Comments by "Mikko Rantalainen" (@MikkoRantalainen) on "Louis Rossmann" channel.

  1. 351
  2. 116
  3. 95
  4. 90
  5. 74
  6. 58
  7. 53
  8. 47
  9. 28
  10. 25
  11. 20
  12. 17
  13. 15
  14. 14
  15. 14
  16. 13
  17. 13
  18. 12
  19. 12
  20. 11
  21. 11
  22. 10
  23. 10
  24. 10
  25. 9
  26. 9
  27. 9
  28. 8
  29. 8
  30. 8
  31. 8
  32. 8
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. 7
  36. 6
  37. 6
  38. As a software engineer I think the only possible way forward is to make the required information available to all parties without limitations. If I were to decide, purchasing any hardware product would allow getting the schematics for free for that specific product. The information available in the schematics is already available to the owner of the hardware simply by scanning and probing the hardware so it's not like it's a trade secret and the manufacturer already has the data available in machine readable format because they were able to design and build the hardware so publishing it wouldn't cause extra cost to the manufacturer. Similarly, the firmware and all the required tools to flash the firmware should be freely available to hardware owners but the actual source code used to build the firmware could be kept secret as is usual with proprietary software. Again, the firmware can be extracted from the hardware so this wouldn't enforce manufacturers to disclose any secrets. In practice, it would be easier to publish the above mentioned data to public as whole instead of trying to publish it to hardware customers only. As for the spare parts, that's much harder part of the problem to enforce via legislation because of patents. Patents allow the patent owner to prevent the spare parts to be sold even if the spare parts could be manufactured by 3rd party suppliers. Maybe require that patented technology licensing must be included in the physical chips and specify in legislation that the 3rd party manufacturers are allowed to build copies of the chips as long as they pay the same amount of licensing fees as the OEM did? An alternative way would be to specify that licensing is tied to some specific part in the hardware (CPU, motherboard, case?) and replacing parts with spare parts do not require new license and 3rd party manufacturers are free to manufacture the spare parts without any license.
    6
  39. 6
  40. 6
  41. 6
  42. 5
  43. 5
  44. 5
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131.  @johanmetreus1268  I agree. I think the least worst solution would be something that's sometimes called "declared value copyright system". The idea is to grant gratis copyright similar to copyright we currently have for 5 years only. After that all works fall in public domain immediately. You can extend your copyright indefinitely by declaring it's monetary value and paying 1% (exact figure to be decided) of its value as yearly fee in exchange for the public not having the works in public domain and using legislation to protect your intellectual property. If anybody pays the sum of declared value to you, the work immediately falls to public domain. This would have following results: (1) If your work has no monetary value for you, you won't register it for a fee and we have more public domain content. (2) If you register the work, you have strong incentive to declare true value of the work. If you overinflate the declared value, you have to pay overinflated yearly fee to keep your copyright. If you undervalue the declared value, you pay lower yearly fee and the public can free your work for less than it's worth. (3) Nobody can force you to lose access to the work because it's not forced sell but forced release to public domain. Once you get the monetary compensation that you've decided (the declared value for the work) you should be happy with the compensation and the whole public can then freely enjoy your work. (4) Disney could keep Mickey Mouse behind the bars but they couldn't do that without paying compensation to the society. Mickey Mouse would get free once Mickey wouldn't make enough money every year. (5) If you encounter any piece of work that you know is older than 5 years and it hasn't been registered, you can be sure it's public domain. I'm pretty sure everybody would agree that having more public domain content would be better for everybody. The current system results in huge amount of abandoned work with zero financial value to be unusable for a century!
