4 ms·

Let's just remember that the reason behind these "innovations" are strictly coming because of external pressures, if it wasn't for those, they would probably ma

Let's just remember that the reason behind these "innovations" are strictly coming because of external pressures, if it wasn't for those, they would probably make the phones implode into a tiny black hole and charge you an implosion fee for that. Cool that they are doing this but it's not out of their own kind heart.

euroderf 2y ago
The EU being EUseful.
chongli 2y ago
I think it's important to recognize that morality does not apply to any corporation. Corporations respond to incentives and disincentives, that's it. If we want to change the way a corporation behaves we need to arrange things so that its incentives align with our own. People like to ascribe malice to Apple's history of making difficult-to-repair devices. I think that's wrong-headed. It's more appropriate to say that Apple had higher priorities such as miniaturization, performance, battery life, and ease of manufacture. Now that the right to repair movement has been gaining steam and regulations are being drafted, Apple has been given the incentive to prioritize repairability. Thus they are responding to that incentive with the iPhone 16 (with its new battery adhesive), the repair kits, and the documentation they've provided. They likely also see the opportunity to get ahead of their competitors and tout repairability as a competitive advantage. I would not be surprised at all to see future models have even higher repairability scores with Apple aiming to become the market leader. As for the serial numbering and activation of replacement parts: that also has a simple explanation that doesn't involve a nefarious lock-in plot. Witness the recent attacks in Lebanon. How were they carried out? By a supply-chain attack! This sort of capability represents more than a physical danger from explosives or chemical weapons, it's also a major cyber security and privacy threat. Supply-chain attacks via counterfeit, backdoored parts is a huge area of concern for Apple. The potential is there for the company to suffer severe reputational damage should a large-scale attack occur.
- benoau 2y ago
  Downplaying how much Apple fought to prevent R2R around the world. Meanwhile Steam chose to make the Steam Deck as reparable as possible then revised it to be even easier. Both of these options exist, but Apple is one of the greediest companies in the world.
  - kaba0 2y ago
    Steam is not publicly traded, though. Apple can’t really say no to “more profit”, otherwise they will be immediately made to resign.
    - benoau 2y ago
      They give money away, and they actually reduced their fees for the apps with almost no transactions, so obviously they have a fair bit of wiggle-room on what is an acceptable quantity of profit.
      - chongli 2y ago
        That was in response to court cases and regulatory threats. It wasn’t some choice they made out of the blue.
  - maeil 2y ago
    ~80% of publicly listed multinationals are roughly as greedy as each other, and Apple belongs to that 80%. Then there's 10% in each opposite direction. Pretty standard 80/10/10. Apple could easily be even greedier if they'd wish, and get away with it. Even accounting for their intentional obstruction to repairs, I bet the active lifespan of the average iPhone and M-series Macbook are longer than the average Samsung flagship, and certainly comparable laptops. I have no particular attachment to Apple, I currently use only one of their products. But they're just one among the grey cloud of awfulness, nothing special about them when it comes to greed.
    - nindalf 2y ago
rsynnott 2y ago
This has long been a kind of systematic public relations problem for the EU; generally, the fruits of EU regulation become, in the minds of the consumer, an example of corporate benevolence, with the EU's role being solely as a thing to blame when things go wrong.
- l5870uoo9y 2y ago
  The problem with EU regulation is basically that it regulates foreign companies and products without creating domestic products.
  - s_dev 2y ago
    Schrodingers EU. Can't make any products or services but is rich enough to attract foreign companies to massively invest in to gain access and compete in said markets. Where do you think the EU gets the wealth if not making and selling products and services?
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    EU regulation primarily governs European companies and the European subsidiaries of foreign companies; at most, you generally only see leakage outside Europe (eg RoHS has kind of spread; rather than produce separate non-toxic products for Europe and toxic for RoW, a lot of companies have gone non-toxic everywhere; Apple was a leader there). If your only window into EU regulation is Hackernews, I can _kind_ of see how you'd come to this conclusion, but regulation of tech multinationals is very much a drop in the bucket. But also I mean I think you're confused about the purpose of these rules. While certain EU rules are protectionist, these ones aren't; the purpose of forcing manufacturers to make things repairable isn't to promote European manufacturers over foreign ones, it's to protect the consumer.
- xandrius 2y ago
  I think for many Europeans, we 100% know that these changes are thanks to the EU: GDPR, right to be forgotten, right to repair, etc. I think it's some people from the outside (i.e. the US) who are absolutely anti-government but pro corporations-as-a-government which can't see that a for-profit company is like a wheel: it needs a stick for it to go straight.
audunw 2y ago
All product development is essentially from external pressure. Whether it's from customers, competitors or regulators. Of course they'd rather sell you the same thing every year without any R&D expenses, if they could. Anyone would. Pointing this out isn't really saying anything
falconertc 2y ago
No company does things out of the kindness of their own heart. That's just not how enterprise is designed to work, and it is a mistake to ever assume otherwise. Regulation needs to always be the driving force for something like this.
- xandrius 2y ago
  There are companies built around sustainability and other concepts which are for the consumer. The difference here is for-profit and for-profit at all costs.

