6 ms·

Apple devices stand apart in their reputation for quality and security, but they stand apart in a larger ecosystem of mobile devices. Restricting the usage of i

Apple devices stand apart in their reputation for quality and security, but they stand apart in a larger ecosystem of mobile devices. Restricting the usage of inauthentic parts is one of the ways they accomplish this. It's wrong-headed of legislators to try to narrow the ecosystem, and restrict the axes along which companies can distinguish themselves. Fundamentally it should be the market that chooses, not legislators. If consumers want locked-down, appliance-style devices (and they seem to), why is that an invalid offering? If the thesis is that legislators know what consumers want better than consumers (or Apple) then I wholeheartedly disagree.

zac23or 3y ago
Tim Cook, it's been a long time since I've seen you comment here.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
> Fundamentally it should be the market that chooses That’s exactly what right to repair is about. Right to repair promotes market competition.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  The parent commenter means, "Fundamentally it should be the market that chooses [whether 'right to repair' matters], not legislators".
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    Well it’s quite a silly stance. We could after all let “the market” decide on whether private property is enforceable or allow “the market” to punish murderers. We don’t do that because we’ve found it doesn’t work that effectively (unless your goal is inefficiency and murder). Laws promote efficiency and progress by aligning incentives with market forces. Right to repair is a perfect example of such a low. It promotes autonomy and market competition. I find it confusing that anyone not profiting directly off the status quo would be against it. Regardless the people profiting off it are in the minority so hopefully the majority continues to push for the passage of more such laws.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      It's a phone or laptop repair in question, not someone's life or living.
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        I may be misunderstanding you, but how exactly is having autonomy over your phone any different over autonomy over anything else you own? Or are you consistently against people having any autonomy over their property?
        hot_gril 3y ago
        I can already legally do whatever I want with my own phone, as I have a right to my property, but it doesn't mean Apple is required to help me do it. And Apple has the right to design the phone and offer service the way they want. There are exceptions where this might not be right, but it's just a phone repair, not someone's life. Why should I care about Apple's rights? Aside from any argument about slippery slope, I'm a happy enough customer. Last time I've felt the need to repair an iPhone was a decade ago, and it was for a cracked screen, which wasn't expensive to repair. It seems to me like people with niche business interests are trying to force them on a market that has already decided against them.
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      > Well it’s quite a silly stance. I guess it depends on whether you believe capitalism and that "invisible hand" stuff is silly. > It promotes autonomy and market competition. Those are good things. I want the autonomy to buy the best-for-me (safe, compact, rugged, beautiful) user experience possible, but I'm very happy that there's market competition (Fairphone, etc.) for customers who want the phone equivalent of a project car.
