3 ms·

Don't mistake this as a sign of altruism by Google: they can see that the Right To Repair movement is getting stronger, more organized, more funded, and is hiri

by mikece 5y ago

Don't mistake this as a sign of altruism by Google: they can see that the Right To Repair movement is getting stronger, more organized, more funded, and is hiring legislative consultants to draft, submit, and pass legislation. While the main thrust for now is the right to repair agricultural tractors and cars, as this gains momentum it will eventually apply to iPhones and MacBook Pros as well. Google is just getting ahead of what is coming -- and trying to flex for PR points as well, because why not?

runnerup 5y ago
It also adds energy to push the right to repair movement forward. It may not be altruistic but it’s not just riding coattails either.
metacritic12 5y ago
Definitely not altruistic. The Pixel phone was always a defensive position, not Google's profit center. From the position of Apple, the Google Pixel was always a poison in the profit pool so that the monopoly would be held in a different part of the value chain (the Search versus the Hardware). In this regard, Apple's loss is the consumers' gain. By making the Pixel really repairable and parts exchangeable, the Pixel can be shown as a shining beacon of right-to-repair. Techies will applaud how great it is, and have an object to contrast the iPhone with. However, if the iPhone is forced to go the same path via right-to-repair laws (or due to consumer sentiment), their profits will be a lot lower. People won't need to replace iPhones as much. They couldn't price discriminate using different size SSD drives as much, etc. And that's the whole game to Google -- again to reduce the hardware part of the profit chain, and to increase the search part of the profit chain. It's basic MBA stuff / Michael Porter's 5 Forces.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  > , not Google's profit center. Google of 2022 is run by more MBA's than ever... Everything is now a profit center. They don't do anything big 'just because it's cool/useful/good for society'.
  - alphabetting 5y ago
    > They don't do anything big 'just because it's cool/useful/good for society' Their published AI research over past 10 years has been hugely beneficial to the field and society. While true they probably wouldn't be spending so much on this R&D (100B last 5 years, 31B last year) if they didn't expect a future profit, it's hard to deny the value of the research.
  - aix1 5y ago
    That's just not true. I work in Google Research, and there's tons of stuff that's not driven by profit. https://research.google/ https://research.google/
- abirch 5y ago
  What % of Apple's revenue is on phone repair? How less frequent would people upgrade their phones? This is about Steve Job's obsessive need to control everything and no-one at Apple wants to challenge a dead prophet.
- robocat 5y ago
  > right-to-repair laws [snip] their profits will be a lot lower. People won't need to replace iPhones as much. I suspect Apple could tweak other factors to adjust e.g. software lifetime more like Google, or changing styles more frequently. Also it really depends on the cost of parts — especially the screen: if a screen is truely expensive then consumers will prefer to upgrade than fix. I have usually had to replace my Android phones due to breaking the screen (also USB connectors - fucking unreliable things).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
twblalock 5y ago
Every time a company does something perceived as good, there is always some commenter reminding people that it's not altruism. Similarly, every time someone posts a link to a postmortem from a large tech company, there are always some commenters who say that it's being done for PR reasons. So what? Just be happy companies are doing things you want. Don't expect it to be done for altruistic reasons on top of that. It's unreasonable to expect a business to do things for non-business reasons. Market demand and/or legislation are the main reasons changes like this happen, and that's the way market economies are supposed to work, and that's fine.

by mikece 5y ago

runnerup 5y ago

It also adds energy to push the right to repair movement forward. It may not be altruistic but it’s not just riding coattails either.

metacritic12 5y ago

Definitely not altruistic. The Pixel phone was always a defensive position, not Google's profit center. From the position of Apple, the Google Pixel was always a poison in the profit pool so that the monopoly would be held in a different part of the value chain (the Search versus the Hardware). In this regard, Apple's loss is the consumers' gain. By making the Pixel really repairable and parts exchangeable, the Pixel can be shown as a shining beacon of right-to-repair. Techies will applaud how great it is, and have an object to contrast the iPhone with. However, if the iPhone is forced to go the same path via right-to-repair laws (or due to consumer sentiment), their profits will be a lot lower. People won't need to replace iPhones as much. They couldn't price discriminate using different size SSD drives as much, etc. And that's the whole game to Google -- again to reduce the hardware part of the profit chain, and to increase the search part of the profit chain. It's basic MBA stuff / Michael Porter's 5 Forces.

londons_explore 5y ago
> , not Google's profit center. Google of 2022 is run by more MBA's than ever... Everything is now a profit center. They don't do anything big 'just because it's cool/useful/good for society'.
- alphabetting 5y ago
  > They don't do anything big 'just because it's cool/useful/good for society' Their published AI research over past 10 years has been hugely beneficial to the field and society. While true they probably wouldn't be spending so much on this R&D (100B last 5 years, 31B last year) if they didn't expect a future profit, it's hard to deny the value of the research.
- aix1 5y ago
  That's just not true. I work in Google Research, and there's tons of stuff that's not driven by profit. https://research.google/ https://research.google/
abirch 5y ago
What % of Apple's revenue is on phone repair? How less frequent would people upgrade their phones? This is about Steve Job's obsessive need to control everything and no-one at Apple wants to challenge a dead prophet.
robocat 5y ago
> right-to-repair laws [snip] their profits will be a lot lower. People won't need to replace iPhones as much. I suspect Apple could tweak other factors to adjust e.g. software lifetime more like Google, or changing styles more frequently. Also it really depends on the cost of parts — especially the screen: if a screen is truely expensive then consumers will prefer to upgrade than fix. I have usually had to replace my Android phones due to breaking the screen (also USB connectors - fucking unreliable things).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

twblalock 5y ago

Every time a company does something perceived as good, there is always some commenter reminding people that it's not altruism. Similarly, every time someone posts a link to a postmortem from a large tech company, there are always some commenters who say that it's being done for PR reasons. So what? Just be happy companies are doing things you want. Don't expect it to be done for altruistic reasons on top of that. It's unreasonable to expect a business to do things for non-business reasons. Market demand and/or legislation are the main reasons changes like this happen, and that's the way market economies are supposed to work, and that's fine.