car boot find

[Diver Fred]

Cases that 'clip' together but to ensure the case cannot be opened because it has been glued as well. You then need to know where and how much heat to apply to soften the glue.

 

[Jurassicspark]

I'm actually far more concerned about companies turning off servers which products need to connect to to work, or bricking devices which had been sold on the basis of a one-off full purchase price and then demanding monthly susbcription payments to make them work again, or deleting digital downloads which had been sold on the basis of a one-off full purchase price from people's libraries, or using Ts&Cs to redefine words like "buy", "sell", "purchase", "own", or having password-protected reset codes for EV battery packs, than I am screwhead choice.

Well in todays digital and connected world the concept of ownership is evolving and that’s not necessarily a bad thing and while it may feel uncomfortable when companies use terms like “buy” or “own” as you have said for something that can later be revoked or altered this reflects a fdundamental shift in how products and services are deliuvered and increasingly we are not purchasing static objects but rather access to ongoing services whether that’s cloud connected software, digital media, or hardware that requirews continuous updates to function properly. This way allows companies to provide real-time improvements, security patches, and enhanced features, which simply wouldn't be sustainable under the traditional one-time purchase model and in this sense suibscriptions and remote server dependencies aren’t really a betrayal. Serveer shutdowns and digital product discontinuations are understandably frustrating but they are often necessary from a business perspective. Maintaining servers securing outdated software, and continuing support for products witg shrinking user bases all come at significant cost. When a company ends support for a connected device or app, it’s usually because resources are being reallocated to newer better systems, dont you agree? Or am I missing and the very innovation that consumers often demand. While ideally companies would offer legacy options or open-source solutions, that’s not always feasible due to licensing, security, or liability concerns and people like you may feel frustrated but the alternative stagnation and vulnerability may be worse. Digital deletions of previously purchased content, such as movies or games, are rare and usually stem from broader licensing complications rather than unilateral actions by companies. Consumers may not always realize that they’re purchasing a license to access content not the content itself in a permanent sense and just as music rights change hands or film distribution rights expire digital content can disappear when the underlying agreements break down. It may be but frustrating it reflects the global nature of content licensing, which also enables consumers to access a vast amount of material at affordable prices that physical ownership models never could have offered.

Maybe they should become so, these days.

How could we achieve this and would you be interested if you are not keen on DIYing but would be keen on a single matter i.e whenever a device broke down.

Maybe people like that shouldn't be opening things up?

Fine.

When you open up a phone, or a laptop, you'll find components right to the very edge of the case. So whose "fault" is it if, even after they've removed the screws, someone breaks something by using a screwdriver to lever the case open because they don't own a spudger?

The customer if not informed about the method of opening but surely that question arises no matter what type of screw is used.

Apple have always been venal scum when it comes to them keeping their sticky fingers on repair actions.

You have a point there like say you want to replace the screen on an iphone. Even if you use an official Apple screen maybe taken from another iPhone i heard it won’t work properly unless apples internal system approves that specific part for that specific phone. You’ll get warnings about "non-genuine parts" Face ID might stop working, and features like True Tone just disappear and it's like the phone’s tattling on you for fixing it without permission.


and this isn’t just for screens, batteries, cameras, and so on they’re all tied to the motherboard via software pairing. Apple holds the “pairing” tools hostage in their internal repair system, which only apple Stores and a few authorized repair shops get access to. So even if you're a skilled technician with highend gear and a genuine Apple part, you can still get locked out of a proper repair because you don’t have their permission and if the part is not genuine like a battery then the battery health wont be visible so you wont be able to know when to repair it again.

It’s like they sold you the car but welded the hood shut and if you try to open it they tell you you're voiding the warranty and breaking their sacred trust or whatever.

I think I'm a lot readier than you to simply say that maybe these days it should be "usual" for people to have Torx screwdrivers.

But I agree, it doesn't end there - what about pentalobe, tri-wing, hex-head, security heads...

