Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Tesla

2025-01-15T00:42:01Z

2A02:C7C:BC5D:6200:C02F:C892:C4BB:736F: article

Tesla is a company founded in 2003 and taken over by Elon Musk between then and '08. Elon Musk has taken the company in radical directions since and started on a foot of trying to follow in Apple's, from a consumer protection standpoint, controversial steps with things like requiring subscriptions or just flat-out being a Tesla technician to fix 2012's Model S, and then going beyond that and truly wagering war on consumers, whether it's the continued denial of adding carplay or android auto to their vehicles, putting an expiry date on their cars and leaving people woefully at the whims of Elon Musk choosing what can and can't be done with their vehicles, or making a 100 thousand dollar "utility" vehicle whose warranty is void by a simple carwash.

Ubisoft

2025-01-15T00:37:11Z

2A02:C7C:BC5D:6200:C02F:C892:C4BB:736F: A page exists now

Ubisoft is a self-proclaimed "AAAA Game Company" known in the consumer advocacy community recently for retroactively changing the terms of the "sale" of 2014's "The Crew" and then shutting down the service that allows the game to fundamentally function upon licenses expiring.

Ubisoft's CEO often makes talk of games as a service and believes it's the future and that consumers should be more comfortable with it. He, he did that right after or before just casually announcing the revoking of access to "The Crew". Ubisoft is also an NFT game company.

Samsung

2025-01-15T00:32:36Z

2A02:C7C:BC5D:6200:C02F:C892:C4BB:736F: Made a page

Samsung is a company incorporated long ago and is now bedded in its country, South Korea's economy, courtesy of making everything from smart rings to oil tankers.

=== Summary of Anti-consumer practices ===
Samsung has campaigned against pro-consumer legislation in America, retroactively enforced forced arbitration in a mid-cycle update to its OneUI 5 Android skin, and placed egregious requirements on "authorised" repair vendors, including to fully dismantle and then hand write a letter asking to work on a device that has one non-genuine part inside of it. They also pay technicians to scratch peoples' TV's to scam them out of warranties and then further will illegally strike down video evidence of this being done to weasel out of liability for it.

On that vein, whether or not it's true, Samsung now have a few times been accused of astroturfing- particularly on the social platform reddit.

BMW

2025-01-15T00:25:08Z

2A02:C7C:BC5D:6200:C02F:C892:C4BB:736F: It's only silly but I put something here

If my 2012 car had an upgraded front facing camera, the auto high beam control would not require a subscription.

Apple

2025-01-15T00:20:11Z

2A02:C7C:BC5D:6200:C02F:C892:C4BB:736F: Made the article

Apple are a company founded in 1976 by Steve Jobs and Wozniak. There was always a bit of a head in the clouds approach from Apple to designing things, but it seemed to work well until about the 2000's. Suddenly, there was an obsession with cutting excess weight, probably sparked about the time of the iPod, at the cost of repairability and upgradeability. Of course, the iPhone's launch would wind up staging the path of crafting the most popular consumer electronic device in the world, and smartphones now have become one of the most controversial to the right to repair community that is normally expected to be designed by a team of scumbags.

=== 2010's ===
Apple had numerous design failings in the 2010's, and these were often brushed under the rug- and of course, anyone experiencing such an issue would normally be slapped in the face with a mammoth repair bill. High-cost GPU failures on early 2010's MacBooks, the 2016-'17 MacBook Pro's screen cable skimping scandal, the 2019 16-inch MacBook Pro's SSD failures and more are design flaws Apple have, as they have often, dodged accountability for and continue to do.

==== Too little, too late - Attempts, or "Attempts" to do better ====
Apple have attempted recent changes to their products that have made them better, but still not on par with some other manufacturers for pro-consumer behaviour. Many believe this to be driven by changing legislation. Certain parts of this, certainly are. This includes:

* Opening an online "self service repair" parts store.
* Making the back glass of iPhones removable.
* Allowing alternative app stores in an update to iOS 17, in compliance with new EU legislation.
* Calibration tools for newly installed used parts in iOS 18, which sometimes work.
* An upgradeable, swappable SSD in the 2024 Mac Mini - albeit you cannot swap these units between M4 and M4 Pro units due to the internal casing's design being different without much good reason.
* A battery removable with just a 9V battery in the 2024 iPhone 16 and 16 Plus.

Ford

2025-01-15T00:04:20Z

2A02:C7C:BC5D:6200:C02F:C892:C4BB:736F: I made the Ford page, I do believe

Henry Ford made the first patent Ford automobile, the quadricycle in 1896. He then actually incorporated the Ford motor company in 1903. They're now a company known pretty well for anti-consumer behaviour, and automotive-typical practices like marked up parts sharing that probably started in the late 1990's.

=== Anti-Consumer Practices ===
Ford have been known recently for being the maker of America's most recalled vehicles. CEO Jim Farley recently said "no more recalls", and at least in Europe, that's been enforced by selling engines that break themselves and sometimes catch fire doing it, with the only recall being to fix the fire part. Ford have filed dangerous patents and have managed to find a way in the 2020's to make a software update go so wrong it bricks a vehicle.

Ford also have made some, luckily not realised patents for systems like one that feeds ads to distract the driver of their automobiles, and another patent for a system to annoy the owner of, restrict access to and then repossess or destroy vehicles where the owner "has defected" on finance payments.

Samcrac's 2024 video mini-series on his Aston Martin shows the pettiness and stupidity of either Ford or Aston Martin, but certainly Ford's design of needing a VIN-and-vehicle-specific "Car Configuration File" they (and now Aston Martin as its own corporate entity) only have control of to turn a Volvo C30's ECU into one for an exotic Aston Martin, is a bit ridiculous, and the fact Aston Martin wouldn't simply give Samcrac the simple file without attaching $15,000 in overpriced and completely unneeded repairs, is even worse.

==== Footnote from the author ====
I live in the EU. Why does this company not understand we do not want more dropshipped Volkswagen ID4's carrying the nameplates of once actually good cars? There are two of those now (The "Capri" and "Explorer"), and something else that's very similar (the "Mustang" Mach-E). We don't want more shoddily designed compact SUV's made by another manufacturer, and it's proven competing with yourself is stupid and in the end, you won't win doing that.