Any hackers in here? Hack a Google Home?...

[Sylvia Else]

On 20-Oct-22 1:56 pm, Don Y wrote:

On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the
consumer law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair
facilities on reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer
tribunal. The costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is
generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always
folds as soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to
avoid having a published judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

Apple could rely on the fact that it\'s generally quite difficult for an
individual to get the word out, just because there\'s so much noise out
there.

If it\'s \"inexpensive\" to make such a claim, then there\'s likely little
at stake.  Can \"classes\" file claims?  Or, just *individuals*?  If the
latter, then \"Hey, here\'s a free phone!  Let\'s call it even!\"

No class actions before the tribunals, and a class action in court
raises the financial stakes significantly in Australia, because the
loser usually pays the winner\'s legal costs.

[One would still expect this sort of thing to \"leak\", even if only to
immediate friends/colleagues... and, then to THEIR friends/colleagues...]

I think that would happen only if enough phones were breaking. \"My phone
broke, I took Apple to the tribunal, and they folded\" is one thing. \"Did
you know that if your phone breaks...etc.\" is quite another. It\'s a bit
like the spread of a virus - there have to be enough susceptible
individuals available, or the infection dies out. In this case, a
susceptible individual is a person with a broken Apple phone, not just
someone who owns a non-broken one.

It could, also, be that folks don\'t bother to repair their phones
opting, instead, to replace with newest model.

That could certainly be the case.

Sylvia.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 06:46:03 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 20-Oct-22 1:56 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the
consumer law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair
facilities on reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer
tribunal. The costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is
generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always
folds as soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to
avoid having a published judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

Apple could rely on the fact that it\'s generally quite difficult for an
individual to get the word out, just because there\'s so much noise out
there.

Newspapers regularly run this sort of thing. In fact they sit in courts spying on proceedings to get a story.

If it\'s \"inexpensive\" to make such a claim, then there\'s likely little
at stake. Can \"classes\" file claims? Or, just *individuals*? If the
latter, then \"Hey, here\'s a free phone! Let\'s call it even!\"

No class actions before the tribunals, and a class action in court
raises the financial stakes significantly in Australia, because the
loser usually pays the winner\'s legal costs.

Isn\'t that true in any country?

[One would still expect this sort of thing to \"leak\", even if only to
immediate friends/colleagues... and, then to THEIR friends/colleagues...]

I think that would happen only if enough phones were breaking.

All phones break one day.

\"My phone
broke, I took Apple to the tribunal, and they folded\" is one thing. \"Did
you know that if your phone breaks...etc.\" is quite another. It\'s a bit
like the spread of a virus - there have to be enough susceptible
individuals available, or the infection dies out. In this case, a
susceptible individual is a person with a broken Apple phone, not just
someone who owns a non-broken one.

And it has to be an owner not gullible enough to believe it\'s ok for Apple to rip them off and sell them a new phone because it\'s ok for an old phone to be busted. Most Apple users are gullible, or they wouldn\'t have bought such an overpriced incompatible thing in the first place. They don\'t even use the proper Bluetooth standard! \"You mean you want to communicate with a non-Apple user? Why?\"

 

[Snit]

On Oct 19, 2022 at 10:59:12 PM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote
<op.1ubpkyagmvhs6z@ryzen.home>:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 06:46:03 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 20-Oct-22 1:56 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the
consumer law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair
facilities on reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer
tribunal. The costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is
generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always
folds as soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to
avoid having a published judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

Apple could rely on the fact that it\'s generally quite difficult for an
individual to get the word out, just because there\'s so much noise out
there.

Newspapers regularly run this sort of thing. In fact they sit in courts spying
on proceedings to get a story.

If it\'s \"inexpensive\" to make such a claim, then there\'s likely little
at stake. Can \"classes\" file claims? Or, just *individuals*? If the
latter, then \"Hey, here\'s a free phone! Let\'s call it even!\"

No class actions before the tribunals, and a class action in court
raises the financial stakes significantly in Australia, because the
loser usually pays the winner\'s legal costs.

Isn\'t that true in any country?

[One would still expect this sort of thing to \"leak\", even if only to
immediate friends/colleagues... and, then to THEIR friends/colleagues...]

I think that would happen only if enough phones were breaking.

All phones break one day.

