Microsoft and the Xbox

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But really, there are no legitimate mods--products are sold and meant to be used as is--with the exception of customizable things like PCs. They just need to get rid of the stupid region locks so that there is no reasonable need to mod a console.

so, modifying my old xbox to use as a media center, is not legitimate? You'd rather it sit unused, than a new use being found for it? It isn't used for games anymore, since I have a 360 for playing xbox games, but works great for video podcasts, and things like that. Even if I did use it for gaming, MS doesn't support it anymore, so I can't get new games for it, or use it online. Even on newer systems, there are all sorts of great hacks and mods, that don't allow the system to do anything illegal, but instead be used in different ways. Ben Heck is well known for his mods, to make consoles portable, or controllers to be used by the handicapped. No legitimate use there either, eh?

[dmaul1114]

Ok, so maybe I went a bit to far in my language.

I really meant there's no legitimate reason for bitching about voiding a warranty or being kicked off an online network for modding the console.

I'm fine with people modding them (as long as it's not for piracy or cheating) who know and understand the risks and don't go online crying about losing their warranty or getting booted off X-box live.

So I was meaning that there's no legitimate reason to mod a console without having consequences from the manufacture such as voiding the warranty, losing online gaming access etc. If you want to do it, fine. Just know what you lose in the process and decide if it's still worth doing the mod.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

As long as companies are up front about what you can and can't do with their product, and what the penalties are for breaking that agreement, so people know what the consequences are I have no problems with limiting usages of products.

So a car manufacturer can say that if you take it in for service anywhere other than their dealership, or put any parts in it that are not their OEM brand, they can void your warranty?

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So a car manufacturer can say that if you take it in for service anywhere other than their dealership, or put any parts in it that are not their OEM brand, they can void your warranty?

Sure. I wouldn't buy said car. But they could certainly do that as long as they were up front about it.

And people could tell them to shove it and go buy from a competitor with a better warranty.

That's how bad business practices get done away with. Not buy giving them your $$$ (which is all any corporation cares about) and then bitching about things after the fact.

[DawnFalcon]

The problem is there's no clear way of understanding what you're buying as an end-user.

Corperate-corperate transactions under UK law are very broadly "buyer beware" (excepting actual fraud), but there are major limits on corperate-end user transactions because of the basic inequality of the positions of the two sides.

I agree that in theory you're right (and I'd like to see, in an ideal world, very strong contractual enforcement indeed, but it needs a whole host of things we don't have like standard contactual forms, on-tap legal expert systems and ways to ensure willing consent), but right now? No, no way.

[dmaul1114]

Things could be better, but in the case of the X-box, it's all right there that opening the box in anyway voids the warranty. And right there in the X-box Live terms of service that modded consoles can be banned from the service.

So in that case, people know what they're getting into as long as they take the time to read those agreements (or see the stickers on the console about voiding warranty of opened--which I think it has unless I'm thinking of another console).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Sure. I wouldn't buy said car. But they could certainly do that as long as they were up front about it.

Actually, they can't. This really happened, and the government stepped in and said it was illegal.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Actually, they can't. This really happened, and the government stepped in and said it was illegal.

Legally wrong then. But I have no problem with it and disagree with the ruling--though I can see the reason as it would lead to a monopoly that would drive many private garages out of business if all car makers adopted that policy.

But I don't think the market would have let that happen as too many people would just buy from companies that didn't have such terrible policies.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Actually, they can't. This really happened, and the government stepped in and said it was illegal.

FYI, it was one of the cases that set the stage for consumer rights in this area.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But I have no problem with it and disagree with the ruling

Thankfully, the government (and probably most consumers) disagrees with you.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Thankfully, the government (and probably most consumers) disagrees with you.

I just prefer keeping government out of business unless absolutely necessary.

And I think in that case, such warranty policies would have failed on their own as people chose to go elsewhere in large numbers since dealership maintenance is so over priced. If it got to be a widespread policy, then I'd favor intervention for the reason above.

But with electronic gadgets? I have no problem with them being restricted to intended usage by voiding warranties, banning online network access etc. as long as the companies are clear about the policies.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I just prefer keeping government out of business unless absolutely necessary.

So there should be no such thing as consumer rights?

And I think in that case, such warranty policies would have failed on their own as people chose to go elsewhere in large numbers since dealership maintenance is so over priced.

Unless, as you said, all of the car makers adopted that policy.

[dmaul1114]

There are things such as consumer rights--but those pertain to companies doing things to consumers that go against the user agreement etc. that's clear up front (to people who read it).

If you buy an X-box and decide to mod it, it's not a consumer rights violation when you void the warranty or get kicked off x-box live as those policies are clearly stated and very reasonable IMO. People know the risk and can decided to not buy the product, to buy it and not mod it, or to buy it and mod it as they don't care about the warranty or X-box live. I seen no consumer rights issue there.

For the second, I edited my above post to say I'd favor intervention in that case.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

There are things such as consumer rights--but those pertain to companies doing things to consumers that go against the user agreement etc. that's clear up front (to people who read it).

So companies should be allowed to put anything they want into a user agreement? If MS wanted to say that purchasing an Xbox meant that you agreed to give them your first born child, you'd be OK with forcing people to give their children up as long as it was clearly stated in the user agreement?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

PKFFW - If they were even reasonably accurate and they refunded the remaining time as-required by law and they didn't trash your saved games and media functionality, yes.

1: They are reasonably accurate, in that the actual number of people improperly banned is very very small. Not that the small number means it is ok, but it would definitely fall under any reasonable definition of "reasonably accurate".
2: I agree they should refund remaining time.
3: As far as I am aware they do not trash anything, they simply ban you from accessing Xbox live.

Cheers,
PKFFW