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        > I guess it depends on whether you believe capitalism and that "invisible hand" stuff is silly. I don’t really know the claim you’re making exactly, but if you’re saying that capitalism is not about laws and regulations then yes that is quite silly. Capitalism doesn’t work without laws protecting contracts, private property (in its innumerable forms), etc. Like I said, we don’t let the market decide many things so that capitalism _is_ possible. Feel free to clarify if you didn’t mean to make that argument.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  It creates competition between repairmen, but that might mean that consumers suffer because they can no longer choose to buy such a device which maintains the quality of repairs. The law would be deciding what kind of devices would be permissible rather than the consumers deciding based off buying what product they think is best.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    Consumers can _still_ get their devices repaired by Apple. They can _still_ buy used devices from Apple. How exactly does this limit consumers that desire buying parts they know Apple declares to be genuine?
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      >How exactly does this limit consumers that desire buying parts they know Apple declares to be genuine? It doesn't. It does affect the resell value of iphones, it diminishes the trust people have in buying second hand units. Low quality parts can hurt Apple's and iPhone brand image.
      - CogitoCogito 3y ago
        Does it decrease the resell value? For me the phone becomes more valuable not less due to the fact that I can do more with it. There are many like me. There are many whose phones aren’t with getting fixed by Apple (hence worthless), but could be worth getting fixed by someone else. So really you simply don’t know what will happen to resell values of iPhones. They could increase or decrease. Claiming one or the other is speculation.
- thegrimmest 3y ago
  It does not promote market competition, but narrows it only to devices which have interchangeable, user-replaceable parts. This is mathematically narrower than "all types of devices". The market here is "mobile phones"
hospitalJail 3y ago
>Apple devices stand apart in their reputation for quality and security, Just dont actually measure either of these. I'm a bit afraid to talk important things in front of iphones given their atrocious security record. Also you mentioned quality, but I don't see any CUDA/Nvidia on their platforms. They might advertise quality, but they are closer to B- quality. Please forget the butterfly keyboard white-washing campaign or 'you are holding your phone wrong'.
encom 3y ago
>locked-down, appliance-style devices t. AAPL shareholder If I want a smartphone I can choose between the Google appliance or the Apple appliance. That's no choice at all.
- thegrimmest 3y ago
  PinePhone exists, you can buy one. Why do you think it's not competitive in terms of market share?
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
People know when they're buying NAPA generics instead of OEM parts when fixing their far more expensive cars. > It's wrong-headed of legislators to try to narrow the ecosystem, and restrict the axes along which companies can distinguish themselves. Fundamentally it should be the market that chooses, not legislators. If consumers want locked-down, appliance-style devices (and they seem to), why is that an invalid offering? This is just crazy. If the consumer wants Apple OEM they know where to get it. Right to repair with generic instead of OEM broadens the market. It doesn't narrow it.
- thegrimmest 3y ago
  And if you're buying a used iPhone, how do you know what's in it?
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Ask the seller? Why would you care if you're buying used? You already have no idea how close it is to dying anyway. If you really, really care, you can take it to an Apple OEM repair shop for that info.
    - thegrimmest 3y ago
      The phone still carries Apple's brand, and the secondary market significantly impacts brand perception. Toyota is a classic example. Apple should be able to exert whatever control over its products that it can to shape this perception. Apple made the phone and sold it to you. They should have a right to make whatever sort of phone they want, and you should have a right to choose whether or not to buy it.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        And modify it however you want. You just can't sell a modified item without disclosing.
        3y ago