\"My phone
broke, I took Apple to the tribunal, and they folded\" is one thing. \"Did
you know that if your phone breaks...etc.\" is quite another. It\'s a bit
like the spread of a virus - there have to be enough susceptible
individuals available, or the infection dies out. In this case, a
susceptible individual is a person with a broken Apple phone, not just
someone who owns a non-broken one.

And it has to be an owner not gullible enough to believe it\'s ok for Apple to
rip them off and sell them a new phone because it\'s ok for an old phone to be
busted. Most Apple users are gullible, or they wouldn\'t have bought such an
overpriced incompatible thing in the first place. They don\'t even use the
proper Bluetooth standard! \"You mean you want to communicate with a non-Apple
user? Why?\"

Again: name a product that serves me as well for less.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

 

[boB]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 05:58:47 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 05:06:26 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/16/2022 6:44 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:49:34 +0100, boB <boB@k7iq.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:15:42 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is it hard coded? It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it this way and give it an altered version?

Here is one place to start... Find out what is inside of a Google
Home Mini which should be close to the other GOogle Homes...
Good to know what you are trying to deal with before you try anything.

No a lot to see here but...
https://youtu.be/OexI0LzYnVE?t=1492

Same guy... A closer look into some of the parts.
http://mobilemodding.info/google-home-mini-closer-look/

You might be able to start from scratch on firmware by knowing what
the processor is (ARM of course) but I\'m sure it is code read
protected and so you would have to write EVERYTHING yourself or find
libraries for that part. Marvel I think.

I wish that the Google Homes were stereo like the Amazon Echos and
Alexas are.

Can you not get two google home speakers and call one a left speaker and one a right? Once they\'re told this, they will output two channels? It is pointless to have stereo on a single unit in one place in your room (although mine is hard wired into my stereo!)

You know better than that.

Electronics never work the way you want. It\'s a given.

Google can mix-down stereo to MONO and send to all your units.
Sending MONO cuts their data traffic in half. Bonus.

Only if the unit had a 1/8\" jack on it, might someone at
Google be tempted to send stereo.

Well Google must be lying then....
https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/7559493?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid#zippy=
\"For an immersive music and media experience, you can connect 2 speakers to set up stereo sound.\"

Very interesting ! I did not know about this stereo paring thing.

But, the Alexa has an 1/8 stereo jack that I connect up to my two
powered studio monitors in the lab.

The Google homes do not have an audio jack on them. And I did look at
a teardown of a GH and it didn\'t look easy enough to make a line
output so I just kept using the Alexa.

Unfortunately, I don\'t think that Amazon\'s music library is nearly as
extensive as Google\'s is. I could be wrong, but with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficut to find a song that Google does not
have.

boB

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:06:32 +0100, boB <boB@k7iq.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 05:58:47 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 05:06:26 +0100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 10/16/2022 6:44 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:49:34 +0100, boB <boB@k7iq.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 06:15:42 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Just wondering if I can change the main program in a Google Home, or is it hard coded? It must allow updates to the software, so can I fool it this way and give it an altered version?

Here is one place to start... Find out what is inside of a Google
Home Mini which should be close to the other GOogle Homes...
Good to know what you are trying to deal with before you try anything.

No a lot to see here but...
https://youtu.be/OexI0LzYnVE?t=1492

Same guy... A closer look into some of the parts.
http://mobilemodding.info/google-home-mini-closer-look/

You might be able to start from scratch on firmware by knowing what
the processor is (ARM of course) but I\'m sure it is code read
protected and so you would have to write EVERYTHING yourself or find
libraries for that part. Marvel I think.

I wish that the Google Homes were stereo like the Amazon Echos and
Alexas are.

Can you not get two google home speakers and call one a left speaker and one a right? Once they\'re told this, they will output two channels? It is pointless to have stereo on a single unit in one place in your room (although mine is hard wired into my stereo!)

You know better than that.

Electronics never work the way you want. It\'s a given.

Google can mix-down stereo to MONO and send to all your units.
Sending MONO cuts their data traffic in half. Bonus.

Only if the unit had a 1/8\" jack on it, might someone at
Google be tempted to send stereo.

Well Google must be lying then....
https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/7559493?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid#zippy=
\"For an immersive music and media experience, you can connect 2 speakers to set up stereo sound.\"

Very interesting ! I did not know about this stereo paring thing.

But, the Alexa has an 1/8 stereo jack that I connect up to my two
powered studio monitors in the lab.

