9 ms·

You’ve used a grey argument. Apple themselves have argued that one of the reasons they have to limit repair is for public safety (someone could have a battery e

You’ve used a grey argument. Apple themselves have argued that one of the reasons they have to limit repair is for public safety (someone could have a battery explode if they pierce it, for example), whereas we could also argue the other side: that if someone modifies their own medical device and gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt themselves because they had the right to make that choice. IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual?

eganist 5y ago
> that if someone modifies their own medical device and gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt themselves because they had the right to make that choice. Well, while this applies to medical devices, worth noting this doesn't apply to cars, for which safety inspections have existed in many states for quite a while.
- joshspankit 5y ago
  I’d argue that it does apply to cars as safety inspections don’t apply when you keep a vehicle within the bounds of private property.
  - noizejoy 5y ago
    Would that be similar to having an iPhone never connected to the Internet?
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? This is a really great way to put it, and it applies broadly to so many fundamental disagreements in the tech world. I firmly believe it’s better to trust the individual—so I think users should be able to sideload iOS apps (only if they want to) and install their own root certificates. Others think individuals can’t be trusted, and so we should let tech companies dictate what is safe for everyone else.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  > IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? In the US, I think, some companies sell weapons and nobody seems to care if people can hurt themselves with them.
  - ff317 5y ago
    The comparison is more appropriate than you maybe even intended. Cars are considered weapons (e.g. driving at someone is assault with a deadly weapon), and cars are very dangerous in general and kill lots of people (and not just the drivers!). Yet, we still want right-to-repair on cars.
    - naikrovek 5y ago
      we HAVE right to repair on cars, and we've had it for decades. it's why the OBD-II port is standardized and mandated. it's why you can buy tools built only by the auto manufacturers for working on their own cars. it's why auto manufacturers are required to sell every part and every tool to end customers for at least 10 years after a model year is no longer manufactured. it's why third-party replacement parts are available AT ALL. people forget all this. this is the same thing people want for farm vehicles and personal electronics. we got it done for cars and trucks in the late 1980s. I don't understand why it's so hard to get lawmakers on the side of the customer --their constituents-- today.
  - vageli 5y ago
    It's ridiculous they sell knives in supermarkets, where anyone could procure them and without background checks.
- sneak 5y ago
  I agree that individuals should control their own devices. I also agree with Apple's implicit claim that if iOS users could sideload apps, millions of idiot iOS users would get their devices owned after they followed some "follow these seven steps to get free $POPULAR_MOBILE_GAME tokens!" guide they found on the web, making the platform less trustworthy overall. Apple makes a good argument that buying an iPhone is also buying, in a sense, a remote managed security service for the device at the same time. The net effect of this is that millions of people now have devices mostly free of the most egregious malware (and it's limited to just spyware, delivered via the App Store). For most users, this is a better state of affairs (at least in peacetime, or outside of China/Vietnam/Russia/etc).
kube-system 5y ago
While Apple has made that argument, their devices are not primarily intended to support life, and the vast majority of failures due to bad repairs don't kill people. And often with medical devices, they may often be supporting the life of someone other than the original purchaser and sole maintainer.

eganist 5y ago

> that if someone modifies their own medical device and gets hurt because of it that they legally only hurt themselves because they had the right to make that choice. Well, while this applies to medical devices, worth noting this doesn't apply to cars, for which safety inspections have existed in many states for quite a while.

joshspankit 5y ago
I’d argue that it does apply to cars as safety inspections don’t apply when you keep a vehicle within the bounds of private property.
- noizejoy 5y ago
  Would that be similar to having an iPhone never connected to the Internet?

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

> IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? This is a really great way to put it, and it applies broadly to so many fundamental disagreements in the tech world. I firmly believe it’s better to trust the individual—so I think users should be able to sideload iOS apps (only if they want to) and install their own root certificates. Others think individuals can’t be trusted, and so we should let tech companies dictate what is safe for everyone else.

wiz21c 5y ago
> IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? In the US, I think, some companies sell weapons and nobody seems to care if people can hurt themselves with them.
- ff317 5y ago
  The comparison is more appropriate than you maybe even intended. Cars are considered weapons (e.g. driving at someone is assault with a deadly weapon), and cars are very dangerous in general and kill lots of people (and not just the drivers!). Yet, we still want right-to-repair on cars.
  - naikrovek 5y ago
    we HAVE right to repair on cars, and we've had it for decades. it's why the OBD-II port is standardized and mandated. it's why you can buy tools built only by the auto manufacturers for working on their own cars. it's why auto manufacturers are required to sell every part and every tool to end customers for at least 10 years after a model year is no longer manufactured. it's why third-party replacement parts are available AT ALL. people forget all this. this is the same thing people want for farm vehicles and personal electronics. we got it done for cars and trucks in the late 1980s. I don't understand why it's so hard to get lawmakers on the side of the customer --their constituents-- today.
- vageli 5y ago
  It's ridiculous they sell knives in supermarkets, where anyone could procure them and without background checks.
sneak 5y ago
I agree that individuals should control their own devices. I also agree with Apple's implicit claim that if iOS users could sideload apps, millions of idiot iOS users would get their devices owned after they followed some "follow these seven steps to get free $POPULAR_MOBILE_GAME tokens!" guide they found on the web, making the platform less trustworthy overall. Apple makes a good argument that buying an iPhone is also buying, in a sense, a remote managed security service for the device at the same time. The net effect of this is that millions of people now have devices mostly free of the most egregious malware (and it's limited to just spyware, delivered via the App Store). For most users, this is a better state of affairs (at least in peacetime, or outside of China/Vietnam/Russia/etc).

kube-system 5y ago

While Apple has made that argument, their devices are not primarily intended to support life, and the vast majority of failures due to bad repairs don't kill people. And often with medical devices, they may often be supporting the life of someone other than the original purchaser and sole maintainer.