zac23or 3y ago

Tim Cook, it's been a long time since I've seen you comment here.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

> Fundamentally it should be the market that chooses That’s exactly what right to repair is about. Right to repair promotes market competition.

CharlesW 3y ago
The parent commenter means, "Fundamentally it should be the market that chooses [whether 'right to repair' matters], not legislators".
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  Well it’s quite a silly stance. We could after all let “the market” decide on whether private property is enforceable or allow “the market” to punish murderers. We don’t do that because we’ve found it doesn’t work that effectively (unless your goal is inefficiency and murder). Laws promote efficiency and progress by aligning incentives with market forces. Right to repair is a perfect example of such a low. It promotes autonomy and market competition. I find it confusing that anyone not profiting directly off the status quo would be against it. Regardless the people profiting off it are in the minority so hopefully the majority continues to push for the passage of more such laws.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    It's a phone or laptop repair in question, not someone's life or living.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      I may be misunderstanding you, but how exactly is having autonomy over your phone any different over autonomy over anything else you own? Or are you consistently against people having any autonomy over their property?
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        I can already legally do whatever I want with my own phone, as I have a right to my property, but it doesn't mean Apple is required to help me do it. And Apple has the right to design the phone and offer service the way they want. There are exceptions where this might not be right, but it's just a phone repair, not someone's life. Why should I care about Apple's rights? Aside from any argument about slippery slope, I'm a happy enough customer. Last time I've felt the need to repair an iPhone was a decade ago, and it was for a cracked screen, which wasn't expensive to repair. It seems to me like people with niche business interests are trying to force them on a market that has already decided against them.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    > Well it’s quite a silly stance. I guess it depends on whether you believe capitalism and that "invisible hand" stuff is silly. > It promotes autonomy and market competition. Those are good things. I want the autonomy to buy the best-for-me (safe, compact, rugged, beautiful) user experience possible, but I'm very happy that there's market competition (Fairphone, etc.) for customers who want the phone equivalent of a project car.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      > I guess it depends on whether you believe capitalism and that "invisible hand" stuff is silly. I don’t really know the claim you’re making exactly, but if you’re saying that capitalism is not about laws and regulations then yes that is quite silly. Capitalism doesn’t work without laws protecting contracts, private property (in its innumerable forms), etc. Like I said, we don’t let the market decide many things so that capitalism _is_ possible. Feel free to clarify if you didn’t mean to make that argument.
charcircuit 3y ago
It creates competition between repairmen, but that might mean that consumers suffer because they can no longer choose to buy such a device which maintains the quality of repairs. The law would be deciding what kind of devices would be permissible rather than the consumers deciding based off buying what product they think is best.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  Consumers can _still_ get their devices repaired by Apple. They can _still_ buy used devices from Apple. How exactly does this limit consumers that desire buying parts they know Apple declares to be genuine?
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >How exactly does this limit consumers that desire buying parts they know Apple declares to be genuine? It doesn't. It does affect the resell value of iphones, it diminishes the trust people have in buying second hand units. Low quality parts can hurt Apple's and iPhone brand image.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      Does it decrease the resell value? For me the phone becomes more valuable not less due to the fact that I can do more with it. There are many like me. There are many whose phones aren’t with getting fixed by Apple (hence worthless), but could be worth getting fixed by someone else. So really you simply don’t know what will happen to resell values of iPhones. They could increase or decrease. Claiming one or the other is speculation.
thegrimmest 3y ago
It does not promote market competition, but narrows it only to devices which have interchangeable, user-replaceable parts. This is mathematically narrower than "all types of devices". The market here is "mobile phones"

hospitalJail 3y ago

>Apple devices stand apart in their reputation for quality and security, Just dont actually measure either of these. I'm a bit afraid to talk important things in front of iphones given their atrocious security record. Also you mentioned quality, but I don't see any CUDA/Nvidia on their platforms. They might advertise quality, but they are closer to B- quality. Please forget the butterfly keyboard white-washing campaign or 'you are holding your phone wrong'.

encom 3y ago

>locked-down, appliance-style devices t. AAPL shareholder If I want a smartphone I can choose between the Google appliance or the Apple appliance. That's no choice at all.

thegrimmest 3y ago
PinePhone exists, you can buy one. Why do you think it's not competitive in terms of market share?

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

People know when they're buying NAPA generics instead of OEM parts when fixing their far more expensive cars. > It's wrong-headed of legislators to try to narrow the ecosystem, and restrict the axes along which companies can distinguish themselves. Fundamentally it should be the market that chooses, not legislators. If consumers want locked-down, appliance-style devices (and they seem to), why is that an invalid offering? This is just crazy. If the consumer wants Apple OEM they know where to get it. Right to repair with generic instead of OEM broadens the market. It doesn't narrow it.

thegrimmest 3y ago
And if you're buying a used iPhone, how do you know what's in it?
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Ask the seller? Why would you care if you're buying used? You already have no idea how close it is to dying anyway. If you really, really care, you can take it to an Apple OEM repair shop for that info.
  - thegrimmest 3y ago
    The phone still carries Apple's brand, and the secondary market significantly impacts brand perception. Toyota is a classic example. Apple should be able to exert whatever control over its products that it can to shape this perception. Apple made the phone and sold it to you. They should have a right to make whatever sort of phone they want, and you should have a right to choose whether or not to buy it.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      And modify it however you want. You just can't sell a modified item without disclosing.
      - 3y ago