Apple Formally Endorses Right To Repair Legislation After Spending Millions Fighting It (404media.co) 97
samleecole shares a report from 404 Media, a new independent media company founded by technology journalists Jason Koebler, Emanuel Maiberg, Samantha Cole, and Joseph Cox: Apple told a California legislator that it is formally supporting a right to repair bill in California, a landmark move that suggests big tech manufacturers understand they have lost the battle to monopolize repair, and need to allow consumers and independent repair shops to fix their own electronics. "Apple writes in support of SB 244, and urges members of the California legislature to pass the bill as currently drafted," Apple wrote to Susan Eggman, the sponsor of the bill, in a letter obtained by 404 Media. "We support SB 244 because it includes requirements that protect individual users' safety and security, as well as product manufacturers' intellectual property. We will continue to support the bill, so long as it continues to provide protections for customers and innovators."
This is a landmark shift in policy from Apple, the most powerful electronics manufacturer in the world and, historically, one of the biggest opponents of right to repair legislation nationwide. It means, effectively, that consumers have won. "If California votes yes and continues to raise the bar on electronics repair from other states, it's becoming obvious the fight is over, and that we've won," said Nathan Proctor, Senior Director of consumer rights group U.S. PIRG Campaign for the Right to Repair. "It's going to be show over for consumer electronics. There are other industries where this fight is going to continue, but if a strong bill passes in California, we're winning."
"I would think that passage in California means there'd be a lot of pressure on manufacturers to kind of set the line there and say 'no farther,' because we've now proven to them we can pass laws and change the ways they have to operate," Proctor added. "This shows state advocacy is a good way to deal with large problems that are hard to get through Congress. It shows you can really spread big tech thin if you have a real grassroots network behind you."
iFixit and TechCrunch first reported the news.
This is a landmark shift in policy from Apple, the most powerful electronics manufacturer in the world and, historically, one of the biggest opponents of right to repair legislation nationwide. It means, effectively, that consumers have won. "If California votes yes and continues to raise the bar on electronics repair from other states, it's becoming obvious the fight is over, and that we've won," said Nathan Proctor, Senior Director of consumer rights group U.S. PIRG Campaign for the Right to Repair. "It's going to be show over for consumer electronics. There are other industries where this fight is going to continue, but if a strong bill passes in California, we're winning."
"I would think that passage in California means there'd be a lot of pressure on manufacturers to kind of set the line there and say 'no farther,' because we've now proven to them we can pass laws and change the ways they have to operate," Proctor added. "This shows state advocacy is a good way to deal with large problems that are hard to get through Congress. It shows you can really spread big tech thin if you have a real grassroots network behind you."
iFixit and TechCrunch first reported the news.
When you sell something--it's no longer yours! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a bunch of wooden-handled sledge hammers, and one plastic-handled drilling sledge. The splitting maul and the pickaxe are plastic-handled, though. They just get stored inside... just like the wood-handled tools.
The plastic handle is easier to clean. Otherwise any difference is usually largely irrelevant. If I'm tending a big fire or something, I want long metal tools anyway, with just short wooden handles off at my end.
Re: When you sell something--it's no longer yours! (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a complete misrepresentation of what is going on.
We are moving from a world of interchangable handles, to a world where manufacturers intentionally make every handle unique to every hammer, so the spares don't work. And there are handle replacement techs on every major highway, but they are getting shut down because only the manufacturer can replace the handles now.
A few years ago it was easy to replace the screen and battery of every phone. No, not so.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a complete misrepresentation of what is going on.
We are moving from a world of interchangable handles, to a world where manufacturers intentionally make every handle unique to every hammer, so the spares don't work. And there are handle replacement techs on every major highway, but they are getting shut down because only the manufacturer can replace the handles now.
A few years ago it was easy to replace the screen and battery of every phone. No, not so.
This is pretty much what I thought when I read the headline.
Apple haven't "stopped" fighting right to repair, they have likely found a new way around it and making everything integrated into a single unit sounds like an ideal way to fight the law on the cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
That last line should read "not so now." Sorry!
Re:When you sell something--it's no longer yours! (Score:4, Insightful)
Many modern hammers do not have wooden handles and replacing the existing one with a wooden one (or any replacement) would be difficult. Much more difficult than replacing the handle on a classic style wooden hammer. But the reason people buy more of the hammers with handles made out of metal or some dense plastic is because they last a hell of a lot longer than wooden ones and no one likes replacing hammer handles, anyway. In fact, even among wooden handled hammers, many of them have funky designs that do not lend themselves to replacement handles. So people do tolerate a hammer with a wooden handle that cannot be replaced (easily).
