• cynetri (he/any)@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good stuff, as the article mentions, California’s big population means its legislation typically has some effect nationwide too. But I can’t help feeling like there’s something I’m missing here, since Apple of all companies supported this bill. I wonder if they’re trying to get good PR after their notorious reputation, or is there a loophole somewhere?

    • Okalaydokalay@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apple has been complying to an extent by forcing people to buy replacement parts from them and only them.

      YouTubers have shown that when you take two identical iPhones and try to take one part out of one and put it into another iPhone, the iPhone will behave strangely. For example, replacing a front facing camera could disable FaceID, despite the fact that it is a legitimate Apple camera designed and coming from an identical iPhone.

      So you will be unable to take your friend’s broke iPhone 13 Pro to repair your iPhone 13 Pro, despite them being exactly the same, even with the same outer color. You will need to go through Apple for your repair parts.

      Apple likely has lobbied to keep this in place and will support legislation that includes this clause that allows them to continue this practice. So technically, yeah, you can repair at home but you still need to buy the replacement parts from Apple.

      • RidgeRoad@midwest.socialOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        iFixit noted yesterday, “Though the bill is strong and should make repairs more available for everyone, it allows manufacturers to continue to engage in parts pairing, a practice by which they limit repairs with software blocks. They can also combine parts into expensive assemblies, which makes repairs more expensive.”

        Similarly doubt there’s any way to legislate against the dismal engineering that tempts a failure avalanche like the Ford F150 taillight horrorshow I posted a few days ago.

      • SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This has been the issue with similar laws for automotive parts. Technically by law they have to make parts available for 10 years iirc. However, they don’t have to make them affordable.

    • Bob@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They might think that it’s comparatively easy for them to comply, giving them an advantage over other manufacturers who may not be able to guarantee a parts supply that long.