• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    240
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        59
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

      • TehBamski@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • UnspecificGravity@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apple storefront: planned obsolescence

      Dodge Challenger: CA’s right to repair law

      • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

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

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • essteeyou@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m glad for the EU, California, and other places that are big enough to force this sort of stuff nationally or globally.

    • Orbituary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      Every so often the phrase “where California goes the nation follows” comes true. I had a feeling about this one, but not so soon nor decisively.

    • Syldon@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • essteeyou@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have no idea, but I’m grateful for a step in the right direction. It feels like there haven’t been many of those in recent times.

        • Syldon@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

    • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • UnspecificGravity@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • WallEx@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

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

  • WallEx@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • kksgandhi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    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@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • db2@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • The Pantser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • uphillbothways@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    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@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        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@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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).

    • Einar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

  • RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • downpunxx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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