Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

ifixit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 354 posts

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#231

Post by killaken2000 »

sjwright wrote: post #223
derefr wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple already has some sort of sweetheart deal with US Customs that gets Apple parts shipped from China rejected at import time unless they're part of an Apple-tracked shipment. This blocks devices have been third-party-repaired in China from being re-imported; but also blocks "ghost-shift" (but otherwise first-party!) Apple parts from coming into the country. Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but is…

> "Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but isn't an Apple part according to Apple, gets blocked. Think about the implications of that." The implication is that we are correctly enforcing trademark law... Or are you saying that anyone should be allowed to import anything with anyone's brand on it? Because congratulations, you have now destroyed the value and purpose of every single trademark. Remember,…

To my knowledge they had Apple logos because they were Apple products.

Maybe there's more to it but that's what I understood so far.

Removing the Apple logo from Apple products in order to ship them to the states so they can be used to fix Apple products seems unnecessary.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#232

Post by cptskippy »

jtbayly wrote: post #214
cptskippy wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it ransom isn't spin, it's disingenuous. They paid for x range and received x range. They were given a standing offer to increase that range for a cost significantly less than the cost of replacing or physically upgrading the battery. Now if they had paid for 120kwh batteries and received 120kwh batteries that would only deliver 100kwh of range then we'd be having and entirely different conversation.

But they did. They paid for and received larger capacity batteries in their vehicles that are artificially hampered to a lower capacity.

If you buy a 4 piece of chicken nuggets at McDonalds and they're out of 4 piece boxes so they put your 4 nuggets in a 9 piece box for you, have they cheated you out of 5 nuggets? No.

Then why, if you pay for 100 kWh capacity, and they give it to you in a battery capable of 120 kWh capacity are they suddenly cheating you?

Did you pay for the higher capacity? No.

Did you get the capacity you paid for? Yes.

Are you able to buy up to the higher capacity? Yes.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#233

Post by sjwright »

muzika wrote: post #192
ericabiz wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t a thing currently. (I run repair shops and the #1 thing we do is fix iPhone screens.) Independent, non-Apple-authorized repair shops do significant enough volume that Apple has been forced to fix anything that trended toward this. Exception: The home button on iPhone 5s and above cannot be replaced by anyone except Apple. If third parties replace it, Touch ID won’t work. On iPhone 7/8, the button won’t wor…

Reason: this prevents someone from opening your phone and replacing the home button with the one that has been trained on someone else’s fingers (or hacked to work with any fingerprint?) please correct me if this is wrong.

As an iPhone owner, I'm glad that this part has this restriction. I don't mind paying a little bit more for repairing parts that are integral to the security of my phone, because the security of my phone is important to me. It's worth a LOT more than the value of the phone itself.

That bears repeating.

The security of my phone is worth a lot more to me than the dollar value of the phone.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#234

Post by acct1771 »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #206
cptskippy wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If half your potential customers are unwilling to pay for a higher range option but will purchase a lower range model for a reduced price that still nets a profit for the same fixed battery cost, what do you do? Offer a lower range option. If the cost of retooling a line to make 2 battery types, or setting up a new line from scratch results in a greater cost per unit, regardless of capacity, than 1 line producing the…

I upvoted this comment, just so you know. You've made some good points, food for thought for me.

I agree with his points - logically.

That doesn't make me less upset that my chip has wasted potential artificially locked away.

Sometimes, how you treat your customers doesn't have to be unfair for it to make a negative impact on customer vibe/relations.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#235

Post by sjwright »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #229
sjwright wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that Apple doesn't sell its batteries or screen assemblies to anyone in any country, it's therefore impossible for them to be legitimately parallel-imported and therefore trivial for Customs to suspect them of being counterfeit or stolen. That's why they're getting caught. But I don't get why anyone is complaining because the solution is INSANELY simple: if you want to parallel import parts from China, make sur…

> Given that Apple doesn't sell its batteries or screen assemblies to anyone in any country, it's therefore impossible for them to be legitimately parallel-imported and therefore trivial for Customs to suspect them of being counterfeit or stolen. It might surprise you, but Apple does sell all of those. The products that you are looking for are called for example iPhones and MacBooks.

Apple doesn't sell these parts in bulk quantities and encased in protective plastic films and shims, that for all appearances appears to have come directly from a factory.

