Comment by smoldesu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smoldesu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com