Hacker News Reader

Like other Prusa Minis, it comes with an "appendix" you must physically break to be able to install unsigned firmware.

In the same way as warranty seals, this sort of stuff can usually be worked around with not a lot of effort. One of the comments there already mentions:

You can test if the "appendix" is the issue by connection BOOT0 and SWDIO to GND. That is all the appendix does.

"There's a few thousand mice but only one cat." "What you can make, we can break."

The point is that you must physically remove it or severe the traces, which is then obvious if the device is returned for a refund or warranty claim.

It’s not meant to be complicated. It’s only meant to be easily identified during the RMA process.

The point is that it can be done relatively easily, and reversibly. Of course, it probably does act as a filter for low-effort scams.

ChromeOS devices also have something like this in the form of the write-protect screw.

https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/HEAD/wri...

I mostly think the "appendix" system works, but I think the first party should still assume limited liability for the hardware of the device after the appendix is broken, so they still have an incentive not to conspire against their users.

Furthermore:

> Apple doesn't allow side-loading because, well, they're afraid Facebook or Epic would force users to side-load against their will, among other business reasons.

I think "other business reasons" are the bigger issue here. Facebook and Epic wouldn't "force" users to side-load content any more than Apple "forces" you to use the App Store on iOS. It's an available option that you can use at your own discretion.

Apple (unlike Prusa) has painted themselves into a pretty favorable corner. They've made their value proposition immaterial, which allows them to pretty easily deflect any accusations that their 30% cut is out of line. Apple has full control over the goalposts here: they could claim that their cut goes to hosting alone or covers the entirety of the review process.

> I mostly think the "appendix" system works, but I think the first party should still assume limited liability for the hardware of the device after the appendix is broken, so they still have an incentive not to conspire against their users.

The seller can not absolve themselves of liability in this way. They still assume liability under their warranty and must prove changes you made are the cause of malfunction even if you modify the device.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...

US law does not apply to a business in the Czech Republic.

But even if it was in the US, what you are citing mostly applies to things like cars that you can put aftermarket parts on. They could just say that modifying the firmware is "[using] a product for something other than its intended purpose" and the FTC will just look at you and shrug.

In the EU you actually have something similar. You have the warranty given by the merchant, which can be voided by breaking stickers, appendixes, etc. and the legal warranty (in German it is called Gewährleistung) which cannot be voided by stickers or tricks like this.

However, if you want to invoke your legal warranty more than 6 months after purchase date YOU have to prove that your modifications didn't cause the defect.

Same in The Netherlands. Works perfectly fine, especially since you have a reasonable period in which the effort slowly moves over to the owner. In a mass-quality-deficiency case you could still find an easy way with other owners to create the proof you need and still get the manufacturer to be responsible, so if such a case were to occur it's still reasonable.

From my other comment:

If you are slighted by a foreign company you can still receive a judgement against them or their functionaries, and in extreme matters the company and its distributors would start having issues with CBP and with their banks.

The damages required for such issues can be quite high, $50-75k for federal court filing, but existing precedent would allow you to go after distributors in a local court for a lower amount.

If you buy a toaster from Europe, modify it to try and heat your entire house with it, then try to make a warranty claim that it caught fire... sure you could try to sue them in US courts and get a foreign judgement. The much more likely outcome is your case gets dismissed and the judge has a good laugh.

CBP will only get involved if the product is illegal or dangerous.

Completely disingenuous example. There is usually a warranty for a specific purpose -- you were sold the item to fulfill a specific need. Any modifications done without disrupting that purpose are warranted and can not be used as a reason to reject a claim.

The solution is to not offer a warranty, though some states do not allow you to disclaim suitability for a particular purpose and establish an implied warranty for items you sell.

> it would hopefully keep Facebook at bay (there's no way Facebook can convince people broadly to do such a thing)

I bet Facebook would be able to get users to do it. "Sorry, you can't see this photo from your friend until you upgrade your iPhone by following these instructions." You refuse and your friends stop including you in activities. You basically get peer pressured into doing what a large corporation says.

(I actually wonder why they don't sell peer pressure as a service. "If you don't pay your balance due of $123.45 by 7/1, we'll message your friends saying that you're a deadbeat." Maybe I should patent that before someone else does, because it sounds horrible.)

> (I actually wonder why they don't sell peer pressure as a service. "If you don't pay your balance due of $123.45 by 7/1, we'll message your friends saying that you're a deadbeat." Maybe I should patent that before someone else does, because it sounds horrible.)

Alas, this is not a new idea:

- https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/faceb...

- https://restofworld.org/2020/okash-microlending-public-shami...

- https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/can-a-debt-colle...

- https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/may/09/loan-sharks-ta...

In Spain it's somewhat of a tradition, they have fun costumes though so... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/boom-time-sp...

Something similar has been done in China around 3 years ago ~ http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-10/10/content_330...

Well likely because the legal liability for getting a debt wrong would outweigh the advantages.

That and most state's consumers protections prevent this sort of behavior.

> they're afraid Facebook or Epic would force users to side-load against their will,

As an Apple user, this is my biggest fear about allowing other App stores. Facebook, etc hate Apple’s privacy policies, but the iPhone market is too big and too rich to ignore. If now they can tap the iPhone market without having to deal with Apple’s privacy requirements, I am sure they would be delighted. Soon, they would at least have more features in the side-loaded version to try to push people towards it.

The companies like Epic and Facebook would have saved money by this move, but I as a privacy minded consumer, would have lost.

This is user choice at work. The only thing that can address this issue is free software that users can modify easily.

> breaking the appendix voids the warranty

no it doesnt, at least not in US (magnusson moss) https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/11/601582169...

Pretty much anywhere in the world, we are not in the US (except when you are, in the US) so that's great for the US but doesn't apply here.

The iPhone is so valuable and an unlocked one would have so much unique value that an industry would pop up modding customer phones and also selling modded phones. The average consumer would think “oh yeah don’t buy from Apple buy from these folks” and it would become common for people to have the devices.

Breaking the appendix does not void your warranty. The seller must prove your modifications broke the device.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...

They are not a US company nor do they operate from within the US at all. That law does not apply to their warranty.

They market to US customers, sell to US customers and process payments through US financial institutions, so legally they operate in the US. Just as Prusia himself is protected by GDPR protections from US companies which offer services to citizens of EU even if they aren't physically located there.

Honestly, I'm not well versed in US law but as far as I understand, you need to show nexus to apply it which has totally different and much more nuanced criteria compared to the GDPR (which simply spells those out)

You need to show nexus mostly for tax related matters. If you are slighted by a foreign company you can still receive a judgement against them or their functionaries, and in extreme matters the company and its distributors would start having issues with CBP and with their banks.

The damages required for such issues can be quite high, $50-75k for federal court filing, but existing precedent would allow you to go after distributors in a local court for a lower amount.

We are talking about a warranty-related claim, not a claim about damages they'd have to pay regardless of the warranty offered.

But anyway: If I travel outside the US and buy a harmful appliance in a local shop, a US court would probably not take the case. Am I right? What would the manufacturer have to do to get exposure to US law?

They do trade shows here, at least before the pandemic, so they do have some exposure to US laws.