"It is our belief that the bill’s current language around parts pairing will undermine the security, safety, and privacy of Oregonians by forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices."
Key Points:
Apple opposed a right-to-repair bill in Oregon, despite previously supporting a weaker one in California.
The key difference is Oregon's restriction on "parts pairing," which locks repairs to Apple or authorized shops.
Apple argues this protects security and privacy, but critics say it creates a repair monopoly and e-waste.
Apple claims their system eases repair and maintain data security, while Google doesn't have such a requirement
Apple refused suggestions to revise the bill
Cybersecurity experts argue parts pairing is unnecessary for security and hinders sustainable repair.
no suprise here. it's apple. they made a $3500 device that has been bricking itself and charging people $100 to fix it because it's completely proprietary
Pumps more millions into a cringe advertising campaign with some mother earth bullshit or so. Yeah sure we love her but let's force more ewaste down her throat. 😂
Bingo. I just set up a dual monitor and dock setup for my laptop in our home office. It dawned on me that my wife could get some use out of it, so I plugged it in. Come to find out, her MacBook Pro only supports a single external monitor. To do two external monitors, she'd have to upgrade to an entirely different and obviously more expensive MacBook. Dafuq? My almost 15 year old Sony laptop can do that ffs. Fucking boners.
I know there are software hacks I can do to enable the functionality, but that's asinine for a $1700 laptop. Guaranteed if I dual booted Linux on it the problem would magically disappear.
Guaranteed if I dual booted Linux on it the problem would magically disappear.
unfortunately not since its a hardware limitation
probably a cruft from the iPhone/iPad era since the first ARM desktop chips from Apple are basically beefed up phone chips which don't need more than one external monitor
anyway it is pretty stupid to ship a laptop with that limitation in this century
Apple's design revolves around devices "always" working. Dual externals probably has the potential to run like shit with heavy cpu loads. So they limit it to one where it's "promised" to operate well. It's why peripherals have to meet certain standards and have a license to pair to apple products, they have to work as Apple expects. Apple is afraid people will overextend resources and buy shitty peripherals and then say their apple is a piece of shit. So, their factor of safety is excessive. It helps foster the whole "apple just works" mentality, promoting its clean UI and smooth operation. It's for common folk, people of the land, you know... Morons.
And things still run like shit anyway, especially when navigating proprietarianism hell
Right to repair also has an environmental angle. Consider which one uses more resources and likely produces more pollution:
The RAM in your laptop dies, you take it to a repair shop, they swap out the dead RAM. Dead RAM goes in the bin, laptop has years of life left in it
The RAM in your Macbook dies, the RAM is soldered to the board, you throw the whole thing away and buy a new one, and when a single component in the new Macbook dies, lather, rinse, repeat
Considering how much extra e-waste is generated when people can't repair things, there's really no way to buy Apple and call yourself an environmentalist.
I really hope neither Apple nor any other repair shop simply casts electronic components in the bin. My expectation in both cases is that the components are recycled, at least for precious metals.
apple's "support" was basically malicious compliance.
The only way to get new parts involved sending in the damaged ones, which still screws over any third party business because they can't have spare parts on hand for fast repairs. And the pricing basically meant you were saving like ten bucks in exchange for potentially fucking up and destroying your hardware. As opposed to using the repair program at the apple store.
Meh, the ice cream machine is a different thing. I haven't figured out fully how it benefits McD's, I suspect there's little profit margin on ice cream, but having the machine at all still brings (hopeful) people in who buy something else. A bait-and-switch.
McD's uses the same machine as many other places, but they have the temp variance much tighter, so much tighter that after the daily cleaning cycle, it takes hours to get back to temp.
Then (and this is probably what you're referring to), if the machine has a code, the franchise is required by contract to use the repair service that comes with the machine lease.
There's an indedependent dev who wrote a code reader/reset tool for the machines, and McD's isn't happy about it.
I'm not clear how doing the maintenence this way benefits McD's, unless they own the servicing company, and it doesn't appear that they do.
In the end, it means McD's will often not actually have ice cream available. But these are franchises, so it would hurt the franchise most directly. Seems there'd be a potential legal issue here, if it could be proven.
Make parts pairing a free procedure by law with minimum required process and anyone can request it. Now Apple gets to keep their “security” bs argument and repairs can be done by anyone and paired by Apple for free.
Apple is a hardware company. They get the biggest bang from people buying their hardware. They aren't going to make this easy cause it quite literally means giving the shareholders less profit, which is illegal in the US.
They aren’t going to make this easy cause it quite literally means giving the shareholders less profit, which is illegal in the US.
Making less profit than previous periods of time or even operating at a loss is not illegal in the US. Many companies have periods where they lose money or sacrifice short term profits for long term growth.
Investors with enough control might boot the leadership out, but they can also do that for whatever reason including unrealistic expectations.
FFS sake, our CEO told the Board, for a couple of years, "We're gonna lose money to invest in $X, $Y and $Z." They applauded him. Out loud. Literal clapping.
(We accidently made profits for those years. Oops. But that's beside the point.)
shareholders less profit, which is illegal in the US.
This is a bit of a misnomer. It is illegal for a company to deliberately lower share value, not to make a business move that ends up lowering share value.
Specifically, it's the fiduciary duty of the directors to act in the best interests of the shareholders.
In other words, the consumer doesn't matter, the employees don't matter beyond what the law mandates, and the quality of the product or service doesn't matter until it starts impacting profits or stock values. The only time these actually need to be given any consideration is when it would serve to benefit shareholders, such as with hiring skilled talent or before the company has a reputation for quality products.
This idea is a childish notion of how corporations work. And it's a lie. I'm not saying there's nuance here, I'm saying it's a LIE.
But bullshit scores internet points!