The Google homes do not have an audio jack on them. And I did look at
a teardown of a GH and it didn\'t look easy enough to make a line
output so I just kept using the Alexa.

It\'s very easy, I did it. If you open it, there\'s a mono wire and connector to all three speakers (two full range, one bass) in parallel. Just connect that to your stereo\'s aux input. You\'ll hear music in mono though unless you have two google homes, since each one only has a mono amp in it. I just soldered a long dual phono to dual phono lead to it, after removing the plugs from one end.

Unfortunately, I don\'t think that Amazon\'s music library is nearly as
extensive as Google\'s is.

I wouldn\'t know, you have to pay for it, hence I use the free Spotify. That has found everything I\'ve asked for from every genre from Beethoven to modern Russian rave.

I could be wrong, but with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficut to find a song that Google does not
have.

 

[David Brooks]

On 20/10/2022 08:06, boB wrote:

with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficult to find a song that Google does not
have.

Do you consider YouTube Premium to be worth the fee?

What are the main advantages?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:23:56 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:06, boB wrote:
with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficult to find a song that Google does not
have.

Do you consider YouTube Premium to be worth the fee?

What are the main advantages?

AFAIK they\'re (Spotify, Google, Amazon, Youtube) all £10 a month and you can listen to any song you like and download it. If you don\'t pay, you can only listen to genres or artists. For example, I have the free Spotify on my Google Home and can say \"Hey Google, play The Beatles\". I will then get Beatles music, but I can\'t choose the track, and sometimes I get music similar to The Beatles. I can skip tracks I don\'t want though. But the er.... adjusted Spotify app on my phone bypasses that Both the phone and the Google Home play through the stereo for proper quality of music.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:23:56 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:06, boB wrote:
with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficult to find a song that Google does not
have.

Do you consider YouTube Premium to be worth the fee?

What are the main advantages?

Well I just changed my Google Home from Spotify free to Youtube free, and it failed to play anything at all! I get the reply \"I looked for x on Youtube, but it either isn\'t available or can\'t be played right now\". Not very impressive.

 

[David Brooks]

On 20/10/2022 08:29, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:23:56 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life
wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:06, boB wrote:
with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficult to find a song that Google does not
have.

Do you consider YouTube Premium to be worth the fee?

What are the main advantages?

AFAIK they\'re (Spotify, Google, Amazon, Youtube) all £10 a month and you
can listen to any song you like and download it.  If you don\'t pay, you
can only listen to genres or artists.  For example, I have the free
Spotify on my Google Home and can say \"Hey Google, play The Beatles\".  I
will then get Beatles music, but I can\'t choose the track, and sometimes
I get music similar to The Beatles.  I can skip tracks I don\'t want
though.  But the er.... adjusted Spotify app on my phone bypasses that
   Both the phone and the Google Home play through the stereo for
proper quality of music.

Sounds like a brilliant set-up you have! ❤️

My ordinary YT plays original artists too. Here\'s one of the first \'pop\'
songs I can remember:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvxagNIBVLU

 

[David Brooks]

On 20/10/2022 08:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:23:56 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life
wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:06, boB wrote:
with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficult to find a song that Google does not
have.

Do you consider YouTube Premium to be worth the fee?

What are the main advantages?

Well I just changed my Google Home from Spotify free to Youtube free,
and it failed to play anything at all!  I get the reply \"I looked for x
on Youtube, but it either isn\'t available or can\'t be played right
now\".  Not very impressive.

You need to put in more effort! ;-)

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:42:42 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:23:56 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life
wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:06, boB wrote:
with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficult to find a song that Google does not
have.

Do you consider YouTube Premium to be worth the fee?

What are the main advantages?

Well I just changed my Google Home from Spotify free to Youtube free,
and it failed to play anything at all! I get the reply \"I looked for x
on Youtube, but it either isn\'t available or can\'t be played right
now\". Not very impressive.

You need to put in more effort! ;-)

I know what the problem is. Youtube/Google are now the same. The accounts are the same. But my Youtube account was banned for something a hacker did, and they insist it was me, despite having just told me I was hacked into, and want me to provide evidence, apparently their own evidence is not enough! Anyway, I have my phone with one account (which I don\'t want to change since it has 100s of contacts and is set up linked to many apps) and Youtube on a fresh one created to bypass their stupidity. But my Google Home wants to use the same Google/Youtube account as itself, which is why it\'s refusing to play. If I try doing that on the computer, I get the message it\'s a locked account.

