158
In a historic about-face, Apple publicly supports right-to-repair bill (grist.org)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.ml
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 3 years ago (6 children)

Any idea what prompted this about face?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 36 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    They know the way the wind is blowing on this issue, and they trade in public image nearly as much as they do in physical goods. This is a good look for them, and when it was clear they wouldn’t win, they’re happy to join the winning side.

    It’s also not completely out of left field—they’ve been expanding access to previously-internal repair guides and even tools over the last few years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Many years ago, I read that the first rule of diplomacy is to assent graciously to the inevitable. :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    They've done pr things before too. The apple certified repair program is incredibly restrictive and expensive, the existing self repair even more so. So I'll look at what they're saying very carefully and critically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Pessimistic: Apple lawyers have arguments prepared that DRM'ing individual components does not violate this law.

    Less Pessimistic: Apple got a sufficient head start in supporting third-party repairs that it would be beneficial for them to get this law passed so that other manufacturers scramble to catch up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Not DRM, but Apple does signing of components.

    Apple doesn’t care because they already set their self repair program up exactly the way this legislation states. If you buy certain components you have to contact them for assistance activating them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Which is the type of repair bill I don't want. I would like to just source a donor phone and transplant parts to make it work again, aka reducing wastes. (and protecting my bank acc)

    However, with a big player like Apple support this defective bill, it got a high chance to pass and set the standard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I get why they do some of it in the security components, really wish they just gave the user the option to trust after a big warning banner. Yes, someone could have hacked this faceid camera, but since I’m the one putting it in and not some badguy please just associate it with this device now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago*

    I agree. Security components, fine. Just let me skip over that.

    However, what on earth they need to serialize the monitor and battery?!?! Calibration? How come I don't need calibration for my PC monitor nor my camera batteries? Does it work to its fullest? No. Does it work. Yes. That all I want.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Not DRM

    Apple doesn’t care [...]. If you buy certain components you have to contact them for assistance activating them.

    You are contradicting yourself

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    No, I’m actually not. Digital Rights Management has a specific meaning. Apple pairs devices to each other cryptographically, but it has nothing to do with managing rights. You have to contact them to assist you in pairing the devices to avoid warnings, just like a repair center does, but you are not actually activating them with Apple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Oh, yeah, you are right. Sorry, I'm just too much used to calling DRM as Digital Restrictions Management.

    You have to contact them to assist you in pairing the devices to avoid warnings, just like a repair center does, but you are not actually activating them with Apple.

    Do you mean that the devices actually boot with the replacement parts, but they also show a warning about them? If so, did this change recently (as in, last few years), or was it always that way since digitally signed parts became a thing?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The last time it failed it was supposed to come back with allowing modules instead of parts. Apple would be fine with selling "modules" as they consider their devices to be top case, bottom case, motherboard, battery, and screen (has stuff attached.) If they can have a needs calibration some where to shame 3rd party repairs and not allow board level repair it is just what they wanted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •