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

One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

columbianewsservice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 562 posts

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#451

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

pembrook wrote: post #428
swiley wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah no that's bullshit. (and a change of subject) We're not asking for modular connectors (although those are nice) or larger competents. we're asking Apple (and everyone imitating them) to stop artificially preventing people from replacing parts (either via deals with suppliers that prevent people from buying them or via software lockouts.) People do surface mount rework all the time (I think the guy TFA is talking…

> “People do surface mount rework all the time” What percentage of Apple customers are doing surface mount rework, or even hiring other people to do this, in your estimation? My guess is less than .01%. And how much could that really be increased if Apple were forced to make their parts accessible and available in the aftermarket? Vs the carbon footprint of the extra manufacturing effort and having to set up distribu…

> My guess is less than .01%.

On the one hand we have people arguing for the right to repair so we can increase that number.

And on the other hand there's people who go "meh, the screen is cracked, now I have an excuse to buy new toy, I'll chuck this one in the river since its prohibitively expensive to repair cosmetic defect why the fuck would anyone want it."

You even admit to disagreeing predominantly because you think some of us are being dishonest, and it's probably true that some people want to tinker.

But some people just want to be able to pay a service tech a reasonable fee to fix minor damage or fit a new battery, and have parts and guides etc available.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#452

Post by lmm »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #448
lmm wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To some extent words mean what people who use them intend to mean, but in my opinion we shouldn't be calling parts from the same production line counterfeit, because the word implies forgery.[2] If they had a particular QC standard marking, but had not been manufactured in accordance with that level of QC, that would be forgery, right? If they bear the trademark of a company that demands certain QC standards, but w…

I think you're intentional straining to disagree with me. You don't have to do that. You're probably partly right some of the time, and my perspective probably has some value perhaps maybe.

I'm straining to rationalise my own position tbh. I'm not going out of my way to disagree with you, this kind of practice feels viscerally counterfeit-like to me and I'm trying to work through why I think that.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#453

Post by m1el »

jolux wrote: post #447
jaggederest wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft is the wrong word here. No IP violation is a theft unless it involves "a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use". It's a violation of copyright, trademark, trade secrets, counterfeiting or patent, but it is not theft. The usage of the verbiage "theft" started in the late eighties to early nineties as part of a ca…

>No IP violation is a theft unless it involves "a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use". How does selling physical parts that were manufactured for someone else in violation of a contract not fall under this definition? Is the seller paying for the manufacture of these parts, or is Apple?

> Is the seller paying for the manufacture of these parts, or is Apple.

I don't know the actual situation, but let's say for the sake of argument;

- Apple pays $1M to make 1M chips, with the contract that forbids making these parts to sell third parties.

- A Shenzhen shop pays $15K to make 10K of the same parts, the manufacturer breaches the contract, violates Apple's IP and makes extra parts for the shop. None of this involves "theft" in any meaningful sense of the world.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#454

Post by snowwrestler »

jaggederest wrote: post #431
nwallin wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of theft, and from whom? My understanding is that a person with decision making power at these factories are negotiating with third party repair shops, agreeing on a price, and selling authentic Apple badged components or Apple schematics to them. In that sense, it is not theft. My understanding is that this is in absolute violation of Apple's license agreements and contracts with these factories. Those fac…

Theft is the wrong word here. No IP violation is a theft unless it involves "a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use". It's a violation of copyright, trademark, trade secrets, counterfeiting or patent, but it is not theft. The usage of the verbiage "theft" started in the late eighties to early nineties as part of a ca…

IP theft easily satisfies the quoted definition in your first paragraph. That’s why you had to add an additional “key difference” in your last paragraph.

That “key difference” is what got invented in the early 2000s as part of a concerted effort to justify IP theft. It was never part of the definition of theft before, and indeed it makes no sense; if you steal a Snickers bar from a store, you have not deprived them of the use of the Snickers bar because they never intended to use it themselves. What you have really deprived them of is the opportunity to sell it. So does stealing IP.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#455

Post by bstar77 »

29083011397778 wrote: post #349
unishark wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Recently, his shop was fined for not registering used laptops that his customers had abandoned for repair. Sure, NYC is attempting to prevent stolen laptops from being resold, but the level of bureaucratic idiocy turns Rossman’s channel into a Shakespearen comedy. I saw this complaint and didn't follow what NYC did wrong. If one isn't allowed to sell "unregistered" laptops or whatever, why would abandoned customer…

He actually tried calling the city to ask what he should do with abandoned laptops. He was transferred multiple times, told to call multiple numbers, and tried leaving voicemail messages to find an answer. He got nowhere, and the closest he got was "That's a good question". The law explicitly states purchased laptops, which he did not. Now we can say "But that's not the purpose of the law, just the letter!" But the p…

He should recycle them. These machines are usually pawned off on seniors in very shady "deal of the century" sales schticks. My 72 year old father in law bought a complete pos laptop for $200 that was an abandoned machine from a repair shop. It didn't have any drivers installed, it was running Vista and it could not connect to the internet.

