3 ms·

Seems that this doesn’t really do anything to change what Apple does… the messages you get from a swapped Apple part is that they can’t verify if the part is au

Seems that this doesn’t really do anything to change what Apple does… the messages you get from a swapped Apple part is that they can’t verify if the part is authentic. They also disable some functionality likely due to calibration issues… I doubt Apple is going to be forced to provide calibration data (if they even can) to users for random parts they put in their system.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
There is nothing about the parts functions that actually requires pairing, or the bogus "calibration" ceremonies, and so they can not show or explain how they are functionally necessary, and so the law does block that. But I'm sure they will just move some things around to produce the same ultimate effect while no longer technically doing serial number pairing or bogus "calibration" ceremonies that somehow didn't need to be done for the entire history of electronics before now, and somehow can't be done automatically or by the end user or by any other technician. The law is a step in the right direction by trying to talk about the ends at least a little vs the means, but only barely. The driver of Apple's behavior has not changed, so telling Apple they can't do specifically X is like trying to contain water with a pole. You stopped the water in one spot, and the water went right around it in infinite other spots. But the law at least a little bit tries to say the user must be able to do things instead of only saying specific things Apple can't do. And then it goes and allows mist of the actual offenders to keep on offending to the point that Apple is almost the only ones actually affected! Maybe they figure it's a neccessary start? Where they know the exceptions make no sense, but at least they are exceptions, and so after some time with this version to become normal, after some years they can shine a light on the exceptions and get some public support by asking "why don't these guys have to obey the same law as everyone else?" or maybe another angle is after some years they will be able to show how other industries changed for the better, so it's harder to argue that these still have any defensible right to any exception. In any event, plan or no plan, they probably simply would not have been able to pass the good complete version of the law. So like always the choice is this ratty moth-eaten rag version or nothing at all.

Brian_K_White 3y ago

There is nothing about the parts functions that actually requires pairing, or the bogus "calibration" ceremonies, and so they can not show or explain how they are functionally necessary, and so the law does block that. But I'm sure they will just move some things around to produce the same ultimate effect while no longer technically doing serial number pairing or bogus "calibration" ceremonies that somehow didn't need to be done for the entire history of electronics before now, and somehow can't be done automatically or by the end user or by any other technician. The law is a step in the right direction by trying to talk about the ends at least a little vs the means, but only barely. The driver of Apple's behavior has not changed, so telling Apple they can't do specifically X is like trying to contain water with a pole. You stopped the water in one spot, and the water went right around it in infinite other spots. But the law at least a little bit tries to say the user must be able to do things instead of only saying specific things Apple can't do. And then it goes and allows mist of the actual offenders to keep on offending to the point that Apple is almost the only ones actually affected! Maybe they figure it's a neccessary start? Where they know the exceptions make no sense, but at least they are exceptions, and so after some time with this version to become normal, after some years they can shine a light on the exceptions and get some public support by asking "why don't these guys have to obey the same law as everyone else?" or maybe another angle is after some years they will be able to show how other industries changed for the better, so it's harder to argue that these still have any defensible right to any exception. In any event, plan or no plan, they probably simply would not have been able to pass the good complete version of the law. So like always the choice is this ratty moth-eaten rag version or nothing at all.