To play the devils advocate here (and to be frank, i think people should be able to use compatible products), it's possible the manufacture is concerned that products they didn't make could cause an issue. I.e. filter is too restrictive and burns out the pump. Then the fridge comes in for warranty repair and there's no way of proving what caused the issue. From the perspective of the manufacture, i kind of get it, but i still think there has to be a better middle-ground than it stops providing a service.
Yes, the middle ground is called designing the pump so it doesn't burn out if the filter doesn't allow the right amount of water through. Having an RFID chip doesn't prevent the genuine filter from becoming clogged.
I don't disagree, but i've been in the room when people make absurd decisions like this and need to be discouraged to make a more rational decision. On that basis, I'm just saying perhaps they're not evil, but they're certainly not trying very hard and potentially not smart either.
Would something like a "using unauthorized filters voids your warranty" agreement suffice? I can understand the manufacturer's desire to avoid costly repairs caused by shoddy aftermarket parts, but I don't understand the idea of rendering the end product totally unusable.
To put it another way, should my car stop running entirely if it detects that I'm using a "non-GM-certified" cabin air filter?
You would definitely want that. Here's a common every day example. Imagine for example you use the wrong oil that destroys your engine and when GM inspects the oil they say it was non certified so you need to pay 5k in repairs... I have no doubt you would not have minded if the engine refused to start if it detected the wrong thing.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I would much rather have some sort of warning than to have the decision made for me. If an indicator in the dash turned on saying "the oil is not the correct viscosity," then I would be able to decide to not run the vehicle.
Imagine you were stranded somewhere and the only option was to use the wrong oil. Sure, it may destroy the vehicle, but at least you would be able to run the vehicle and (hopefully) get to safety before your engine block melts. My issue is when the decision has been made that "you _might_ break it, so we've taken the choice away."
Another example might be, should users not be allowed to install programs on their computer because those programs might interfere with the computer's performance?
If they are building a device to such tight design tolerances, it was doomed to failure from the start even with 'proper' parts. The second it hits a factory floor the specs are going to be pushing the absolute limits of quality control testing.