    2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 12:50 I think the problem is that majority of customers do not understand what they need. The whole idea of capitalism depends on market competing on similar products. However, when the customer base doesn't understand technology, they cannot actually estimate the value of each product accurately. As a result, majority of the customers guess that all tech products are the same (to them they are, because they don't understand the differences between products) and then the price sticker is the only thing that matters. The more high-tech your product is, the smaller minority of possible customer base will understand your product. And educating your potential customer base is really really hard. Some marketing departments seem to think that you simply need more ads but that's obviously not true. And Apple fans seem to guess that not having any visible screws means high-end so that's where Apple has focus. It's basically result of evolutionary process to match an average customer's nearly non-existant understanding of tech products. If they cannot understand the differences in software or hardware (for the electronics), they will evaluate the product on level they can understand. Because all screens are basically rectangles and average customer has surpringly poor eyesight, you simply need good enough display and there's no competition there. Next thing is the design around the screen and that's where Apple puts most of it effort and it seems to work fine for them money-wise. And the situation is only made worse by too-long-to-read EULAs that majority happily clicks though to be able to enter their credit card details.
    1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. I maintain my old car myself and I'd say switching to electric car wouldn't be that different. Some things to consider: (1) There's no available information on the cars because manufacturers declare everything as trade secret. As such, diagnosing stuff is hard. This is actually not much worse than ICE cars because for example my year 1999 VW Passat doesn't have publicly available information from the manufacturer either and I have to dig for information in various non-official sources and 3rd party paper manuals. This is same as not having the schematics for Apple products that Louis is talking about. I don't need source code for the ECU but I would need official spec for e.g. diagnostic channel 10 subchannel 2: what values are in the spec and what sensor does measure this channel. Note that in case of VAG (VW, Audi, etc) even the channel handshake is secret so obviously that should be publicly specified, too. Having secret handshakes that are not about security (the protocol is just proprietary even if it uses standard voltages and standard voltages but it doesn't have any secret keys or anything like that!) are just about making things harder unless you pay extra random for the manufacturer to get the official tool to read the diagnostic channels. The official tool costs about $4000 and 3rd party cell phone hardware + software license to do the same thing costs $70. The 3rd party hardware and software has been created only through reverse engineering because even they couldn't get the required information so you're basically paying the 3rd party for the reverse engineering work, not because the software does something special. (2) At least here in Finland, all electrical work is so heavily restricted that any work on the circuits exceeding 50 V are not allowed even if you know what you're doing, unless you're officially licensed to work as an electrician by the government. In practice the license is so hard to acquire that even if you know 100% of the information / already have all the skills needed it still requires minimum of 1 year of supervised work experience on the field to get license for yourself. So hobbyists cannot fix electric cars here unless the legislation is fixed. The point (1) is not that different from the current situation with ICE cars so that wouldn't affect my ability to maintain my own car. It's the same as Louis having to source Apple schematics from shady sources so it just makes things harder in practice but not impossible. The point (2) is a new problem where legislation that's originally created to improve safety in housing wiring is now affecting my ability maintain my own car. And unless right-to-repair is first made reality, there's no real incentive to even start to fix point (2). It's a variant of chicken and egg problem and in this case it doesn't make sense to fix legislation unless we have clear way to actually have the parts needed for the repairs in the future. And if we had right-to-repair that would already allow licensed electricity technicians to start providing services for car high voltage work without manufacturer license.
    1
  208. 1
  209. I think that planned obsolescence as an intentional process is nonsense, too. Manufacturers just optimize to minimize their responsibility and if the device lasts the warranty period, it's no longer the responsibility of the manufacturer. Ask for warranty periods where it starts to make sense for the manufacturer to repair things to honor the warranty and things will get better automatically. If it's cheaper for the manufacturer to replace your whole device in case of warranty instead of repairing it, they will give zero effort to make the device easier to repair. This is result of most devices being good enough to last the warranty period so having the replace a single device in case of rare incident, it's cheaper overall to just give a full new device in case of even a minor failure. And as a bonus, most people actually like to have fully new device in case they hit any warranted failure. For example, Bose is known to give you full new device in original factory package in case of any error in their products. They can sell their products with extra premium because their customers can trust that in case of problems, they will get a totally new replacement no questions asked. Of course, that requires that the warranty is really strict about what's covered and what's not or everybody is going to receive new devices which would get too expensive for the manufacturer to continue. If you accept e.g. a smartphone that has one year warranty for the hardware and software support is EOL'd 18–24 months after the release, you're part of the problem! That said, the fact that manufacturers are allowed to hide the tools needed to do repairs is the biggest issue with right-to-repair. But it has nothing to do with planned obsolescence.
