Slashdot Mirror
Internal Documents Show Apple Is Capable of Implementing Right to Repair Legislation (vice.com)
A leaked internal document outlines a program that looks almost exactly like the requirements of right to repair legislation that has been proposed in 20 states. From a report: As Apple continues to fight legislation that would make it easier for consumers to repair their iPhones, MacBooks, and other electronics, the company appears to be able to implement many of the requirements of the legislation, according to an internal presentation obtained by Motherboard. According to the presentation, titled "Apple Genuine Parts Repair" and dated April 2018, the company has begun to give some repair companies access to Apple diagnostic software, a wide variety of genuine Apple repair parts, repair training, and notably places no restrictions on the types of repairs that independent companies are allowed to do. The presentation notes that repair companies can "keep doing what you're doing, with ... Apple genuine parts, reliable parts supply, and Apple process and training."
This is, broadly speaking, what right to repair activists have been asking state legislators to require companies to offer for years. "This looks to me like a framework for complying with right to repair legislation," Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit and a prominent member of the right to repair movement, told me on the phone. "Right now, they are only offering it to a few megachains, but it seems clear to me that it would be totally possible to comply with right to repair."
This is, broadly speaking, what right to repair activists have been asking state legislators to require companies to offer for years. "This looks to me like a framework for complying with right to repair legislation," Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit and a prominent member of the right to repair movement, told me on the phone. "Right now, they are only offering it to a few megachains, but it seems clear to me that it would be totally possible to comply with right to repair."
The Apple biosystem requires you replace your devices periodically. Opening them up to repair lets you buy non-Apple components, non-Apple batteries, and makes it highly likely you won't pay $10,000 for a computer or $1000 for a phone every two years.
Can they do it? Sure.
They have no economic incentive to do so.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The Apple biosystem requires you replace your devices periodically.
Apple themselves said last year they expect people to be using devices longer and longer, which is why support for older OS's has stayed through multiple OS upgrades.
Apple's ecosystem in fact does the opposite, it keeps your device working as long as possible, til eventually maybe you want an upgrade.
I do think Apple should open up all companies to be able to get apple parts and manuals. But it's not like Apple is forcing people to buy new devices.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I remember almost two decades ago in my college days that the campus bookstore which sold Apple products was also an authorized Apple repair center. Having setup their network equipment (and run down computers with viruses on them), I happen to see them repair a few products in the back room. The part came with a link to a website where they could view a step by step tear down of whatever it was. The document the site had was very detailed and showed every single screw, plate, cover, etc and how exactly to remove it, and in what order everything needed to be done. I remember thinking lego instructions were not this detailed. I asked the tech how long he had been fixing Apple products, and he told me that this was his first time working on that model, but he didn't need to know, it was all in the document.
So if they had these documents that long ago, why haven't they made them public? Oh, never mind, allowing only a few repair shops added to the premium mentality which allowed them to charge more for the products, and the Apple Care plans they pushed.
This doesn't mean that Apple has to make it easy to repair, think glued in batteries. As long as the costs for Apple to replace a few defective devices instead of repairing them themselves under warranty, is less than what Apple looses by not selling newer replacement products, Apple ( and other manufacturers ) have no incentive to make their products easy to repair. They just can't make it harder for others to repair than it is for themselves.
You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
keep doing what you're doing, with ... Apple genuine parts, reliable parts supply, and Apple process and training.
Having an option to get genuine parts would be great, but I fully expect an aftermarket to be created with much cheaper options.
"Right now, they are only offering it to a few megachains, but it seems clear to me that it would be totally possible to comply with right to repair."
Up until a couple product releases from now, when "repair" becomes an obsolete concept. Seems like Apple would do its best to keep moving towards making its phones less openable in the interest of making them more waterproof.
As someone who will never own a tractor, I am concerned about it. I am also not liable to be caught up in a genocide of Southeast Asian minorities or gagged by surveillance software in Central Asia or harassed by police because of my race. Some of us care about things that don't immediately impact our lives because we care about other human beings.
My question is: why does it matter?
Either they obey the law (once right-to-repair legislation is passed), or they suffer the consequences and risk bankruptcy and shareholder lawsuits. Pretty simple stuff, really.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
When it comes to tractors, 99.5% of people don't care about tractor repairs.
Count me as one of the 0.5%. I grew up on a farm, not having a working tractor meant you did the work by hand or horse. Being able to take something apart, figure out how it worked, fix it, and put it back together again is essential to a farm. So being denied that really hurts farmers and without farms your nicely packaged foods or prepared meals don't happen.
Of course this is just a learning period for farms. Once they realize that the newest tractor won't allow you to take the cover off without some tech re-certifying the computer before it works again, well lets just say they'll buy from someone else or keep the old equipment around.
This also has bigger implications in that people like to tinker with things and make them better or just different. Using DRM to stop that only hurts the US in its ability to invent and improve.
Also I can't think of one appliance or equipment I have bought in the last 15 years I haven't torn apart once just to see how it worked. I saved myself a washer repair man visit the other day. It was leaking and by taking the panels off and watching how it worked I found the source of the leak and replaced it with a $5.00 seal. If the washer had stopped working because I took a panel off, and I had to pay the company to come out and reset it. I'd be asking for my money back, and would never buy another product from them again.
People do care about the downstream effects. Expensive tractor repairs are a contributor when you wonder why your grocery bill is so damned high. It is an example of the problem faced by many in-industry and enthusiasts of electronics and IT. The target demographic of /. should be able to understand that, so the articles appear here.
As for the politicians, farmers vote. This is very much a daily concern for them.
Expensive tractor repairs are a contributor when you wonder why your grocery bill is so damned high.
