5 ms·

That seems like a surefire way to attract the next EU regulation.

thebruce87m 2y ago
Why? Letting people know if a part is genuine empowers the user. I can’t think of a single reason that giving them more information is a bad thing. The last time they didn’t let people know about battery information they were fined heavily, even though it prevented unwanted behaviour (reboots). If a third party battery can’t supply peak current demand, they will have to alert.
- PontifexMinimus 2y ago
  > Letting people know if a part is genuine empowers the user. And putting DRM on hardware to prevent people using third-party peripherals disempowers the user, and should be illegal.
  - thebruce87m 2y ago
    > And putting DRM on hardware to prevent people using third-party peripherals disempowers the user, and should be illegal. This is not relevant to this discussion.
    - g15jv2dp 2y ago
      Who are you to decide that? I find the concern very relevant to the discussion.
      - thebruce87m 2y ago
        Because in my original reply I said “alerts” and not “blocks using drm”? I have a preference for OEM parts. Other people can use a third party battery. Given the fire hazard on cheap batteries, I’ll pass.
        PontifexMinimus 2y ago
        > Because in my original reply I said “alerts” and not “blocks using drm”? And how soon before manufacturers move from the first to the second, if they are not stopped by law? I have no objection to alerts per se, as long as it is done in a non-obnoxious way.
        thebruce87m 2y ago
        Not sure, but if it was my own company I’d want to block third party batteries to ensure my users get the experience that I have designed and tested for. If that wasn’t legal, then I’d want to at least log it. That way when someone claims my product burned down their house, I would have proof that it wasn’t my battery that did it. This isn’t bullet proof however- if you are a big enough company the media headlines will still have your product in the headline, and you’d be lucky if the main body mentioned the manufacturer of the fault-causing component.
- microtherion 2y ago
  Ah, I think I get the disconnect between you and others (including me) in this discussion: Currently, iPhones REFUSE to work if certain parts are not genuine. Theoretically, it would be possible to do the detection strictly on an informational basis ("Your battery is not a genuine Apple part. Go ahead, but don't blame us for issues.")
xboxnolifes 2y ago
As long as it doesn't prevent (or add frustration) you from using third-party batteries it doesn't seem like a bad thing.
ralferoo 2y ago
And whatever they come up with will get reverse engineered anyway. A few years back when phone batteries were almost always replaceable anyway, when buying replacement batteries you'd have expensive genuine batteries, expensive fake batteries, cheap fake batteries. It almost always made sense to buy the cheap fake ones knowing you might have to replacement them again sooner, than pay for the expensive one only to find it was exactly the same as the cheap one anyway. I kind of think if there's DRM, the market will gravitate more towards expensive fake rather than cheap fake.
- paulmd 2y ago
  > It almost always made sense to buy the cheap fake ones knowing you might have to replacement them again sooner, lovely how people throw away a working system that prevents this problem and returns us to the path of e-waste, while opposing even the idea of notifying the user about fake parts, all ostensibly in the name of preventing e-waste.

Why? Letting people know if a part is genuine empowers the user. I can’t think of a single reason that giving them more information is a bad thing. The last time they didn’t let people know about battery information they were fined heavily, even though it prevented unwanted behaviour (reboots). If a third party battery can’t supply peak current demand, they will have to alert.

PontifexMinimus 2y ago
> Letting people know if a part is genuine empowers the user. And putting DRM on hardware to prevent people using third-party peripherals disempowers the user, and should be illegal.
- thebruce87m 2y ago
  > And putting DRM on hardware to prevent people using third-party peripherals disempowers the user, and should be illegal. This is not relevant to this discussion.
  - g15jv2dp 2y ago
    Who are you to decide that? I find the concern very relevant to the discussion.
    - thebruce87m 2y ago
      Because in my original reply I said “alerts” and not “blocks using drm”? I have a preference for OEM parts. Other people can use a third party battery. Given the fire hazard on cheap batteries, I’ll pass.
      - PontifexMinimus 2y ago
        > Because in my original reply I said “alerts” and not “blocks using drm”? And how soon before manufacturers move from the first to the second, if they are not stopped by law? I have no objection to alerts per se, as long as it is done in a non-obnoxious way.
        thebruce87m 2y ago
        Not sure, but if it was my own company I’d want to block third party batteries to ensure my users get the experience that I have designed and tested for. If that wasn’t legal, then I’d want to at least log it. That way when someone claims my product burned down their house, I would have proof that it wasn’t my battery that did it. This isn’t bullet proof however- if you are a big enough company the media headlines will still have your product in the headline, and you’d be lucky if the main body mentioned the manufacturer of the fault-causing component.
microtherion 2y ago
Ah, I think I get the disconnect between you and others (including me) in this discussion: Currently, iPhones REFUSE to work if certain parts are not genuine. Theoretically, it would be possible to do the detection strictly on an informational basis ("Your battery is not a genuine Apple part. Go ahead, but don't blame us for issues.")

xboxnolifes 2y ago

As long as it doesn't prevent (or add frustration) you from using third-party batteries it doesn't seem like a bad thing.

ralferoo 2y ago

And whatever they come up with will get reverse engineered anyway. A few years back when phone batteries were almost always replaceable anyway, when buying replacement batteries you'd have expensive genuine batteries, expensive fake batteries, cheap fake batteries. It almost always made sense to buy the cheap fake ones knowing you might have to replacement them again sooner, than pay for the expensive one only to find it was exactly the same as the cheap one anyway. I kind of think if there's DRM, the market will gravitate more towards expensive fake rather than cheap fake.

paulmd 2y ago
> It almost always made sense to buy the cheap fake ones knowing you might have to replacement them again sooner, lovely how people throw away a working system that prevents this problem and returns us to the path of e-waste, while opposing even the idea of notifying the user about fake parts, all ostensibly in the name of preventing e-waste.