• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft considering changed approach to right-to-repair

Schmick

Member

Tldr; MS are reviewing an approach to make it easier for consumers to repair their devices after a call from shareholders.

Who knows where this might lead to but its a step in the right direction.

Just having access to the fans on Xbox to remove dust would be a start. Like you can with the PS5.

Anyone watch the recent Linus review on the MS Surface Studio (he damaged it whilst taking the back plate off)? Stuff like that should not be happening.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
The positive sentiment from the changes on the surface range has probably made shareholders think its a good move to trend to.

Also just a nice point to help keep them out of the anti-trust movements.
 

Soodanim

Member
The positive sentiment from the changes on the surface range has probably made shareholders think its a good move to trend to.

Also just a nice point to help keep them out of the anti-trust movements.
It's a smart business move. Microsoft wants to be a leader, and leading the way in a customer-friendly movement (that just so happens to also be a future requirement anyway) won't get them anything but good publicity.
 

GHG

Member

Yep this is something that impacts all companies.

It's primarily about making spare parts readily and easily available rather than the ease of the repair itself. Without access to parts then there can be no repair regardless of the difficulty of the task.

It's a smart business move. Microsoft wants to be a leader, and leading the way in a customer-friendly movement (that just so happens to also be a future requirement anyway) won't get them anything but good publicity.

No.

From a business perspective pretty much all companies have no interest in this because it will make their costs higher and has the potent to reduce sales. It's an ESG issue and shareholders of major tech companies are pushing for this because the EU are likely to make this a law in the next few years (it's to reduce "electronic waste") so having something in place will offer protection from potential activist shareholder action in the future.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
It's a smart business move. Microsoft wants to be a leader, and leading the way in a customer-friendly movement (that just so happens to also be a future requirement anyway) won't get them anything but good publicity.
Happy that the pro 8 has a removable ssd now, not sure if I ever will replace it in the first couple of years

No.

From a business perspective pretty much all companies have no interest in this because it will make their costs higher and reduce sales. It's an ESG issue and shareholders of major tech companies are pushing for this because the EU are likely to make this a law in the next few years so having something in place will offer protection from potential activist shareholder action in the future.
Not sure what you are disagree with?
 

Patrick S.

Amiga Forever
 
Tldr; MS are reviewing an approach to make it easier for consumers to repair their devices after a call from shareholders.
If it's an internal review like the one they did for Windows 11 requirements...

After backlash, Microsoft now testing Windows 11 support for some older CPUs


Took a while, then they changed nothing (other than supporting an older CPU they still sell) instead coming up with shit like "unsuported hardware crash PC's up to 52% more often"

A quote from a reaction:

"Devices that do not meet the minimum system requirements had 52% more kernel mode crashes. Devices that do meet the minimum system requirements had a 99.8% crash free experience." But isn't that still… 99.7%? Without more context, a number that Microsoft wants to be scary—52% more crashes!—doesn't actually seem convincing at all."

Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/how-the-hell-is-microsoft-already-screwing-up-windows-11-this-badly/

So yeah. I don't trust their internal reviewal process.

They will only go this route if it suits them.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
Not sure what you are disagree with?

The point of Microsoft wanting to be the leader in this and be seen as "pro consumer". That's the last thing on any companies mind when it comes to this. With the way that most large companies who sell hardware are set up this will be nothing but a faff and they are only doing it because they will be forced to due to EU laws, not because they want to.

Let me put it this way, if these companies wanted to make spare/replacement parts easily and readily available then they would be doing so already (how many years have all these guys been selling hardware for?), it wouldn't take a looming change of law for them to take action. The fact that this push is coming from activist investors rather than internally tells you everything you need to know.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
The point of Microsoft wanting to be the leader in this and be seen as "pro consumer".
So the motive but I am not sure if the op was saying it was an altruistic stance from Microsoft. Microsoft could want to be "seen as pro-consumer" from a non-altruistic motivation.

I think this is primarily about realising that businesses want easier ways to service their devices so they want to make it a point that they can push and compete on commercially. The regulations are also a big part of it.
 
MS has nothing to lose here. They sell their console at a loss and as such there is no point forcing people to buy replacement consoles. They are still mostly a software company. If they can differentiate their tablets from Apple then that is a marketable point.

