Technology

It could be Apple has concluded it’s going to get forced into this, so it’s pushing for laws that apply to all makers in order to avoid a law specific to itself.

Generally speaking a law that creates a responsibility can be a win if it also creates that same responsibility for everyone else.

Meaning it could be apple trying to ensure its competitors are also subject to any rulings.

@Glaive0 @JoShmoe I really have no deep understanding of Apple but my guess is that they actually want to ensure repaired devices meet their specs for command and control of it, for purity of image, and experience of using it, and to reduce possible hassles dealing with people who complain about their now (possibly) off-spec device. I’m betting on some vision of purity (reputation) and control. Anyway, I don’t think the repaired for resale market would do much to sales.

We have to stop voting for neoliberals first, globally.

Hard agree

If the next iPhone has an unlockable bootloader, a USBC port, and a removable battery then I may just buy my very first iPhone (to run Linux on of course). With the work Asahi is doing for Mac hardware, an unlocked Apple Silicon iPhone could be an amazing Linux phone.

Same crap they pulled with the iphone 14

Yup, they basically said they will only support it as long as:

• it does not threaten the security/safety of the devices/consumer data. AKA will continue to let them lock out parts and software under the excuse of security.
• focus on docs, tools and parts for authorized repair channels. AKA what they currently do/want as they already control these sectors.
• force repair providers to disclose use of unauthorised or used parts. AKA force third parties to advertise they don't use genuine/new parts as apple don't and likely still wont make these parts available (just continue with expensive whole assembly repairs).
• only apply these rules to new products.

So the way I read it - Apple see they are losing the right to repair fight so now want to flip sides so they can better control the laws that get put in place to better quite their needs by cutting off the teeth of any bills all the while claiming they are supporting right to repair for PR purposes.

Apple isn’t in charge of Right to Repair.

We probably want it, but can get more with another

Kind of like they support this because they want to stop or slow down a more broad bill from passing in the near future

Either that, or it's become clear they can't win, and they're trying to look good and gaslight people into believing they were always on the right side of this.

The law only says they have to sell replacement pieces, they are still going to make a killing selling stuff.

My exact thoughts.

The last time they "supported" rtr, they locked parts to the firmware. Yeah, you can switch between them, but then had to take it to Apple to reregister the parts, which they would only do if they were brand new and genuine. Apple is a snake in tall grass.

It's simple. They see the writing on the wall and are going to act like it was what they wanted all along.

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

Those people you are talking about sound like the „willfully ignorant“. People who can’t be bothered to understand a topic they’re talking about. Oh, and sociopaths who just like others to suffer.

A little hyperbole, they will make it look crappy-er compared to their new stuff and abandon it progressively, as people fall to fomo.

I know they ritualistically make third party software and tech incompatible, but we do have recent cases in our favor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/15/hp-printers-scanner-disabled-low-ink/be2b30fc-3b86-11ee-aefd-40c039a855ba_story.html#

HP had designed the scanning functionality to not operate if the printer didn’t have any ink.

Their lawyers probably found a loophole.

Isn't the program that requires you to fill a form to order a serialized display and send the old one back? That's still monopoly, just shift from service to sales. The essence remains the same.

What competitors? I genuinely don’t know of any other tech companies with exclusive ports.

I still do think that the bill is more about having the right to repair from more sources, as opposed to the right to an easy repair.

Starting with the consumer themselves.

This is starting to sound a lot like the time the auto manufacturer tried to void warranties if the cars were to be taken to anywhere but the official service.

Ford, VW, Volvo, Renault, Mercedes and BMW had their asses handed to them by the EU as it was deemed lockout: the owner had the right to seek service wherever they wanted and get parts from what ever source they chose.

Not to start on the implications of disloyal competition...

[...] But I still think that there's a lot of people who don't know the whole process of finding decent quality parts, and will just stoop to somewhere like Wish or AliExpress for something like a battery because they don't feel like paying for something they don't fully understand, they just know that they need a new one.

Anyone should be able to buy anything wherever they choose.

If someone finds a better deal on a chinese retailer, good. If the part turns out good, better. If not, learn the lesson and try again.

And then put themselves at risk if the battery in question wasn't made up to the correct safety standards.

It's a bit iffy to argue on the basis of poor or absent safety standards. Unless we are speaking of going out to find the dingiest shop on an online retailer, 99% of manufactured goods follow the same standards.

Yes, bad batches exist but batteries are one of those things where counterfeiting is not worth the trouble; the moment the parts can be sourced from any number of manufacturers, all will go by similar quality.

So I do think it's somewhat of a responsibility to warn people about shopping for parts. But there should definitely be less restrictions on Apple hardware and the law should be rewritten to put price caps on genuine parts to keep them within reach of most people.

I'm all in favor in limiting commercial margins but even I consider meddling when it comes to law setting prices to consumer goods.

In the end, only those who want to will buy. Yes, Apple products are basically highway robbery but nobody is being forced to buy the crap they make nor need it to survive.

It's a phone, not food, fuel or shelter. If it's too expensive, buy cheaper.