> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Craig Sanders > Sent: Friday, 29 November 2013 11:52 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Firefox OS and ZTE phone > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 09:48:32AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > > On this topic, see > > http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/cyanogenmod-installer-application- > removed-from-play-store > > > > Which is also rubbish IMHO. > > yep. but google (and htc and samsung and just about every other > manufacturer of every other kind of product) wants you to think that > some trivial action means that you've magically voided your statutory > rights.
You are correct about the statuatory rights, but the common "repair or replace, at our option" style clause can still be applied without in any way voiding those rights. They could choose the repair option and send the device back to the manufacturer. The manufacturer could then perform hardware level tests and finding no fault at the hardware level, they could then reply that the it is not a warranty repair, and offer to reflash the stock ROM images as a chargable repair or return the item unrepaired. > > if they can convince enough people and put enough annoying obstacles in > the way (e.g. arguing your way past a drone parroting the company line > even though it contradicts the law is an unenjoyable and time-wasting > PITA) then they can massively reduce - or eliminate entirely - the > number of people who actually try to make use of their warranty rights. > > > same as many retail shops post illegal signs like "no refunds" or > have company policies that tell you that you have to deal with the > manufacturer directly (illegal in this country) or refuse cash refunds > and only allow exchange or store credit. (you can't demand to return a > product just because you changed your mind, but if the item is broken or > not fit for the purpose it was sold for, then you have a right to refuse > an exchange and insist on a refund) > > (MSY, for example, have been caught out with crap like this in the past > and have been forced to post signs in their shops advising consumers of > their statutory rights) > > > > I haven't voided the warranty on my Desktop computer by installing > > Linux on it. Why should it matter if my computer is considerably > > smaller and has a touch screen instead of a keyboard/mouse? > > you haven't and it doesn't. they just want you to think you have so you > don't bother them if/when the hardware fails. In this case however, it is not a hardware failure. With old motherboards, the BIOS was stored in a removable EEPROM. You can hardly argue that replacing such an EEPROM with a third party BIOS EEPROM would be covered by the motherboard manufacturer's warranty. Flashing the ROM on the phone is equivalent to erasing and rewriting the contents of a motherboards EEPROM. The hardware would still be 100% original with no hardware faults, but the board still would not boot. Modern motherboards are even easier to corrupt the BIOS as no uncommon hardware is required (ie, no EEPROM programmer). Even when installing linux on a desktop PC, if the installation crashes or corrupts the hard drive, so that you can't boot the PC, the original supplier can't be expected to class that as a warranty claim. Regards, Morrie. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