Frankly i don't touch Apple products, so I guess I just don't get affected by right to repair much. I just vote with my wallet.
 
Replacement fans and thumbsticks and such are not that big of a deal. I doubt any company is going to start offering schematics and boardviews of their products without being required by law. it's being able to trace dead power rails and known voltages at the test points that are important to keeping e-waste down. You can trace these things without schematics but it requires a lot more time for an inexperienced tech to successfully diagnose the device.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
So the motive but I am not sure if the op was saying it was an altruistic stance from Microsoft. Microsoft could want to be "seen as pro-consumer" from a non-altruistic motivation.

I think this is primarily about realising that businesses want easier ways to service their devices so they want to make it a point that they can push and compete on commercially. The regulations are also a big part of it.
Mate, businesses want nothing to do with this crap. If not for these activist investors nothing would change. If you've ever been listening in to earnings calls whenever this is brought up you would know its met with nothing but disdain.

As recently as May this year Microsoft were actively lobbying against this along with all other major tech companies:

 

555-Goodbye

Member
MS has nothing to lose here. They sell their console at a loss and as such there is no point forcing people to buy replacement consoles. They are still mostly a software company. If they can differentiate their tablets from Apple then that is a marketable point.

Frankly i don't touch Apple products, so I guess I just don't get affected by right to repair much. I just vote with my wallet.
Video Game hardware gets more profitable with time. They won't make a loss overall through the console life cycle.
 

Soodanim

Member
No.

From a business perspective pretty much all companies have no interest in this because it will make their costs higher and has the potent to reduce sales. It's an ESG issue and shareholders of major tech companies are pushing for this because the EU are likely to make this a law in the next few years (it's to reduce "electronic waste") so having something in place will offer protection from potential activist shareholder action in the future.
Obviously none of them want to do it, that goes without saying. But if it's happening anyway, getting in early will have benefits.
 

Haggard

Member
I´m not holding my breath until I see results.
When I can switch out my phone`s battery without having to work through several layers of glue f.e.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
Think you over-emphasise the power of these 'activist' investors in relation to other influences like consumers, regulators and now employees.

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face considering everything we've seen in recent years involving SJW's. This is no different to that and you need to look no further than what is currently happening to Facebook as an example (which is actually what makes the timing of this announcement even more interesting).

When said employees can see millions (if not billions) of dollars worth of value disappear from their shares in the matter of days then yes they will start to give in to the activists, even if it's just lip service to take the pressure/focus off their business for a short while.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
This is no different to that and you need to look no further than what is currently happening to Facebook as an example
Lol, what exactly is happening to Facebook? They are getting tough questions about what they knew and what they did with that knowledge. The potential outcomes of the congressional hearings are unknown. There are also laws coming from the Conservative side which are aiming to infringe company rights, not sure it's an issue purely from one side.

This is the company that thought it was a smart idea to having a Instagram for Kids after they had the research linking thier platform to body confidence issues.

They also constantly under resourced their moderation teams (under the assumption that ML will solve all of the problems) and especially for non-English speaking markets. Now the shit has come home to roost.

Think we have probably detoured the thread enough already though.
 

kikkis

Member
Isn't de dusting xbox series x just as easy as ps5? Remove backcover and blow some air on heatsink and fan.
 

dvdvideo

Member
I see both good and bad from this. On the one hand, it could help consumers and with repairs in general. On the other hand, it could easily stifle innovation, size of devices etc, in a negative way.
 

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
Companies that have the mindset of, pleasing the customers over financial gains, will hop on board. Apple will never get on board though. It's almost like right to repair bill was made specifically because of Apple's inability to make a product that focuses on longevity or puts the customer first.

I'm not even sure why right to repair is even controversial to some people.
 

cireza

Member
Companies like to pretend they have the power to decide on this, but in the end they will simply be forced to comply. Because being able to repair things is common sense, and laws will be established to force them to do this properly.
 

GHG

Member
Lol, what exactly is happening to Facebook? They are getting tough questions about what they knew and what they did with that knowledge. The potential outcomes of the congressional hearings are unknown. There are also laws coming from the Conservative side which are aiming to infringe company rights, not sure it's an issue purely from one side.

