General discussion • Re: how much would it have cost per pi500 to fit the M.2 components?

Aiui, the moment the non-openable case is opened, the warranty is void, so it's definitely something we do not recommend.

Just noticed this from Reddit. Obviously USA only but interesting.

"The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 makes it illegal for companies to refuse warranty because you opened the device. Yes, those warranty void stickers mean nothing. They can not refuse your warranty because you opened the laptop as long as you don't damage anything when you open it."

However unlike say an RP5B, surely the RP500 is a complete standalone device, and so surely is subject to EU rules on repairability ? A non-openable case sounds like it conflicts with this.

I'd have to talk to our compliance people re: that.

The case uses moulded-in clips to hold itself together and those clips are not designed to be "undone" once the case is assembled, in that they often break when cracking the case open. So although the case is openable, you will almost certainly damage it or yourself doing so. This is not quite the same as a PC case where it's just screwed together (and the screws sometimes have a warranty sticker on them). I'm really not sure how the EU rules apply in those circumstances, but if the case is damaged during the opening process, that would I think void the warranty, as would soldering anything to the PCB. Since adding features is not a repair, again, I am not sure how this would apply.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does not care if a device is made to be open or not.

If a pi is not working and the case is damaged, which came first, the broken case caused the pi to stop working or did the pi not work and the case break when someone tried to see what's broken inside?

If I have a video of a pi not working and me breaking the case open to inspect things, does it get replaced because you can see it was not working before I broke the case?

What if it was a solder bridge? What if the ram chip failed? Breaking the case does not necessarily cause either. But both could be caused by a user who cracked the case open.

Would the user then have to prove in court that the solder bridge on the board is caused by the same solder used in manufacturing process via chemical analysis?

Adding a super charger to an engine does not immediately void the power train warranty of a vehicle, operating the engine under conditions it was not designed to operate in does. If someone adds a supercharger to their car's engine and a day later the engine dies from a different manufacturing defect it does not matter, the auto makers immediately deny the warranty claim.

In the end, if a company wants to be sh*tty, all the have to do is what the auto makers do: deny the warranty and for the user to go to court and prove the issue was not caused by the work they did under the hood. Since it's expensive, they'll probably be ok to just keep on denying the warranty claim. Magnuson-Moss does not prevent that.

Edit: how many pis die because the user shorts io pins by accident but get replaced under warranty because it was "doa"?

Statistics: Posted by memjr — Mon Dec 30, 2024 4:54 pm

---