it's usually the smaller entity that loses, not the big companies that are the primary reason for these sorts of bills.
That is because the big companies pour vast amounts of money into "lobbying" (read: legalized bribery) efforts to ensure that those bills are modified to benefit them before (and sometimes after) they get tabled. Take money out of politics and the problem will be solved.
Of course, the chances of this happening without a violent revolution are slim, since the people who can otherwise effect such a change are the beneficiaries of those bribes.
To ensure fair competition in the repair business.
Apple could just decide that the 'parts' for the 2016 iPhone are no longer available in 2017 and there goes your 'right to repair'.
They could, as long as it does not go against other laws and regulations.
You have to look deeper than the name of the bill. It does not aim to give you an unconditional right to repair. It aims to give you the same right to repair that the manufacturers and their "authorized" repair centers have. No more, no less.
In regards the Warrantors Shall Demonstrate - the section right prior says that the warranty is to be upheld even when the repair is done with 3rd party products. And try to demonstrate a defect/damage was caused by the repair/3rd party product! Again, nothing for an Apple-sized company.
This bill basically allows you to deconstruct an Apple iPhone, replace all it's parts with knock-offs and then go back and get a new authentic one from Apple
You have absolutely no idea how warranties work. To give a car analogy (this used to be popular on/.) : installing an aftermarket entertainment system should not affect powertrain recalls.
and the NY bill you quote doesn't even apply to motor vehicles.
Yes, I saw that and was very perplexed. The only explanation I can offer is that the automakers lobby has deeper pockets.
It would for instance allow you to break your device open for a repair and then go back to the manufacturer and have them uphold a lifetime warranty.
WARRANTORS SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFECT OR DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY INDEPENDENT REPAIR TO AFFECT THE WARRANTY;
Or third party medical equipment repairs where liability continues to be with the manufacturer.
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL REQUIRE A MANUFACTURER OF A MEDICAL DEVICE AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION TO IMPLEMENT ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION THAT IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL LAW, RULE OR REGULATION THAT SUPERSEDES THIS SECTION.
But imagine being a small "manufacturer" of a computer and you have to keep stocks of various interfaces and sizes of hard drives (every permutation of IDE, SATA, SCSI, SAS, FC and 40GB, 80GB,...) and every time something breaks you have to not just send out parts but keep them stocked for the "lifetime" of the device (25 years?).
NOTHING IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL REQUIRE THE OEM TO SELL PARTS IF THE PARTS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO THE OEM OR THE AUTHORIZED REPAIR PROVIDER OF THE OEM.
Honestly, just read the text of the bill, it's not that long.
This is the most disingenuous post I have read on/. for quite a while. And that's saying something.
Exactly what types of broken states of a phone are you requiring a company to publish guides to fix, and make parts available for? Do you even know how many different ways a modern phone can fail? And what level of fix are you requiring they make available, and for what level of user capability? It's going to be pretty much useless if grandpa can't manipulate the microtweezers to fix the parts of the rear-facing camera module, so what then?
The law would require the company to make the exact same guides that they give to their "authorized" repair centers available to the public. And no, grandpa is not going to repair anything himself, but he will have the option to take his malfunctioning gadget to an independent repair shop which will fix it for a fraction of the price, since that's what competition does.
But you already knew that, because it says so very clearly in the text of the proposed legislation, only two clicks away.
Why is everybody ganging on Microsoft when Google's behaviour is much more egregious?
The Nexus 5 is vulnerable to the Broadcom wifi exploit, and yet Google will not patch it since it was released on November 2013, which is more than 3 years ago.
That's right, Google will only issue security patches for three years. How's that for support?
When I was in grade school, my father used to work on a mainframe computer. I was curious and used to bug him with questions, and eventually he brought me a couple of manuals. My first computer program was written on an 80-column paper form and started with "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION."
Shortly later, I joined a "computer club" and got to play around with an 8080 board with a hex keypad for input and a line of LEDs for output. That was my first exposure to assembly language and machine code.
Later, in high-school (early '80s), I got exposed to personal computers and programmable calculators. So, roughly in chronological order: 8085, TI-59 (belonging to a fellow student), BASIC, 6502 (neighbour had a VIC-20), 6509 (got my first computer: a TRS-80 CoCo)
Investing in marketing is more cost-effective than investing in R&D.