This is the company that thought it was a smart idea to having a Instagram for Kids after they had the research linking thier platform to body confidence issues.

They also constantly under resourced their moderation teams (under the assumption that ML will solve all of the problems) and especially for non-English speaking markets. Now the shit has come home to roost.

Think we have probably detoured the thread enough already though.

Off topic I know but here's the deal with Facebook:
  • The information is not new - it's been known for some time that Facebook has been doing these types of things, you can find articles dating back years on the subject - the difference now is that we have an activist who happens to be an ex employee on the case who is armed with a professional legal & PR team at the expense of the public.
  • The impact this has had on the share price of Facebook is disconnected from the financial impact this will have on Facebook as a business. Investing in Facebook is now being compared to investing in sin stocks like cigarette, gambling and alcohol companies. This fiasco has turned the stock into an ethical circus rather than it remaining the investment vehicle that it should be.
What you will likely see over the coming weeks and months is an increase in the amount of companies attempting to get ahead of things like the one being discussed in this topic in order to avoid a future situation like the one Facebook is currently going through. It's about addressing and talking about any issues that fall under the ESG umbrella even if they have little or no intention of any follow through.

As with most things, until any particular law is passed that will force them in a certain direction it's all lip service but at least in doing this they can avoid a situation where a disgruntled activist employee can go public and say "you knew about this, you leaned into it and you did nothing to stop it".
 
Last edited:
Yep this is something that impacts all companies.

It's primarily about making spare parts readily and easily available rather than the ease of the repair itself. Without access to parts then there can be no repair regardless of the difficulty of the task.



No.

From a business perspective pretty much all companies have no interest in this because it will make their costs higher and has the potent to reduce sales. It's an ESG issue and shareholders of major tech companies are pushing for this because the EU are likely to make this a law in the next few years (it's to reduce "electronic waste") so having something in place will offer protection from potential activist shareholder action in the future.

It's always nice to read informed and insightful posts here.
 

reksveks

Member
The information is not new - it's been known for some time that Facebook has been doing these types of things, you can find articles dating back years on the subject - the difference now is that we have an activist who happens to be an ex employee on the case who is armed with a professional legal & PR team at the expense of the public
What's the 'it'?

The fact that FB did research? The fact that Facebook internal research was showing its impact on young teens and then seemingly dismissed it ? The latter is new and cause of the 'kids' element, it got picked up.

I don't particularly think there is anything negative about the fact that she is having to raise money for the legal fees, rather that then a private sole benefactor.

Also I really struggle to define her as an 'activist' (I do want to know your definition of that word) as she is only against the impact of algorithmic newsfeed. She doesn't think that the anti-trust move is the right one to solve the issue which some negative reading of the word activist would typically be for.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Companies that have the mindset of, pleasing the customers over financial gains, will hop on board. Apple will never get on board though. It's almost like right to repair bill was made specifically because of Apple's inability to make a product that focuses on longevity or puts the customer first.

I'm not even sure why right to repair is even controversial to some people.

Lack of repairability is the side effect of decreasing the size/cost/price of devices. There is a reason the Surface laptop is so thin and it had a lot to do with cramming a lot of components into tiny space without concern about those components ever being replaced. So the flip side of repairability will more than likely be bulkier and possibly more expensive products. That applies to any company that makes tech. Not just Apple.
 

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
Lack of repairability is the side effect of decreasing the size/cost/price of devices. There is a reason the Surface laptop is so thin and it had a lot to do with cramming a lot of components into tiny space without concern about those components ever being replaced. So the flip side of repairability will more than likely be bulkier and possibly more expensive products. That applies to any company that makes tech. Not just Apple.
While that is true, everyone knows by now that apple is the one company that is synonymous with right to repair conversations. It's as if they want the consumer to just buy a new phone, because they limited the device by software update, to accomplish what? To make you buy another phone! Other companies are starting to follow Apple shitty practices, but it's quite obvious that they started this whole trend.
 

hybrid_birth

Gold Member
If you listen closely you can hear the cry's of laptop manufacturers and their planned obsolescence bullshit. Linus found out when his expensive razer laptops only lasted a year.
 

