Please explain who do you consider a parasite.
2 Likes
You did not answer the question which human beings you consider parasites but considering humans parasites is sure enough for me.
And there sure is a relation to Europe or the European Union?
What is your idea how humans considering other humans parasites are supposed to interact with other humans?
2 Likes
Please stop to flood this forum with your comments about politics!
It’s a nogo that the most threads end in discussions without content which has any relation to tje topic.
That just pisses me off every time.
12 Likes
I thought about disabling bootloader unlocking, but maybe I forgot. I also left it for merchant (Gigantti) and they are trying to wash their hands from this, even from 50€ fee which was obviosly their employees fault for not mentioning possibility of it.
The way I see it, Gigantti owes me 50€ and repair shop owes me a repair. First I’ll contact consumer agency and ask for their statement. This is such a draq.
2 Likes
Status Update of me trying to get warranty repair, this is the screenshot of repair shop Emma and they claim that device slowing down is caused by tampered software. But this was not about slow device, but a battery issue. I checked reviews and the repair company has had pretty shitty reviews with bad argumentation for turning down repair.
Can they actually decect if there has been third party software on device or is that message caused by unlocked bootloader?
Emma actually requires the bootloader to be unlocked (unlike Xperia Companion, which requires it to be locked, no one knows why it is like that), so it surely can’t be the reason of such a message. I’ve never seen it before, even thought I’ve used my 10 III with Emma lots of times, obviously after tampering with its software as much as I could.
After unlocking the bootloader, did you allow the device to go through the user data wiping procedure? If not, that might be the reason of such a message.
I can’t imagine why i wouldn’t have allowed user data wiping procedure. Surely they can’t just say software is tampered without telling exactly how? Or maybe Emma is just getting better at recognizing modified software. This Sailfish on Sony thing is not working very well if they keep denying warrany. But I also used Emma to reflash android and saw n such message, they must have different version on repair shop.
And another release without a solution.
2 Likes
It has a wider scope in consumer law, as defined in the 2015 law I linked to. Since excessive and unfair clauses are invalid, T&C basically don’t apply to consumers. Remember, I’m talking to consumers here, in terms meaningful to them, not to lawyers as a legal argument.
An unfair term is still unfair before it is deemed so by a court. Whilst one might have to go to court to force a remedy, the latter is true for all law.
It’s generally very expensive for a company to go to court. If they are in the wrong, they will often have the consumer’s legal costs awarded against them, which can add a huge amount to the cost. When the financial cost of the remedy is much less than that, and they think you are serious, it is rational for them to provide that remedy.
If not, then why are thousands of companies wasting their time and money on writing standard terms terms and conditions in consumer contracts that can never be imposed?
Many reasons:
Reasonable charges are not unfair.
T&C cover stuff other than charges eg warranties.
But mostly, almost nobody knows their rights.
Yes, but only if the consumer has abided by the T’s & C’s they signed up to and, in practical terms, not done things to the device that the supplier has excluded from any warranty via those T’s & C’s (like take the device apart).
No. The warranty cannot change the consumer’s rights. A phone sold with a fault or lacking “the quality and performance normal in products of the same type” has to be repaired or replaced upon request – though the existence of such a fault will typically have to be successfully argued first.
The supplier could argue that the warranty/T&C add to the likelihood that the consumer would have been aware that reflashing could damage the phone. But they still have to provide a case that reflashing phones can produce the fault in question rather than the fault being there at point of sale… just as they’d have to do in court.
If companies had to repair or replace a faulty device regardless of what had been subsequently done to it by the consumer then they’d be accepting an unlimited liability - and no company is ever going to do that.
This is irrelevant. We’re not talking about eg somebody microwaving their phone. We’re talking about changing the software on it.
Your point is well made - T’s & C’s drafted by companies as standard terms of business almost always favour the business over the consumer, and many consumers don’t bother to even read what they are signing up to (even though they are deemed to have read them if provided with the T’s & C’s in advance of the purchase), so businesses rely on both that and the fact that it can be expensive for a consumer to enforce those T’s & C’s if they need to. That’s why we have consumer protection laws - to help even out what is known as the ‘bargaining power’ when a dispute with a consumer contract arises.
But none of the above means that T’s & C’s are meaningless and cannot be enforced by either party as @David is suggesting. That is, quite simply, utter nonsense.
However, I was coming at it from the other perspective - that of the business enforcing the T’s & C’s on the consumer, not the other way around. Imagine if @David was actually right …
“Hello, this is the ABC Domestic Car Insurance Company - How Can We Help?”
“Oh, Hi - Yes, there’s a fault with my engine - it blew up and the car caught fire. I’m afraid its a total write-off”
“OK, can you explain the circumstances of how the fault arose please?”
“Yeah, well, I’d been doing about 130mph around this racetrack for about half an hour when it started overheating. Since I was in the lead I just kept going but then the engine seized and exploded.”
“Oh, I see”
“Yeah, and since the small print in the T’s & C’s saying that my policy is void if I use my car for any non-domestic purposes, i.e. racing, is meaningless and unenforceable, and since the car is a total loss, you’re gonna have to provide me with a new one under Consumer Protection law - because it says you have to repair/replace in the event of a fault”
“Yes, Of course Sir - we’ll send a new one along immediately!”
