Live data from Hacker News

Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

arstechnica.com

91–100 of 165 posts

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#91
Apple's "right to repair" is tied to Apple parts and the Apple service mechanism. Each part has a serial and that must be linked to the rest of your hardware on Apple's side, or you'll get error messages and various stuff doesn't work like biometrics, blue light reduction, camera ML, etc.

So yes they'll let a shop repair your device, or you can do it yourself, no problem. But you won't be buying even genuine Apple parts from eBay or pulling them from a broken device and reusing. You must, MUST, purchase directly from Apple at their list prices.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*large businesses. Plenty of small businesses sometimes act against their own self-interest because they genuinely care about their community and their workers. See: retiring restaurant owners who sell to someone who will keep the tradition alive rather than the highest bidder.

How is wanting to see a tradition you help build stay alive and choosing to spend money on seeing that tradition stay alive against one's self-interest?

Yes, I agree, I meant "profit" not "self-interest".

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#93

Wasn’t their initial offering for tool rentals basically malicious compliance? I vaguely recall stories of Apple sending out a shipping pallet of industrial tooling to replace a screen. The speculation at the time was that they were trying to be absurd and demonstrate why the average Joe shouldn’t be trying to do what their approved facilities can.

They ship out the same tools that are used by Apple to do repairs, which enables non-specialists to perform repairs like screen and shell replacements with the same quality and consistency as original factory assembly, including water resistance. That’s difficult to achieve without special tooling.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really moot, it's a whole separate subsystem that you have to reason about. "Swap it with one that you know works" is a solid troubleshooting step that is completely ruined if you have to call a third party to do it. Besides, maybe the big solar flare comes and you can't call Apple for a few months or years. Offline repair needs to be possible.

> Besides, maybe the big solar flare comes and you can't call Apple for a few months or years. Offline repair needs to be possible. If that happens, the cell towers are probably down, and your primary goal is to avoid starvation; not repair a phone that outside of taking photos is now basically useless. Also, where are you even charging your phone after such an event? How are you repairing that method and preventing…

My thermostat occasionally reboots in some kind of recovery mode where it asks me to use the iOS app to configure it. So the use case would be reconfiguring it so I can call for heat in a blizzard.

(I know which wire needs 24v to cut the thermostat out of the equation and talk directly to the furnace, but I'm sure there are cases where such a workaround isn't available.)

There are some replacement parts lying around, so I anticipate that certain areas (the cities) will have power restored in weeks. It's figuring out how to fabricate new parts that will take years. Plus, some have solar panels. So power will likely be available for certain users well before long distance connectivity is restored.

My solar panel inverter is also configured with an app that I would have a hard time coming by without internet (it's supposed to be a dealer only thing but I got them to set me up).

It's an increasingly relevant part of the stack for things that are more important than cat videos.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would decide what "fair and reasonable prices" are? The only reasonable price for documentation that already exists is quite frankly zero.

The other question here is how granular these parts are going to be, a board level repair technician might need just one proprietary chip that ought to cost $5, but if their only option to get it is to buy an entire replacement motherboard...

Part availability will likely mirror that of internal repair processes, and I’m almost certain that Apple isn’t performing board level repairs because that doesn’t scale particularly well. It’s way faster for a technician to swap out the whole board and move on to the next device.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not tacit acceptance. Corps are amoral and always looking out for their bottom line. If that just so happens to mean they align with what the people want then good. And if it doesn't then its on the people to pressure politicians to change the laws and regulations to incentive they do and punish they don't. Cynicism over corps lacking no morals will get you nowhere. They don't and wont. So instead of complaining…

> So instead of complaining the world isn't perfect its better to try to make it better. Well, that's part of the problem. Right-to-repair bills that don't address serialized components or hardware DRM won't make it better. Apple is backing this bill because it aligns with their definition of "repair" and further reinforces the idea that the first party is the only one allowed to authorize maintenance. This is less a…

Serialized components / hardware DRM exist to disincentivize the pickpocket-to-grey-market-refurbished pipeline. They’re the reason that Android devices get stolen in great numbers but iOS devices don’t — iOS devices in “lost mode” have no resale value, including scrap resale value. That’s the entire point of lost mode — and that disincentivization only works as long as the components from that lost-mode phone are considered “tainted” for use in repairing other phones. Which requires “serialized components and hardware DRM.”

If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. But I suspect you cannot.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is wanting to see a tradition you help build stay alive and choosing to spend money on seeing that tradition stay alive against one's self-interest?

Yes, I agree, I meant "profit" not "self-interest".

Is there any difference at the end of the day? Profit is sought so that one has control over their self-interest.

