Does disassembling my Deck void the warranty?

[Sheeple]

A little crumb from something got stuck in the rear vent on my Deck. I want to get it out of there, but I don't want to void my warranty in the process.

[PopinFRESH]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย invision2212:

This is why we don’t say we opened anything up. Had that person acted like they have no idea what’s wrong they would have replaced his deck

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1675200/discussions/0/3727324132813574025/

And this is why I said what I said earlier about not advocating to defraud the manufacture. Your example here the person clearly broke the heat sync bracket when taking it off and was just trying to pay to have them replace the heat sync bracket and you're here saying they should have tried to defraud them and get them to replace his deck under warranty.

[@R+5]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย PopinFRESH:

You're missing the point I was making. It shouldn't matter if you tell them anything or not. The only part I disagree with you in the above is the "as long as any of those changes dont damage directly any of the original parts". If you damage a device that should be on you, regardless if it was direct or indirect damage. I.e. if I shunt mod my GPU and run it beyond its designed power specification to overclock it which eventually indirectly causes the GPU die to fail that shouldn't be something the manufacture should need to warrant.

i partially agree with that, but because imo thats direct damage: is a direct consequence of something you did to your system, and you can track the source of the issue to your mis-configurations. In your example it would be absurd to ask for a refund, or use of warraty for that machine as a whole, since you directly did somethingthat affected the normal use, and after some days or months it died.

What imo should be considered indirect damage is anything thats outside your direct influence, and according to specs. Lets say you upgrade your system, and are careful to keep changes under the expected levels of tolerance that the hardware is supossed to have: thats a reason why is legal to overclock, but why not always you will be able to use a warranty after doing it.

A lot of motherboards are specifically designed to make easy overclocking, because its expected some users will want to do that. If you followed the guidelines, and still something failed, maybe it wasnt your action itself, but a defect in the gpu, or something else. Gpu providers may not be very happy or friendly towards overclockers, because sometimes they figure out "scammy practices" they use to sell, like what happens frequently with nvidia cards (some festures can be unlocked through hacking)

So, as long as you dont try to get free parts through a scam, or a free repair after a problem you directly created, its fair to expect the use of a warranty even after simple or basic modification

[PopinFRESH]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย @R+5:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย PopinFRESH:

You're missing the point I was making. It shouldn't matter if you tell them anything or not. The only part I disagree with you in the above is the "as long as any of those changes dont damage directly any of the original parts". If you damage a device that should be on you, regardless if it was direct or indirect damage. I.e. if I shunt mod my GPU and run it beyond its designed power specification to overclock it which eventually indirectly causes the GPU die to fail that shouldn't be something the manufacture should need to warrant.

i partially agree with that, but because imo thats direct damage: is a direct consequence of something you did to your system, and you can track the source of the issue to your mis-configurations. In your example it would be absurd to ask for a refund, or use of warraty for that machine as a whole, since you directly did somethingthat affected the normal use, and after some days or months it died.

What imo should be considered indirect damage is anything thats outside your direct influence, and according to specs. Lets say you upgrade your system, and are careful to keep changes under the expected levels of tolerance that the hardware is supossed to have: thats a reason why is legal to overclock, but why not always you will be able to use a warranty after doing it.

A lot of motherboards are specifically designed to make easy overclocking, because its expected some users will want to do that. If you followed the guidelines, and still something failed, maybe it wasnt your action itself, but a defect in the gpu, or something else. Gpu providers may not be very happy or friendly towards overclockers, because sometimes they figure out "scammy practices" they use to sell, like what happens frequently with nvidia cards (some festures can be unlocked through hacking)

So, as long as you dont try to get free parts through a scam, or a free repair after a problem you directly created, its fair to expect the use of a warranty even after simple or basic modification

Yeah you're just applying the terms direct and indirect differently. If you're in the US what I described would most likely be considered indirect damages in the legal sense as I did not modify the GPU (the actual GPU die) which is the component that failed, however, the failure was a result that stemmed from my modification of the resistors that are responsible for regulating power being delivered to the GPU die. Or, another example that may be more clear, if I put that video card in a system and my power modifications caused a short which damaged my PSU or damaged my motherboard. Even though I didn't modify those components, they were indirectly damaged because of the modification to the video card.

These types of examples are one of the reasons that right to repair has been as challenging as it has been to gain traction; because it adds a somewhat onerous burden on the PSU or motherboard manufacture in the above example to determine why the part was damaged... and as evidenced by invision2212 there is plenty of the populous that do not care to hold themselves to an ethical standard and will try to defraud those manufactures who's parts were not defective, and which were damaged because of the users own failure