    1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. Really, the only way for Tesla FSD to avoid hitting this or other deers is to correctly identify it as a deer and assume its suicidal in practice. Those animals do not understand what a car is, especially in darkness. I guess they think that a car is just a big animal that's going nearby so the best strategy is to try to stay silent. And when the car gets close enough, they try to start running assuming the car is an unknown predator trying to catch them. Unfortunately, unless the car is moving at speeds close to actual predators in nature, the run speed of the deer is not going to be enough to avoid the car bumber. If Teslas had IR cameras they could just assume that any warm target moving near the road in darkness is a deer. And only assume otherwise when AI can identify it as human or other non-deer animal. If you haven't seen an actual deer in darkness on a road, you just cannot understand how suicidal they can be. A fully grown moose would be another another story. They have so little real predators in nature that they don't mind about the cars either - they just assume that if the car tries to attack they can deal with the issue at that time and otherwise they can proceed with their original plan, wherever they were planning to do. A moose is actually easier for AI because once the AI can figure the movement vector of the moose it can pretty accurately calculate where the moose is going. Deers are the ones that have practically random movement and are really hard even for experienced human drivers.
    1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. Here in Finland thieves may still get dragged to court but I'm not sure if it's worth the effort for the society. The law enforcement task force is so heavy that getting one thief to court requires countless hours of work and then the thief may get 300 EUR fine and maybe a couple of weeks of community service in best case. At least here in Finland the thief doesn't need to pay to court fees and policy salary even when found guilty. So the thief could stole 2000 EUR worth or property and maybe is able to sell half of it and spend the money. Half the property is returned to the owners, and maybe 3000 EUR worth of salary is spent by society on police, public prosecutor, judge, legal counsel and countless of other people wasting hours no the thing. In total the thief caused direct damage of 1000 EUR to owners that lost property that couldn't be recovered and 3000 EUR to legal force making total of 4000 EUR lost for the society. The thief gets a slap on the wrists and a bit of community service which sure as hell is not going to prevent him or her being a thief in the future. So society would save approximately 2000 EUR for this kind of case *just by doing nothing*. Only when thieves get too arrogant to cause so much collateral damage that it's worth the effort for the society police should even try. A simple way to fix this would be to send bill for all the work done by the legal machinery. Then it would really hurt and the more you hide and kick back before finding quilty, the more expensive it would get for you. The nice part of court cases here in Finland is that if you're found not-guilty, you can usually collect 100% of the expenses (but no profit!) spent on the case by you. But society gets nothing.
    1
  247. 1
  248. I'd guess that the firmware in the printer is stupid enough to always pump the cartridges when the printer is powered on. This is not safe with inkjet printers if the cardridge is empty because you could suck air into the print head. As customer typically want water insoluble prints, once you get air into the print head, any existing remains of ink in the print head dry up and clog the print head. As the ink is not soluble after drying, there's no way to salvage the print head after this. Now, the decision to always pump the cartridges during the power up is equally stupid stuff to Epson, who does the same thing. But in case of Epson, their firmware is not insane enough to also disable scanner part in case printing cannot be done because low empty cartridge. The solution I have? Use Epson inkjet printer with 3rd party refillable cartridges that automatically report half-full to the printer, water soluable ink and there's no problem. You can safely run the cartridge to empty because the ink is soluable. The water soluable ink from 3rd party has a sensible pricing as a bonus and still outputs original quality prints. There are two con-sides though: the ink is water soluable so you must not get any prints wet because the ink will flow again. And water soluable inks are not equally strong against fading because of UV light. So you must periodically re-print the stuff you want to keep in UV light with bright colors. Not a problem for me because my archival format is digital and paper prints are for temporary use only.
