6 ms·

“ It's appears they are convinced some meaningful part of the "Right to Repair" can't be stopped and of course as competent strategists they are, Apple can't be

by Mtinie 3y ago

“ It's appears they are convinced some meaningful part of the "Right to Repair" can't be stopped and of course as competent strategists they are, Apple can't be caught "of the wrong side of history" so they pretend to switch sides, or even paint themselves as on of the original supporters. I wonder how bad it gets until they use Steve Wozniak's name for this...” I agree with your assessment. On the other hand, we should be open and accepting when large companies make policy shifts. They will need to live up to the expectations of this new enlightenment, to be sure, and not run down the “Apple-certified” path you described. But I’m hesitant to immediately consider this is the way it will be. I do recognize that optimism and my belief that people (and the companies they embody) can make substantial changes to their default behaviors has burned me before, so your pessimism is certainly warranted.

naremu 3y ago
>On the other hand, we should be open and accepting when large companies make policy shifts. Man, if I had a dollar for every time I heard something along these lines of "well we should still encourage X, even if it's a clear political play" I suppose there's just something about being vaguely eager to tacitly accept overt attempts at changing the general discourse Simply because they begrudgingly acknowledge economically progressive agendas in a very limited context, not even truly supporting it; simply pretending to have been on our "side" the whole time "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times..."
- thereddaikon 3y ago
  Its not tacit acceptance. Corps are amoral and always looking out for their bottom line. If that just so happens to mean they align with what the people want then good. And if it doesn't then its on the people to pressure politicians to change the laws and regulations to incentive they do and punish they don't. Cynicism over corps lacking no morals will get you nowhere. They don't and wont. So instead of complaining the world isn't perfect its better to try to make it better. I'd rather live in a world where bad people do the right thing for the wrong reasons than one where bad people just do the wrong thing because they are bad.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > So instead of complaining the world isn't perfect its better to try to make it better. Well, that's part of the problem. Right-to-repair bills that don't address serialized components or hardware DRM won't make it better. Apple is backing this bill because it aligns with their definition of "repair" and further reinforces the idea that the first party is the only one allowed to authorize maintenance. This is less about letting perfect be the enemy of good, and more about struggling to identify the core problem in the first place. If Apple is a required party for me to replace my screen or reinstall a USB connector, then you aren't advocating for a "right" to repair at all. In fact, you're actually coming back around to the 'Repairs-as-a-Service' model that third-parties protested against in the first place.
    - derefr 3y ago
      Serialized components / hardware DRM exist to disincentivize the pickpocket-to-grey-market-refurbished pipeline. They’re the reason that Android devices get stolen in great numbers but iOS devices don’t — iOS devices in “lost mode” have no resale value, including scrap resale value. That’s the entire point of lost mode — and that disincentivization only works as long as the components from that lost-mode phone are considered “tainted” for use in repairing other phones. Which requires “serialized components and hardware DRM.” If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. But I suspect you cannot.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        > If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. Uh... you could just let the user authorize repairs. If your iPhone's root-of-trust is registered with your iCloud account, then users could authorize themselves to make repairs by just putting in the password. Entirely offline, retains Apple's DRM scheme, and even thwarts the Chinese boogeymen that you're so scared of. It just removes the part where Apple has absolute control over the feature instead of the hardware owner.

by Mtinie 3y ago

naremu 3y ago

>On the other hand, we should be open and accepting when large companies make policy shifts. Man, if I had a dollar for every time I heard something along these lines of "well we should still encourage X, even if it's a clear political play" I suppose there's just something about being vaguely eager to tacitly accept overt attempts at changing the general discourse Simply because they begrudgingly acknowledge economically progressive agendas in a very limited context, not even truly supporting it; simply pretending to have been on our "side" the whole time "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times..."

thereddaikon 3y ago
Its not tacit acceptance. Corps are amoral and always looking out for their bottom line. If that just so happens to mean they align with what the people want then good. And if it doesn't then its on the people to pressure politicians to change the laws and regulations to incentive they do and punish they don't. Cynicism over corps lacking no morals will get you nowhere. They don't and wont. So instead of complaining the world isn't perfect its better to try to make it better. I'd rather live in a world where bad people do the right thing for the wrong reasons than one where bad people just do the wrong thing because they are bad.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > So instead of complaining the world isn't perfect its better to try to make it better. Well, that's part of the problem. Right-to-repair bills that don't address serialized components or hardware DRM won't make it better. Apple is backing this bill because it aligns with their definition of "repair" and further reinforces the idea that the first party is the only one allowed to authorize maintenance. This is less about letting perfect be the enemy of good, and more about struggling to identify the core problem in the first place. If Apple is a required party for me to replace my screen or reinstall a USB connector, then you aren't advocating for a "right" to repair at all. In fact, you're actually coming back around to the 'Repairs-as-a-Service' model that third-parties protested against in the first place.
  - derefr 3y ago
    Serialized components / hardware DRM exist to disincentivize the pickpocket-to-grey-market-refurbished pipeline. They’re the reason that Android devices get stolen in great numbers but iOS devices don’t — iOS devices in “lost mode” have no resale value, including scrap resale value. That’s the entire point of lost mode — and that disincentivization only works as long as the components from that lost-mode phone are considered “tainted” for use in repairing other phones. Which requires “serialized components and hardware DRM.” If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. But I suspect you cannot.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. Uh... you could just let the user authorize repairs. If your iPhone's root-of-trust is registered with your iCloud account, then users could authorize themselves to make repairs by just putting in the password. Entirely offline, retains Apple's DRM scheme, and even thwarts the Chinese boogeymen that you're so scared of. It just removes the part where Apple has absolute control over the feature instead of the hardware owner.