Rossman may not be selling under such shady circumstances, but this is how most of these machines are moved. I don't think any good comes out of selling these machines.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#456

Post by BoorishBears »

chevill wrote: post #429
KiwiJohnno wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the article Louis says he wants to leave NYC, because the rent is exorbitant and over half of his work is mailed in anyway.

Yea but you also have to take into account that he's internet famous. Probably the most well known person in the computer repair industry says his shop with 16 people is taking in between 1 and 2 million a year. So that's somewhere between 62.5k and 125k per employee annually in revenue. He's doing well enough but its not exactly a money printing machine and you would assume a person at the top of his industry is doi…

I really don't get what your point is here.

The geographical location of the repairer does not matter because shipping is a thing.

And the fact that these repairers will charge per repair rather than a flat fee for partial replacements of entire boards like OEMs do means they can be cost effective while profitable.

-

Apple will charge you $475 to replace a motherboard rather that has a blow 40 cent capacitor on a MBP.

Between the 40 cent cost of the component and labor, there's a lot of meat left for individual repairers left to make money.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#457

Post by unishark »

29083011397778 wrote: post #349
unishark wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Recently, his shop was fined for not registering used laptops that his customers had abandoned for repair. Sure, NYC is attempting to prevent stolen laptops from being resold, but the level of bureaucratic idiocy turns Rossman’s channel into a Shakespearen comedy. I saw this complaint and didn't follow what NYC did wrong. If one isn't allowed to sell "unregistered" laptops or whatever, why would abandoned customer…

He actually tried calling the city to ask what he should do with abandoned laptops. He was transferred multiple times, told to call multiple numbers, and tried leaving voicemail messages to find an answer. He got nowhere, and the closest he got was "That's a good question". The law explicitly states purchased laptops, which he did not. Now we can say "But that's not the purpose of the law, just the letter!" But the p…

But can't every thief claim the laptop they picked up was "abandoned" too? I mean it was there on the table and no one was around at the moment..

If the customer owes him money and he is selling the laptop to get that money because the customer is choosing that outcome, then in a sense he is selling the laptop on behalf of the customer. For this option to be available to the customer, it seems they should still need to prove it was properly purchased. It still seems like this creates a loophole otherwise. What happens if a theft victim spots their laptop being used by someone who purchased it legitimately from a shop like this?

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#458

Post by singlow »

m1el wrote: post #453
jolux wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No IP violation is a theft unless it involves "a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use". How does selling physical parts that were manufactured for someone else in violation of a contract not fall under this definition? Is the seller paying for the manufacture of these parts, or is Apple?

> Is the seller paying for the manufacture of these parts, or is Apple. I don't know the actual situation, but let's say for the sake of argument; - Apple pays $1M to make 1M chips, with the contract that forbids making these parts to sell third parties. - A Shenzhen shop pays $15K to make 10K of the same parts, the manufacturer breaches the contract, violates Apple's IP and makes extra parts for the shop. None of th…

So all of the senses of theft that do apply, which have been in use for millenia, are not "meaningful" because they do not meet the cause of your morality.

Of course when Prometheus "stole" the fire from Mount Olympus he did not deny Zeus anything, but it was called theft. The fire that he brought to athens was the intellectual property of the Gods.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#459

Post by markdown »

snowwrestler wrote: post #454
jaggederest wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft is the wrong word here. No IP violation is a theft unless it involves "a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use". It's a violation of copyright, trademark, trade secrets, counterfeiting or patent, but it is not theft. The usage of the verbiage "theft" started in the late eighties to early nineties as part of a ca…

IP theft easily satisfies the quoted definition in your first paragraph. That’s why you had to add an additional “key difference” in your last paragraph. That “key difference” is what got invented in the early 2000s as part of a concerted effort to justify IP theft. It was never part of the definition of theft before, and indeed it makes no sense; if you steal a Snickers bar from a store, you have not deprived them o…

Stealing a part made in a shop isn't stealing IP. Stealing schematics and methods would be, but not finished products.

Re: One man’s fight for the right to repair broken MacBooks

#460

Post by girvo »

eigen wrote: post #390
wmf wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a basic consumer protection issue that's mostly already solved in the developed world. When I get my car serviced, it's understood that I will hold the mechanic responsible for everything so they don't even bother trying to put sketchy parts in my car.

yet Prius catalytic convertors are apparently a big market, so much so that it is a regularly stolen item. so someone is buying these parts to install when a car is serviced. [1] https://www.inquirer.com/business/toyota-prius-catalytic-con... [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/thieves-target-toyota-p... ! [3] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/feb/01/catalytic-conv... > The thieves make about £300 to £500 f…

Catalytic converters are filled with valuable metals (platinum, palladium, among others). They're torn apart and the expensive metals are resold. The cat isn't being put on other peoples cars.
Post reply on HN