3 ms·
I’m personally on the fence with this issue, and using the term ‘fascism’ in this case is extremely pejorative. But... People calling for laws to regulate thin
by sbuk 7y ago
I’m personally on the fence with this issue, and using the term ‘fascism’ in this case is extremely pejorative. But...
People calling for laws to regulate things like this bothers me. Where does it lead? As the GP posited, there is competition. Apple ‘banning’ you from repairing a device is purely commercial.
The only things actually preventing you from repairing your device are really scarcity of parts and warranty issues. I understand why they disable Touch ID on 3rd party parts for instance. It makes sense for both parties (Apple and end user). Should there be a 3rd party program in this instance? That’s a commercial decision.
As for Warranties; if you attempt a repair and bodge the job, why should any company be liable for that? Yes, repair it, but at full cost. If it’s irrecoverable, tough shit on the person that initially attempted the repair or the vendor should have the right to refuse. If it’s out of warranty; the owner/repairer should pay for the work. A better argument to be had at this point is the minimum warranty length. For electronic devices 3-5 years seems reasonable. Accidental damage cost should not be covered by this. That is what insurance is for.
The real motive behind this push as far as I can see is the tinkerer or modder movement. That’s fine, but be honest. There are trade offs to be had on both sides.
- bmn__ 7y agoExplanation for your downvotes (text is already medium grey): > The only things actually preventing you from repairing your device are really scarcity of parts and warranty issues. This is written to mislead people who do not know the relevant background information. Apple puts a three-way stranglehold on the parts market. The scarcity exists precisely because of their anti-capitalist, anticompetitive actions.
- sbuk 7y ago> This is written to mislead people who do not know the relevant background information. How dare you put words in my mouth. I have no skin in this whatsoever. It was written as a statement of fact as I see it. The motive behind the scarcity is not something I was discussing, and is, as I said a commercial one. Legislating that a 3rd party parts market must be catered for is potentially a slippery slope. As for anti-capitalist? This is right out of the capitalist playbook! False scarcity leads to control of the market place, which leads to capital, by way of higher repair parts or increased revenue in terms of new device sales instead of repairs.