    1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289.  @Bri-bn5kt  The problem with blocking EU visitors is that you cannot geoblock but you have to ask each visitor if they are an EU citizen (maybe just living in the USA!) and if they are an EU citizen and you don't want to follow GPDR, you have boot them from your your server. The GDPR legislation affects you if an EU citizen uses your service no matter where on Earth that said citizen is using your service. Most business think it's better strategy to be compliant with GDPR – it doesn't ask for a lot, honestly. Basically you cannot collect any personally identifiable information without a proper legal reason. Collecting personally identifiable information to increase your analytics and marketing is not a legal reason. It would be easier for you to behave that way but that's not a strict requirement. And GDPR is about if that's not strictly required, you shall not collect personally identifiable information. It's okay to collect truly anonymous statistics but it's not okay to start building user profiles unless they have created an user account and given the consent for collecting data. And the user account is a practical requirement, not a specific requirement because all users must be given option to withdraw their consent on any given moment and to do that you must have some kind of user accounts so that you know which user account has withdrawn their consent. The user account may or may not have user visible login and password. The UK legislation about blindly banning cookies is another story. The EU GDPR doesn't prevent using cookies. You can use cookies just fine if they are needed for e.g. keeping track of user sessions (e.g. to avoid CSRF attack) or user set preferences (e.g. content language). However, the very same cookies (literally the same data on the cookie and the same cookie name) is illegal if you track users to extract information about what they seem to like most.
    1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. Increasing hours just makes things worse. Here in Finland, children are usually in the school for 6 hours a day and 5 days a week. And for those 6 hours, they get 15 minute break every hour so it's really 6 x 45 minutes per day from monday to friday. With 2.5 month holiday for the summer and 1 week holiday for the autumn, 2 week for the xmas, and 1 week holiday for the spring. Homework needs maybe 15-30 minutes per day and that's all. And Finland used to have really good results in the PISA tests around year 2005. The curriculum details have since changed a bit and results are a bit worse but the length of education or the amount of homework hasn't been changed. I'm not sure if the worse behavior is caused by minor curriculum changes or the use of smartphones in classrooms –in addition, one big change in Finland since 2005 has been integrating special education into normal classrooms without extra resources for the teacher of the normal classroom. I would guess this might be the real cause for worse results in recent years. It was done on the basis that it would improve understanding between "normal" people and "special" people but schools assumed it was cost minimization technique and just reduced staff instead of having one normal teacher and one special ed teacher per class. In practice, the normal teachers were expected to do everything they used to do and, in addition, do all the stuff the special ed teachers did previously. The minimum education for teachers in Finland is Master's degree from university, which obviously helps, too. And Finland doesn't have any private schools in practice and parents don't get to choose the school children go because all the schools follow the same curriculum with similar requirements for teachers.