In the example, someone wanted to see a business tradition carry on even after they were no longer involved in the business. To achieve that, they accepted a lower offer for the business to sell it to someone who also wants to carry on the tradition. But that is exactly the same, as far as the money goes, as selling the business to the highest bidder and then spending those proceeds in some way to see the tradition carry on. The net profitability is the same in both cases.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#98
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So instead of complaining the world isn't perfect its better to try to make it better. Well, that's part of the problem. Right-to-repair bills that don't address serialized components or hardware DRM won't make it better. Apple is backing this bill because it aligns with their definition of "repair" and further reinforces the idea that the first party is the only one allowed to authorize maintenance. This is less a…

Serialized components / hardware DRM exist to disincentivize the pickpocket-to-grey-market-refurbished pipeline. They’re the reason that Android devices get stolen in great numbers but iOS devices don’t — iOS devices in “lost mode” have no resale value, including scrap resale value. That’s the entire point of lost mode — and that disincentivization only works as long as the components from that lost-mode phone are co…

> If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it.

Uh... you could just let the user authorize repairs. If your iPhone's root-of-trust is registered with your iCloud account, then users could authorize themselves to make repairs by just putting in the password. Entirely offline, retains Apple's DRM scheme, and even thwarts the Chinese boogeymen that you're so scared of. It just removes the part where Apple has absolute control over the feature instead of the hardware owner.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#99

Please don't attach any morals to this because there aren't any. This is just another step in a long string of similar announcements and "actions" from Apple to gather ammo against lawsuits and new bills, delay or buy any good will they can get regarding this matter. It's appears they are convinced some meaningful part of the "Right to Repair" can't be stopped and of course as competent strategists they are, Apple ca…

Wow. Is there any way Apple can ever be perceived as honest in their decisions? And by the way, why do we even attach this human categories to an entity that in itself only has the maximization of profits as its incentive? If anything, this proves that Regulation Works! Big tech Leviathans can be steered if their lobbyists lose, and if governments take informed decisions about how to drive change. This is a rare exce…

> Wow. Is there any way Apple can ever be perceived as honest in their decisions?

Perhaps by explaining why they changed their mind? What factored into it, and why they had adopted the previous stance - in a meaningful way, i.e., not just vapid "protect our customers" when several of their previous moves (having genuine Apple parts seized by Customs for 'trademark' issues) have been plainly self-interest. And by explaining how they intend to make this a way of life going forward, not just a token or begrudged minimum effort offering.

Re: Apple backs national right-to-repair bill, offering parts, manuals, and tools

#100
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serialized components / hardware DRM exist to disincentivize the pickpocket-to-grey-market-refurbished pipeline. They’re the reason that Android devices get stolen in great numbers but iOS devices don’t — iOS devices in “lost mode” have no resale value, including scrap resale value. That’s the entire point of lost mode — and that disincentivization only works as long as the components from that lost-mode phone are co…

> If you can come up with a version of Right to Repair that eliminates this practice but which doesn’t give gangs of thieves a 10000% higher interest in stealing my phone at a concert to send it to Shenzhen, I’d be all for it. Uh... you could just let the user authorize repairs. If your iPhone's root-of-trust is registered with your iCloud account, then users could authorize themselves to make repairs by just putting…

Huh? What user? I think you misunderstand the pipeline. When they steal my phone, they’re not refurbishing my phone to resell it. They’re scrapping my phone — taking all the expensive components out of my phone: the screen, the touch sensor, etc — and selling them to repair shops to be used as parts to repair other people’s phones. People who, obviously, authorize those repairs. But I don’t!

(If you know what an illegal car “chop shop” is, they operate under the same business model: stolen preowned product as an input, replacement parts sold to repair shops — or used in their own “repair shop” — as an output.)

The exact point of “hardware DRM” is that it allows me to retroactively revoke my consent for the parts of my phone to ever be used again inside some other person’s phone, through the cloud, at the moment I realize my phone has already been stolen.

(Also, FYI, there’s nothing specifically Chinese about this pipeline. It’s not like this is a scam being run by the Triads or anything. Rather, it’s just unchecked capitalism. The gangs that go around stealing phones are small-time local groups of thieves, who have realized they can make a buck by selling and delivering wholesale lots of these phones to amoral “phone chop-shops” who happen to reside in Shenzhen. Those “phone chop-shops” are only in Shenzhen because that’s where all the demand is for the huge number of parts generated by scrapping a phone, and because they can’t sell these parts on without cash-only handshake deals.)

To be clear, the “phone chop-shop” never ask any gangs to steal phones for them, either. They just say they’ll “buy phones in any condition.” (Which is why I say they’re amoral, not immoral.) Everything that happens from then on is the natural consequence of a market optimizing for profitability.

On a related topic, the true point of Apple’s “authorized repair” program, was to penalize any repair shop who knowingly purchased parts from a “phone chop-shop” by disallowing them from ever again purchasing genuine parts; thus creating a disincentive from ever buying these grey-market parts.

Post reply on HN