Who cares if it's hard / more expensive to do something? Some people will do it regardless, and society as a whole has benefited from them for it through out every era of human history. (Most social / economic / and technological advancements come from such efforts.)
The fact is that most people, when they break a hammer, would rather replace it than figure out how to put a new handle on. Putting a new handle on isn't difficult, but hammers are cheap.
That's true for some people. Not everyone has the same perspectives, skills, and opportunities as you.
Now extend this analogy to cell phones. While there are some noble demands made by the right to repair crowd, the vast majority of their attempts to micromanage hardware is merely a small subset of nerds trying to inconvenience the majority for the sake of conveniencing themselves.
You just made the claim that a majority of society conforms to a particularly wasteful set of purchasing preferences because something was convenient. Now, I assume because you know so little about the subject being discussed, you are trying to mandate taking away property rights from others. For starters, RTR is not about convenience. It's about property rights and the ability to exercise them as one sees fit. Reusing your hammer analogy, (because you asked), if I already have the tools, skill, and materials on hand to replace the handle on a modern hammer. The only cost to me choosing to repair that existing hammer is time. It would be more expensive for me to go and purchase a new one at that point. Why should I be forced to shell out more money when you just claimed that the expected outcome was to always take the cheapest option?
They like their old fashioned wooden handled hammers and they're afraid the hardware store might stop carrying them, so they intend to draft legislation to mandate all hammers be old fashioned wooden handled ones.
No-one in the RTR movement ever claimed that all "hammers" be built a certain way. Just that repairable options be made available. You are the one projecting your fears and demands on everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
They like their old fashioned wooden handled hammers and they're afraid the hardware store might stop carrying them, so they intend to draft legislation to mandate all hammers be old fashioned wooden handled ones.
Oh, piss off. I don't store personal information on my hammer, or use it to communicate with other people. I don't worry about hammers becoming non-functional once the manufacturer decides to drop support, or it dying because I dinged it too hard... or for "no apparent reason". It also doesn't need constant updates, changes, and meddling, just for its core functionality to stay the same. Hammers also don't spy on me and do everything possible to prevent me from knowing how they work.
Analogies and metaph
Re: (Score:2)
Your metaphor falls apart when comparing it to things which need regular firmware updates. That's pretty much everything now.
Re: (Score:1)
they serialized the lid angle sensor and serialize (Score:5, Interesting)
they serialized the lid angle sensor and serialized parts are not part of this bill.
so they will serialize most parts so this bill will cover nothing!
Re: they serialized the lid angle sensor and seria (Score:4, Informative)
I see nothing in the bill text that says that serialised parts or the tools and software required to make the parts work are excluded from the things required to be provided under the law, what reason do you have to believe that Apple will be able to use that as a way to avoid providing parts?
Not even a return to user access to RAM & Stor (Score:2)
I see nothing in the bill text that says that serialised parts or the tools and software required to make the parts work are excluded from the things required to be provided under the law, what reason do you have to believe that Apple will be able to use that as a way to avoid providing parts?
I expect they are objecting to the notion of having to buy tools, software and parts from Apple.
Besides, what can they possible repair or upgrade? Maybe an M2 SSD. We probably won't get access to RAM back, that will probably remain integrated on the main board. So many repairs are going to be buy a new main logic board from Apple and use Apple software to configure it.
An improvement but not even a return to the minimalist user accessible RAM and storage days.
Users and 3rd parties will be able to repair ... (Score:3)
they serialized the lid angle sensor and serialized parts are not part of this bill. so they will serialize most parts so this bill will cover nothing!
Untrue. Users and third party repair shops will be able to repair devices using
the specialized tools they purchased from Apple
and the specialized software they purchased from Apple
using the genuine Apple parts they purchased from Apple.
Which for repair shops is not a problem. I knew an Apple dealer back in the day and repairs and upgrades were more lucrative than selling new computers. And Apple was pretty good at getting parts to dealers. Of course this was before Apple had their own retail stores an
Re: (Score:2)
they serialized the lid angle sensor and serialized parts are not part of this bill.
so they will serialize most parts so this bill will cover nothing!