WitchHunter

Member
Lack of repairability is the side effect of decreasing the size/cost/price of devices. There is a reason the Surface laptop is so thin and it had a lot to do with cramming a lot of components into tiny space without concern about those components ever being replaced. So the flip side of repairability will more than likely be bulkier and possibly more expensive products. That applies to any company that makes tech. Not just Apple.
Yeah, but

- do not obscure component part numbers
- after you abandon your product opensource your proprietary chip designs to an outside chipmaker/entity so you could order replacements
- provide service manuals
- do not hinder parts replacements (by matching parts of the product by id)
- etc etc.
 
This is 100% caused by pressure and incoming legislation from EU. Don't buy into lies that they are doing it to be more consumer friendly suddenly because they had years for that. Microsoft Surface pcs were one of the worst offenders in impossible to repair anything category.
 

WitchHunter

Member
While that is true, everyone knows by now that apple is the one company that is synonymous with right to repair conversations. It's as if they want the consumer to just buy a new phone, because they limited the device by software update, to accomplish what? To make you buy another phone! Other companies are starting to follow Apple shitty practices, but it's quite obvious that they started this whole trend.
Are you under the spell to buy their newer, ever more expensive product?
 

Topher

Gold Member
While that is true, everyone knows by now that apple is the one company that is synonymous with right to repair conversations. It's as if they want the consumer to just buy a new phone, because they limited the device by software update, to accomplish what? To make you buy another phone! Other companies are starting to follow Apple shitty practices, but it's quite obvious that they started this whole trend.

Throttling the phone (which was shitty, btw) wasn't a right to repair issue though. The issue is the design of the internal components that make the product non-repairable. Thin phones sell. I don't think very many people take into consideration the repairability of the product before they buy and it isn't like they have alternatives even if they did. There isn't a white knight out there that is the answer to Apple's "shitty practices". They have all been in the same boat for quite some time.
 

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
Are you under the spell to buy their newer, ever more expensive product?
Lol hell no, I'll never own anything Apple related. I strongly dislike their philosophy on screwing their customer base over, every chance they get.
Throttling the phone (which was shitty, btw) wasn't a right to repair issue though. The issue is the design of the internal components that make the product non-repairable. Thin phones sell. I don't think very many people take into consideration the repairability of the product before they buy and it isn't like they have alternatives even if they did. There isn't a white knight out there that is the answer to Apple's "shitty practices". They have all been in the same boat for quite some time.
But it does become a right to repair issue. You gotta replace that degrading battery, don't you? Or even a broken screen can render your phone useless. Unless you pay exorbitantly more, and can only get it fixed by Apple themselves. At least with other manufacturers, you have an open market of guides, replacement parts, etc.

But I agree that most don't look at the repairability of most items prior to purchasing, but that doesn't mean they should have little to no option of being self repaired. And a company shouldn't make it a standard process to block all repair options, besides themselves. Imagine if you had to go straight to Mercedes to get a simple thing replaced on your car, like a windshield wiper blade for instance. A $10 item from your local auto store, now becomes $150 because Mercedes design, disengages the engine if you try and replace the windshield wiper blades yourself.

What other company besides Apple does this so blatantly?
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Lol hell no, I'll never own anything Apple related. I strongly dislike their philosophy on screwing their customer base over, every chance they get.

But it does become a right to repair issue. You gotta replace that degrading battery, don't you? Or even a broken screen can render your phone useless. Unless you pay exorbitantly more, and can only get it fixed by Apple themselves. At least with other manufacturers, you have an open market of guides, replacement parts, etc.

But I agree that most don't look at the repairability of most items prior to purchasing, but that doesn't mean they should have little to no option of being self repaired. And a company shouldn't make it a standard process to block all repair options, besides themselves. Imagine if you had to go straight to Mercedes to get a simple thing replaced on your car, like a windshield wiper blade for instance. A $10 item from your local auto store, now becomes $150 because Mercedes design, disengages the engine if you try and replace the windshield wiper blades yourself.

What other company besides Apple does this so blatantly?

