Comments by "Tx240" (@Texas240) on "Louis Rossmann"
channel.
-
126
-
114
-
73
-
52
-
40
-
34
-
30
-
29
-
24
-
21
-
@ebolduc4150 - inside of a vehicle in the sun gets much hotter than air temperature would indicate.
If he didn't drop it or bang a tool against it (the latter is something that can happen without realizing at the time), it's possible that the heat inside the vehicle warped the case which led to a screen crack.
Then, when you returned to the truck and it was cooler in the evening, the phone was cooler. So, you never realized that you cooked it in the car. Even in this scenario, it's still user error by leaving the phone where it could be damaged by excessive heat.
A phone is a sensitive piece of electronics, not a hammer. Yet, people treat the phone as though it's a tough tool.
All that said, I have dropped my several years old Samsung S9 from 6 to 8 feet up, having it land and scrabble across gravel or concrete. Other than scuffs, the only damage on the phone is where I cracked it trying to open it, before realizing that it was the newer generation of phones without removable batteries.
20
-
18
-
15
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
"Would've fixed it if they broke it..."
Sure, there's two sides to every story. However, recently, I had some equipment at a shop for repair. Part of the work was too in del, so they hired it out to a 3rd party, which happened to be a dealer shop.
When I got it back, part of a fan had a chunk of blade missing. I pointed this out to the shop foreman. He agreed that the damage was fresh because there wasn't any dirt or grime on the cut edge as there was on every other surface and edge of the fan blades.
The foreman of that shop was great and said he'd replace it and go back on the dealership shop in their bill so that I wouldn't have to pay upfront or hassle with the dealership to get it replaced.
OEMs absolutely do shady and shoddy stuff. In this incident, I was fortunate that there was an independent 3rd party, from a reputable national brand, that was able to see the damaged part before I left.
The amount of dealership shop bad work I get is insane, only topped by the amount of upselling they push, to include repairs that are simply not necessary.
If I had that happen at the shop, which previously have with other repairs, they would've simply said, "oh, we didn't do that, but we'll be happy to replace it for you...at full labor price."
4
-
@aureate - because not providing a schematic is a roadblock in the 3rd party repair shop being able to do repairs, at the behest of the products owner.
In the automotive world, at least in the US, there has been "right to repair" legislation on the books and in force. The automotive equivalent to an iPhone or MacBook schematic is the standard Chilton Manual that shows how every bit of every car is put together (see examples in link).
http://www.delmarlearning.com/Browse_Catalog.aspx?Cat1ID=AU&Cat2ID=CHM&Cat3ID=CHM07
Technology companies are trying to get around these types of EXISTING laws in other sectors by claiming that their "product", which was purchased by a consumer is not a "product," that your iPhone is, instead, a "technology".
Tesla is using the same argument to get around existing automotive right to repair laws.
Basically, the only reason you're asking such a question as "why should the oem provide a schematic?" and why legislators have been slow to respond to this issue is timing.
We live in an era where we throw things away if they don't work and buy a new or newer one,at least in the first world.
Right to Repair is a simple matter of fact in less fortunate areas of the world. They will repair what they have because a new one either isn't available or is too expensive.
You ask why should the OEMs provide a schematic. The answer is that to not provide the schematic is a roadblock to a customer's ability to repair a product that the customer bought.
Let's go a step further. OEMs are actually not just fighting off requests for schematics, but they are actively fighting (suing) 3rd party companies who create a schematic (a drawing) of their OWN product that was PURCHASED.
You buy an iPhone. It's yours. You own it. You take it apart. It's yours. You can take it apart, if you want to. You make a drawing of YOUR phone's inside layout. You post it online. Apple will serve you with a takedown notice and then file suit for copyright infringement. That was YOUR product and YOUR drawing of it, NOT an OEM schematic.
Basically, the OEMs want to do everything to prevent you from repairing something that you PURCHASED and OWN so that if it breaks, your only option, if you have continued need of that product, is to buy a new one.
Related, in other sectors, OEMs will sell a brand name replacement part. Other manufacturers can create the same part, but not use the OEM's label. Tech companies actively try to prevent parts manufacturers from making parts that aren't being sold specifically to the OEM.
I mention these other two things the OEMs do (blocking YOU from creating a schematic and blocking sale of non OEM brand parts) because these behaviors are also meant as a roadblock to impede the customer's ability to repair the products that the customer owns.
"Why should customers be allowed to repair products they own?" would be the next question you might ask.
The answer to that is the US has a strong sense of "personal property." If I buy something, I own it and can do what I want with it, including disassemble or repair it.
There are laws that specifically provide for this, related to other sectors. Here's a link to the Massachusetts law, for the auto industry that forced auto industry to agree to make available advanced diagnostic equipment for modern vehicles.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2013/Chapter165
4
-
@aureate - you point out that Chinese companies could make cheap knock off parts, if...