Seriously - if you want to take the fight to companies blocking people's ability to repair, there are more significant, and more urgent, battles to fight than what screws are used.




Not sure what you mean by "I don't think I'll be able to repair my cars with what example you have provided." - the point I was making is that once upon a time people's shed/garage toolbox contained Whitworth & BSF spanners, and nobody is complaining that now it has to have imperial and metric A/F.




You missed the point - I probably wasn't explicit enough.

You'd been complaining about people facing hurdles because all they have are flat-head and Phillips screwdrivers. My point was that even if the head type wasn't an issue, even if laptops and phones only used slotted and Phillips screws, people still wouldn't be able to open them with the tools in the old biscuit tin in their kitchen drawer, unless they'd thought to equip themselves with 1mm flat-heads and PH000s.

That is a point too. So laptops/phones may be excluded here.

If I buy something it becomes mine (or at least, it should), so if I want to tamper with it, that's down to me.

And makers cannot void warranties just because a customer has opened something. Take my example above - removing the screws and popping open the case of a laptop to replace the battery does not void any warranty on the motherboard. Removing the screws and popping open the case by jamming a big screwdriver in the edge and thus ripping a SMD off the motherboard does.

But when a manufacturer sells a device under warranty they’re not just selling the product there are offering a guarantee that it will function to a certain standard provided it remains in the condition they delivered it in. Once a customer opens the device even if they’re being careful they’ve introduced variables that the manufacturer can’t control or verify. Maybe the person used the wrong tools, maybe they generated static electricity and caused minor damage that won’t show up until later or maybe they loosened a component slightly without realizing it.

From that perspective, the company might argue: “We can’t assess risk case-by-case. The only way to protect the integrity of our warranty is to make it clear if you open it, you’re on your own.”

 

[Jurassicspark]

Actually a bit of research shows consumer protection laws, especially in places like the US and EU, manufacturers legally can’t void your warranty just because you opened the device unless they can prove your actions caused the damage. So if you remove the screws pop the case carefully, and change a battery without screwing up the mother baord or whatever board? Your warranty should still stand....

 

[morqthana]

Well in todays digital and connected world the concept of ownership is evolving and that’s not necessarily a bad thing

No, it is not necessarily a bad thing.

But it may necessarily be an atrocious, disgusting, vile, unacceptable, uncivilised, lying, thieving, immoral thing.

and while it may feel uncomfortable when companies use terms like “buy” or “own” as you have said for something that can later be revoked or altered this reflects a fdundamental shift in how products and services are deliuvered

It's not a "fundamental shift", it's an unconscionable theft of something somebody has bought.

If I buy, not rent, hire, lease, or borrow something - if I buy it, it is mine, and it is mine for ever.

As Louis Rossmann points out, he lives in Texas. Were Sony to send someone into his house to remove a Sony Music CD which he had bought from his shelf he could shoot them. And yet if they extend a digital hand into his digital library and remove a digital product which he had bought, that's supposed to be OK?

and increasingly we are not purchasing static objects but rather access to ongoing services whether that’s cloud connected software, digital media, or hardware that requirews continuous updates to function properly. This way allows companies to provide real-time improvements, security patches, and enhanced features, which simply wouldn't be sustainable under the traditional one-time purchase model

Effing nonsense.

I have a 4-year old Dell laptop running Windows 10. If, when Windows 10 goes out of support I carry on running it, what will happen is that Microsoft will stop providing updates and patches for it. They will not reach out and delete it from my laptop. At no time will Dell ever remotely install a new UEFI version which stops it from booting.

Real-time improvements, security patches, and enhanced features, are perfectly sustainable under the traditional one-time purchase model.

and in this sense suibscriptions and remote server dependencies aren’t really a betrayal.

They are a betrayal right from the day a product is sold. Why does a central heating thermostat need to be connected to the manufacturers servers in order to work?

Answer, it doesn't.