There it is! I knew something had to be wrong with this law if Apple was supporting it. Apple does not want to empower users, it wants constant locked-in income.
Re: (Score:2)
There it is! I knew something had to be wrong with this law if Apple was supporting it. Apple does not want to empower users, it wants constant locked-in income.
Wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
There it is! I knew something had to be wrong with this law if Apple was supporting it. Apple does not want to empower users, it wants constant locked-in income.
Wouldn't you?
Of course I would WANT to; however, I do not give in to every want that I have because I look a little further than instant gratification and would realize the effects it would have on all other areas of society. So, I would WANT to lock in the market but I would CHOOSE to not lock it in.
Are we all supposed to do what we want without regard to the future? Is that what you are insinuating by asking me that question?
Be wary of Apple here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Be wary of Apple here. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Be wary of Apple here. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like calling jumping off a 10 story building and going *SPLAT* a hypothetical.
It's a bad faith argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it does say they support it as it "currently stands" but yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they have someone, somewhere ready to stick a few pages of exceptions in there like they did in New York and got the Governor(?) to castrate their bill at the last second.
Re: (Score:2)
They urged passage as written. So either they're being publicly dishonest about that, or you're making shit up. Either is equally possible, but without some kind of proof of such an amendment or statement from a legislator looking to offer one, then it comes back to Apple probably not wanting to publicly look like lying assholes in front of literally everyone.
Re: (Score:1)
No you're right, Apple is definitely going to self destruct their bottom line and business strategy
Re: (Score:1)
I'd be willing to pay more upfront to avoid monopoly pricing on repairs.
Monopolistic repairs give manufacturers an incentive to build flawed products and delay fixing manufacturing defects. How else can you explain the butterfly keyboard debacle? Apple delayed fixing it for years because they were making a fortune on repairs.
Repairs are also a big hassle and waste of time. I can't afford to send my primary means of production to a service center for two weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah....you could if you were smart and had some redundancy in your means of production.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bill allows for the use of used and/or 3rd party parts in repairs ...
What parts could possibly be replaced with a third party component? Maybe storage on an M2 SSD? RAM is not going back to sockets, it will remain integrated on the main board. So most repairs (or upgrades) will be replacing a main logic board. Things are so highly integrated we will not even return to the days of user accessible RAM and Storage.
Re: (Score:1)
Sort of like how they've toyed with the EU's upcoming requirement that devices standardize on USB-C to stop there being so many useless and obsolete chargers, by making a usb-c charger and then forcing a usb-c to magsafe or lightning "conversion cable" to plug the device in to the charger.
And how is this a problem? Too many cables? Do cables really represent a big environmental impact? These cables are consumable and typically need to be replaced on a regular basis. Different connectors on the cable will not change anything. This might increase waste when switching between devices - but only if you don't give your old cables away. This is just so minor.
It is the wall plugs that represent the waste that the EU is attempting to avoid. They do not wear out and can be shared between de
Re:Be wary of Apple here. (Score:4, Interesting)
And how is this a problem? Too many cables? Do cables really represent a big environmental impact? These cables are consumable and typically need to be replaced on a regular basis. Different connectors on the cable will not change anything.
Actually the way lighting cable was designed was so that the port was consumable and needed to be replaced. Whatever side has the springs is going to be the side that wears out first, and for lighting, that's the port. USB-C is the exact opposite.
So yes, this is a great idea. And I do not think that Apple is subverting the main goal of the EU legislation with their cables. I can even see the advantage of allowing device manufacturers the ability to use custom connectors so long as they connect to standard Type-C based charger. It allows for future innovation. Future products might have difficulty facilitating a Type-C connector.
The EU legislation allows newer cables to come, they just have to be some kind of open standard that the industry as a whole agrees upon. Apple was about to subvert it by requiring the cable to be mfi certified, which would effectively make it proprietary anyways, but that was shot down. And that certification is a pointless load of shit to begin with, it's just intended as a way to extract more money with no advantage to the consumer. Besides, there's a LOT you can do with USB-C. That only specifies the form-factor, you can do whatever the hell you want with the data pins, including making them analog if you want for e.g. analog audio, or even use another protocol entirely. This is exactly what is done with alternate modes, namely why usb-c also works as a displayport cable, thunderbolt/pci-e cable, or just plain USB. So your argument about no innovation without custom connectors is moot.
