4 ms·

That's bullshit - millions of electrical and electronic items have been repaired before in the past and in case something went wrong with the repair and caused

That's bullshit - millions of electrical and electronic items have been repaired before in the past and in case something went wrong with the repair and caused damage, it's always the person who repaired who was blamed and not the company that manufactured the product (unless they gave faulty parts). If Apple is really concerned about batteries exploding, all it needs to do is to make it easy to buy original or compatible batteries for its iDevices and provide removable batteries (like millions of other phones today still do). The user won't even have to go to an engineer to replace the battery ... oh, but then how would planned obsolescence work and poor Apple make more money!

briandear 7y ago
> it's always the person who repaired who was blamed and not the company that manufactured the product (unless they gave faulty parts). Not always. See Brown v. Quick Mix Co. Under the doctrine of joint and several liability a plaintiff may pursue an obligation against any one party as if they were jointly liable. That means that if Apple were found even 0.05% responsible for a third party battery explosion (i.e. the metal out of which they made the phones is conducive to fragmenting in an explosion, or some other such legal gymnastics,) then The defendant could collect 100% of the damages from Apple — even though Apple. This means that the plaintiff could recover all of their damages even if Apple’s share of the liability were near zero. It’s pretty clear that those that claim “it’s always the person that repaired who was blamed” — has never spent any time in a courtroom. That’s just outright false.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  In that case Apple should be in favor of a Right to Repair bill that explicitly absolves the OEM of any such liability for third party repairs, right?
  - judge2020 7y ago
    I imagine not all state-driven right-to-repair laws will be as sensible as Apple would like.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      How is that any reason to oppose a sensible one?
- webmobdev 7y ago
  > It’s pretty clear that those that claim “it’s always the person that repaired who was blamed” — has never spent any time in a courtroom. That’s just outright false. And it is pretty clear that there will be always be some outlier, especially in civil cases.
twiceaday 7y ago
Suppose you ship a website and some people get used to being able to edit the javascript code that you ship there to fix and improve things. You then introduce a build step in your deploy process which starts to obfuscate and minify your js. Users start complaining that they can no longer easily fiddle with the js. Why should you compromise your development choices in any way to accommodate an accidental feature that you never intended or promised to your users? It is certainly possible that companies make specific design decisions purely to limit third party repairability, but it does not seem correct to force all devices to be repairable. There are many domains, cell phones being one of them, where a lot of normal fit and finish decisions that are made in order to ship competitive products end up having the side-effect of limiting repairability. Do phones need to be so thin and rigid? Maybe not, but the competing phones are so yours must be too. There seems to be lots of sales pressure on looks and feel and almost no sales pressure on repairability, can you blame these companies for giving people what they are actually paying for instead of what some say they would pay for?
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Do phones need to be so thin and rigid? Maybe not, but the competing phones are so yours must be too. Isn't that arguing in favor of laws requiring repairability? Then your competitors would have to do the same and you eliminate the race to the bottom.
  - twiceaday 7y ago
    Sure, yes. Don't expect any one company to do it. Pass laws across the board.

briandear 7y ago

> it's always the person who repaired who was blamed and not the company that manufactured the product (unless they gave faulty parts). Not always. See Brown v. Quick Mix Co. Under the doctrine of joint and several liability a plaintiff may pursue an obligation against any one party as if they were jointly liable. That means that if Apple were found even 0.05% responsible for a third party battery explosion (i.e. the metal out of which they made the phones is conducive to fragmenting in an explosion, or some other such legal gymnastics,) then The defendant could collect 100% of the damages from Apple — even though Apple. This means that the plaintiff could recover all of their damages even if Apple’s share of the liability were near zero. It’s pretty clear that those that claim “it’s always the person that repaired who was blamed” — has never spent any time in a courtroom. That’s just outright false.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
In that case Apple should be in favor of a Right to Repair bill that explicitly absolves the OEM of any such liability for third party repairs, right?
- judge2020 7y ago
  I imagine not all state-driven right-to-repair laws will be as sensible as Apple would like.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    How is that any reason to oppose a sensible one?
webmobdev 7y ago
> It’s pretty clear that those that claim “it’s always the person that repaired who was blamed” — has never spent any time in a courtroom. That’s just outright false. And it is pretty clear that there will be always be some outlier, especially in civil cases.

twiceaday 7y ago

Suppose you ship a website and some people get used to being able to edit the javascript code that you ship there to fix and improve things. You then introduce a build step in your deploy process which starts to obfuscate and minify your js. Users start complaining that they can no longer easily fiddle with the js. Why should you compromise your development choices in any way to accommodate an accidental feature that you never intended or promised to your users? It is certainly possible that companies make specific design decisions purely to limit third party repairability, but it does not seem correct to force all devices to be repairable. There are many domains, cell phones being one of them, where a lot of normal fit and finish decisions that are made in order to ship competitive products end up having the side-effect of limiting repairability. Do phones need to be so thin and rigid? Maybe not, but the competing phones are so yours must be too. There seems to be lots of sales pressure on looks and feel and almost no sales pressure on repairability, can you blame these companies for giving people what they are actually paying for instead of what some say they would pay for?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Do phones need to be so thin and rigid? Maybe not, but the competing phones are so yours must be too. Isn't that arguing in favor of laws requiring repairability? Then your competitors would have to do the same and you eliminate the race to the bottom.
- twiceaday 7y ago
  Sure, yes. Don't expect any one company to do it. Pass laws across the board.