I\'ve complained to Youtube (again) to tell them to get their act together, and to Google to see if I can link the two accounts when playing music.

Now trying out free Deezer to see if it\'s any better.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:40:34 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:23:56 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life
wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:06, boB wrote:
with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficult to find a song that Google does not
have.

Do you consider YouTube Premium to be worth the fee?

What are the main advantages?

AFAIK they\'re (Spotify, Google, Amazon, Youtube) all £10 a month and you
can listen to any song you like and download it. If you don\'t pay, you
can only listen to genres or artists. For example, I have the free
Spotify on my Google Home and can say \"Hey Google, play The Beatles\". I
will then get Beatles music, but I can\'t choose the track, and sometimes
I get music similar to The Beatles. I can skip tracks I don\'t want
though. But the er.... adjusted Spotify app on my phone bypasses that
Both the phone and the Google Home play through the stereo for
proper quality of music.

Sounds like a brilliant set-up you have! ❤️

I have a degree in electronics No sound output jack my arse.

My ordinary YT plays original artists too. Here\'s one of the first \'pop\'
songs I can remember:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvxagNIBVLU

If you link google music to your google mini, can you ask for an particular song? As in \"Hey Google, play Let It Be by The Beatles\"?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:40:34 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:23:56 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life
wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:06, boB wrote:
with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficult to find a song that Google does not
have.

Do you consider YouTube Premium to be worth the fee?

What are the main advantages?

AFAIK they\'re (Spotify, Google, Amazon, Youtube) all £10 a month and you
can listen to any song you like and download it. If you don\'t pay, you
can only listen to genres or artists. For example, I have the free
Spotify on my Google Home and can say \"Hey Google, play The Beatles\". I
will then get Beatles music, but I can\'t choose the track, and sometimes
I get music similar to The Beatles. I can skip tracks I don\'t want
though. But the er.... adjusted Spotify app on my phone bypasses that
Both the phone and the Google Home play through the stereo for
proper quality of music.

Sounds like a brilliant set-up you have! ❤️

I have a degree in electronics No sound output jack my arse.

My ordinary YT plays original artists too. Here\'s one of the first \'pop\'
songs I can remember:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvxagNIBVLU

If you link google music to your google mini, can you ask for an particular song? As in \"Hey Google, play Let It Be by The Beatles\"?

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 20-Oct-22 4:59 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 06:46:03 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 20-Oct-22 1:56 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the
consumer law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair
facilities on reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer
tribunal. The costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is
generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always
folds as soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to
avoid having a published judgement that would set some kind of
precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

Apple could rely on the fact that it\'s generally quite difficult for an
individual to get the word out, just because there\'s so much noise out
there.

Newspapers regularly run this sort of thing.  In fact they sit in courts
spying on proceedings to get a story.

If it\'s \"inexpensive\" to make such a claim, then there\'s likely little
at stake.  Can \"classes\" file claims?  Or, just *individuals*?  If the
latter, then \"Hey, here\'s a free phone!  Let\'s call it even!\"

No class actions before the tribunals, and a class action in court
raises the financial stakes significantly in Australia, because the
loser usually pays the winner\'s legal costs.

Isn\'t that true in any country?

[One would still expect this sort of thing to \"leak\", even if only to
immediate friends/colleagues... and, then to THEIR
friends/colleagues...]

I think that would happen only if enough phones were breaking.

All phones break one day.

For this purpose they have to break soon enough for the owner even to
consider a repair. Given how often some people seem to upgrade their
phones even when they\'re not broken, this repair window is not that wide.

Sylvia.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 10:22:56 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 20-Oct-22 4:59 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 06:46:03 +0100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 20-Oct-22 1:56 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the
consumer law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair
facilities on reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer
tribunal. The costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is
generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always
folds as soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to
avoid having a published judgement that would set some kind of
precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

Apple could rely on the fact that it\'s generally quite difficult for an
individual to get the word out, just because there\'s so much noise out
there.

Newspapers regularly run this sort of thing. In fact they sit in courts
spying on proceedings to get a story.

If it\'s \"inexpensive\" to make such a claim, then there\'s likely little
at stake. Can \"classes\" file claims? Or, just *individuals*? If the
latter, then \"Hey, here\'s a free phone! Let\'s call it even!\"

No class actions before the tribunals, and a class action in court
raises the financial stakes significantly in Australia, because the
loser usually pays the winner\'s legal costs.

