Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 377 posts

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#341

Post by alias_neo »

Silhouette wrote: post #231
alias_neo wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I understand, and I have done so in the past and won, after speaking with both OnePlus and Amazon I came away feeling that it was my fault. I had a case on the phone which I removed just an hour earlier because it was dirty underneath, and wit lockdown and working from home I wasn't leaving the house, I saw no need to put it back on, felt like Karma. Yes I believe the design contributed significantly to it b…

That's totally fair enough. You have to pick the fights you think are worth taking, and if it's just going to cause you stress then maybe this one simply isn't. I hope you manage to sort your phone out one way or another.

Thank you.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#342

Post by deadbunny »

fouric wrote: post #254
deadbunny wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So one Reddit post with zero evidence that has since been deleted? While I understand the distrust I'll take some repeatable evidence (which would be excedingly easy to do) over a random, now deleted Reddit post.

> which would be excedingly easy to do False. You would need to buy (or just randomly happen to have) a smart TV model that exhibits this characteristic, which would be very difficult to find, as there is a very wide spread of smart TV models and features, and obviously this "feature" wouldn't be advertised. This is neither easy nor free. You're also clearly moving the goalposts. You first asked for evidence, and the…

> False. You would need to buy (or just randomly happen to have) a smart TV model that exhibits this characteristic, which would be very difficult to find, as there is a very wide spread of smart TV models and features, and obviously this "feature" wouldn't be advertised. This is neither easy nor free.

If the reddit poster had provided model numbers, not just "Samsung TVs" this would become trivial to verify. They however did not. They also didn't provide any proof other than "it deffo happened guys".

> You're also clearly moving the goalposts. You first asked for evidence, and then discarded the evidence because "it wasn't good enough".

Again, as I stated in my reply while I understand your skepticism and distrust of the industry my standard of evidence is somewhat above one random guy on reddit with no verifiable evidence.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#343

Post by iggldiggl »

marcan_42 wrote: post #312
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be nice if they provided a way to backup your phone before unlocking the bootloader, or at least put a warning that your phone is about to be wiped. I have personally lost data because of this, and there really is no way to backup an android device without having unlocked the bootloader first .

`adb backup` works with the bootloader locked. Unlock, wipe, then restore the backup. It's not perfect, but it gets most of the way there. On the phones I've used (Pixel), there is a warning that unlocking will wipe all data.

"adb backup" doesn't work for apps that have opted out of backups, though.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#344

Post by raxxorrax »

tshaddox wrote: post #63
dodobirdlord wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes they will seek out nearby open WiFi networks to join. There’s concern that in coming years with the spread of 5G availability that smart TVs may start packaging a 5G modem and connecting to cell networks, bypassing the need to be connected to a WiFi network.

Why would 5G make that be a more viable choice for the TV manufacturers than existing widespread cellular networks?

Because getting the data about what people are watching plus maybe input from microphone/camera is more valuable than a contract with mobile carriers that would give good prices to vendors.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#345

Post by raxxorrax »

bserge wrote: post #237
ShaneMcGowan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to find a good non smart tv is impossible now, I want dumb tv and dumb fridge

Get a laser projector, it's life changing.

I think the worst thing about projectors is their noise. I heard lasers are a bit better here, but I only saw a model that was as noisy as the others, while the image wasn't that much or even at all better. That was in the quality segment that use DLP for image modulation. Did this improve in recent years?

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#346

Post by no_time »

roody15 wrote: post #74

Building a surveillance state. Want direct data devices locked down and proprietary (TPM and apple T2). Want devices directly tied to the user. Want to prevent “hacks” that detect snooping or other low level background “proprietary” services that may be running. My two cents. We are rushing to emulate china.

The fact that people are barely talking about this and everyone just accepted it as a new way forward makes me sadder than anything else regarding the future.

I'm starting to think we are the odd ones from the bunch for questioning total state/corporate control over our communications/computation.

I am honestly worried.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#347

Post by raxxorrax »

roody15 wrote: post #228
swayvil wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes. The oligarchs over here look at China and think, "That's a pretty good system".

Kind of. They look at China and see a new super power emerging rapidly. Attempting to copy what has worked in china ASAP.

Neglecting the fact that this is only possible with market access of free countries.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#348

Post by raxxorrax »

chrisseaton wrote: post #178
varispeed wrote: post #117

Why journalists don't call it as fraud? They spent money on drafting this legislation and this is not fit for purpose. But by the looks of it, big money must be behind it so it ticks the box, but does not actually change anything.

> Why journalists don't call it as fraud? Because it's not fraud. Fraud requires obtaining a valuable security by deception. That's not what's going on here. So it's not fraud.

It is protectionism of their business model for customer support, which is a profit center in many modern companies by now. They are not honest about that so you can call that fraud.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#349

Post by bserge »

raxxorrax wrote: post #345
bserge wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get a laser projector, it's life changing.

I think the worst thing about projectors is their noise. I heard lasers are a bit better here, but I only saw a model that was as noisy as the others, while the image wasn't that much or even at all better. That was in the quality segment that use DLP for image modulation. Did this improve in recent years?

Hmm, can't say I've been bothered by noise on any projector. Primarily because the audio system or headphones drown it out. Cooling design hasn't changed much from what I've seen but newer projectors are quieter.

Re: British right to repair law excludes smartphones and computers

#350

Post by netr0ute »

Silhouette wrote: post #320
R0b0t1 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do this all the time with routers. The FCC has been trying to require firmware signing but it has been pushed off for now because there is very little demonstrable harm. I can go buy a bunch of passives off of ebay and make a noisy oscillator that will kill everything for a couple blocks but nobody seems to do it.

I have seen the "very little demonstrable harm" you mentioned with my own eyes in real time. It was little more than serendipity that saved lives that day. If someone did do what you described then IMHO they would be recklessly endangering the lives of others and should be treated accordingly.

What proof do you have? If you can't give a specific example, your argument might as well be corporate PR.
Post reply on HN