• 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.