More than that, apparently apple is adding features to their phones to take advantage of USB-C. Namely, lighting was limited to USB 2.0 data rate and slower charging speeds. For all of this, apple was going to need a new cable within a very short timeframe regardless, more than likely this did nothing more than shorten the timetable for whatever proprietary shit they were going to come up with next, which was going to force everybody to replace their cables anyways, so all of the ifan bitching about having to change cables never had any merit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Except you can use a USB-anything charger to charge any Apple device over whatever its supported charging ports are via the appropriate cable, and any 2015 or later MacBook, 2016 or later Macbook Pro or 2018 or later Macbook Air (for example) can all be charged over USB-C, even if they also have MagSafe. You can use really quite low powered chargers if you don't mind a slow tric
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a source for this Apple dongle thing? I've read the EU directive and it seems pretty clear that the device itself has to have a USB C port, and if a charger is supplied it must also be USB C.
Re: (Score:1)
The phrase you're looking for here is, "regulatory capture".
Re: (Score:2)
So when they advocated for the bill to be passed as currently written, you read that they want to make changes to it?
The text of the bill is public. If such loopholes and dodges are written in, I'm sure you can point them out to the rest of us. And if they aren't in there, and Apple supports it as written, then you're just wrong and making shit up.
So which is it? Can you point out such loopholes already in the bill, or are you full of shit?
RTFB (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
archive link [archive.org]. ;-)
It just went down - probably from all the people on Slashdot reading the bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with privacy, securely erasing storage devices so that the hardware can be salvaged without compromising anyone's privacy is a solved problem.
The idea is to make stolen devices worthless, which is a sensible idea, but they should at least be able to partner with recycling centers so that they can take the devices back to the factory and if they are in good condition, reset them and sell them as refurbs. Also have a way to check the owner identity and put the device back in working order
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the whole world have to deal with your metric fucktons of e-waste when you can't be bothered to keep track of something that fits in your damn pocket?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hundreds per family per year? you really need to try staying with the realms of believebility.
I linked the source, what you are willing to believe doesn't account for the entire scale of "believebility."
How many families buy 10 apple devices in a year.
iFamilies with more than 9 people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: 2 cents (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully, never.
If my device is locked out, nobody besides me should EVER be able to access it. EVER!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully, never.
If my device is locked out, nobody besides me should EVER be able to access it. EVER!
Device locks really should have some sort of "abandoned property" exception, though. As in, you should have to sign into your iCloud/Google account and reauthorize the lock status every year. Fail to do that and the lock automatically drops off. That seems like a good balance between deterring theft and not creating unnecessary amounts of e-waste when people lose/misplace a device and forget that it's still attached to their account.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see the ability for Apple to find a way to return a device to its owner. For example, Apple sends an alert to the user's iCloud ID that someone turned in their phone, and where they want it shipped to.
Perhaps allow people to assign a reward automatically if a device is found, similar to how Tile and some other lost/found apps work. That way, phones at least likely will be re-united with their owner. Of course, if the user "sold" the phone via using insurance, the phone should be thoroughly er
Re: (Score:2)
Then you recreate the market for theft - steal the phone, claim you "found" it and claim the reward payment.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, fuck that stupid idea.
So someone just has to wait out the year to get access to all my shit?
FUCK THAT!
Re: (Score:2)
No-one owes you a handout because you were double lazy. If someone gets to your info because you failed to keep track of something that could fit in your pocket, and failed to protect your own data, then you deserve everything coming to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could take the time to protect your data properly like you were supposed to.
That doesn't do ANYTHING to protect against someone benefiting from my hardware become some dumb assholes decided that stolen hardware should become valuable to the thief after they hold on to it for a year.
Re: (Score:2)
So someone just has to wait out the year to get access to all my shit?
Remote wipe is still a thing. And let's be honest, if it's too much trouble once a year to log into your account and click a little button that says "Yes, I confirm that this device is still not in my possession" in order to keep the device bricked (not access to your "shit", which can be erased remotely), then the device should be considered abandoned.
If your phone gets stolen and you really want to see it stay locked until it ends up in a landfill, you'd still be able to do that under what I'm proposing.
Re: (Score:2)
I do think something should be done with iCloud locked devices. Something like:
* A service where iCloud devices can be sent to Apple, and if someone has some type of proof they own it, they get the device returned. Of course, if they "sold" the device with an insurance claim, Apple keeps the old device.