What do you mean "block all repair options"? I've had both iPhone screens and batteries replaced buy non-Apple repair services. This is the local service company I use:


Apple doesn't block me from getting anything fixed. This is the same situation for Samsung phones I've had in the past. The issue is these companies make it more expensive to repair these devices than it should be. iFixit has given scores to phones based on their repairability and Apple actually as good or better than most. iPhone scored better than Samsung's phones and Microsoft's Surface Duo.

 

DonJuanSchlong

Spice Spice Baby
What do you mean "block all repair options"? I've had both iPhone screens and batteries replaced buy non-Apple repair services. This is the local service company I use:


Apple doesn't block me from getting anything fixed. This is the same situation for Samsung phones I've had in the past. The issue is these companies make it more expensive to repair these devices than it should be. iFixit has given scores to phones based on their repairability and Apple actually as good or better than most. iPhone scored better than Samsung's phones and Microsoft's Surface Duo.

Touch ID and Face ID are the most common things to stop working upon replacing screen, battery, etc. My whole point is, other manufacturers don't take these extra measures, on top of having a low repairability score, while making sure it's next to impossible to fix your own device.

Type in right to repair on Google, and hit ctrl + F, and search for Apple. They are synonymous with the phrase, right to repair.

As far as Samsung phones, they are trying to be like Apple in many ways, just with much less shittier tactics.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Touch ID and Face ID are the most common things to stop working upon replacing screen, battery, etc. My whole point is, other manufacturers don't take these extra measures, on top of having a low repairability score, while making sure it's next to impossible to fix your own device.

Type in right to repair on Google, and hit ctrl + F, and search for Apple. They are synonymous with the phrase, right to repair.

As far as Samsung phones, they are trying to be like Apple in many ways, just with much less shittier tactics.

Google, Samsung, and just about every major phone maker have biometrics in the screen or facial recognition. A non-authorized repair tech is just as likely to mess those functions up on Android phones as they are on iPhones. This is an industry wide issue. The fact that people associate Apple first and foremost with "right to repair" doesn't mean any of the other companies are any less complicit.

At this point, I'll just agree to disagree bud.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Good on MS.

Think of it like fixing a car. You don't have to bring your car to the official dealership brand. Whether it's under warranty or out of warranty, you can bring it to whomever you want. You are allowed to also open up the hood or put it up on a jack and look around yourself. No car company says "Hey, we can tell you were poking around under the hood so were voiding your warranty". Maybe if you went ape shit and totally messed it taking it apart they'll say no. But you can still reasonably fix things yourself or through a mechanic while still maintaining warranty.

And you're also allowed to buy non-OEM parts. Toyota doesnt say you cant repair something unless you use an official Toyota part. Hell, if you took you car to a Toyota dealership to fix, they might not even use an original part either.

You get your thing fixed, the repair shop makes some money, and everyone is happy.

But somehow, some electronics have this stonewalling effect where only they are allowed to fix.
 
Last edited:
Good. People should always have the option of fixing their own property without repercussion. If the disk drive fails on an Xbox it's a simple process to replace the part, same goes for things like fans, USB ports, switches, etc. There is no reason anyone with a working brain shouldn't be able to do these simple repairs if they want to. I'll always encourage people to learn to fix the things around them as it's often a lot easier than they think. The average Lego kit is actually more complicated than taking apart a TV, PC or even a car engine. A Lego kit has hundreds of parts that can fit together any way. The parts in an Xbox only go back together one way. The same goes for PCs, a toaster, an electric trimmer, and the engine in a car.

I fix everything I own myself. Electronic devices can be repaired for a tiny fraction of the cost of replacing them outright. I'm currently repairing my 4k monitor which started losing it's backlight after 6 years of constant use, it will cost me $12 in parts and a half hour of my time to repair and then I can sell it for $400. If I sent it in to get repaired it would be about $150 to get done where I live. I've repaired controllers, replaced screens in portable systems and torn down many other devices. There are an incredible amount of resources available these days to walk people through the steps of how to and how not to repair just about any device. Sites like Ifixit have detailed step-by-step teardowns that are free to use.

