Comments by "Winnetou17" (@Winnetou17) on "Louis Rossmann"
channel.
-
24
-
17
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
I was thinking the same thing. Unfortunately, doing the right thing will be very expensive in terms of money, time, effort etc.
I don't know how the justice systems everywhere are getting more and more complicated, bloated to the extreme, that only people who have YEARS and YEARS of study can make sense of all the rules, and yet, the results is that the justice is a total joke. It does work in normal cases. But whenever is a little entity vs a big powerful entity, you have absolutely no guarantee of even the slightest fair and just and overly long, time-consuming, MONEY-consuming trial.
10
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Hey Louis, thanks and congrats for all the work you do, especially this thing: contributing for a common sense law to be passed, aka working for a better world.
Now, I feel the need to express some things:
1) Even though things like the right to repair don't have much sense to be something to be taken into account just on a local scale, I do feel that the senator is entitled to ask anyone from where it is, even if it sounds totally dumb. For all they care maybe the people from Nebraska actually don't want this law, but somehow a lot of people from other states come to plead for it. Surely there can be nebraskians found to come and plead so this is no longer an issue.
1.a) When the senator had nothing to good to say about that satisfied customer from Nebraska... I see that as perfectly normal. He is not there to congratulate anybody. It's normal, given the time constraints, to only ask/talk only about the things that he doesn't like/know etc. I'd say, if all he had to say/point was a stupid argument, then all for the better, as that seems that everything else was ok, and that stupid argument can be cleared with ease.
2) In general I think that in order for a law to be passed, or at least for it to pass further, after this kind of talk (I don't know exactly how it works in US, I'm from Romania), the senators DO have to ensure that all aspects are taken into account. You can think of them to be the devil's advocate. However a dumb question might be asked, you guys should be prepared to answer it so the thing you're pleading for is without a benefit of a doubt good/better for all people, especially law and politics people. Think of them being like "ok, so you want this law that seems pretty common sense. But, you know there's big companies (or anyone else for that matter) that might not want that, and we're not technical enough to call bullshit on their part. How will you tackle this?" Aka is your job to provide as much evidence as possible that this will have no secondary effects or unforseen situations or abusable situations or affect unrelated parties etc. And that the things affected are with a reason (repair right will lower Apple's income, but will provide the consumer their right of ownership over the bought part or their human right dunno). It does sound a little like you'll have to do their work, but ... such is life.
3) As AkolythArathok said in this comment section, there needs to be a more serious pose. Talking about Repair Family is kind of distracting from the point aswell. Or things like "hey I have here a customer which is so happy, yay!". You actually did her job here with very clearly and shortly/on point saying "we do data recovery for which the customer has no option to do at the manufacturer, for any amount of money". That is how I think a point should be made.
All in all, it was kind of sad, but totally not surprising to see this. And I have to congratulate for your speech. It was very on point, with clear arguments and examples. Now all you have to do for next year is to have everybody supporting this be as efficient and articulate as you :) And have everybody be able to totally demolish all (dumb) counterarguments presented here. And as you very well observed, to have this lobbying prior to the talk. The talk is just a showcase.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
One silver lining that I can think of, about all of this, is that if Apple spends so much effort into making these so much of a closed garden, at one point this effort will simply eat too much into their revenue. That is, it will cost them a lot on the manpower needed to design those things. And the things themselves will make the product cheaper / consume more / weigh more something like that. Well, so far it wasn't enough, but with time, maybe the competition will rise, and by virtue of simply not having to invest that much of everything into closing the garden, they will have the superior product.
It's like hardened products vs normal consumer products. The hardened products are always more expensive, while at the same time having less performance. Well, at least in the normal conditions. In extreme weather for example, a hardened product will work, while a normal consumer one won't. In this case, Apple will have a hardened product, but not against natural elements, but against being repaired. And, I hope, at one point it will simply be inferior in performance or price/performance.
2
-
@nymphetts True, I won't hold my breath either.
Truth to be told, in some aspects, Apple have the superior product. Be it by design, performance or simply the ecosystem and the idea that things simply work.
Hopefully, with the rise of Linux on desktops, maybe the superior part of the software will vanish as really good things will start to be supported for Linux too.
And on the hardware side, both AMD and Intel made a comeback and have pretty good CPUs and APUs. Still have to catch up on performance/watt, but given that in general the performance needs haven't risen that much, the things you can do on 15W or lower have risen regardless.
Apple will have another home run with M3 as it will be the first 3nm processor in the laptop space and again it will be significantly more powerful at the same very low power consumption. This is the same that they had with M1, first 5nm on the market. Now that AMD will come with 5nm, they will actually be better than M1 and M2, but that means nothing for the normal consumer, when AMD/Intel come with the good product almost 2 years later. Hopefully M3 and M4 will have better competition.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can't call something the "greatest OS of all time" if it doesn't work in the majority of devices (phones in this case) on the current landscape. Fight me!
