of association. A future world where X Æ A-Xii Musk can have your Tesla car reprogrammed to scan what you say in the car for possible anti-Tesla sentiment is not a free world.* The fact that even getting your money back after manufacturers vandalize your product after purchase to spy on you sounds "drastic" to many of us is an indication of how far we've fallen into a dystopian future even Stallman wasn't pessimistic enough to imagine 20 years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know how we can get these rights in practice without requiring all software in consumer products to be open source/free software, and the software industry is currently organized in a way that is extremely hostile to that course of action. To a significant extent it wouldn't require positive action by regulators; merely refusing to enforce copyright on software would get us most of the way there. Someone would still have to figure out how to update the Vizio Flash chip and reverse-engineer the Vizio drivers, while a successfully enforced GPLv3 would require Vizio to help them, but at least without software copyright they could do it without any fear of legal repercussions. And Linux isn't under GPLv3, iOS isn't under any GPL, and enforcement of even the weaker GPLv2 against Vizio has so far been unsuccessful. So, at least for the next couple of decades, we are sort of doomed to endure this sort of thing. Maybe a new free software movement founded today could change these things for the better starting 20 or 30 years from now. ______ * Maybe X Æ A-Xii is such a good person that he would never do such a thing, but historically speaking, structural guarantees of individual liberty have been much more effective at promoting the public welfare than ceding unlimited power to either rulers (who we hope are benevolent) or to "the will of the people", as amply demonstrated by the blood-drenched history of human dictatorships. Some rulers really are benevolent, but nobody remains in power forever. There's no guarantee X Æ A-Xii's heir will be so benevolent.
- CyberDildonics 5y agoModern software and modern devices always seem to turn into a giant bait and switch.
- sb057 5y agoNot only does jailbreaking not break warranties, it's illegal for companies to imply that they do: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/04/ftc-staff-warns-companies-it-illegal-condition-warranty-coverage https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/04/ftc-s...
- KennyBlanken 5y agoThat press release in no way relates to jailbreaking, but to requirements to use branded parts... However, yes, Magnuson-Moss also specifies that manufacturers must honor a warranty unless they can prove the failure happened due to damage or misuse caused by the customer. That (I believe) is why jailbreaking alone can't invalidate a warranty by itself.
- mcronce 5y agoNot that that stops companies from making you believe arbitrary modifications will wholesale void your warranty. The crackdown on "warranty void if removed" stickers is better than nothing, but your rights don't mean a thing if you don't know you have them.
- MertsA 5y agoAnd yet it's still commonplace for electronics to come with stickers saying "Warranty void if seal broken" despite what the law actually states. Magnuson-Moss was passed in 1975. It has been 47 years and still corporations flout the law with impunity. Does it really matter what the law is if the government refuses to enforce it?
- orev 5y agoI agree that this is distasteful, however one could argue that capitalism is working in this case (it just doesn’t usually work as fast as people would like). Who’s going to buy a Visio TV anymore? Or a Samsung? Those companies are on every techie’s shitlist, and from there the word gets out (through reviews and word of mouth), that eventually normal people stop buying them.
- throwawayboise 5y agoNo they won't. Normal people don't care about this stuff.
- db48x 5y agoJailbreaking, repairing, or even modifying a device does not void the warranty in the US. It hasn’t since the 70’s. That people still think that it does is pretty sad.
- stryker7001 5y agodude. the 70s were like 50 years ago. you think tech has not evolved since then?
- prmoustache 5y agoThe tech is not the law.
- db48x 5y agoThe tech doesn’t matter. You own the devices you have bought, and nothing you do to those devices voids the warranty.
- Abishek_Muthian 5y agoFirst it was, 'Our product is free, So you need to stake your privacy and with it your ability to focus'. Now, 'Your privacy and focus is ours even if you pay for our HARDWARE'. Unless, consumers start seeing advertisements as an insult to their intellect this will get worse.