    1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. I partially agree the John Deere line with emission controls. Diesel engines do emit sooth particles and NOx emissions without special tweaks. I'd argue that sooth particles do not matter a bit on rural areas because it's only carbon and is not a problem in small amounts per area. As such, DPF can safely be bypassed. NOx emissions are problematic no matter where it's emitted around the globe so I agree that deleting NOx emission controls is a bad thing in all cases. However, that doesn't mean that engine control unit couldn't clear the error codes from the user interface. The most important NOx emission control system is EGR and the system can figure out in maybe 10 seconds if it doesn't work while the engine is running. So allow do clearing the codes but maybe reduce the engine power when EGR system has failed. That would allow completing the workday with the tractor but would put some incentive to actually fix the EGR. (Usually this requires replacing the EGR valve and I think a competent farmer could do that in 15 minutes unless John Deere has even worse design than VW car diesel engines which I assume is unlikely.) As for the software, the problem is not the required software but the protocol between the computer and the tractor. Again, speaking with experience with VW car software, there VW has a secret protocol handshake which is required until you can speak to all controllers. Other than that, the interface follows publicly available standards with different settings channels (basically memory addresses to software engineer) and values for those channels (basically memory values to software engineer). If these protocol handshakes and channels were publicly documented, there would be no need for the OEM software. Basically the required info is along the lines: "Engine Control Unit has identifier 01, the subchannel 13 is the turbo boost, unit is absolute mbar as integer". If you want to monitor real time turbo boost, you connect to the CAN BUS (the standard part of this whole system), do the SECRET handshake, connect to unit 01 and select channel 13 and read the value. If it says e.g. 1325 you know that the current boost pressure is 325 mbar above the atmosphere or about 4.7 psi boost pressure for US readers. Reading through all channels would allow creating a backup of the current configuration and if the owner then messes something up while tuning the control unit, all values could just be restored from backup. For VW, Audi, Skoda and Seat (all manufactured by VAG), you can use software called VCDS by Rosstech where the founder of Rosstech reverse engineered the secret handshake and created business by selling MUCH cheaper software than VAG to do every thing that the OEM programming unit can do, too. And the VCDS has superior user interface compared to official unit. As such, Rosstech is doing much better work than VAG. However, if the protocol (including the secret handshake) were public then we would see much more software developers creating tools to program VAG cars. Currently we have the official VAG tools and Rosstech VCDS, but I think company called OBDeleven has also completed the reverse engineering part to create their own tools. In the end, the secret part of the protocol DOES NOT prevent 3rd party developers from creating software, it only raises the bar to do so and increases costs for all customers. I think John Deere should be totally okay with setup where user must unlock their tractor by requesting serial number specific unlock code to remove all secret handshakes and control unit locks. John Deere could require user to accept that warranty is void if the unlock is completed. Some Android manufacturers already do this. For example, to unlock any Sony smartphone, just follow the official instructions at https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices/get-started/unlock-bootloader/ - there's absolute no reason why tractors or cars couldn't work the same.
    1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366.  @masskiller9206  That's why you go with aftermarket cartridges with Epsons. The cardridges I have automatically reset the ink counter back to full when it goes under 50%. The only issues this causes is that the ink display on the screen is not accurate so I have to monitor the ink levels manually. There's an actually sensible reason to refuse to print if any color is empty: that's because the default inks are pigment based and the print head will get clogged if print head is moved out of its resting position multiple time without enough ink in the holes in the print head. And the way the print head is built, the printer will need to apply some suction to it every now and then during the printing. If you use water soluable dye inks, you don't need to be afraid about print head getting clogged but the prints are not waterproof. The default Epson ink is so waterproof that I haven't found any solvent that's able to restore badly clogged print head. With water soluable dye inks, in worst case I've had to push maybe half a cardridge worth of ink through to get perfect test patterns. If you want waterproof prints, you should use laser or sublimation printer, not an inkjet. I'm still wondering why nobody makes a printer that has both laser and inkjet hardware. Most of the cost of the modern printer is the mechanical parts that are shared with both technologies and after that the most expensive part is the print head. So if you're willing to pay for high quality inkjet, including the extra parts for laser printing shouldn't increase the costs that much.
    1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386.  @herrschaftg35  I guess the total additional cost of UBI really depends on the existing benefit system. Here in Finland you can already get many different benefits even if you don't work already. I think the unemployment benefit + housing benefit already total around 800-1000 EUR/month. However, if you get even a low pay job, you'll totally lose the unemployment benefit immediately and it's better to stay at home instead of accepting such a job. With full UBI accepting any job would always increase your total income over continuing as unemployed. In countries where existing benefits are much worse, sure, changing directly to full UBI is too hard to step to take in many cases. As for actually implementing UBI, at least here in Finland, the politics has been too complex problem to solve this far. Some people seem to understand UBI as a replacement for unemployment benefit only and when they then assume that all those people still need the housing benefit plus random additional benefits, the system immediately gets too expensive. The whole point of UBI is that it should replace all existing benefits systems so if existing benefit systems have total budget of X EUR per year, that's the budget you can use for full UBI. Also note that here in Finland we have heavy progression in the income tax, too. In practice people with high income will fully pay the UBI back in form of income tax so it doesn't actually increase the costs for those people. The tax receipt would just show higher total income and higher tax and the actual usable income would be about the same as today.
