3 ms·

> The proposal is consistent with Apple's attempt to occupy the moral high-ground of technology by championing privacy at the expense of the surveillance capita

by tssva 7y ago

> The proposal is consistent with Apple's attempt to occupy the moral high-ground of technology by championing privacy at the expense of the surveillance capitalism embodied by Google and Facebook. Shouldn't this be "The proposal is consistent with Apple's attempt to disrupt the largest revenue stream of their main competitor Google." If Apple actually cared about "the moral high-ground of technology' they wouldn't be so desperately fighting right to repair laws.

taneq 7y ago
To-may-to, to-mar-to.
oarsinsync 7y ago
I was wondering why you were being downvoted, as the point seems pretty valid. Privacy is as big a concern to the vast majority as right-to-repair is. I suspect that right-to-repair occupies an even smaller mindshare than privacy does these days too. Eitherway, it's all sub-par, and that's a real shame. Then I read the article, and realised the paragraph you're partially quoting is saying the same thing: > The proposal is consistent with Apple's attempt to occupy the moral high-ground of technology by championing privacy at the expense of the surveillance capitalism embodied by Google and Facebook. Note this is for Western iThing users only, if you're a Chinese customer privacy is just a distant dream. Unfortunately, while The Register's entire article is written in that tone, when a comment does it, it doesn't translate quite as well.
simonh 7y ago
If right to repair really was just about user rights that would be fair enough, but it’s also about requiring bigger, heavier, more fragile and more expensive products. As a user I’m all for user rights, but I personally doubt the advantages of the government telling companies how to design their products beyond things like health, safety and environmental protection. I don’t think users should have to worry about products being safe for example, but I think the trade off between repairability versus other desirable attributes is something best left to user choice.
- bo1024 7y ago
  There are many kinds of right to repair. One proposal would be not to make any requirements on the hardware, but just to require that software cannot disable the device or otherwise prevent third-party repairs. So if you get the screen replaced by a third-party, it might be illegal for software to try to detect that and refuse to work or update. This doesn't make any requirement that the screen be easy to repair in the first place.
- ajflores1604 7y ago
  Right to repair goes beyond the physical design of the phone. It has to do with purposely misleading customers to the 3rd party options they have available that would prevent them from having to outright replace the whole device (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K98JYRBGyrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K98JYRBGyrg). And preventing the import of refurbished parts for devices they no longer support (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYgdtEsl_0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYgdtEsl_0c)

by tssva 7y ago

taneq 7y ago

To-may-to, to-mar-to.

oarsinsync 7y ago

I was wondering why you were being downvoted, as the point seems pretty valid. Privacy is as big a concern to the vast majority as right-to-repair is. I suspect that right-to-repair occupies an even smaller mindshare than privacy does these days too. Eitherway, it's all sub-par, and that's a real shame. Then I read the article, and realised the paragraph you're partially quoting is saying the same thing: > The proposal is consistent with Apple's attempt to occupy the moral high-ground of technology by championing privacy at the expense of the surveillance capitalism embodied by Google and Facebook. Note this is for Western iThing users only, if you're a Chinese customer privacy is just a distant dream. Unfortunately, while The Register's entire article is written in that tone, when a comment does it, it doesn't translate quite as well.

simonh 7y ago

If right to repair really was just about user rights that would be fair enough, but it’s also about requiring bigger, heavier, more fragile and more expensive products. As a user I’m all for user rights, but I personally doubt the advantages of the government telling companies how to design their products beyond things like health, safety and environmental protection. I don’t think users should have to worry about products being safe for example, but I think the trade off between repairability versus other desirable attributes is something best left to user choice.

bo1024 7y ago
There are many kinds of right to repair. One proposal would be not to make any requirements on the hardware, but just to require that software cannot disable the device or otherwise prevent third-party repairs. So if you get the screen replaced by a third-party, it might be illegal for software to try to detect that and refuse to work or update. This doesn't make any requirement that the screen be easy to repair in the first place.
ajflores1604 7y ago
Right to repair goes beyond the physical design of the phone. It has to do with purposely misleading customers to the 3rd party options they have available that would prevent them from having to outright replace the whole device (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K98JYRBGyrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K98JYRBGyrg). And preventing the import of refurbished parts for devices they no longer support (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYgdtEsl_0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYgdtEsl_0c)