But they make it that way so that they have control, because it gives them the ability to make it stop working, or to start screwing their customers over for subscription fees, or to force them to toss it out and buy a new one.

Serveer shutdowns and digital product discontinuations are understandably frustrating but they are often necessary from a business perspective.

Like the way that Futurehome went into bankruptcy, resurrected itself with 50% owned by the former owners, and then bricked the devices of 70,000 customers until they signed up for a subscription service so that Futurehome could make more money? And when I say "bricked", I don't mean that they just shut down the servers, they flashed a s/w update to customer devices so that they wouldn't even have local functionality.

Maintaining servers securing outdated software, and continuing support for products witg shrinking user bases all come at significant cost. When a company ends support for a connected device or app, it’s usually because resources are being reallocated to newer better systems, dont you agree?

No, I wouldn't.

One needs to look at whether close integration with the manufacturers servers was ever truly needed, whether it was ever truly impossible to make the product work only over the customer's local network, or whether they just set it up that way so that they would have a stick to beat customers with in the future.

But anyway - I'm done with this, and I'm done with you. The fact that you are arguing in favour of these sorts of practices whilst at the same time decrying manufacturers who use Torx screws for having a "philosophy (which) contributes to a larger ecosystem of passive resistance to user access a subtle but very real barrier between the consumer and the product they supposedly own" shows that you're just arguing for the sake of it.

You criticise somebody for using a Torx screw, but defend them when they deliberately break or delete what you bought? Beggars belief.

People accuse me of being argumentative, and yes, I am, but all of my arguments are genuine, and consistent, and they are arguing in favour of opinions I genuinely hold. You're just tossing out any old mish mash of stuff purely to argue.

Still, at least it means I don't have to spend any more time finishing my reply to the last pile of BS you wrote about shower isolators.

Just like EFLItroll you're gone.

Goodbye.

 

[simplesteve]

JP and Morq killing what was, up to now, a light-hearted thread about an extension lead...............

 

[morqthana]

JP and Morq killing what was, up to now, a light-hearted thread about an extension lead...............

Well, apologies from me for not spotting what he was up to sooner.

If you look back, I said I thought that the main reason for makers using Torx screws was to make manufacturing easier, and then bam - a great waaaaa of text from him wanging on about how it was actually done to encourage the mindset in people that they shouldn't repair things, how it's some kind of philosophical design choice that's meant to send a message to the people who buy the products that they are locked-out-not-locked-out of opening them up.

I thought his arguments were based on reasoning and could be tackled that way.

Won't happen again.

 

[Jurassicspark]

No, it is not necessarily a bad thing.

Okay.

But it may necessarily be an atrocious, disgusting, vile, unacceptable, uncivilised, lying, thieving, immoral thing.

Well that statement of yours does seem inconsistent. You began above in your first quote by saying it's not necessarily a bad thing which suggests openness to nuance but then you follow up with an extreme list of negative traits calling it necessarily immoral and vile. Using "may necessarily" is contradictory something can't be both possible and inevitable at the same time and rather than explaining why the evolving concept of ownership is inherently wrong your response just relied on a emotionally charged language without offering a clear argument and if we're going to have a reasonable exchange it would help to focus on reasoning rather than rhetoric.

It's not a "fundamental shift", it's an unconscionable theft of something somebody has bought.

Do you read the policy or the terms before buying or installing for examople Adobe creative cloud you don’t buy it once and own it forever anymore. It’s a subscription. If you stop paying you lose access. That’s not theft that’s the model they’ve moved to, and consumers agree to it when they sign up. Or with video game consoles when Sony shut down the servers for older PlayStations certain online features stopped working. It's frustrating but it's a natural consequence of technology moving forward.

Or take google stadia, for example it was a cloud gaming platform where people paid full price for games that never actually ran on their own hardware. It was actually emulated on their cloud computers which then provided games and whatever on the clients PC. When Google shut Stadia down in 2023, users lost access to the platform entirely. However google did issue refunds, but the incident highlighted the core issue you can pay for something and still not own it in any traditional sense. That’s not just a bad business decision it just reflects a fundamental shift in how digital products work

If I buy, not rent, hire, lease, or borrow something - if I buy it, it is mine, and it is mine for ever.

