3 ms·

This is not the wording from the legislation, just a rough verbal summary. I do not see any direct requirement to allow third-party parts, but the document doe

This is not the wording from the legislation, just a rough verbal summary. I do not see any direct requirement to allow third-party parts, but the document does require providing repair-shops with documentation and parts at publicly known (and presumably same) prices. It also requires repair service to be available as long as it is technically feasible. That is, if your screen is cracked, a third party shop will have original screens to install, and Apple will have to offer the service even if you have an unoriginal battery - which they otherwise use as excuse to not perform any service whatsoever. Maybe I'm missing the part he was referring to about allowing third-party parts as well.

mrweasel 3y ago
> It also requires repair service to be available as long as it is technically feasible. If that is to be taken as how most technically minded people read it, that is a LONG time. A repair may not be financially feasible for more than a few years, but it is technically feasible for a very long time. If a type of screen no longer produced is may still be technically feasible to start up a new production line. The normal way to deal with this is to have stock of spare parts, but that goes against everything Apple and Tim Cook believes in.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  It is not intended to be pedantically interpreted in the way where everything is technically feasible, and the long legal text outlines examples of something not being feasible. The goal is solely to not decline repair for arbitrary reason, such as "we won't replace your battery because a moisture indicator has tripped" or "someone else had touched this so we won't look at it". Even if this wasn't clear, imprecise wording is not a carte blanche to interpretation on this side of the pond - a court of law will only entertain reasonable interpretations from legal ambiguity, and "spend millions rebuilding the factory" is obviously not a reasonable response to a single phone repair request. However, within the specified time period they must ensure spare parts are available, and thus must not shut down manufacturing prematurely.

mrweasel 3y ago

> It also requires repair service to be available as long as it is technically feasible. If that is to be taken as how most technically minded people read it, that is a LONG time. A repair may not be financially feasible for more than a few years, but it is technically feasible for a very long time. If a type of screen no longer produced is may still be technically feasible to start up a new production line. The normal way to deal with this is to have stock of spare parts, but that goes against everything Apple and Tim Cook believes in.

arghwhat 3y ago
It is not intended to be pedantically interpreted in the way where everything is technically feasible, and the long legal text outlines examples of something not being feasible. The goal is solely to not decline repair for arbitrary reason, such as "we won't replace your battery because a moisture indicator has tripped" or "someone else had touched this so we won't look at it". Even if this wasn't clear, imprecise wording is not a carte blanche to interpretation on this side of the pond - a court of law will only entertain reasonable interpretations from legal ambiguity, and "spend millions rebuilding the factory" is obviously not a reasonable response to a single phone repair request. However, within the specified time period they must ensure spare parts are available, and thus must not shut down manufacturing prematurely.