Isn\'t that true in any country?

[One would still expect this sort of thing to \"leak\", even if only to
immediate friends/colleagues... and, then to THEIR
friends/colleagues...]

I think that would happen only if enough phones were breaking.

All phones break one day.

For this purpose they have to break soon enough for the owner even to
consider a repair. Given how often some people seem to upgrade their
phones even when they\'re not broken, this repair window is not that wide.

\"Break\" includes physical injury aswell as wearing out. It\'s why I have a £30 phone that should have been £130. A little crack in the screen and they sold it! It works fine.

 

[Don Y]

On 10/19/2022 10:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Oct-22 1:56 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the consumer
law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair facilities on
reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer tribunal. The
costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always folds as
soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to avoid having a
published judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

Apple could rely on the fact that it\'s generally quite difficult for an
individual to get the word out, just because there\'s so much noise out there.

Word of mouth goes a long way. Plus, you never know when the media will
pick up on an \"interesting tidbit\".

For example, the media ran stories (here) of retailers NOT wanting to
accept return merchandise -- because it was too costly for them to
process it. So, if you tried to return an item, they would just tell
you to keep it -- AND refund your money.

I\'d put the iPhone scenario in that same class of \"news\".

If it\'s \"inexpensive\" to make such a claim, then there\'s likely little
at stake.  Can \"classes\" file claims?  Or, just *individuals*?  If the
latter, then \"Hey, here\'s a free phone!  Let\'s call it even!\"

No class actions before the tribunals, and a class action in court raises the
financial stakes significantly in Australia, because the loser usually pays the
winner\'s legal costs.

OK, so it\'s just \"onesy-twosies\", then. The cost of litigating would
likely exceed the cost of simply replacing the unit.

[One would still expect this sort of thing to \"leak\", even if only to
immediate friends/colleagues... and, then to THEIR friends/colleagues...]

I think that would happen only if enough phones were breaking. \"My phone broke,
I took Apple to the tribunal, and they folded\" is one thing. \"Did you know that
if your phone breaks...etc.\" is quite another. It\'s a bit like the spread of a
virus - there have to be enough susceptible individuals available, or the
infection dies out. In this case, a susceptible individual is a person with a
broken Apple phone, not just someone who owns a non-broken one.

OTOH, iPhones are expensive enough that someone benefiting from this sort
of action would likely *brag* about his good fortune.

[Thus, iPhone might be a bad example]

It could, also, be that folks don\'t bother to repair their phones
opting, instead, to replace with newest model.

That could certainly be the case.

For anything of significant value, I would think the dubiousness of
a third-party repair might weigh into an owner\'s decision.

\"Bob\'s Phone Repair: We Repair All Makes and Models\" doesn\'t
inspire confidence. Would you want a $1400 phone to come back
working but with scratches on the screen? Or, the case held together
with tape? Or...

One would assume a \"genuine Apple depot\" would take steps:
- not to break the unit
- to replace any components \"compromised\" by their service.

Bob, OTOH, may see purchasing a new case back (from Apple) eating
into his profits and try to pass off a broken case as \"acceptable\".
For some users, this may be true. For others, <shrug>

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:10:10 +0100, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 10/19/2022 10:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Oct-22 1:56 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the consumer
law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair facilities on
reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer tribunal. The
costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always folds as
soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to avoid having a
published judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

Apple could rely on the fact that it\'s generally quite difficult for an
individual to get the word out, just because there\'s so much noise out there.

Word of mouth goes a long way. Plus, you never know when the media will
pick up on an \"interesting tidbit\".

I\'m sure that should be titbit.

For example, the media ran stories (here) of retailers NOT wanting to
accept return merchandise -- because it was too costly for them to
process it. So, if you tried to return an item, they would just tell
you to keep it -- AND refund your money.

A good way to get free stuff from China on Ebay

Not my fault they misadvertised it....

It could, also, be that folks don\'t bother to repair their phones
opting, instead, to replace with newest model.

That could certainly be the case.

For anything of significant value, I would think the dubiousness of
a third-party repair might weigh into an owner\'s decision.

