101–110 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the case, why don't they already do this? It's totally feasible to design a phone that will brick itself when your contract ends. There's no legal impediment to doing it either.
Because nobody would buy such a phone. They might wish but can't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That Norwegian decision is a travesty as presented here, how can a repair infringe on a trademark and how on Earth did that not lead to an appeal. Using aftermarket parts is a well established practice in automotive, I see absolutely no reason why that would not extend to phones. Are they going to demand cars are only repaired with OEM parts as well?
In the Norwegian case it turned out refurbishing company was the one printing additional Apple logos on _non Apple_ parts of the display. Its one thing to refurbish a display by gluing replacement glass on original LCD. Its another to then plaster the glass part with Apple logos and fake serial numbers.
Where did you get this? There is no such thing mentioned in the verdict nor any reporting. The closest you can find is one of the prior cases the court references where a fishery tools seller used logos of another company.
How are they going to enforce that? Halt aufhören und aufhören show me your phone show me your stock ROM
What if you build your own phone with a Pi, or similar?
Edit: Access to mobile networks is a deep rabbit hole and you might immeditately run into issues regarding patented algorithms. But you can integrate an off-the-shelf module and keep it at arms length to your system. If you're fine being stuck on 3G. The bigger issues are you will have similar issues with the hardware. Unless RISC-V takes off and yields some affordable, auditable hardware, the ROM concerns still apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Governments should not enforce international trade agreements on the off-chance that someone somewhere might have an epiphany while installing illegal software? No.
The term "illegal" deserves some definition. Arguing that something is forbidden because it is illegal is circular reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you driven any modern BMW's? If size is your issue the M2 Competition is far superior to the E46 M3, and the F80 M3 is far superior to the E39 M5 and E60 M5.
Superior is an opinion just like mine. I’ve not driven a modern M but I’ve driven the 330d and 420i loads and they’re incredibly dull. I’m sure the Ms are more fun and advanced and the fake engine noise pumped in to the cabin is exciting and all .. ;-)
The increased performance is the only reason to buy an M over a lesser trim. Performance metrics are as objective as you can get and modern BMW's are far superior in that regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Superior is an opinion just like mine. I’ve not driven a modern M but I’ve driven the 330d and 420i loads and they’re incredibly dull. I’m sure the Ms are more fun and advanced and the fake engine noise pumped in to the cabin is exciting and all .. ;-)
>Superior is an opinion just like mine. The increased performance is the only reason to buy an M over a lesser trim. Performance metrics are as objective as you can get and modern BMW's are far superior in that regard.
People like different things. E.g. some people might prefer cars that sound louder but are slower over a quiet cabin and faster.
Some people might think the engine is the only important aspect and prefer older engines.
And who said we're only talking M?
Chill...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Superior is an opinion just like mine. The increased performance is the only reason to buy an M over a lesser trim. Performance metrics are as objective as you can get and modern BMW's are far superior in that regard.
You're really over interpreting my initial comment and not wanting to believe people have preferences. People like different things. E.g. some people might prefer cars that sound louder but are slower over a quiet cabin and faster. Some people might think the engine is the only important aspect and prefer older engines. And who said we're only talking M? Chill...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're really over interpreting my initial comment and not wanting to believe people have preferences. People like different things. E.g. some people might prefer cars that sound louder but are slower over a quiet cabin and faster. Some people might think the engine is the only important aspect and prefer older engines. And who said we're only talking M? Chill...
Why else would you buy an E46 M3 over another E46 3 series if you didn't care about performance? According to you it's the last good car BMW made. The M2 Comp is an objectively better car than the E46 M3 if you care about performance, which you certainly do. Stop playing the victim because you suddenly don't want to have a discussion about a comment you made on a public forum.