|
|
|
|
|
by kd5bjo
2171 days ago
|
|
Your example is also off, because we’re talking about an internal component rather than an entire device. If a repair shop doesn’t use a Genuine Apple replacement screen, does Apple have to support it? No. Is going out of their way to physically destroy these replacement screens anti-consumer behavior? Yes. A key point here is that it’s impossible for the malicious driver to know what representation the seller made to the consumer— the presence of a nonoriginal part doesn’t necessarily mean there was any fraud involved. Edit to add: > ... fake iPhones made in Switzerland sold in the US as through they were real iPhones. If that's the case, then, YES, Apple would be right to brick them with an update. Absolutely. Only after obtaining a court order to that effect. Destroying someone else’s property without due process is generally not acceptable, regardless of how right you are. To step away from technology for a moment, is it ok for a glassmaker to go around town breaking windows because they’re allegedly made with counterfeit glass? |
|
Counterfeit goods is not a victimless crime. It costs jobs. It costs progress. It costs entire industries. Don't blame the victim. Consumers just happen to be caught in the middle of what, at the end of the day, is a political mess.
One could argue consumers are the victims of politicians and their terrible policies. That's where this gets complicated and we could end-up understanding that the FTDI problem has its genesis a decade or two ago.
I mean, what's FTDI supposed to do? Shut down and let the fakes take the market? What would happen to quality, reliability and support then? A business like FTDI doesn't run on pink unicorns. If fakes destroy their market they are out, a bunch of people lose their jobs and good luck with support for any chip or predictable performance and quality from anyone.
The choices we make have consequences in the short and long term. This is just a microcosm of what the world has allowed China to get away with.