\"Bob\'s Phone Repair: We Repair All Makes and Models\" doesn\'t
inspire confidence. Would you want a $1400 phone to come back
working but with scratches on the screen? Or, the case held together
with tape? Or...

One would assume a \"genuine Apple depot\" would take steps:
- not to break the unit
- to replace any components \"compromised\" by their service.

Bob, OTOH, may see purchasing a new case back (from Apple) eating
into his profits and try to pass off a broken case as \"acceptable\".
For some users, this may be true. For others, <shrug

I take it you also take your car to a Ford (or whatever) dealer, and not a smaller garage? They see your sort coming.

 

[David Brooks]

On 20/10/2022 09:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:42:42 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life
wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:23:56 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life
wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:06, boB wrote:
with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficult to find a song that Google does not
have.

Do you consider YouTube Premium to be worth the fee?

What are the main advantages?

Well I just changed my Google Home from Spotify free to Youtube free,
and it failed to play anything at all!  I get the reply \"I looked for x
on Youtube, but it either isn\'t available or can\'t be played right
now\".  Not very impressive.

You need to put in more effort! ;-)

I know what the problem is.  Youtube/Google are now the same.  The
accounts are the same.  But my Youtube account was banned for something
a hacker did, and they insist it was me, despite having just told me I
was hacked into, and want me to provide evidence, apparently their own
evidence is not enough!  Anyway, I have my phone with one account (which
I don\'t want to change since it has 100s of contacts and is set up
linked to many apps) and Youtube on a fresh one created to bypass their
stupidity.  But my Google Home wants to use the same Google/Youtube
account as itself, which is why it\'s refusing to play.  If I try doing
that on the computer, I get the message it\'s a locked account.

I\'ve complained to Youtube (again) to tell them to get their act
together, and to Google to see if I can link the two accounts when
playing music.

Now trying out free Deezer to see if it\'s any better.

You can re-invent yourself with a new persona on Google + YouTube.

I *KNOW* that to be a fact!

 

[David Brooks]

On 20/10/2022 09:08, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:40:34 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life
wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:23:56 +0100, David Brooks <BDB@not.on.your.life
wrote:

On 20/10/2022 08:06, boB wrote:
with YouTube premium
at least, it is very difficult to find a song that Google does not
have.

Do you consider YouTube Premium to be worth the fee?

What are the main advantages?

AFAIK they\'re (Spotify, Google, Amazon, Youtube) all £10 a month and you
can listen to any song you like and download it.  If you don\'t pay, you
can only listen to genres or artists.  For example, I have the free
Spotify on my Google Home and can say \"Hey Google, play The Beatles\".  I
will then get Beatles music, but I can\'t choose the track, and sometimes
I get music similar to The Beatles.  I can skip tracks I don\'t want
though.  But the er.... adjusted Spotify app on my phone bypasses that
   Both the phone and the Google Home play through the stereo for
proper quality of music.

Sounds like a brilliant set-up you have! ❤️

I have a degree in electronics   No sound output jack my arse.

My ordinary YT plays original artists too. Here\'s one of the first \'pop\'
songs I can remember:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvxagNIBVLU

If you link google music to your google mini, can you ask for an
particular song?  As in \"Hey Google, play Let It Be by The Beatles\"?

One has to have a paid subscription to achieve that.

I don\'t pay for music on-line.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:10:10 +0100, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 10/19/2022 10:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20-Oct-22 1:56 pm, Don Y wrote:
On 10/19/2022 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I live in Australia, where there have long been provisions in the consumer
law relating to the availability of spare parts and repair facilities on
reasonable terms.

In all that time, you\'d think someone would have baulked at Apple\'s
excessive repair costs, and sought a remedy before a consumer tribunal. The
costs of doing so are not high, and a lawyer is generally not required.

Yet I can find nothing. I can\'t help suspecting that Apple always folds as
soon as someone goes down this path in Australia, so as to avoid having a
published judgement that would set some kind of precedent.

That would only make sense if there was a \"settlement\" in which neither
party allows the terms of the settlement to be disclosed.

Apple could rely on the fact that it\'s generally quite difficult for an
individual to get the word out, just because there\'s so much noise out there.

Word of mouth goes a long way. Plus, you never know when the media will
pick up on an \"interesting tidbit\".

ROTFPMSL! Back to the original topic of Google Homes, I just asked it to play some music and it played the wrong thing, which was rubbish, so I said \"Hey Google, turn that shit off!\", which it obeyed!