The iPhone maker now says repair access "is good for consumers’ budgets and good for the environment."
  • azalty@jlai.luEnglish
    76·
    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.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. But then it’s not actually right to repair. Right to repair means you need to be able to complete a repair on your own, and that includes any software needed to pair your parts, components, etc.

      So if Apple messes with the bill, I hope that is made obvious by Right to Repair advocates and blows up in Apple’s face.

    • brewdtype@lemmy.world
      381·
      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.

    • Kevin Herrera@beehaw.orgEnglish
      16·
      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.

      • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        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
          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 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.

          • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            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
              3·
              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.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
          1·
          1 year ago

          Not DRM

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

          You are contradicting yourself

          • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
              1·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                I don’t know if every replacement part is still bootable, but for some things it will boot up and warn you and disable some features like faceid.

    • Zanz@lemmy.mlEnglish
      11·
      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
      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
      5·
      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.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          21·
          1 year ago

          Things that are soldered can be desoldered and replaced, provided the parts are available. And soldering them to the board has benefits:

          • RAM - higher performance because chips are closer to the CPU
          • storage - space efficiency

          I personally would rather have a slightly thicker laptop and get user replaceable NVMe drives, and memory performance isn’t super critical for me, but as long as the parts are available on the market for a reasonable price, I’m satisfied as far as repairability goes.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              2·
              1 year ago

              Maybe for storage, but I’ve heard the RAM proximity is a significant part of why M1 is faster than Intel CPUs in benchmarks

              Regardless, we shouldn’t be fighting to force manufacturers to make products easier to repair, we should be fighting to make sure all parts needed to do a repair are available, and that should include software and all chips on a board. They don’t need to sell those parts forever, just have them available for the life of the product (e.g. as long as the device is being sold or warrantied by the manufacturer). And they don’t need to sell the parts themselves, only allow third parties to buy parts from theirb suppliers.

              Once we have that, we can discuss repair-hostile design. But as long as parts aren’t available, there’s not really a point to forcing manufacturers to make it easier to make repairs.

  • Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4·
    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.eeEnglish
    76·
    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.