For real though, I want it, but don't want to buy a Pixel phone, neither new nor SH. And saying it's supported just on Pixel because it has extra hardware security features - bullshit! I mean, I don't challenge that it's not, but I want to point out that it's a very stupid argument. Maybe in alpha and pre alpha stages it would be ok. But on the full release, it's MUCH MUCH more important to have people onboard and even with just like 90% of the privacy and 50% of the security (and still much better than what the original phone has) than to have only one line of phones that limit the exposure to 10% of the potential users. That's bad prioritisation at this point. At least if they care more about raising the global security and privacy.
It's not an easy decision to make, and I can't fault them, I'm just saying what I think would be more important (maybe a bit in a harsh matter, but, meh). I do think a lot of people would rather actually be able to use Graphene on their current phone, without the full security suite, than to have the Graphene OS team develop 3 security features extra, but keep the Pixel limitation (which means that people have to wait more until they try it, or switch to a Pixel phone - and maybe lose some features, like Louis does now)
Other than that, I agree, it's awesome! Won't try it on a Pixel, sorry. Can't wait for it to become more popular and branch into other models, hopefully Fairphone and Pinephone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
A minor correction - what Louis described as "valuing a broken Macbook" is actually "valuing FIXING broken Macbooks". I get the dramatisation, and in the end it doesn't change THAT MUCH the discourse, but there is a non-trivial distinction between a simple object that is trivial to replace (and thus insane to be obsessed about in this comparison) and an occupation,hobby,habit maybe even an ideal (hard to describe exactly).
And I do think it matters to underline the distinction. I don't think (I hope) that many people would value a commodity object over something like their own health. (well, some might, either from a lot of emotional attachment or if the object is very expensive, but then the object is no longer commodity IMO). However, there's a lot of people who do identify themselves with their work, what they do, what they provide and who might prioritise that over their personal health.
The main idea to take from this is that if you really care about that work, about what you do, what you (can) provide, for the longer term, then you have to take care of your health, otherwise you might "fall" too early and not be able to do what you love most.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gandalf721 a) that's what they say, that they don't focus on other phones, because they lack security features. And b) many others said that if I want it on my phone, I can take the source code and make it work.
From the two above it's obviuos: the devs of Graphene OS decided to not support other devices, not even in a lesser way, say, just a minimal install that works, though there we're getting into the realm of if it's even worth the time.
Also, in their FAQ they mention that
"Broader device support can only happen after the community (companies, organizations and individuals) steps up to make substantial, ongoing contributions to making the existing device support sustainable." So it's not just "other cell phone companies" (a thing you should've known already, when you replied me).
The only valid reason I see so far is that supporting more phones would be too difficult/impossible to do at the moment. But it should have been mentioned in the first place, not the "because it lacks security features".
Also, stop assuming somebody is a perfect idiot just because it doesn't want to buy a specific line of phones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think that what they wanted to avoid (but put 0 effort into explaining it) that's actually understandable, is using the CT to be used as a home battery a lot, and still try to have the 8 years of warranty, because you're driving 0 miles, but degrade the battery as if you drove 1,000,000 miles in those 8 years, then ask for a replacement after 7.5 years.
1,000,000 miles sounds too much ? Let's do some math if it's possible. Let's assume that the battery has 100 kWh energy capacity. It's good to not use 0% to 100%, so let's say the usable capacity is 60 kWh.
11,5 kW, means that if full, it will discharge in, say, 6 hours, rounding up a bit. If recharging from 20% back to 60% again, it would mean it needs 10 hours just for the discharge part to cover 100% of the battery capacity. That means it's totally doable to have a full charge-discharge cycle in a day. Also, that would be like driving about 300 miles
What does 7 years mean in terms of days ? 7 * 365.25 = 2556.75 days. Let's round that to 2500
So, 2500 days means potentially 2500 battery cycles. I read somewhere that they officially said that their batteries can be used for 1500 cycles. So that's already over the limit.
Also, 300 miles * 2500 = 750,000 miles.
Ok, so I was off, but it's still 5 times over what they would've covered, if you used it to drive, not to power a home or whatever. And it is over its expected life time.
To put it in another way, 150,000 miles would mean it only needs 150,000/300 = 500 cycles, about 1/3 of the battery lifespan.
Still doesn't excuse what they wrote. Or Elon being a gigantic jerk that needs to be jailed, along with the many people that enabled him to go this far.
