←back to thread

Today Google bricked my Chromebook by force-installing a hidden extension

(cloudisland.nz)
237 points robin_reala | 8 comments | 29 Mar 25 09:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
tossandthrow ◴[29 Mar 25 09:55 UTC] No.43514173[source]▶
If the machine is less than 2 years old (and you are in eruope) just return it as defect.
replies(2): >>43514253 #>>43514503 #
1. em-bee ◴[29 Mar 25 11:07 UTC] No.43514503[source]▶
laws should be adapted to extend the warranty every time a remote change is made to the device. basically, the warranty should hold as long as the device is maintained. say, each update should come with half a year of warranty. it's a bit tricky as it could motivate companies to stop updating, but that could be solved with a separate law forcing companies to provide an extra number of years to provide updates. (if that doesn't exist already)
replies(3): >>43514528 #>>43514565 #>>43514601 #
2. ginko ◴[29 Mar 25 11:11 UTC] No.43514528[source]▶
Sounds like a good way to make sure that companies drop SW support as quickly as possible.
replies(3): >>43514546 #>>43515342 #>>43517666 #
3. tossandthrow ◴[29 Mar 25 11:16 UTC] No.43514546[source]▶
Not if it as accompanied by laws about a lower bar for the functioning of software. Eg. regular sec patches etc.

However, this would be a great way of separating hardware and software products - and would that be so bad?

4. haswell ◴[29 Mar 25 11:19 UTC] No.43514565[source]▶
I don’t think relying on new laws as the primary incentive is going to get far, especially when big tech has the outsized influence they do on government. This then just leaves a strong incentive to stop updating things.
5. juergbi ◴[29 Mar 25 11:25 UTC] No.43514601[source]▶
This may make sense if the extended warranty is limited to defects introduced by the remote change. I.e., if they remotely break your device, they should be responsible for fixing the damage. A full warranty extension doesn't seem reasonable to me, though.

With regards to your last sentence, I think a good first step would be to require at least security and other critical updates to be provided within the full warranty period. And this would make sense even without the (limited) warranty extension, and I actually consider it more important.

replies(1): >>43514638 #
6. em-bee ◴[29 Mar 25 11:32 UTC] No.43514638[source]▶
if the extended warranty is limited to defects introduced by the remote change

yes, of course. it may be hard to distinguish though. the device getting hot may create additional stress on the mainboard or RAM or other parts causing it to break faster.

7. TeMPOraL ◴[29 Mar 25 13:24 UTC] No.43515342[source]▶
They already do.
8. exe34 ◴[29 Mar 25 18:59 UTC] No.43517666[source]▶
As long as they release all the source and build tools, I'm okay with that.