If I buy a chair it’s mine. If I buy a table it’s mine. If I buy a sofa it’s mine. If I buy a lamp it’s mine. If I buy a bed it’s mine. If I buy a bookshelf it’s mine. If I buy a cabinet its mine. If I buy a mirror it’s mine. If I buy a rug it’s mine. If I buy a desk, it’s mine. I can move it, break it, repair it, sell it or give it away because I own it. No company can come into my house and remove it, disable it, or take it back because they changed their policy or shut down a server. Thats traditional, physical ownership. That’s what we all understand instinctively.

But with modern techy products specially digital and connected ones what you're buying isn't always just a physical item, it's often a package of hardware + software + ongoing service. And the “ownership” of that combination is more complicated.

Effing nonsense.

I have a 4-year old Dell laptop running Windows 10. If, when Windows 10 goes out of support I carry on running it, what will happen is that Microsoft will stop providing updates and patches for it. They will not reach out and delete it from my laptop. At no time will Dell ever remotely install a new UEFI version which stops it from booting.

While its true that Microsoft won’t suddenly delete Windows 10 from your Dell laptop, the fact remains that they have full control over the software they provide and can decide to end support or even restrict features whenever they want. When Windows 10 goes out of support it means no more security updates, no more bug fixes, and potentially increasing incompatibility with new hardware or software but the problem is that many companies today don’t operate like that anymore like how your referring to. They sell you devices or software that depend on ongoing server support or cloud connections, and if they pull the plug, your product can stop working entirely. Google Stadia shutting down for example, meant people lost access to games they “bought.” Amazon deleting purchased Kindle books showed the same issue.

Real-time improvements, security patches, and enhanced features, are perfectly sustainable under the traditional one-time purchase model.

True but not always. What about without continuous revenue from subscriptions or service models companies lack the incentive and resources to provide timely updates or invest in long-term support.

They are a betrayal right from the day a product is sold. Why does a central heating thermostat need to be connected to the manufacturers servers in order to work?

What about if manufacturers are just aiming to provide real-time software updates and security patches to fix bugs, close vulnerabilities, and add new features without requiring users to manually intervene and your thinking that they will just cease updates and functionality.

But anyway - I'm done with this,

Okay no one if forcing you but walking away doesn’t change the facts or the reality of how technology and ownership are evolving. Ignoring the conversation won’t make the shift any less real or your concerns any less valid. I’ve been trying to explain the nuances but if you’re unwilling to engage seriously then there’s no point pretending this is just about stubborn opinions.

and I'm done with you.

Ok.

The fact that you are arguing in favour of these sorts of practices whilst at the same time decrying manufacturers who use Torx screws for having a "philosophy (which) contributes to a larger ecosystem of passive resistance to user access a subtle but very real barrier between the consumer and the product they supposedly own" shows that you're just arguing for the sake of it.

Reply on the other thread. Merging two topics here will be a cumbersome task.

You criticise somebody for using a Torx screw, but defend them when they deliberately break or delete what you bought? Beggars belief.

Not beggars belief and there’s a massive difference between a repair limitation on a physical device and a license based limitation on digital access. Both need to be addressed, but in their own threads and like how I said above just reply to the other thread where it is currently getting addressed and they need to be understood in their own contexts.

 

[Jurassicspark]

People accuse me of being argumentative, and yes, I am, but all of my arguments are genuine, and consistent, and they are arguing in favour of opinions I genuinely hold. You're just tossing out any old mish mash of stuff purely to argue.