Food is cheaper here and now than it has ever been anywhere for anyone.
Why would anyone believe "expensive tractor repairs" make a significant difference? Who is saying they do?
what about return part pricing and cpu + ram + MB + Storage as one unit in the imac pro even when cpu and ram is an socket.
What PR firms? What talking heads? Why would I think that stories about corporate malfeasance are plants but you aren't?
Not a single complete sentence in 84 pages you say? That sounds like the president wrote it.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
This is slashdot... "News for nerds, stuff that matters".
Once upon a time, nerds were the people who were building computers in their basements, salvaging old electronics to build new creations, and generally taking shit apart to see what they could do with it. Farmers were not dissimilar in how they handled their tractors - many of those old timers with their self-taught mechanical aptitude could rig something up from loose bits around the farm to keep ancient tractors chugging away, doing useful work long after their manufacturers went out of business.
Today, many companies have realized that every repaired device that is saved from a landfill is one less potential customer, and so they've introduced artificial technical barriers (DRM and worse) to try to clamp down on this unprofitable practice. What's worse, in some cases they have sent lawyers after companies and individuals who have had the gall to try to repair devices themselves.
If I buy a device, I should be able to do whatever I damn well please with it - take it apart, put it back together, swap components out, upgrade it - whatever is within my capacity to do. If someone buys a piece of hardware, the manufacturer shouldn't get to dictate how they are allowed to use it. That's what Right to Repair is about.
90% of people doesn't care about anything. That's no reason to not write about things.
Slashdot is a technology site with a readership that contains many hobbyists, tinkerers and others who tend to want to repair things rather than throw the whole thing in the trash because one $0.50 component failed. So Right to Repair legislation is of interest to many of us.
The current situation is that repairability is artificially impaired by large companies trying to force people into the wasteful habit of throwing away objects rather than repairing them. This situation was made possible by government butting out and letting "the market" develop naturally.
Nonrepairability works in favor of a small group of large companies while having a negative impact on everyone else. Insultingly high repair bills, mountains of waste, monopolies are common and unacceptable. The government is the only entity capable of changing this, so yes, government definitely should butt in on behalf of consumers, and put limits to corporate greed and assholiness.
Cookie-cutter denial, the up and coming new Orange Man Bad outrage. :)
Slashdot is a technology site with a readership that contains many hobbyists, tinkerers and others who tend to want to repair things rather than throw the whole thing in the trash because one $0.50 component failed. So Right to Repair legislation is of interest to many of us.
That explains why some fraction of Slashdot readers care. How does that become "right to repair" legislation "has been proposed in 20 states"? Does that sort of effort happen without money and centralized organization?
I can guarantee you that 99.5% of tractor owners care about tractor repairs. The percentage is probably a bit lower for John Deere tractor owners because the ones who care most self-selected themselves out of the sample by not buying a John Deere because of the repair issues, even though they really wanted one.
Anyway, Apple products are highlighted for right to repair because they're high-profile. The biggest right-to-repair issue is refilling ink cartridges. If you buy replacement ink cartridges from the printer manufacturer (as the chips in many cartridges force you to do), you're paying on the order of $1000 per gallon of ink. It's ludicrous, and only made possible by vendor encrypted lock-in whose only purpose is to prevent you from messing around with the internals of YOUR printer. Right to repair makes that type of lock-in illegal. So anyone who's ever grumbled about high ink cartridge costs cares about right-to-repair.
So you figure costs to a producer DON'T figure into the cost of a product? I don't know where you went to school, but you should demand a refund.
User lockout is stopped by regulation. Want to fix your own DVD player or root your own phone? Not if we can help it.
I'm not opining on companies being forced to "produce" tools and documents (that they already have) I'm opining on artificial user barriers.
Which is shitty enough to draw criticism without molemen pulling the strings.
Criticism isn't "legislation proposed in 20 states". Are there molemen?
I suppose forcing radium out of children's toys was financed by Big Safety's PR team?
I'm not 90 years old, so I have limited knowledge of this story. Why bring it up?
Where do you draw the line?
"Where do you draw the line?" is a question that presumes a perfect answer that fits every problem. I don't believe in such answers. I think people should mostly draw their own lines at their own discretion instead of having some mediocre government bureaucrats decide for them.
Is there an agenda for every complaint of a shitty situation? Every post on the internet that whined about something?
I'm only asking if there is an agenda for this. And if so, who? And why?
So you figure costs to a producer DON'T figure into the cost of a product? I don't know where you went to school, but you should demand a refund.
This response is just dumb. Even children know the difference between an amount that's big enough to matter and an amount that's too small to care about. Animals know it too.
What PR firms? What talking heads?
That's my original question. Does anyone know?
I guess you haven't seen the cost of farm equipment lately.
For a $2 loaf of bread, how much of that $2 do you the think is "tractor repairs"?
Mueller said that there was no evidence of collusion after a thorough 18 month investigation. If you have evidence there was collusion then you'd better let him know as soon as you can.
More than should be.
You may care but you obviously don't understand the issues at hand which is typical for people on your side of the aisle. There is ALWAYS more than a binary cause and solution to the problem.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
And how is that "obvious"? Do you care to say anything substantial other than glib, driveby criticism?
What he specifically said was there was insufficient evidence to bring a charge of conspiracy against the folks involved in the Trump campaign. Which just means it would be a waste of time to try and prosecute, not that there was no evidence at all. Plenty of cases have some evidence implicating someone but that evidence is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a fairly highly legal bar to get over.
No what he specifically said was there was no evidence of collusion and insufficient evidence to bring a charge of obstruction of justice. Let it go.