Also right to repair obviously can't apply to an implanted device. Those devices are hermetically sealed and disposed of after explant.
Medtronic insulin pumps are routinely hacked by their owners: https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2019-06-... Sorry for the Google amp link. There’s also this kind of medical device hacking (again not black hat): https://hackaday.com/2020/07/15/diy-dongle-breathes-life-int... And open-source ventilator software: https://hackaday.com/2020/03/30/professional-ventilator-desi...
Right to repair isn't exactly supporting homebrew software although it'd help to have schematics.
Louis Rossman gave an example which I believe really happened. A surgery chair that cost tens of thousands of dollars needed a new riser motor. Just an electric motor to move the chair up and down. But the company that makes the electric motor had an agreement with the chair manufacturer not to sell replacement parts. So the only recourse instead of replacing a $500 motor is to replace an entire surgery chair for ten…
> Given the cost of medical care in this country although in this specific case in example, if the country you're talking about are the US, having access to the $500 motor only means wider profit margins for the hostpital, not necessarily lower bills for hospitalized people.
Perhaps, but it’s clear we must both lower costs (fix repair laws) and provide free medical care for everyone. So fixing repair is one important step towards an end goal of health care for everyone.
What would be the best argument against this sort of legislation?
You won't hear any here. HN, while libertarian-leaning on many issues, is overwhelmingly in favor of government regulation on this topic. I'll be downvoted, but here's a few real potential downsides (which exist anytime a small group of people with good intentions THINK they understand a complex issue enough to fix it). All regulation has unintended consequences: Ineffective at stopping E-waste - The main reason peop…
Whatever folks' objections to these reasons may be, this does seem like a great accounting of logical and well-reasoned objections to this legislation, which is what I was looking for. Sounds to me like it'd be important to properly consider this issue to at least do some mental gymnastics as to what the possible objections could be.
> IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? This is a really great way to put it, and it applies broadly to so many fundamental disagreements in the tech world. I firmly believe it’s better to trust the individual—so I think users should be able to sideload iOS apps (o…
I agree that individuals should control their own devices. I also agree with Apple's implicit claim that if iOS users could sideload apps, millions of idiot iOS users would get their devices owned after they followed some "follow these seven steps to get free $POPULAR_MOBILE_GAME tokens!" guide they found on the web, making the platform less trustworthy overall. Apple makes a good argument that buying an iPhone is al…
It's only a good argument if you assume that Apple is fundamentally interested in consumer security. It isn't. Apple is fundamentally interested in control. Security, however Apple defines it, is a chosen means to the extent that is fulfills the company's primary goal.
That's not to say that Apple should behave like a charitable force. A company's goals and decisions are its own prerogative. But as we've seen with the revelations of the Epic trial, the Darth Vader-style rule changes, updates that interfere with the basic operation of the device, etc., you're not just buying into a remotely managed system like a remote desktop at a colocation center. You're buying into the blackbox of Apple's present and future business decisions whether that suits your needs or not.
Should security no longer justify the cost to Apple, they'll contort the meaning of the word to suit their ends just like Tim Cook has done to the word "equal" during his congressional hearing.
I agree that individuals should control their own devices. I also agree with Apple's implicit claim that if iOS users could sideload apps, millions of idiot iOS users would get their devices owned after they followed some "follow these seven steps to get free $POPULAR_MOBILE_GAME tokens!" guide they found on the web, making the platform less trustworthy overall. Apple makes a good argument that buying an iPhone is al…
It's only a good argument if you assume that Apple is fundamentally interested in consumer security. It isn't. Apple is fundamentally interested in control. Security, however Apple defines it, is a chosen means to the extent that is fulfills the company's primary goal. That's not to say that Apple should behave like a charitable force. A company's goals and decisions are its own prerogative. But as we've seen with th…
> You're buying into the blackbox of Apple's present and future business decisions whether whether that suits your needs or not.
> IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? This is a really great way to put it, and it applies broadly to so many fundamental disagreements in the tech world. I firmly believe it’s better to trust the individual—so I think users should be able to sideload iOS apps (o…
I agree that individuals should control their own devices. I also agree with Apple's implicit claim that if iOS users could sideload apps, millions of idiot iOS users would get their devices owned after they followed some "follow these seven steps to get free $POPULAR_MOBILE_GAME tokens!" guide they found on the web, making the platform less trustworthy overall. Apple makes a good argument that buying an iPhone is al…
and yet, despite occasional problems, the same hasn't happened in the Android sphere with sideloading. Problems? Sure... but not "ZOMG MILLIONS!"
"Apple makes a good argument" Their argument doesn't give near enough excuses for their mafia level racket to shake down businesses of protection money. "Pay us or Joey will break your kneecaps. Its for your own protection."
I agree that individuals should control their own devices. I also agree with Apple's implicit claim that if iOS users could sideload apps, millions of idiot iOS users would get their devices owned after they followed some "follow these seven steps to get free $POPULAR_MOBILE_GAME tokens!" guide they found on the web, making the platform less trustworthy overall. Apple makes a good argument that buying an iPhone is al…
and yet, despite occasional problems, the same hasn't happened in the Android sphere with sideloading. Problems? Sure... but not "ZOMG MILLIONS!" "Apple makes a good argument" Their argument doesn't give near enough excuses for their mafia level racket to shake down businesses of protection money. "Pay us or Joey will break your kneecaps. Its for your own protection."
> and yet, despite occasional problems, the same hasn't happened in the Android sphere with sideloading. Problems? Sure... but not "ZOMG MILLIONS!"
Millions of Android devices have malware problems, yes. I might even agree with a claim that it is ZOMG millions.
Estimates claim that as far back as 2016, a million new Android devices were being infected with malware per month. The current figures are estimated by AV vendors at 4-7 million infections per month.
> IMO it comes down to this: do we advocate for laws that give companies the ability to decide what is right/safe for the public, or do we advocate for laws that reflect trust in the individual? This is a really great way to put it, and it applies broadly to so many fundamental disagreements in the tech world. I firmly believe it’s better to trust the individual—so I think users should be able to sideload iOS apps (o…
I agree that individuals should control their own devices. I also agree with Apple's implicit claim that if iOS users could sideload apps, millions of idiot iOS users would get their devices owned after they followed some "follow these seven steps to get free $POPULAR_MOBILE_GAME tokens!" guide they found on the web, making the platform less trustworthy overall. Apple makes a good argument that buying an iPhone is al…
Your first paragraph contradicts the second and third paragraphs! If you believe that individuals should control their own devices, why are you in favor of Apple retaining control of every iPhone it sells? Pick one!
I think right to repair bills could be important, but I think they should also cover cases where the physical device is fine, but the company is no longer running a service, or sending security updates. In these cases, "repair" should include the ability to run different firmware etc.
... different SaaS service, including any security keys?
On that note, Rossmann is a curious character. He openly and variously despises Apple’s hardware choices and policies, yet to my memory, that’s his shop works on. Are the economics of repairing Apple products that strong or is the man is a true masochist?
He runs a shop that supports many employees and himself, so, yes, the economics obviously work in his favor. One doesn’t need to like the choices of a company to offer to service their products.
And given that each repair could, in theory, eat into the profit margins that Apple enjoys (either via 1st patty repairs or through a customer not buying a replacement device) it would make logical sense to do so if he dislikes Apple that much