I've been fixing my own vehicles for a couple decades now because dealerships and service departments constantly fucked up things as simple as an oil change or claimed to do work they clearly did not (I've caught them). I can pay $800 to replace the struts on my winter beater at a shop, or I can buy the struts for $100, a spring compressor for $30 and do it myself in a couple hours with basic hand tools. I essentially paid myself $670 for a couple hours of labor.

Good on MS.

Think of it like fixing a car. You don't have to bring your car to the official dealership brand. Whether it's under warranty or out of warranty, you can bring it to whomever you want. You are allowed to also open up the hood or put it up on a jack and look around yourself. No car company says "Hey, we can tell you were poking around under the hood so were voiding your warranty". Maybe if you went ape shit and totally messed it taking it apart they'll say no. But you can still reasonably fix things yourself or through a mechanic while still maintaining warranty.

And you're also allowed to buy non-OEM parts. Toyota doesnt say you cant repair something unless you use an official Toyota part. Hell, if you took you car to a Toyota dealership to fix, they might not even use an original part either.

You get your thing fixed, the repair shop makes some money, and everyone is happy.

But somehow, some electronics have this stonewalling effect where only they are allowed to fix.

The problem is the dealerships that sell people the new cars skirt the laws a bit and use wording that has them believing they have to get their work done there even though they don't. I can't even count the people I know that dump $120+ on an oil change because "We have to for the warranty". Meanwhile I spend $30 to do it myself. The automotive industry would love to rip you off, the issue for them is that they have met with strong legal opposition. In the US for example the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act basically turns manufacturers vague wording against them and the burden of proof falls on them if something fails on your car under warranty. If I put a new intake on my car and the rear diff fails, the manufacturer can't correlate the failure to my work so they can't deny the warranty. A lot of countries have similar rules.

The issue is that electronics repairs are a much more varied market and a legal solution is harder to reach as new devices are constantly popping up while cars have remained almost entirely unchanged for decades. While individual vehicle components have improved and changed, they serve the same functions and attach to the car in the same way they did going back to the Model T. Electronic devices are different year-to-year and as a result often come and go before RTR advocates can even get the ball rolling. Right-to-repair advocates are making headway though and the result is RTR advocates finding their way into investor meetings where they can voice concerns and into the legal system where they can shape regulations around RTR.

I really think kids should be taught how to do basic maintenance and repairs to electronics in school. We had a high school shop class in my home town, but we were never learned anything useful that could be applied to our life after school like basic automotive maintenance or the basics of electronic repairs.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
The point of Microsoft wanting to be the leader in this and be seen as "pro consumer". That's the last thing on any companies mind when it comes to this. With the way that most large companies who sell hardware are set up this will be nothing but a faff and they are only doing it because they will be forced to due to EU laws, not because they want to.

Let me put it this way, if these companies wanted to make spare/replacement parts easily and readily available then they would be doing so already (how many years have all these guys been selling hardware for?), it wouldn't take a looming change of law for them to take action. The fact that this push is coming from activist investors rather than internally tells you everything you need to know.
Makes no sense boss. Change is a thing that happens. It's like saying "if Microsoft wanted to release an Xbox One without Kinect they would have." Something caused Microsoft to change course and dump Kinect. Most likely it was the responsibility to its investors to make Xbox One a viable long term strategy. In reality what does it matter?

Investors, or shareholders, are who these public companies ultimately work for. The company has a responsibility to deliver value to its shareholders and if there's a big enough group of 'activist' shareholders to get the board to take notice and make this pivot then that's what supposed to happen. They do own the company after all.

It's also a new revenue stream since these parts would certainly be sold with a markup. Plus not having to deal with as many returns and repairs is a long term cost savings. It also makes no sense to force a supply model where people have to buy a new console simply because repair parts aren't available for the one they have, especially when Microsoft already can't keep up with demand. More working system means more potential game revenue and less stress on the finished console supply chain. Fewer people replacing a broken box means more available for new customers. These things alone could have also influenced the internal decision.

To respond to the "if they were going to they already would have" logical fallacy, why would they make the system so simple to open if they weren't going to allow someone to change some of the parts? It's two screws to remove the back cover then 3 screws and a wire connector to get the fan out. It can be done in just a few minutes.

Either way, if they make the change it's the right thing to do so why try to turn this into "evil corporation" bla bla bla?
 
Top Bottom