In the old times, when people mostly bought locally, there was a benefit in retaining customers for repeat sales, but with the advent of globalization, it is easier to convince people to buy buy a gilded turd (because it's cheaper) because even if they realize they have been duped, there are plenty of other fish in the sea. Even bad reviews don't really matter since the corporations have bigger megaphones than the individuals, and the information overload also plays to their advantage.
And because everybody races to the bottom, it becomes even harder to make an informed choice. Even the adage "you get what you pay for" has been subverted by rebranding the same crap and selling it for a premium. Cases in point: Monster cables, Bose, etc.
Because something that is acceptable today may be considered unsavoury tomorrow. Because a corrupt government (or even a single person in power) may consider your actions unsavoury for their own personal reasons. Because your constitution gives you the right to do many unsavoury things. And for a good reason.
I am currently running Pidgin 2.12 with Jabbber, Skype, Hangouts, AIM, Steam and Facebook active. I stopped using Yahoo when they changed to the abomination that their current protocol is, even though Pidgin does support it with a plugin, and MSN is dead since MS migrated everyone to Skype.
There is also a plugin for Twitter, but I don't use it. So that takes care of 7 out of the 9 that you mentioned, leaving Snapchat and Instagram. If more developers get to work on it, those two could get support as well. Every platforms that works with web-clients can be added.
Slashdot Mirror
When the words "NASA" and "alien" appear in the same sentence, the answer is "no".
Counterexample:
"Trump's budget proposal cuts funding of NASA climate missions and eliminates tax credits to illegal aliens "
it's usually the smaller entity that loses, not the big companies that are the primary reason for these sorts of bills.
That is because the big companies pour vast amounts of money into "lobbying" (read: legalized bribery) efforts to ensure that those bills are modified to benefit them before (and sometimes after) they get tabled. Take money out of politics and the problem will be solved.
Of course, the chances of this happening without a violent revolution are slim, since the people who can otherwise effect such a change are the beneficiaries of those bribes.
Mozilla is already hiring a high-profile tech lobbyist to press for both cybersecurity and an open internet
When your so called democracy has paid high-speed lanes, what do you expect from your Internet service?
A little disingenuous of you to lump everything under the same "regulation" umbrella, don't you think?
Anti-trust laws, consumer right regulations and criminalizing murder are also "regulation".
It all depends on the actual and specific mandate.
So then what is the point of the bill?
To ensure fair competition in the repair business.
Apple could just decide that the 'parts' for the 2016 iPhone are no longer available in 2017 and there goes your 'right to repair'.
They could, as long as it does not go against other laws and regulations.
You have to look deeper than the name of the bill. It does not aim to give you an unconditional right to repair. It aims to give you the same right to repair that the manufacturers and their "authorized" repair centers have. No more, no less.
In regards the Warrantors Shall Demonstrate - the section right prior says that the warranty is to be upheld even when the repair is done with 3rd party products. And try to demonstrate a defect/damage was caused by the repair/3rd party product! Again, nothing for an Apple-sized company.
This bill basically allows you to deconstruct an Apple iPhone, replace all it's parts with knock-offs and then go back and get a new authentic one from Apple
You have absolutely no idea how warranties work. To give a car analogy (this used to be popular on /.) : installing an aftermarket entertainment system should not affect powertrain recalls.
and the NY bill you quote doesn't even apply to motor vehicles.
Yes, I saw that and was very perplexed. The only explanation I can offer is that the automakers lobby has deeper pockets.
It would for instance allow you to break your device open for a repair and then go back to the manufacturer and have them uphold a lifetime warranty.
WARRANTORS SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFECT OR DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY INDEPENDENT REPAIR TO AFFECT THE WARRANTY;
Or third party medical equipment repairs where liability continues to be with the manufacturer.
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL REQUIRE A MANUFACTURER OF A MEDICAL DEVICE AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION TO IMPLEMENT ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION THAT IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL LAW, RULE OR REGULATION THAT SUPERSEDES THIS SECTION.
But imagine being a small "manufacturer" of a computer and you have to keep stocks of various interfaces and sizes of hard drives (every permutation of IDE, SATA, SCSI, SAS, FC and 40GB, 80GB, ...) and every time something breaks you have to not just send out parts but keep them stocked for the "lifetime" of the device (25 years?).
NOTHING IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL REQUIRE THE OEM TO SELL PARTS IF THE PARTS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO THE OEM OR THE AUTHORIZED REPAIR PROVIDER OF THE OEM.
Honestly, just read the text of the bill, it's not that long.
This is the most disingenuous post I have read on /. for quite a while. And that's saying something.
