Pessimistic: Apple lawyers have arguments prepared that DRM’ing individual components does not violate this law.
Less Pessimistic: Apple got a sufficient head start in supporting third-party repairs that it would be beneficial for them to get this law passed so that other manufacturers scramble to catch up.
Which is the type of repair bill I don’t want. I would like to just source a donor phone and transplant parts to make it work again, aka reducing wastes. (and protecting my bank acc)
However, with a big player like Apple support this defective bill, it got a high chance to pass and set the standard.
I agree. Security components, fine. Just let me skip over that.
However, what on earth they need to serialize the monitor and battery?!?! Calibration? How come I don’t need calibration for my PC monitor nor my camera batteries? Does it work to its fullest? No. Does it work. Yes. That all I want.
Sir/Madam, your iphone has been selected for a completely random verification by the customs agent, please provide and we will return it in 1 - 2 hrs. Thaaaannk you for your cooperation.
Oh, yeah, you are right. Sorry, I’m just too much used to calling DRM as Digital Restrictions Management.
You have to contact them to assist you in pairing the devices to avoid warnings, just like a repair center does, but you are not actually activating them with Apple.
Do you mean that the devices actually boot with the replacement parts, but they also show a warning about them? If so, did this change recently (as in, last few years), or was it always that way since digitally signed parts became a thing?
They know the way the wind is blowing on this issue, and they trade in public image nearly as much as they do in physical goods. This is a good look for them, and when it was clear they wouldn’t win, they’re happy to join the winning side.
It’s also not completely out of left field—they’ve been expanding access to previously-internal repair guides and even tools over the last few years.
They’ve done pr things before too. The apple certified repair program is incredibly restrictive and expensive, the existing self repair even more so. So I’ll look at what they’re saying very carefully and critically.
The last time it failed it was supposed to come back with allowing modules instead of parts. Apple would be fine with selling “modules” as they consider their devices to be top case, bottom case, motherboard, battery, and screen (has stuff attached.) If they can have a needs calibration some where to shame 3rd party repairs and not allow board level repair it is just what they wanted.
Any idea what prompted this about face?
Pessimistic: Apple lawyers have arguments prepared that DRM’ing individual components does not violate this law.
Less Pessimistic: Apple got a sufficient head start in supporting third-party repairs that it would be beneficial for them to get this law passed so that other manufacturers scramble to catch up.
Good points. It may also be that someone else is already out in front of this, and Apple is trying to catch up.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Which is the type of repair bill I don’t want. I would like to just source a donor phone and transplant parts to make it work again, aka reducing wastes. (and protecting my bank acc)
However, with a big player like Apple support this defective bill, it got a high chance to pass and set the standard.
deleted by creator
I agree. Security components, fine. Just let me skip over that.
However, what on earth they need to serialize the monitor and battery?!?! Calibration? How come I don’t need calibration for my PC monitor nor my camera batteries? Does it work to its fullest? No. Does it work. Yes. That all I want.
Sir/Madam, your iphone has been selected for a completely random verification by the customs agent, please provide and we will return it in 1 - 2 hrs. Thaaaannk you for your cooperation.
You are contradicting yourself
deleted by creator
Oh, yeah, you are right. Sorry, I’m just too much used to calling DRM as Digital Restrictions Management.
Do you mean that the devices actually boot with the replacement parts, but they also show a warning about them? If so, did this change recently (as in, last few years), or was it always that way since digitally signed parts became a thing?
deleted by creator
They know the way the wind is blowing on this issue, and they trade in public image nearly as much as they do in physical goods. This is a good look for them, and when it was clear they wouldn’t win, they’re happy to join the winning side.
It’s also not completely out of left field—they’ve been expanding access to previously-internal repair guides and even tools over the last few years.
They’ve done pr things before too. The apple certified repair program is incredibly restrictive and expensive, the existing self repair even more so. So I’ll look at what they’re saying very carefully and critically.
Many years ago, I read that the first rule of diplomacy is to assent graciously to the inevitable. :)
It’s a good rule!
It’s efficient at least. It saves a lot of effort spent on lost causes.
They’re probably trying to get ahead of legislation.
Or at least not be seen as losing this fight. They’ve apparently decided that this is not the hill to die on.
This is the…3rd? 4th? time they’ve “about faced” on R2R. It’s a sham. Every time.
The last time it failed it was supposed to come back with allowing modules instead of parts. Apple would be fine with selling “modules” as they consider their devices to be top case, bottom case, motherboard, battery, and screen (has stuff attached.) If they can have a needs calibration some where to shame 3rd party repairs and not allow board level repair it is just what they wanted.
Fair point.
I think European legislation has a hand in this.
I suspect you’re right.