I believe this is genuine support of the bill from Apple. Between Right to Repair winning in Massachusetts and the EU demanding compliance, I think Apple decided to flip the script. They would want to continue the illusion of customer friendly tech.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    701 year ago

    What are the holes that can be poked into this as written? I firmly believe Apple is still against repair that would eat into their new sales. So where does this, as written, give them the room to keep that going?

    Is it just that they can continue to make their “screen issue = replace whole top shell of laptop” and similar the default and draw the line there, standardizing high-cost repairs even if it’s just a wire or small component replacement? If they don’t allow ANY standard repairs more granular than swap module for module, they don’t have to provide more granular resources than that. I’m not fully up on what repairs Apple authorizes.

    This is definitely a win to some degree, though. But when your opponent goes to your side and draws a line, that always gives me the chills.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      481 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        Nah, it is them trying to control the bill by saying they are for it - if only these concessions are made. The article shows what they dont want to give up, under the guise of safety and security and disallowing repairs that might weaken that. And since they have been increasing the number of parts that are serialised in the name of security I bet they would argue repairing these parts will weaken their security and therefore cannot be allowed. Also, they want to focus on authorised repair channels, which they already massively lock down to the point they are more shipping stations than actual repair places. But also want to force third parties to disclose when they use used or non genuine parts - which since they only sell whole assemblies rather than individual components will likely force everyone that is actually making repairs to advertise that they use used/refurbished parts.

        So they still want control, they just realise they can have better control by claiming to be fighting for right to repair while undermining any useful impact any bills would otherwise have - all while claiming they are for right to repair.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        They decided a law is coming and they have the margins to absorb the cost better than their competitors.

    • Ed Wiebe
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      @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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

        It’s less the repaired retail market (which they control on Amazon at least) and more the “I could repair this for cheaper than half of a new phone” lost sales. They’ve been quietly letting that group slip by for years of progressively more expensive to “repair” (read, “swap modules”) while people who could get a basic repair done for cheap are pushed to buy new phones instead.