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

481–490 of 562 posts

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

#481

Post by ngc248 »

markdown wrote: post #459
snowwrestler wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is this not stealing ... Its like i gave you money/raw materials to do something for me. you skim off it and sell it off it is stealing. May not be a legally valid term, but it is stealing.

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

#482

Post by asddubs »

paulgerhardt wrote: post #208

Living in Shenzhen, it’s shocking how easy it is to go out and repair stuff. Living in Palo Alto, it’s frustrating how hard it is. I’m thinking maybe, just maybe, introducing repairability laws won’t solve the problem. I am perfectly happy upgrading the memory on my MacBook Air with a reflow air station rather than swapping out some dims if it means my laptop is half as thick and twice as rugged. I’m also just as hap…

louis rossman, the man from the article, does do component level board repair. A lot of right to repair is about being able to obtain these parts to enable this type of repair, without having to go through dodgy channels

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

#483

Post by dragonwriter »

markdown wrote: post #459
snowwrestler wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Actually, all of that is stealing physical, not intellectual property. Intellectual property is not the right to physical possession, so even to the extent that it can be said to be “stolen” (violation of IP rights are more like trespass than theft) taking physical objects in which it is in one form or another embodied into one’s possession isn’t it.

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

#484

Post by asddubs »

creato wrote: post #468
spamizbad wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right to repair would actually ease this burden: Apple manufactures very few components on its devices. Apple prevents its suppliers from selling to third parties (which wouldn’t necessarily be a repair shop but someone like digikey or mouser) of some pretty basic components that do not contain any real secret sauce (we are talking about things like voltage regulators here) The auto industry has widespread part avail…

> The auto industry has widespread part available for decades with no ill effects. That depends on who you ask. Car dealerships probably think they have suffered great ill effects from the existence of independent repair shops.

I suspect trying to garner sympathy from people for dealerships is going to be a hard sell

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

#485

Post by asddubs »

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 don't think he's really at the top of his industry, financially/size-wise speaking, he's just more prominent on the internet. There's huge repair companies, he's still "just" a small business owner

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

#486

Post by userbinator »

Foxfox12 wrote: post #381
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"ghost shift" production with the trademarks is counterfeit, but isn't without the trademarks. Regardless of marking it's still likely unauthorized use of intellectual property.

There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it should be a legal requirement that all OEMs allow 3rd parties to manufacture these parts to provide as replacements. Saving the planet is far more important than protecting the profits for replacement parts. Of course they shouldn’t be allowed to sell complete phones but selling screens is good.

Of course they shouldn’t be allowed to sell complete phones but selling screens is good.

For an interesting contrast, look at the automotive industry, where (with the exception of perhaps some newer companies/models, like Tesla et.al.) there is a thriving aftermarket which is so complete that for certain models of cars, you can likely build an entire powertrain and even rolling chassis using zero original parts. Entire engine blocks, internals, transmissions, axles, suspension, brakes, even frame rails, can be bought from the aftermarket. Of course a lot of these parts are enhanced and marked with different manufacturer's names, but the OEMs themselves have in general not minded and sometimes even encouraged the aftermarket.

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

#487

Post by teatree »

caymanjim wrote: post #165
teatree wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A HN reader not knowing Jim Keller is a bit surprising. He is a well known name in tech communities.

I'm a moderate consumer of DIY engineering/repair/tech and science content on YouTube and I haven't heard of nearly any of the names in this thread. I don't aggressively seek out content. There's a lot out there to weed through. Most of my YouTube comes from mainstream pop science like Veritasium and Arvin Ash; science hackers like Nile Red and CodysLab; geeky DIY like Ben Eater; repair porn like My Mechanics; and wh…

Well, my bad. It was a wrong assumption on my part.

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

#488

Post by creato »

asddubs wrote: post #484
creato wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The auto industry has widespread part available for decades with no ill effects. That depends on who you ask. Car dealerships probably think they have suffered great ill effects from the existence of independent repair shops.

I suspect trying to garner sympathy from people for dealerships is going to be a hard sell

I agree. And I'm comparing car dealerships to Apple :)

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

#489

Post by imtringued »

walrus01 wrote: post #352
Nextgrid wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason it can be done in China is because those shops illegally obtain the parts (whether counterfeit or stolen, since Apple won't intentionally sell them to anyone) and resources (schematics, software, etc) to be able to do so. This situation is both good and bad. Stolen parts are good, in the sense that this grey market at least allows consumers to repair devices cost-effectively. It's also bad, because besides…

> those shops illegally obtain the parts (whether counterfeit or stolen, since Apple won't intentionally sell them to anyone) and resources (schematics, software, etc) to be able to do so. This situation is both good and bad. Stolen parts are good I really doubt that many of those genuine repair parts for iphones and macbooks are stolen , in the sense that somebody loaded up a pallet and took it from its manufacturer…

>I really doubt that many of those genuine repair parts for iphones and macbooks are stolen, in the sense that somebody loaded up a pallet and took it from its manufacturer without paying. Apple doesn't manufacture most of these things, particularly the ICs and screens, and relies on a whole ecosystem of vendors and subcontractors.

Theft is much broader than that. When apple receives devices that it cannot repair anymore it will just recycle the materials and throw the rest away, there are employees that will take out functioning chips or broken circuit boards and throw them in a publicly accessible garbage container only to come back at night to take the parts out of the trash to resell them.

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

#490

Post by MomoXenosaga »

paulgerhardt wrote: post #208

Living in Shenzhen, it’s shocking how easy it is to go out and repair stuff. Living in Palo Alto, it’s frustrating how hard it is. I’m thinking maybe, just maybe, introducing repairability laws won’t solve the problem. I am perfectly happy upgrading the memory on my MacBook Air with a reflow air station rather than swapping out some dims if it means my laptop is half as thick and twice as rugged. I’m also just as hap…

Repair shops won't touch Apple. It's something people should know before they buy an iPhone.
Post reply on HN