I must disagree. For example, the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act entitles you to use aftermarket parts in your product without invalidating your warranty, as long as the aftermarket parts don’t cause damage. I agree with the spirit of this law, and I believe software should be considered a “part” in this context.
This is my first time reading about this. I’m very curious to hear a lawyer’s thoughts on this.
If you change the bootloader to some other software, how could the company be expected to provide support for something they may have no knowledge of? Suppose I develop some theoretical SnowsuitOS and then complain to Samsung support when it doesnt run on my smartphone? It seems very likely that some conflict in my code could be causing problems, as opposed to an issue with my hardware.
I feel like to require this, you’d have to prove that the software is functionally equivalent to their software, right? (Side note, isn’t this problem undecidable? Program equivalence?)
If you replace a wheel on a tractor you can pretty easily define what it should and should not do. Determining equivalence seems simpler with a physical situation. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure program equivalence is not a solved problem.
My point here is that I don’t think it’s reasonable to legally require a software company to offer support without limits, because they cannot be sure that there is not an issue with the (unsupported) software you are using.
If you change the bootloader to some other software, how could the software company be expected to provide support for something they may have no knowledge of?
like xiaomi did, in the past at least. if you can reinstall the official software, you can receive service under warranty
My point here is that I don’t think it’s reasonable to legally require a software company to
phone manufacturers are hardware companies first and foremost
I must disagree. For example, the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act entitles you to use aftermarket parts in your product without invalidating your warranty, as long as the aftermarket parts don’t cause damage. I agree with the spirit of this law, and I believe software should be considered a “part” in this context.
This is my first time reading about this. I’m very curious to hear a lawyer’s thoughts on this.
If you change the bootloader to some other software, how could the company be expected to provide support for something they may have no knowledge of? Suppose I develop some theoretical SnowsuitOS and then complain to Samsung support when it doesnt run on my smartphone? It seems very likely that some conflict in my code could be causing problems, as opposed to an issue with my hardware.
I feel like to require this, you’d have to prove that the software is functionally equivalent to their software, right? (Side note, isn’t this problem undecidable? Program equivalence?)
If you replace a wheel on a tractor you can pretty easily define what it should and should not do. Determining equivalence seems simpler with a physical situation. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure program equivalence is not a solved problem.
My point here is that I don’t think it’s reasonable to legally require a software company to offer support without limits, because they cannot be sure that there is not an issue with the (unsupported) software you are using.
Nobody is asking ‘software’ companies to support software they didn’t write.
We are asking hardware companies to support their hardware and not use different software as an excuse not to replace faulty hardware.
They can reflash their own software to test if needed.
Of course hardware vendors could be legally mandated to adhere to standards to make things easier.
like xiaomi did, in the past at least. if you can reinstall the official software, you can receive service under warranty
phone manufacturers are hardware companies first and foremost