Probably not. They’ll farm the jobs off to Berlin, most likely.
With that said, I’d be shocked if the inevitable UK/US trade deal didn’t include some degree of visa. British workers are cheap as fuck, and our service industries already do a lot of cheap labour for US companies that don’t want to pay domestic workers.
It’s a shame how obvious they’re working their corporate bullying cards simply because of money. Imagine if I created a product called Google and tried to sue Google for it. That would be ridiculous, right? Well, that’s what Facebook is doing, just with money.
It’s not what Facebook is doing. The company has owned the trademark for over a decade, and Facebook is trying to strong arm them into giving it up.
This is also in the UK where they somewhat stand up to companies like Facebook. McDonald’s lost their trademark for the Big Mac for trying to do this exact same thing.
Maybe I didn’t convey what I’m saying well. Facebook is attempting to take a name because they have money. Laws don’t really apply to them, they seem to think, and it’s because of their bullying and their money.
Eh, the UK isn’t in the best situation, in terms of big tech. If anything, most FAANG companies have got away without paying any tax here for over a decade because the alternative is they ship all of their jobs elsewhere, and the UK tech scene implodes.
I think a UK court would likely stand up for the British company, as they should, but I would expect Meta to be allowed to throw their weight around a little.
Okay, pointing out the analogy of "Imagine if I created a product called Google and tried to sue Google for it [...] Well, that’s what Facebook is doing" doesn't match this situation.
Facebook created a product called Threads and is attempting to bully Threads Software into taking their name. I was creating a hypothetical situation about how most small companies can’t just steal a company trademark, because it’s rightfully someone else’s. However, if you are a larger company and, have enough money, and have shit ethics, then you can just kinda… ignore that, and for some reason, the US is happy to let wallets write the law.
I agree, that is what they're doing. My only point was they're being sued, not suing someone. They just took the name and were ignoring the other company that was already using it.
They will. This was most likely planned by their legal team in advance, will cost Facebook a negligible amount compared to their revenue and marked as a “risk.” And when they settle it will be a planned business expense, like a fine
Yeah they don’t even need to hire a law firm. They pay millions of dollars in retainer every year to keep lawyers on staff, so this is just someone’s day job to go through the motions
The article says Meta already tried to buy them out four times. So this company is waiting for a bigger payout or they don’t plan to sell. With a court decision on their side they will have much more leverage to force Meta’s hand.
The company has said that they’ve spent a decade building their “brand” under that name. So, if they’re pushing for a big payout, they intend it to be gargantuan rather than the usual payoff. Changing their name would essentially be starting over in some ways. And the confusion they claim as their reason for action is a legit thing.
I’m not saying that isn’t their goal behind the scenes, but FB tried to buy the name and failed, so I have a feeling they aren’t looking for the usual quiet payoff that’s the goal of that type of action.
Eh I don’t think they have much of a claim here. Threads is a super common word in software and Facebook can so what they want with their own platform.
The problem is that the company doing this is in messaging. It isn’t a direct competitor, but it’s a legit proposition, as per the analysis lawyers have made. It’s big enough news that the usual outlets have chimed in, and the gist has been that a suit would have standing
This is Apple wanting to sell things in California, combined with Apple not wanting to manufacture two separate versions of their devices for the US market.
This is also why everyone gets USB-C iPhones now, instead of only the EU.
They supported this legislation before it was passed. Still not out of the goodness of their hearts, this version includes provisions that they had wanted previously.
They “supported” this legislation by implementing a system where parts still require users to call in to activate them, you are “strongly encouraged” to rent or buy specialized tools from apple, and the price of parts plus rental generally comes out as only slightly less than paying an apple store to do it for you.
It is malicious compliance that they get to use for a PR boost.
Because this has highlighted the “loophole” to these kinds of laws. Strict control of parts and equipment to manipulate pricing so that third parties cannot exist and this becomes “your phone is under warranty” by another name.
It definitely sounds like the law kind of sucks and needs to go further in the future, but are you really saying that being able to repair your existing device, even if the parts are overpriced, is exactly as bad as having to buy a whole new one? The reduction in e-waste alone seems like a potential improvement.
If anything, this has increased the amount of waste.
Because, as a customer (making up the numbers but it IS something like this)?
I can pay Apple 300 bucks to let their geek squad repair it for me. Or I can pay 290 bucks to have their special tools shipped to me as well as their official parts, with all the packaging associated. And then I have to ship them back my old parts. All with extra packaging because you can’t send a customer a box full of monitor mainboards. And, because I need to source all of these directly from Apple, the moment they are no longer legally required to offer replacement parts, they won’t.
So… I can save something ridiculous (let’s say 10%) to fulfill my own warranty and nothing else.
But let’s think about this as a repair shop.
I can’t use third party or even OEM parts because basically everything requires the customer to authenticate with Apple. I can’t stock parts because Apple strictly controls parts and requires customers to special order them and return the old part during a repair. And I can’t compete with the geek squad because THEY get to stock spare screens in the back room. So I am exactly where I used to be of “Some stuff I can repair even though Apple says not to. Most stuff I can’t”
So yeah. The end user experience is almost exactly as bad as it used to be. And this is “a win” which means pressure has been let down and companies have a path to neuter these laws. So yeah, it is worse.
Prohibitively expensive tools that push anyone but a repair shop to rent
Pricing so that, with renting, you are paying more or less the same to fix it yourself or have apple do it for you
You need to provide the old broken parts to Apple for them to send you the new ones. This adds considerable hassle to the end user and ensures that third party repair companies will always be a worse experience.
Incredibly invasive terms if you want to authenticate your phone after the repair. ifixit speculate this is a limitation of their tools but it still boils down to needing to phone home to Apple to activate your new screen and so forth.