If Customs sees that, then it's reasonable for them to—let me quote myself—suspect them of being counterfeit or stolen. I didn't say they should assume they are.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#236

Post by cptskippy »

danShumway wrote: post #205
cptskippy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The differentiator the consumer is paying for is range, not # of cells in the battery. If you buy a 2ghz CPU and it turns out it can run at 2.5ghz but is locked at 2ghz, are you being cheated or getting what you paid for?

> The differentiator the consumer is paying for is range, not # of cells in the battery. It's not that simple. If your battery breaks out of warranty or starts loosing charge, you can't go to Tesla and say, "hey, I paid for X range and I'm not getting it anymore, fix it." If you do, they'll say, "sorry, physical batteries decay, not our problem", which most of us would agree is a reasonable response. Tesla gave you t…

Technically you're paying for a battery capacity measured in kWh, not range or # of cells.

You do raise an interesting point though about failure. Cells don't fail at the same rate and packs are designed to disable cells (possibly groups of cells) that aren't performing within acceptable operational parameters.

So given that these "ransom packs" are capable of 75 kWh but only deliver the 60 kWh the customer paid for, how do failing cells impact overall capacity?

Since over charging and completely discharging lithium cells shortens their life does that mean because they're never allowed to use their full potential would they actually last longer than a true 60 kWh pack?

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#237

Post by sjwright »

kbenson wrote: post #228
sjwright wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but isn't an Apple part according to Apple, gets blocked. Think about the implications of that." The implication is that we are correctly enforcing trademark law... Or are you saying that anyone should be allowed to import anything with anyone's brand on it? Because congratulations, you have now destroyed the value and purpose of every single trademark. Remember,…

> The implication is that we are correctly enforcing trademark law... Or are you saying that anyone should be allowed to import anything with anyone's brand on it? I think what's being said (well, implied) is that the first-sale doctrine states that those trademark rights are limited , and that by blocking imports, those right may be being violated (specifically, the right to resell). If that's the case, that would m…

I agree with the first sale doctrine.

In the cases which have been popularised in the media recently, we're talking about products where a "first sale" has not occurred.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#238

Post by sjwright »

killaken2000 wrote: post #231
sjwright wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but isn't an Apple part according to Apple, gets blocked. Think about the implications of that." The implication is that we are correctly enforcing trademark law... Or are you saying that anyone should be allowed to import anything with anyone's brand on it? Because congratulations, you have now destroyed the value and purpose of every single trademark. Remember,…

To my knowledge they had Apple logos because they were Apple products. Maybe there's more to it but that's what I understood so far. Removing the Apple logo from Apple products in order to ship them to the states so they can be used to fix Apple products seems unnecessary.

Louis Rossmann has said himself that he commissioned the batteries from a factory in China that was no longer authorized to make those batteries, because likely they lost the bid/contract to do so.

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9pow06/louis_rossman...

That makes the parts counterfeit if they bear an Apple logo. All Louis had to do is source the exact same parts without the Apple logo printed on them. That's not difficult, nor is it unreasonable.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#239

Post by akvadrako »

sjwright wrote: post #233
muzika wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reason: this prevents someone from opening your phone and replacing the home button with the one that has been trained on someone else’s fingers (or hacked to work with any fingerprint?) please correct me if this is wrong.

As an iPhone owner, I'm glad that this part has this restriction. I don't mind paying a little bit more for repairing parts that are integral to the security of my phone, because the security of my phone is important to me. It's worth a LOT more than the value of the phone itself. That bears repeating. The security of my phone is worth a lot more to me than the dollar value of the phone.

And this is why the government mandating repairability is dangerous - it infringes on the consumer's freedom to buy locked down products.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#240

Post by JoeAltmaier »

romwell wrote: post #159
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JD uses desktop simulators, then simulation using real hardware on test stands with recorded data, then field trials, then controlled trials with partner operators. THEN they release to the public. I'm terrified somebody will think their tweak is 'obviously safe' and share it online and before we know it a combine will run through an elementary school.

Ah, so you are afraid people that people who use and repair tractors, and can already break them in many ways that you don't understand (e.g. mechanically), will break them in a way you do understand (using software!), and so you would rather have those ways be illegal to keep you from worrying. Using your line of reasoning, we should close down repair shops altogether. How can we trust people without engineering deg…

Make up any story you like, but please don't attribute it to me. That's just a Strawman and we expect better here.

I won't respond any more, since I'm pretty sure that's trolling.

Post reply on HN