5 ms·

So? Whataboutism isn't a strong case. There are also FAR fewer Teslas out there than there are iPhones and iPads.

rad_gruchalski 8y ago
Whataboutism, 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 ago
    Yeah, 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 ago
      No, it's irrelevant because an action cannot be judged as right or wrong based on whether or not others are doing it.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Why would we hope that in the future they didn't get better at shutting down 3rd party repairs instead of making them support that case? There are more of us then there are of them. Break it down to the smaller case. Imagine 7 of us are in a lifeboat and 1 person has most of the food and the rest of us have a handful of dinner mints and candy bars. Do we vote to make the one guy share the food or do we hope our candy bars last us until we get rescued. If necessary not only will we eat his food eventually the rest of us might decide to eat him.
- abbe_k 8y ago
  It shouldn't be so hard to understand the problem. Let me give you an example. Apple develops a product with components that are doing the same thing as standard components that are ready available at the market. But instead of using those readily available components they make some twist on it just to ruin compatibility. Then they forbid the company that made that component to sell it to anyone but Apple. That basically gives Apple a monopoly on repairing the device. You talk about sourcing parts, but in this case no one can source parts except Apple unless they salvage parts from other devices which is not always viable.

Whataboutism, 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 ago
  Yeah, 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 ago
    No, it's irrelevant because an action cannot be judged as right or wrong based on whether or not others are doing it.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Why would we hope that in the future they didn't get better at shutting down 3rd party repairs instead of making them support that case? There are more of us then there are of them. Break it down to the smaller case. Imagine 7 of us are in a lifeboat and 1 person has most of the food and the rest of us have a handful of dinner mints and candy bars. Do we vote to make the one guy share the food or do we hope our candy bars last us until we get rescued. If necessary not only will we eat his food eventually the rest of us might decide to eat him.
abbe_k 8y ago
It shouldn't be so hard to understand the problem. Let me give you an example. Apple develops a product with components that are doing the same thing as standard components that are ready available at the market. But instead of using those readily available components they make some twist on it just to ruin compatibility. Then they forbid the company that made that component to sell it to anyone but Apple. That basically gives Apple a monopoly on repairing the device. You talk about sourcing parts, but in this case no one can source parts except Apple unless they salvage parts from other devices which is not always viable.