    1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1:50 Example case where things are really bad in car industry in case of a Volkswagen TDI diesel engines. Take about 20 year old VW Passat and try to get VNT turbo vacuum actuator for it from Volkswagen. The part is literally technically identical to parts that were used during 1980s to adjust the spark timing in gasoline engines using a vacuum control except that the bolt holes are in a bit different location and the spring inside the part may have different strength. However, VW will not sell you the part separately but you have to purchase whole turbo assembly instead, to which they have bolted the required actuator already. The official reason for selling this as a package is that the actuator has been pre-adjusted on the factory. The adjustment is done by rotating a single bolt and the correct adjustment is done by applying predefined vacuum and measure that the actuator moves the correct amount (I think it was something like it must move 11 mm with 700 mbar vacuum, the correct amount if officially a trade secret.) I can handle such adjustment myself so I got aftermarket vacuum actuator (costing about 18 EUR) instead of the official package with turbo and actuator (costing about 1700 EUR). Now imagine that they had some kind of patent to prevent 3rd parties from manufacturing the needed actuator (which is literally based on nearly 50 years old technology). So obviously, the service that the manufacturer provides is not the best one even if it actually costs less than replacing the whole device (a car in this case).
    1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 3:25 The important part to understand about GPL is that it requires that the receiver of the source code (that is, buyer of the devices with the GPL'd code running on the chips) is given full copy of the all source code covered by GPL. They can ask for a small fee to cover the data transmission costs (this clause was originally meant to allow billing for the cost of diskettes or a CD-R and it cannot be used to make profit). With modern internet, the cost should be at max the data transmission costs of AWS or Google data centers. As an example, the max cost from AWS to any internet client is 0.09 USD per gigabyte. Full copy of Linux kernel source (covered by GPL) is about 0.3 gigabytes so John Deere could bill about 0.03 USD per copy of their modified version of the Linux kernel. If they have any other GPL'd software running, owners of the devices manufactured by John Deere can request respective source code. And the source code must match the code that John Deere distributes with their devices. The only problematic part could be that if their firmware validates digital signatures for the kernel binary, you cannot swap the modified kernel in place even if you had the full source code. This is called Tivoization and GPL version 3 or greater has terms that prevent this. Linux kernel is distributed with GPL version 2 license that doesn't prevent this loophole for manufacturers that want to make it extra painfull for their customers. However, even with devices with built-in Tivoization you must give the respective source code to anybody who is running the device manufactured by you with the binary version of the GPL'd source code. Note that it doesn't matter if the GPL'd source code was modified or used as verbatim; the manufacturer of the device is required to give out the source code if requested.
    1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. The real problem here is that Samsung is using patents to do this. If they tried to use their trademarks or copyright, they couldn't prevent 3rd party parts which are clearly marked as 3rd party parts. However, overly broad patents being the catch-all for practically anything allows Samsung to prevent any competition for their parts. It doesn't matter if the 3rd party manufacturers are actually using the patented technology to manufacture the parts because too broad patents basically cover anything. And invalidating already granted patents is next to impossible in many countries thanks to judges not understanding the issue. This is about Samsung using nuclear weapons called patents against everybody else. The patent system was originally created to allow society to benefit from publishing inventions and in response the original inventor got limited time monopoly for their invention. However, currently it appears that patents are simply causing huge harm to society on all industries. The current patent system should be torn down but it's an international system similar to copyright system where the Berne Convention was supposed to be ongoing process to tweak the rules to balance the benefit to society vs benefit for the IP owner. However, in practice the Berne Convention is dead in water and we're locked in the rules from the 1980's which match really poorly with modern internet. In addition, patent system never even had anything close to Berne Convention so the rules have been broken always.
    1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1