So how about you actually look at the policy you are championing rather than vaguely imply that other people are being dishonest for actually having looked into it?
I was trying to agree with you in the previous comment, but I guess that wasn’t clear. I appreciate all the explanation, but no need for the hostility and rudeness. Saying something was a step forward is a pretty far cry from championing something, too. You’ve really jumped to conclusions on where I stand on this and you clearly know more about it. Hopefully you can treat the next person with greater kindness, as you clearly have a lot to teach and people will listen better if you do. I wish you well.
parts still require users to call in to activate them
How else would you do it? Phone theft used to be way too common. I’m fine with Apple reducing phone theft by making it harder for thieves to get value from stolen devices
I’m buying my phone as a functioning device: I may need to repair it or replace the battery but why would I want to mod it? Those who do, can go through the extra steps
This is far different than a server, which I buy with very different expectations
So you are arguing this is to prevent some Gone in 60 Seconds like movement where Giovanni Ribisi and Scott Caan are in the wings waiting to rapidly replace a single component to sell those stolen phones before the Faraday cage bag mysteriously dissolves?
This has nothing to do with thieves. This has everything to do with keeping third parties from not being able to exist. And I should not have to explain why someone might want to buy a third party version of an apple accessory.
Why would preventing someone from replacing a broken part without calling in to Apple, prevent phone theft?
The phone isn’t going to magically disconnect from Apples network just because you replaced the screen.
Maybe if they replaced the internal storage, but Apple could easily require to call if you only replaced that part. Everything else should be more than fair game.
And what about those who would rather mod their Apple phone than have phone theft security? Their opinion does not matter because you decide you don’t need it?
Why would preventing someone from replacing a broken part without calling in to Apple, prevent phone theft?
Digitally locking some of the major components together make it harder for a thief to part out the phone - you can’t just buy a new screen from someone on the street who stole a phone and took it apart, and expect it to work
In this case, they managed to delay the bill long enough that they now have a bunch of programs in place to actually profit from third-party repairs of their devices. This gives them an advantage over their competitors, so they are now in support of this bill.
I’d say that from what I’ve seen, Louis isn’t interested in spreading disinformation.
But I would also still do a little digging; it’s just a healthy way to process the content you consume. If you aren’t willing to audit your opinion, then your opinion holds little water in an objective conversation.
He’s definitely not and I would agree with the sentiment that he is a reliable source of information, but remember that all people make mistakes sometimes. Treat the news as a notification, not a source of information.
Basically you have the right to repair, but the only tools that will work are those you buy from apple and call-in to make sure you didn’t buy them second hand.
The iPod Touch 7 was great… but then they decided it didn’t actually deserve long term support even though it was the last version they’d be making. So go ahead and come out with an iPod Touch 8, Apple, but I won’t be trusting enough to buy it after getting burnt.
iPod touches were great for giving kids a small device without needing a cell connection. You could give them a iPhone without service but they cost way too damn much for that.
Ehhh with eu sideloading, right to repair and generally a good phone it looks like a good deal but i also think full software liberty(you can replace the software on it) is a part of RTR and i dont know if thats ever gonna happen especially with even android phones getting more and more restricted.
I don’t like giving money to Google but at least I can flash a free software operative system and I’m not in a golden jail under the tyrannic rule of a corporation.
I feel like going on an article about Apple and saying “but I don’t like apple” is a waste of screen real estate honestly. It’s such a pointless and stupid thing to say.
They had the choice of not doing business in California, which is what they had threatened to do with previous right-to-repair and other consumer protection laws. In this case, they found a way to make money off it if so they are supportive of this bill now since they have successfully delayed it long enough to have an advantage over their competitors.
Too bad I still need a hammer and chisel to replace the keyboard on my MacBook and don’t even get me started on removing the battery which I need to do first
I am out of the loop on this one. I am probably wrong, but…Wasn’t the bill nullified by the fact apple has the sole right to supply the replacement parts? Or does the bill work as intended where replacement parts can be sourced elsewhere as well as documentation being made available?
My point was that it may have been made useless. I seem to remember Louis Rossman complaining about it, but I have no idea over which issue. There is no point in having a right to repair act if it can still be abused in some way shape or form by large manufacturers.
I think the problem with this one was that manufacturers can hold all the cards on the cost of buying replacement parts. This would open up the issue of people being gouged. I was hoping that someone could give me more accurate information on the issue.
They get to sell their parts without having to pay all of the repair people and probably getting out of a certain amount of warranty liability. Win-win-win for them.
And people repairing their own stuff is always a good idea. People learning how to maintain their electronics is never a bad thing! Everyone should pick up a soldering iron at some point. :)
While in complete agreement that it's good the option is there, have definitely interacted with plenty of end users who, for various reasons, really should never.
Hey, some people learn from their mistakes. Hell, my first PC build (23 years ago…) was DOA because I had inadvertently bent a pin on the CPU, and it got smashed when I tightened down the cooler. That was an expensive mistake, but one I certainly learned from.
Thank god PGA is officially dead, finally. My first Ryzen cpu came in the mail with bent pins, I spent fucking hours straightening all of them. Worth it tho, got 5 years of life out of it between me and my brother before it was finally allowed to rest and spend the rest of it’s life on a shelf(it still works, its just slow).
Not that I fully disagree, just that there’s a reason they didn’t do it before. Probably more profitable to not have repairable devices. Not that they won’t try to make the best of the current situation, as you said.
Also, it would likely be more expensive to produce a line of repairable products just for one state and do different for the others, so this is the best way of spinning this.
engadget.com
Active