Then it should at _least_ be maintaining a third “unknown” category, but then they'd have to acknowledge (to the management, no less!) that they don't know as much as they're claiming.
It is not necessary to draw a sharp line that clearly divides everything before saying “this is too far” about something that has, in fact, gone too far.
Cyber Resilience Act [1], which is well-intentioned, and doesn't outright forbid user access to firmware, but most vendors will take the easy road and outright block user-modifiable software (if they didn't already), so that their completely closed source, obfuscated and vulnerable version is the only version allowed on their devices.
Well... if you look behind anything that plugs into a wall socket you will see that it has ( among many other things) a CE mark. Even things in the USofA have a CE mark.
If your new product cannot have its CE mark for whatever reason, you will not have the approbations to sell in the USA either.
What the CRA will do, is if you do not have a "CRA" compliant product, you will not have the CE mark. Which means you will not (with very high probability) have the other marks needed to sell outside Europe.
Maybe then you can just sell to your close family members who like you, but good luck if you get caught and it can be proven that your shitty device caused a fire ...
We don't place any value on the CE mark in the States.
A lot of consumer electronics need to be FCC compliant, which involves a process of proving that the device doesn't emit too much of the wrong EMI/RFI in the wrong places.
And safety-wise, we use tend to use ETL, UL, and CSA for testing. These are third-party Nationally Recognized Testing Labs, and their own marks are used on devices they approve. But they're only really concerned about the safety of a product. In very broad strokes: If the device is proven to be unlikely-enough to burn a house down or cause electrical shock to humans, then it gets approved.
CE is a whole different thing. No government body in the USA requires or respects a CE mark on consumer goods; that mark doesn't hold any legal weight here.
Whether good or bad, CE is just not how we roll on this side of the pond.
(Of course, none of that means that laws in the EU don't affect product availability and features here. Globalization be that way sometimes.)
I'd like to reiterate that a CE mark means nothing to us here.
If my house burns down and a widget with only a CE mark is blamed as the source, my insurance company will consider that to be the equivalent of it having no marking at all.
If a company wants to sell a product globally including the USA, then CE isn't enough to satisfy the safety boffins.
The world is a big place, and the US isn't alone in this way: Lots of other countries also don't care about an isolated CE mark, like Canada and Mexico here in North America.
Some other large, important markets like Japan and Brazil are this way, too.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that a device sold anywhere in the world can't have a CE mark -- that's not it, at all. I'm also not saying that a person or company can't seek to get a CE mark for their product from wherever they are in the world (they certainly can do that).
There's a lot that I'm not saying.
What I am saying is that there are places in the world where the CE mark (and the presence or absence of it) means nothing, and that Canada is one such place.
Y'all have your own safety marks up there.
CSA is a big one -- you've had that organization up there and doing great work for over a century. cUL is another very common, accepted mark in Canada.
That's not what they're saying. They're saying that in the US, a device can have the CE mark, but that's not indicative of it passing US safety standards.
Also, I'd be surprised if all those Chinese devices have actually earned that CE mark.
>If your new product cannot have its CE mark for whatever reason, you will not have the approbations to sell in the USA either.
I worked for a US manufacturer that only sold directly in the US, and we never bothered getting CE certification on anything, just FCC. Lots of Europeans imported our products, but we left EU compliance up to them.
The size of the EU market didn't justify the costs of regulatory compliance.
That is gnome's standard play: move a feature to a preference (“you can just turn it back on”), remove the preference from the control panel (“you can still turn it back on using ‹whatever conf backend they're using this year›”), and then finally remove the feature (“you could only turn it on by using an unsupported mechanism, and ‹conf backend they used last year› is deprecated anyway”).
My intuition is that you get shattering when one part of the glass wants to warp across or away from another part that can't. Because of how thin the glass is in these processes, you mostly get warping and edge chipping, rather than something that can propogate catastropically
reply