Hmm its interesting that you say I’m “tossing out a mishmash of stuff,” because thats not how I see it. You may see it like that but not me and Im not just randomly throwing out disconnected points or trying to start an argument without substance. Every single argument I make is based on a genuine belief and a well thoughtout understanding of the issues at hand. I understand that my views might feel challenginkg and it’s possible that they don’t always align with your own. However, that doesn’t mean they lack coherence or consistency. In fact I’m working from a perspective that’s been researched real world examples, and a willingness to consider how things have evolved over time. What you may perceive as a “mishmash” is simply a multi faceted view on complex issues. In today’s world things are rarely black and white and when you engage with topics like digital ownership privacy, and modern consumer rights you’re going to run into multiple layers of nuance conflicting interests and shifting realities. The way technology works now with cloud services or subscriptions and digital products has fundamentally changed how we interact with what we “own.” These aren’t simple, one dimensional issues and so they require more than just a singular argument or perspective. You might see my arguments as inconsistent or scattered but I’d say that’s more about how the conversation itself is unfolding. The nature of these discussions means that ideas and examples will sometimes overlap and that can feel like a lot of different angles at once. But I’m not arguing without purpose im connecting pieces of a bigger puzzle trying to highlight how consumer right tech companies control over products, and the changing nature of “ownership” are intertwined. If my approach feels like a mishmash that might be because these issues are interwoven in ways that don’t fit into a neat one dimensional narrative. The reality of modern digital products isn’t as simple as it used to be, where you could buy something use it forever, and expect no interference from the manufacturer. Now we arre dealing with companies that use cloud based infrastructure software licenses, and continuous updates to control how their products function long after you’ve bought them. You’re entitled to disagree with the points Im making but labeling them as a “mishmash” dismisses the fact that I’m actively engaging with a complicated, multi-dimensional problem. Just because my arguments challenge your perspective doesn’t mean they’re incoherent. The world is more complicated now, and discussions around ownership and consumer rights need to reflect that complexity. If you’re seeing my arguments as scattered it may be becausewe’re looking at the same issue through different lenses, and I’m trying to present a more comprehensive view of the situation. While you might prefer a simpler narrative, I’m presenting what I believe is a more accurate reflection of how things are evolving, which doesn’t always fit into neat simple categories.At the end of the day I’m not here to argue just for the sake of it. Im making these points because I care about the outcome and because I think these issues are worth discussing and because I genuinely believe that the way we understand ownership and control over digital products is changing in ways that need our attention so if it feels like a mishmash of ideas it’s because I’m grappling with a complex issue that doesn’t have an easy straightforward answer well according to you and Thats the reality of the world we’re living in it’s complicated and sometimes the only way to have a meaningful discussion is to bring in all of these perspectives and pieces even if they don’t always seem perfectly aligned at first. Dismissing it as random arguing doesn’t make the issues go away it just avoids engaging with the deeper more uncomfortable truths that are at the heart of the matter.

 

[Jurassicspark]

Well, apologies from me for not spotting what he was up to sooner.

If you look back, I said I thought that the main reason for makers using Torx screws was to make manufacturing easier, and then bam - a great waaaaa of text from him wanging on about how it was actually done to encourage the mindset in people that they shouldn't repair things, how it's some kind of philosophical design choice that's meant to send a message to the people who buy the products that they are locked-out-not-locked-out of opening them up.

I thought his arguments were based on reasoning and could be tackled that way.

Won't happen again.

You're very fortunate that some of my text was not posted due to me exceeding the word count and some have been jumbled up and therefore I had to split the posts like how I did above.

Still, at least it means I don't have to spend any more time finishing my reply to the last pile of BS you wrote about shower isolators.

So it got locked? And who reported it? Could it have been you? Not me. I can get it unlocked but I would be severely hated for that so if you want to continue it then you're welcome on creating a new thread.

Just like EFLItroll you're gone.

You are a troll. You really are one. Instead of writing that in the beginning of your post you decided it would have been funny if you composed it all way at the bottom, yes all the way at the bottom, so I could waste my time and intellect just replying to your post.

Goodbye.

Glad you have said that at least I don't need to deal with your dribbling nonsense.