“Thanks - and just to let you know I’ll be racing it next weekend as well, so you’d better have another one standing by!”
“Of course Sir!”
Obviously this interpretation of the law is completely wrong. Consumer protection laws are there to protect the consumer to a certain extent and taking into account any contract he/she/they have willingly signed up to - its not there to give consumers carte blanche to do anything they want to.
I don’t think that’s entirely what David was suggesting. There is a rather obvious causal link between overheating your engine on purpose and breaking the car, whereas there is no obvious causal link between installing some software and a defective battery. Yes, the software could severely mishandle the battery and break it, but the defective battery is not a necessary or even likely consequence of the modified software. Not to mention in your example the damage to the car is caused intentionally, so the customer’s actions would not be considered ‘reasonable’.
Somewhat related, I recently had to send back a laptop to Lenovo, because the hinges had broken. The laptop was running Linux. When I got it back, they had not only replaced the hinges, but also “fixed the software issue” and reinstalled Windows. But imagine they refused service to the hinges because the software running on it violated their ToS. Even a kangaroo court would not accept that.
1 Like
This whole thread seems to be based on magical android battery consumption. After a month of using galaxy A15 with 5000mah (500 over XIII) whoever claimed weekly battery life on android, was just straight up lying, and that is with only some email/xmpp accounts set up on the android side that I had on XIII. And don’t even start me on the polish and never hanging of android, regularly having to go into multitasking to ‘kill’ firefox after using any other high ram app as it will just hang indefinitely after coming back to it without the killing. 5kmah battery is exactly 2 days recharge as it was on sfos with light usage (browsing, IMs etc), spend couple hours actively and you will have to recharge daily, just my 5 cents from the dark side
1 Like
The point of the example was to illustrate the absurdness that what’s written as clauses in a consumer contract to protect either the business or the consumer could simply be completely ignored because of ‘consumer protection law’ - nothing more.
There is a whole other area of law that deals with ‘intent’ - i.e. whether you do something on purpose, or through ignorance, or by negligent action. And whilst I agree with you that:
I think you’d agree that if a C2 user dismantled their phone to disconnect the battery in order to force a reboot or reset, and Jolla’s purchase T’s & C’s for the C2 explicitly said that dismantling the phone would void any warranty and absolve Jolla of any repair obligations from that point on, the user would then have no recourse from Jolla to fix things. They may decide to fix things ‘ex gracia’ as a goodwill gesture, but there is no law (including consumer protection laws) that would force them to do so. This is my point.
Since I don’t know what Lenovo’s T’s & C’s say on the matter I can’t really comment. However, I think it unlikely that any T’s & C’s would explicitly say that changing the OS on a laptop voids any hardware warranty covering broken hinges! What is more likely is that changing the OS from Windows to Linux would absolve Lenovo from any future software support obligations on your laptop (unless they also support linux as well).
The first thing they teach you at law school is that the law is about ‘reasonablness’ - and there are decades of case law defining what this term means in practice. This is why you have legal protections for unfair contract terms, protections for the consumer enshrined in statute, etc - but what it doesn’t mean is that
Since this is all probably off-topic, probably best to end here or move it to a different thread now.
2 days is pretty normal for Android phones these days. I never got more than a day with my X10II.
With moderate use I can get three days battery life from my iPhone 14 with a 3,279 mAh battery, but never more than one day battery life from my Xperia 10 iii running SFOS 4.6 with a 4,500 mAh battery. If I use GPS tracking then the X10 iii battery life reduces dramatically - it literally loses about 1% every couple of minutes, whereas battery life with the iPhone 14 under the same conditions hardly changes.
I don’t know whether this is a software thing - i.e. IOS battery mangement is way better than SFOS, or an inbuilt function of the hardware design. Either way, if its a long day I always have to carry a spare power pack with me for the X10 iii but never need to bother with the iPhone.
I know nothing about the EU consumer law…
Here in NZ the consumer guarantees act, places all the obligations on the retailer. The manufacturer did not sell to the consumer, has no business relationship with the consumer, and thus has no obligations under the act.
Retailers generally pass off repair to the manufacturer, who declines for the spurious reasons above. It is pointless to argue with the manufacturer, go straight back to the retailer who is the one with the legal obligation.
Samsung were especially egregious about this with their Fold-n-Crack™ phone debacle, when it became clear that 100% of phones were going to fail. Going back to the retailer and demanding a full refund saw the phone fixed.
You know more than you think you do! And you are quite correct - if you bought your device from a retailer then your contract is with that retailer, not with the original manufacturer. Therefore if you have a dispute you go back to the retailer, not the manufacturer.
With the C2 the contract is with Jollyboys Oy (trading as Jolla) - who is both the retailer and the ‘manufacturer’ (of the software at least). There is no relationship with Reeder.
I just reflashed Android 13 on my 10 III and the daily consumption is around 7 %. We are talking about standby time with 5G enabled, you scrolling your social drug websites has nothing to do with the topic.
3 Likes
How much does battery last on Android with moderate to heavy usage on xperia 10 iii?