1
-
Just realized that they're incompetent not only from failing to word up to cover the potential case I explained above, without also including totally BS opportunities to not cover the warranty, but they're also so incompetent that they failed (I think, I didn't read that whole thing, only what Louis showed us) to also exclude another edge case that's not their manufacturing fault (though you can say it's their marketing fault for making the claims, so ... I'm not sad if they get punished).
So, here's the thing. The CT can tow about 5000 kg (11,000 of caveman-age freedom units). And from several reviews I've seen, when doing that, the range is only about 100 miles (yeah, I should use km, not miles, but I'm lazy to do the computation when all the given details are already in miles).
That means that you can have one full battery cycle for only 100 miles.
How many cycles would then 150,000 miles mean ? Exactly 1500, which is the expected life span of the battery, so it's basically guaranteed that it won't still be over 70% of its initial capacity. So they' have to cover its replacement.
Though to be frank, they also say that they won't give you / restore you to a brand new battery, just one that is in spec (aka working and above 70% capacity) so they probably aren't losing much on a repair like this. Still, you could theoretically do this multiple times. In reality they'll surely deny service.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DeeSnow97 If your budget is strained, I'd say to not be an early adoper. Of course, it's totally up to you, how much of an idealist you are or how much you have faith in the thing you're supporting.
The way I see it, unless it happens that what you buy is very good or perfect for you, then you're essentially donating to the cause. Which is very nice, but usually it should be done with disposable income. Thing is, if it doesn't suit your needs enough, you'll get to hate it while also hampering you. Better to get the thing you need most, at the best price, go on with your life, be productive, improve your life, and when you're ready to give (aka have disposable income) then give.
1
-
Sorry to be negativistic, but I think that nowadays, 9 years later, and given how much capital the big tech companies have (Apple is worth $2 trillion, right ?), I fear that you don't need $5-$20 million, but more like $100-$1000 million. Yup, up to one billion.
It's a massive undertaking. Monumental, if you don't want to have the "easy" option of simply getting the money beforehand, so you can spend on whatever comes up. It will take AT LEAST another year until you could start it.
Not to mention that after the lockdowns mostly cease, most likely starting from this summer (nothern hemisphere summer), people will be to busy being outside, enjoying not being locked up, to care as much for things like these. I hope I'm wrong though.
1
-
I agree that the supply chain is the motive that they cannot repair in a reasonable timeframe.
BUUUT, it's completely their making, their choice, their problem, their mistake for having this. I do not see this as a good enough argument. Legislation should not care about this. If you can produce new cars, then you should be able to provide parts for the SAME FREAKING CARS. If you have "very lean supply chain" that's a you problem not a me problem.
Overall, I think that a legislation stating that whatever you make, you cannot have license to sell unless you can provide service in a timely manner and provide replacement parts in a timely manner (I know, I know, timely is too subjective, I'm only saying the idea). If you do not provide them, then you are forced to release the schematics for the product and all of its parts. In case of service, those who still have warranty should be able to get a full refund. If you do not have the ability to fully provide the schematics for the product and all of its parts, then you cannot get the license to sell, easy.
Ok, I know what I wrote above is currently impossible. Some parts cannot be made inhouse and also cannot be had with schematics, as they're 3rd party vendors who do not care. In this case there can either initially be made specific exceptions and b) longer term - the manufacturers of those parts be liable under the same as above, if they don't provide the parts for general sale, then they are forced to release the schematics.
I think that in both cases, when aquiring a license to sell, the schematics should be provided upfront to the a government entity. So when needed, the schematics can be made public without interference or possible "accidents" from the original company.
You know, sometimes I cannot not think how far we'd have reached if we weren't so petty. What I described above is so much extra work just because we cannot have common sense and a bit of moral integrity to not steal and profit from others. Sigh
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Purpleheart62001 Jesus Christ buddy, put some paragraphs there. Also, I said one thing and you started to rant about another.
At no point did I said that there's no fault in the goverment and, well, usually in all the people that rule.
I was merely responding to Blues who complained that Cuomo suggested starting to work something you might not want. To which I replied that it's something normal in a crisis. Check my example above, in the reply I did to Jorden, with a hypothetical case where somebody is full-time youtuber and suddenly might find itself with a massive viewer and revenew drop because o a crisis. It's common sense that in this situation you go and find yourself another job, including doing things you might not want or like. That's why it's called "a crisis"!
And, to give another example, yeah, in a crisis where people stay at home and have trouble putting food on the table, your job as a bartender for some clubs might be much less marketable, as clubs suddenly have much less revenue.
In that last example, it shouldn't take another person to tell the bartender to search for another job, it should be obvious to him/her. And if a complete asshoIe like Cuomo says it, it isn't any less true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1