3 ms·
Louis Rossman has a distinction about this - the difference between right to repair and user-replacable. I can't find the video but the argument is this: Louis
by nemothekid 5y ago
Louis Rossman has a distinction about this - the difference between right to repair and user-replacable. I can't find the video but the argument is this:
Louis does not want to impede on Apple's ability to make devices smaller or more compact, as that is what the vast majority of customers prefer. Louis, as an independent repairman, has spent 10s of thousands of dollars on the appropriate tools to repair these devices at an incredibly small scale. The problem comes when he needs to buy a replacement part he is physically unable to get the part. Apple, in some cases, will forbid the supplier from selling the part to anyone but Apple.
It's not a question of difficulty. Louis is equipped with every tool and all the time of the world, but Apple is directly impeding his ability to repair customer devices by refusing him access to the parts. That is in large part what his bill aims to change - not to force Apple to go back to 90s style clip on batteries.
- schwartzworld 5y ago> Louis does not want to impede on Apple's ability to make devices smaller or more compact, as that is what the vast majority of customers prefer. The vast majority of apple customers have Stockholm syndrome, or at least don't know what they're missing. The first gen MacBook pro had a battery that just popped out and could be replaced. It extended the life of the computer, and was practical because you could carry an extra battery for long trips. You could say their customer wanted to lose the battery, but I doubt that's true. More likely, people who dislike the user hostile design stop being customers.