euroderf 2y ago

The EU being EUseful.

chongli 2y ago

I think it's important to recognize that morality does not apply to any corporation. Corporations respond to incentives and disincentives, that's it. If we want to change the way a corporation behaves we need to arrange things so that its incentives align with our own. People like to ascribe malice to Apple's history of making difficult-to-repair devices. I think that's wrong-headed. It's more appropriate to say that Apple had higher priorities such as miniaturization, performance, battery life, and ease of manufacture. Now that the right to repair movement has been gaining steam and regulations are being drafted, Apple has been given the incentive to prioritize repairability. Thus they are responding to that incentive with the iPhone 16 (with its new battery adhesive), the repair kits, and the documentation they've provided. They likely also see the opportunity to get ahead of their competitors and tout repairability as a competitive advantage. I would not be surprised at all to see future models have even higher repairability scores with Apple aiming to become the market leader. As for the serial numbering and activation of replacement parts: that also has a simple explanation that doesn't involve a nefarious lock-in plot. Witness the recent attacks in Lebanon. How were they carried out? By a supply-chain attack! This sort of capability represents more than a physical danger from explosives or chemical weapons, it's also a major cyber security and privacy threat. Supply-chain attacks via counterfeit, backdoored parts is a huge area of concern for Apple. The potential is there for the company to suffer severe reputational damage should a large-scale attack occur.

benoau 2y ago
Downplaying how much Apple fought to prevent R2R around the world. Meanwhile Steam chose to make the Steam Deck as reparable as possible then revised it to be even easier. Both of these options exist, but Apple is one of the greediest companies in the world.
- kaba0 2y ago
  Steam is not publicly traded, though. Apple can’t really say no to “more profit”, otherwise they will be immediately made to resign.
  - benoau 2y ago
    They give money away, and they actually reduced their fees for the apps with almost no transactions, so obviously they have a fair bit of wiggle-room on what is an acceptable quantity of profit.
    - chongli 2y ago
      That was in response to court cases and regulatory threats. It wasn’t some choice they made out of the blue.
- maeil 2y ago
  ~80% of publicly listed multinationals are roughly as greedy as each other, and Apple belongs to that 80%. Then there's 10% in each opposite direction. Pretty standard 80/10/10. Apple could easily be even greedier if they'd wish, and get away with it. Even accounting for their intentional obstruction to repairs, I bet the active lifespan of the average iPhone and M-series Macbook are longer than the average Samsung flagship, and certainly comparable laptops. I have no particular attachment to Apple, I currently use only one of their products. But they're just one among the grey cloud of awfulness, nothing special about them when it comes to greed.
  - nindalf 2y ago

rsynnott 2y ago

This has long been a kind of systematic public relations problem for the EU; generally, the fruits of EU regulation become, in the minds of the consumer, an example of corporate benevolence, with the EU's role being solely as a thing to blame when things go wrong.

l5870uoo9y 2y ago
The problem with EU regulation is basically that it regulates foreign companies and products without creating domestic products.
- s_dev 2y ago
  Schrodingers EU. Can't make any products or services but is rich enough to attract foreign companies to massively invest in to gain access and compete in said markets. Where do you think the EU gets the wealth if not making and selling products and services?
- rsynnott 2y ago
  EU regulation primarily governs European companies and the European subsidiaries of foreign companies; at most, you generally only see leakage outside Europe (eg RoHS has kind of spread; rather than produce separate non-toxic products for Europe and toxic for RoW, a lot of companies have gone non-toxic everywhere; Apple was a leader there). If your only window into EU regulation is Hackernews, I can _kind_ of see how you'd come to this conclusion, but regulation of tech multinationals is very much a drop in the bucket. But also I mean I think you're confused about the purpose of these rules. While certain EU rules are protectionist, these ones aren't; the purpose of forcing manufacturers to make things repairable isn't to promote European manufacturers over foreign ones, it's to protect the consumer.
xandrius 2y ago
I think for many Europeans, we 100% know that these changes are thanks to the EU: GDPR, right to be forgotten, right to repair, etc. I think it's some people from the outside (i.e. the US) who are absolutely anti-government but pro corporations-as-a-government which can't see that a for-profit company is like a wheel: it needs a stick for it to go straight.

audunw 2y ago

All product development is essentially from external pressure. Whether it's from customers, competitors or regulators. Of course they'd rather sell you the same thing every year without any R&D expenses, if they could. Anyone would. Pointing this out isn't really saying anything

falconertc 2y ago

No company does things out of the kindness of their own heart. That's just not how enterprise is designed to work, and it is a mistake to ever assume otherwise. Regulation needs to always be the driving force for something like this.

xandrius 2y ago
There are companies built around sustainability and other concepts which are for the consumer. The difference here is for-profit and for-profit at all costs.