3 ms·
That approach has many perverse incentives. Fortunately, we've already figured this one out: manufacturers should only be able to disavow their warranties if th
by notsapiensatall 4y ago
That approach has many perverse incentives. Fortunately, we've already figured this one out: manufacturers should only be able to disavow their warranties if they can prove that a modification caused the need for a repair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...
- kbenson 4y agoWhich, maybe an appropriately placed sticker can help determine. Note I said help. Whether the sticker is enforceable or not, it's an easy way for the manufacturer to know whether the user even accessed internals that aren't required for normal operation, streamlining some warranty cases. TL;DR - invalidating because of sticker bad, using present sticker to fast track warranty cases good.
- karamanolev 4y agoInvalidating because of sticker - bad. So sticker saying so is also bad. OK if sticker says "Breaking seal at own responsibility" might be a measurable improvement. Let's not pretend we haven't seen 1001 cases of "You've upgraded your laptop's RAM, so the laptop hinges that we see break in thousands of laptops is your own fault" (Dell).
- kbenson 4y agoSure, I kind of assumed that when used appropriately in this way it would say something appropriate that wasn't untrue as well, such as "warranty implications if broken", which them people might at least be interested in looking up what those implications are (presumably longer turnaround time as it needs more investigation).