There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Thorny_Insight ,

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

WallEx ,

Didn’t they influence the creation of this law? I’m still sceptical of its effectiveness.

yoz ,

Yes, thats what Louis Rossman said. I get my news from Louis 🤣

WallEx ,

That’s what the smart ones do I hear

havokdj ,

It is not wise to solely take news at face value. I always do a little digging into something whenever I hear any news on it myself.

TheOakTree ,

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.

havokdj ,

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.

icedterminal ,

What really makes him credible is he literally calls himself out in videos when information changes or he makes mistakes.

  • “When I said, xyz, don’t listen to me. I was wrong/lied.”
  • " [company name] changed their stance/policy and my previous statements are outdated."

He also tells viewers and readers all the time to come to their own conclusions and do their own research.

Retrograde ,
@Retrograde@lemmy.world avatar

He also comes clean and informs his viewers if it turns out he made a mistake which I appreciate

Drbreen ,

Apple saying they will honor like they’re in control and have a choice.

WallEx ,

Well, didn’t they play a huge role in the genesis of this law? I think they have some way to continue ignoring costumers.

UnspecificGravity ,

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.

uphillbothways ,
@uphillbothways@kbin.social avatar

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.

SuiXi3D ,
@SuiXi3D@kbin.social avatar

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. :)

uphillbothways ,
@uphillbothways@kbin.social avatar

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.

SuiXi3D ,
@SuiXi3D@kbin.social avatar

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.

Perfide ,

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).

original_reader ,

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.

mojo ,

Not by choice

gravitas_deficiency ,

This isn’t Apple being nice.

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.

Nurgle ,

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.

themurphy ,

Maybe because EU passed this before California. Then it’s easy to on board.

TehBamski ,
@TehBamski@lemmy.world avatar

IIRC: They battled this talking point/discussion and legislation for years. Up until a week before it was voted on and passed.

They are not your friend.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

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.

Paradachshund ,

Still a step forward, and it will make it easier to pass further steps.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

It really isn’t.

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.

Paradachshund ,

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.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

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.

Paradachshund ,

Well if it really works out like you’re speculating that definitely sounds shitty I’ll give you that!

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

That is less speculation and more pointing out the actual policy.

Plenty of youtubers have done videos on the subject. Here is the ifixit article ifixit.com/…/apple-self-service-repair-is-this-th…

But it boils down to everything I said:

  1. Prohibitively expensive tools that push anyone but a repair shop to rent
  2. Pricing so that, with renting, you are paying more or less the same to fix it yourself or have apple do it for you
  3. 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.
  4. 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?

Paradachshund ,

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.

AA5B ,

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

NuXCOM_90Percent , (edited )

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.

Honytawk ,

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?

AA5B ,

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

Mango ,

So everyone’s still on leashes. Got it.

driving_crooner ,
@driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br avatar

Nothing new or exclusive for Apple: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect

Wifimuffins ,

Same with the Brussels Effect

UnspecificGravity ,

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.

RememberTheApollo ,

4 choices: don’t sell in CA, fight the law, make a separate phone to meet R2R laws that are likely going to become more prevalent, release a press report portraying magnanimity towards R2R and make the bare minimum effort to meet the law.

The last is the only real answer.

IcansmellyourBundt ,

We need Louis Rossman to do his best recreation of the skeptical Fry meme in response to this.

kksgandhi ,

Same thing happened with net neutrality, California put NN into law, and the rest of the country followed because it doesn’t make sense to build a separate Internet for California.

ironsoap ,

I understand this as the California Effect and similarly the Brussels effect. While both do change company policies, I do understand that many companies are going to continues to try and avoid a regulatory ruling as there is so much status quo market loss on the line for them.

This article describes how they’ll be trying to use MOUs with nongovernment bodies to mollify consumers and regulators.

downpunxx ,
@downpunxx@kbin.social avatar

they saw the writing on the wall and decided to get ahead of it, by agreeing to locked down firmware apple only replacement parts, which isn't a full right to repair, but it does extend the life of an apple device, if you pay the apple tax

ivanafterall ,
@ivanafterall@kbin.social avatar

That's great. I'm still gonna avoid everything Apple.

db2 ,

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.

ThePantser ,
@ThePantser@lemmy.world avatar

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.

AI_toothbrush ,

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.

Sneptaur ,
@Sneptaur@pawb.social avatar

Who asked? Use what you like. Nobody cares, this is just a good thing for everyone

FiskFisk33 ,

You sure didn’t, but surprisingly loudly so.

Sneptaur ,
@Sneptaur@pawb.social avatar

It’s almost like it’s inconsequential which gigantic mega-corporation you give your money to with regards to a smartphone or computer.

sir_reginald ,
@sir_reginald@lemmy.world avatar

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.

Sneptaur ,
@Sneptaur@pawb.social avatar

Good for you! I still don’t see what prompted you to say this though. It’s not really consequential to anyone but yourself.

Honytawk ,

Are we not allowed to share opinions on Lemmy?

It is on-topic, is it not?

Sneptaur ,
@Sneptaur@pawb.social avatar

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.

Jaysyn ,
@Jaysyn@kbin.social avatar

Like they have a choice. Even Apple can't manufacture separate devices for specifically for California.

nullPointer ,

yeah. not because it’s right, but because it’s cheaper.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

Just like with CA emissions standards for cars

ares35 ,
@ares35@kbin.social avatar

it took a lot of years for that, though.

Mr_Blott ,

Heh like it was California they were worried about. EU was harassing them about it way before that and they shat a brick

cerement ,
@cerement@slrpnk.net avatar

Apple »claims« they will honor ‘right to repair’ – just like they claim their latest devices are ‘carbon neutral’

echo64 ,

this is a ruleset though, and it’s likely much cheaper for them to produce one SKU for the US rather than two, a california rule abiding one, and a rest of the country one.

kautau ,

Right, this is absolutely because it’s cheapest for them to adopt across their product line and their PR team is trying to spin it like they are doing it for altruistic reasons. It’s the same with USB-C. Once forced by the EU, it was announced all iPhones would use usb-c, same situation

Sneptaur ,
@Sneptaur@pawb.social avatar

Their carbon neutral claims are a stretch, but they did massively reduce their carbon footrprint in addition to using offsets. The majority of the reduction is from using green energy at their factories and no longer using air shipping.

TheHobbyist ,

What does this mean regarding their components pairing? Will they still force indepent repair shops to go through apple to validate a repair by requesting a new pairing for the replaced part? Will it be free? Will it depend on whether the part is a genuine apple part? A salvaged one? A third party part?

downpunxx ,
@downpunxx@kbin.social avatar

you now have the right to repair with only their parts, which is progress, albeit minimal and expensive

avidamoeba ,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

Here, you can buy a screen for 80% of the cost of a new iPhone.

deegeese ,

Thumbnail looks like a purple Dodge Challenger is about to drive through the window.

scytale ,

Apple storefront: planned obsolescence

Dodge Challenger: CA’s right to repair law

lemann ,

IMO Apple must have found a way to literally Dodge this Challenger if they’re supporting it. Wonder what concoction their legal team has drafted up?..

ironsoap ,

Based on this, it looks like an attempt to negotiate with the consumers “directly” and make it look like they are being active.

MonkderZweite ,

Wouldn’t it be cheaper long-term to just not be assholes for once?

HawlSera ,

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.

cheese_greater ,

Good eye!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •