Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

The user should be the final authority over what his computer does. Not the computer manufacturer. Not the OS developer. Not the 3P app developer. Not some product manager at a software company. The end user.

Even time computer says no, or does something without your permission, or does something counter to your wishes, or alerts you to do something, or urges you to do something, or makes you opt-out, is a failure.

View on HN

The end user disables pixel cleaning because the pop-up annoys them. They then start bitching about burn-in within 6 months, RMA the monitor even though it was their choice to do so, and spread negative sentiment about your brand going forward for being "prone to burn in".

Yes? Are you a human or a corporation talking? Has Samsung achieved singularity status and is now posting on HN?

Besides, the negative sentiment that OP shares here sis for me much stronger than any burned pixel, annoyances like this are a sure way for me to not buy a product if I read this in reviews

Why would Samsung care if he burns out his OLED panel? The alert is there only as far as shielding the manufacturer from legal culpability if the unit fails. If they can point and say "Nah, no RMA, this guy only did 3 pixel refreshes in a year or installed unauthorized firmware" then you're on the hook for a new display. Assuming that Samsung has any more investment in enforcing you to pixel refresh is inane.

Do you also skip oil changes thinking "Fuck you, not today, Hyundai!"

OP wants his property to behave in a specific way, clearly knowing the risks.

I'm not seeing how a hypothetical bad review about a $200B company is at all relevant here. The manufacturer's reputation is not in any way OP's problem.

If you own the hardware, it is yours to abuse, break, and do all manner of things that would make the engineers who designed it cringe: you do not owe any allegiance to them.

..which then forces the manufacturers to develop better solutions - people who are annoyed by manual maintenance tasks or disruptions buy them - Not a bad scenario for both sides.

Cool story, bro.

I think there are actions a user may sometimes wish to take that software should simply refuse, ideally. Some actions are, and can only be, mistakes. I don't think it's a bad idea for software and hardware to defend itself against misinformed, confused, or clumsy users.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com