It's actually Chinese companies that make the cheap oem parts. So, they don't need to reverse engineer a part.
Further, you argue that the cost of the product is in the engineering. The cost of engineering is in the cost of the product. These phone and tablet manufacturers are not trying to to protect their investment into the engineering.
They are trying to double dip by preventing repair of an existing product (that you already paid into the engineering of) and force you to buy a new one (and thereby pay for the engineering of the newer model).
You also don't argue against right to repair of automobiles. One of the industry's biggest arguments is that it's not safe for 3rd party repair shops to repair a phone.
I'd argue an automobile, with many heavy, sharp parts and flammable fluids is more dangerous than a phone repair. I haven't looked up actual numbers, but I'd bet money more people are injured repairing vehicles than phones.
Also, I'd like to ask you why you start to throw insults like "self righteous...".
If I've paid for something, the seller has accounted for his research and development costs, per unit, in the price of the unit that I paid for.
If that device has a non warranty issue, I should be allowed to repair it, BECAUSE I PAID FOR IT.
"I paid for it." There's absolutely nothing self-righteous about it.
Finally, manufacturers already are designing products that can't be repaired. This nefarious tactic is ultimately what will push right to repair across the finish line.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DisappointedScrosh - when CDC said vaccinated people could stop wearing masks, that was the point where I realized the government response wasn't just confused or sloppy but a downright scam together with the vaccine manufacturers.
Vaccination doesn't give the person a magic shield. Vaccinated people will still contract, carry, and spread the virus. They will also, in the majority of cases, fight the illness off without noticing they're infected (because of their boosted immune response to the virus).
So, telling vaccinated people they can remove the masks did two things. First, every who didn't want to wear a mask will take stop wearing it. That would normally be true, but in a the hyper political world we live in where a few politicians were stupid enough to make a virus political, it's especially true that certain people would stop wearing masks even without being vaccinated.
Second, all the people who did get a vaccine and stop wearing a mask are now out spreading the virus among themselves and the people who didn't get vaccinated but also stopped wearing masks.
The CDC recommendation was ostensibly designed to offer a carrot to encourage people to get vaccinated. What it actually did was increase the spread of the virus and perpetuate it!
Worse, after all that, 10% to 30% of vaccinated people will end up with breakthrough infections resulting in illness...keep in mind that the CDC said, "go ahead and take the mask off and continue spreading covid amongst yourselves!".
So, a policy of "get vaccinated or get get tested" is just stupid, discriminatory, inflammatory, and ultimately "feel good" policy (meaning you feel good that something is being done whether it actually helps or not).
A proper policy, if containing the virus and reducing transmission is the goal would be "get vaccinated and have weekly testing". Remember, vaccinated people still carry and transmit the virus. Remember also, up to 30% of vaccinated people will have a breakthrough infection. Remember finally that the vast majority of people who were exposed to covid never realized it because they were asymptomatic, just like vaccinated people.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SirDella - that guy is a troll, I wouldn't reply to him. He never responded to me pointing out that one of the tech industry's biggest claims against right to repair is danger.
Apparently, there's more voltage in your iPhone than in your AC.
He keeps going back to the argument of "IP, R&D is expensive" as the only argument.
When, in fact, this isn't an argument that the industry leans heavily on (because R&D and IP cost is obviously baked into the $1000 price tag of modern personal electronics).
Remember the best way to handle a troll is simply don't feed them. That guy isn't reasonable and he isn't interested in logic, reasoning, or hearing your viewpoint.
Heck, he probably already believes in and supports right to repair. He's actually just here to argue since it gives him free and easy validation.
It's like a girl at a bar wanting free drinks just for showing up. Let her get her own drinks and let @Aegis get his/her own validation by instigating silly arguments somewhere else.
Thanks for your comment and your example of how rewarding, economical, easy, and safe it can be to fix your own stuff when the manufacturer is reasonable and values their customers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually, Napster, formerly Rhapsody (before Rhapsody bought the Napster name), allows me to listen to what I want without ads, when I want via streaming, while providing "thumbprint" suggestions and curated plays lists and offers download of most titles (I can't say what % are downloadable, because I just stream as there's almost always connection).
However, the situation Louis describes, where I may lose connectivity, which sometimes happens when traveling, the app switches to offline mode and would play tracks that I had downloaded.
Yes, I pay $10 or something per month (actually, I pay the yearly fee to save a few bucks), but I legally get the functionality you're asking for without risking going into bad neighborhoods and while rewarding both the service for providing the service and the music creators for creating it.
If you just want something for free, think about how that would be for work that you do.
Otherwise, if you're looking for a decent service that allows download and offline use along with search for whatever you're looking for, look into Napster.
If what you're looking for isn't there, suggest your artist add their work to the service.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2