• azalty@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m sure they’ll find a way to sell their components at full price just like what they do right now. They’ll surely keep their DRMs in place and prevent repairs with other components.

    If they support it, it is because they modified it enough so that they benefit from it.

    • brewdtype@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • Kevin Herrera@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is the type of repair bill I don’t want. I would like to just source a donor phone and transplant parts to fix things, aka reducing wastes.

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

          • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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.

    • Zanz@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the…3rd? 4th? time they’ve “about faced” on R2R. It’s a sham. Every time.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right to repair means you have access to the parts and software tools needed to do the repair. So for Apple, that would mean battery, RAM, and storage modules, plus any software needed to pair things.

      So if you don’t have the skills or equipment to repair your laptop yourself, you could at least go to a selection of independent repair shops that do.

      • PuppyOSAndCoffee@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That would be great. But Apple has fused all these things together on the motherboard so that … well … they can only be replace outright vs repaired.

        I don’t mind cpu / mobo fusing but storage and ram is just a kick in the ass. It really is a shame.

  • Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good as everyone should be able to try to do some repairs when something is broken.

    But programmed obsolescence is even worse as you have perfectly working devices which you can’t use anymore because they are officially not supported (by an os for instance).

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The same way I am extremely skeptical on macrohard supporting right to repair bills, I am very skeptical of appl€ doing the exact same thing. Ain’t no way they ain’t gonna spin it in a way that forces you to either be stuck with macO$ or Bimbows so they can shut out both gøøgl€ and Linux/BSD/whatever else.