On 12/15/24 14:31, Frank Mashockie via groups.io wrote:
This also goes back to right to repair and the lengths companies from all industries are going to 'protect' IP.? Which I still can't believe there were people in this group arguing for company practices like this in the last discussion I was involved in on this topic.
Also, I wouldn't underestimate your need for instrument support with newer equipment.? I work in the biotech industry as an in-house Lab Instrument Engineer.? And for newer equipment, manufacturers are locking down the equipment so that any time you need to perform a repair you NEED to utilize add-on software that allows a manufacturer tech to remotely access the instrument to resolve the issue.? This isn't a feature, it is required!? I suspect any manufacturers of equipment not under scrunity of recent changes to copyright law (ensuring that customers get access to service codes, passwords, etc) will continue these kinds of practices.? That includes electronic test equipment.
I tell my colleagues the same thing that others have said here.? Unless you really need the newest equipment because it encompasses technology that will truly advance our science, go with something that is 15-20 years old (or more).? You'll be able to service it without the expensive service contracts these OEMs push in lieu of supporting customer/3rd party repair.? This will keep upfront AND long-term costs way down.
"You will own nothing and be happy".
Explanations of this, why it is bad, why it is unnecessary, and why people should avoid it are met with blank stares. The same kind of blank stares that result from people being told about "free" online services, the fact being that if you receive value for free, you are the product. People just don't get it.
People are generally clueless. I've all but given up trying to save them from their own stupidity. You can only yell "you are heading toward a cliff!" for so long before it becomes tiresome.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Dave McGuire