5 ms·
This article is literally about Apple lobbying to make it harder for independent operations to repair their devices. They won't sell people parts. What does tha
by EpicEng 8y ago
This article is literally about Apple lobbying to make it harder for independent operations to repair their devices. They won't sell people parts. What does that say to you?
- rad_gruchalski 8y agoSource them from places where such laws do not exist?
- EpicEng 8y agoI said: >Why should Apple own the repair aspect? And received a response: >But they are [sic] not Whether or not you can work around Apple not shipping parts is irrelevant. They are actively trying to make it harder to source parts and fix your devices.
- rad_gruchalski 8y ago> Why should Apple own the repair aspect? I guess that would be relevant if they were trying to retrieve all spares back. Them not wanting make sourcing spares easier does not mean they own the repair aspect.
- dwaltrip 8y agoThe difficulty of sourcing parts is _directly_ related to how much ownership one has over repairability. If the sourcing of parts becomes overly difficult or impossible, one effectively loses the ability to repair the device how they wish.
- rad_gruchalski 8y agoTesla also does not sell spares to general public. Yet, there are people who manage to fix them. There are always spares available.
- EpicEng 8y agoSo? Whataboutism isn't a strong case. There are also FAR fewer Teslas out there than there are iPhones and iPads.
- rad_gruchalski 8y agoWhataboutism, whataboutism. Major argument on HN to drop the conversation. It's a comparable example. You know, like a relevant case showing that things are possible without supplier support. Some people here behave like they are totally square headed. Do not deviate an inch away from an example or you get accused of whataboutism. Geez. > There are also FAR fewer Teslas out there than there are iPhones and iPads. Which ultimately makes sourcing iPhone / iPad parts even easier.
- JohnFen 8y ago> It's a comparable example. But irrelevant. That one entity is doing something bad in no way means that it's OK for another entity to do the same thing. Besides, the right to repair movement is not focusing on computer products. It's covering a wide variety of products, including Teslas and (perhaps the most egregious) farm equipment.
- rad_gruchalski 8y agoYeah, it‘s irrelevant because it in the negative context. If it was towards something positive, it would be then relevant. Seen so many examples of this here. But hey, I‘m doing „whataboutism“ again. Meh.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- JohnFen 8y agoNo, it's irrelevant because an action cannot be judged as right or wrong based on whether or not others are doing it.