Red herring.
Horse crap. No consumer needs to know the source of every part in a laptop.
Fascinating.
A tire is a removable part that is widely known to be user-serviceable, like wiper blades and batteries. Your analogy completely fails.
Yes. It was BMW's responsibility to sell the vehicle with non-removable non-user serviceable parts that were in working order.
----------
It was a design flaw. The part that Apple installed did not meet the needs of the customer. It was not reliable. Nvidia is responsible to Apple and Apple is responsible to the consumer. That's how normal business works with complex machines that have parts that are not user-serviceable like soldered GPUs.
Then you can go back to whatever cave you came from, if you disagree with caveat emptor.
Consumers may not have to know the source of every part, but that doesn't give them the excuse to put the blame squarely on the complete product's manufacturer (in this case, Apple).
If BMW's responsibility was such, then you've really got your head up your backside. BMW was not aware of the Takata airbag problems at that time (in fact, the showdown occurred only sometime last year), so it's not fair to place the blame on BMW, when it has no way of knowing it (until the showdown last year and the inquiry). I get your point that it's BMW's responsibility to sell a complete working product, but it should not be blamed for what is obviously its supplier's problem. They can change suppliers and offer to replace the affected part(s) for free (in which they did on my car), but they have no reason to be blamed for their former supplier's screwups, because they had no idea at that time until they were made aware of the problem.
And as for your last part, so, in the end, NVIDIA is still ultimately responsible to the consumer for supplying Apple with lousy parts. Appreciate the fact that NVIDIA at least reimbursed Apple so that Apple could launch the recall programme.
Actually, I will make one change to my above post. The tire analogy is apt. Every part, whether it's user-serviceable or not, is the responsibility of the car maker. Only 3rd-party replacement parts that users install are the responsibility of the user to police.
When you sell a product to someone, the entire product needs to be in working order. If it isn't, it's your responsibility. The parts suppliers answer to you and you answer to the consumer. This is the entire reason behind having car dealerships. The dealership answers to you. The car maker answers to the dealership because they're the same entity. The parts suppliers answer to the car maker.
It is a ridiculous nightmare of inefficiency to expect consumers to police parts suppliers for products that are sold to them intact. Apple even tries to disguise OEM parts suppliers by, for instance, labeling its SSDs "Apple".
The SSD in my Macbook Pro says "APPLE SSD SM1024F". It doesn't say Samsung. There is no information under memory in System Profiler that tells me who the maker of the RAM is in my system.
The argument that consumers need to become experts in every tiny detail of every product is one that only disreputable manufacturers would embrace. It is the opposite of efficiency and responsibility.
So are you saying every single part, including the Continental tyres that came with my BMW, is the responsibility of BMW? And that I should blame BMW for wear and tear from regular usage on my tyres?
When Apple sold the 2008 MBPs to consumers, the entire product itself was in working order. It failed due to NVIDIA's fault, not Apple's. So it's still NVIDIA's responsibility. It's not Apple's fault that NVIDIA's parts failed, and Apple had no way to know during assembly that NVIDIA had a manufacturing flaw in it that caused their laptops to fail, until the complaints started.
The BMW dealership in Southbank, Melbourne, does not have to answer to me for a part failure like a faulty Takata airbag; Takata has to answer to me on why they goofed up their parts and get themselves into this brouhaha, and they also have to answer to me on how they're going to make reparations to me, via BMW. The car maker does not answer to the dealership - consider the dealership as the middle man that only sells cars and nothing else. I don't know how you guys do it there, but when my car needs to go in for its periodical servicing, I send it back to the BMW workshop that is run by BMW itself, and not the dealership. The dealership only sells cars, and has no part in servicing cars. Servicing is done by the manufacturer, not the dealer.
There is information under System Information to show the RAM manufacturer. For instance, mine shows 0x0198, in which a quick Google search reveals it to be Kingston. If you're too lazy to do a Google search, I don't know what to make of it.
Your argument that consumers don't have to know the most crucial details just proves that you don't have any idea on how caveat emptor works. It also proves that consumers like you have become too complacent and overprotected by consumer laws that only pass the blame to the manufacturer in general and not the parts suppliers. I'll assume that you're an American and that you lads just love to misuse your consumer 'rights' and file a lawsuit to squarely put the blame on the manufacturer (like Apple) so that you can relieve your responsibility of doing research to find out what really happened before appropriating blame properly.