Exactly what types of broken states of a phone are you requiring a company to publish guides to fix, and make parts available for? Do you even know how many different ways a modern phone can fail? And what level of fix are you requiring they make available, and for what level of user capability? It's going to be pretty much useless if grandpa can't manipulate the microtweezers to fix the parts of the rear-facing camera module, so what then?
The law would require the company to make the exact same guides that they give to their "authorized" repair centers available to the public. And no, grandpa is not going to repair anything himself, but he will have the option to take his malfunctioning gadget to an independent repair shop which will fix it for a fraction of the price, since that's what competition does.
But you already knew that, because it says so very clearly in the text of the proposed legislation, only two clicks away.
Stop dissing America, it has the best democracy money can buy.
Why is everybody ganging on Microsoft when Google's behaviour is much more egregious?
The Nexus 5 is vulnerable to the Broadcom wifi exploit, and yet Google will not patch it since it was released on November 2013, which is more than 3 years ago.
That's right, Google will only issue security patches for three years.
How's that for support?
Windows XP embedded is supported until 2019.
"Avoid tolls" on Google maps
Google is the bee's knees!
Look, they even made the "avoid toll" sticky on mobile, and it only took what, eight years of complaining?
The more likely scenario is that between robots and AI, the working class will become redundant.
When I was in grade school, my father used to work on a mainframe computer. I was curious and used to bug him with questions, and eventually he brought me a couple of manuals. My first computer program was written on an 80-column paper form and started with "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION."
Shortly later, I joined a "computer club" and got to play around with an 8080 board with a hex keypad for input and a line of LEDs for output. That was my first exposure to assembly language and machine code.
Later, in high-school (early '80s), I got exposed to personal computers and programmable calculators. So, roughly in chronological order: 8085, TI-59 (belonging to a fellow student), BASIC, 6502 (neighbour had a VIC-20), 6509 (got my first computer: a TRS-80 CoCo)
Is reading a book aloud derivative work? Maybe if you are selling it as an audio book, but sharing is caring, not work!
It's "public performance", which is a no-no.
Monopolizing culture is a profitable endeavour.
I suggest we take it one step further and repeal the criminal code, replacing it with voluntary agreements to act in a civil manner.
Investing in marketing is more cost-effective than investing in R&D.
In the old times, when people mostly bought locally, there was a benefit in retaining customers for repeat sales, but with the advent of globalization, it is easier to convince people to buy buy a gilded turd (because it's cheaper) because even if they realize they have been duped, there are plenty of other fish in the sea. Even bad reviews don't really matter since the corporations have bigger megaphones than the individuals, and the information overload also plays to their advantage.
And because everybody races to the bottom, it becomes even harder to make an informed choice. Even the adage "you get what you pay for" has been subverted by rebranding the same crap and selling it for a premium. Cases in point: Monster cables, Bose, etc.
Sucks.
Because this year sucks.
The fares for the neighbouring city of Barrie are $3 for a single zone and $6 for two zones on route 90.
For York Region (just south of Innisfil), the regular fare is $3-4.50.
In Toronto the regular fare is $3.25 nominal, $3 if paid by token or card.
Because something that is acceptable today may be considered unsavoury tomorrow.
Because a corrupt government (or even a single person in power) may consider your actions unsavoury for their own personal reasons.
Because your constitution gives you the right to do many unsavoury things. And for a good reason.
Prick your finger or it didn't happen.
Just don't do that the other way around.
This "mysterious" Flash form a faraway galaxy has been mentioned in print since the '30s.
Here's a youtube video that gives a brief explanation.
The same thing happens with election systems. Turns out all methods of voting are flawed in some way.
But some election systems are more flawed than others.
I see the Windows 10 fiasco as a great opportunity to promote Linux, maybe something in the spirit of the "Get a Mac" campaign.
However, I don't think that there are commercial interests behind the "Linux on the desktop" idea, so there is no-one willing to foot the bill.
I am currently running Pidgin 2.12 with Jabbber, Skype, Hangouts, AIM, Steam and Facebook active. I stopped using Yahoo when they changed to the abomination that their current protocol is, even though Pidgin does support it with a plugin, and MSN is dead since MS migrated everyone to Skype.
There is also a plugin for Twitter, but I don't use it. So that takes care of 7 out of the 9 that you mentioned, leaving Snapchat and Instagram. If more developers get to work on it, those two could get support as well. Every platforms that works with web-clients can be added.