* Some more ways to assert proof with Apple. For example, associating a driver's license or other ID card with an Apple ID, so if an AppleID is stolen or lost, it can be recovered via that. Even a notar
If they are chasing you (Score:2)
Hold on a second! (Score:3)
Something doesn't smell right here. Apple is endorsing this?? Go over that bill with a fine toothed comb because Apple has obviously found a loophole that has been overlooked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems I'm not the only skeptical person out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about killing the competition (Score:2)
First, Apple's services revenues and profits are surging, so Apple can eat some of the losses from lower phone sales.
Second, Samsung does not have similar revenues, so offering a phone that is easier to fix will incentivize Samsung users to switch.
Third, by embracing right to repair Apple forces Samsung to support its electronics longer, which eats into Smasung's already thin profit margins.
Fourth, by supporting right to repair,
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, go ahead and hate on me and Apple all you want, but the fact remains that Apple leads and everyone else follows. Whether it's ditching the headphone jack, omitting power supplies for phones, or embracing right to repair, everyone else will mock Apple for a week and then follow Apple, and poorly at that.
There's no shortage of phones with headphone jacks which come with chargers. The ONLY things Apple ever leads in are taking away features, and convincing their fanboys to be happy they've had features taken away from them. Apple didn't invent phones with rows of icons, Apple didn't invent central software repositories, Apple didn't even invent portable devices without audio jacks. But you noobs don't know any better, so you function as a kind of unpaid PR army.
What Apple does is make things shinier and smoo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, go ahead and hate on me and Apple all you want, but the fact remains that Apple leads and everyone else follows.
Remind me how many foldable phones Apple has in offer?
public relations (Score:3)
It is always better to be on the winning side (seen to be leading the charge if possible) than on the losing side.
Re: (Score:2)
It is always better to be on the winning side (seen to be leading the charge if possible) than on the losing side.
Like how Steve Jobs never wanted DRM.
If only (Score:2)
We could 'repair' the missing headphone jack and extendable storage.
Apple is only going along so they can sabotage it. (Score:2)
It says:
If you're not part of the solution, there is good money to be had being part of the problem.
I'm betting Apple is only "pretending" to capitulate so they can "be involved" in shaping the legislation and leaving loopholes or sabotaging it.
Why exclude game consoles? (Score:2)
All these laws exclude game consoles. Why are console manufacturers in particular scared about this? Are their consoles built such that sharing the items needed to comply with right to repair would allow piracy? (and if so, that seems like a design flaw in their systems to me). And if there are ways that right to repair could lead to piracy, they could push for a clause in the law that would exclude items that could compromise copy protection from the items they are required to provide...
Re: (Score:2)
Video game consoles are tools of home entertainment, which aren't quite as important to the economy (particularly the export economy) as tools of trade.
Premature? (Score:2)
It means, effectively, that consumers have won.
Consumers haven't won until the bill is signed in and enforced.
But... (Score:3)
But what about consumer safety?? Apple told us that device owners would burn their houses down if some shade-tree repair guy looked sideways at an iphone. And they'd have their identity stolen by nefarious non-Apple repair outfits while their house was still smoldering.
This is so irresponsible of Apple to allow their customers to be endangered like this.
Why? (Score:2)
Co-opt and crush I'm sure. (Score:1)
I'm too lazy and jaded to read the original story.
Louis Rossmann summed up my exact reaction (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. For those that can't or don't want to watch, he basically says "I'll believe it when I see it" which is what most of us here are saying/thinking, I suppose.
Until he can buy "screen/lid is closed" sensors and charger control chips from the OEM's without Apple interference, he isn't getting suckered in.
Don't trust it. (Score:2)
Apple, Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
hah that would be a weird strategy. get the rest of the industry to copy their shitty policies and make every major manufacturer their own little repair monopoly, and then after 10 years of reaping the benefits on the repair side, they reverse course for good PR and all their competitors have to follow suit or look like schmucks.
700â to fix my spacebar.. (Score:2)
When a business supports something inconvenient... (Score:2)
... it's because they think it will inconvenience their competition more.
Witness Facebook/Meta saying "please regulate us!" because minor inconveniences to them can be killers to startups.
Not liking Nathan Proctor's comments, but ... (Score:2)
It's good to hear even Apple is finally giving in on "Right to Repair". It's one of those things that's just the right thing to do, even if not doing so seems to be the more profitable option in the short term.
Just seems to me this Proctor guy is all hopped up on the power of California government to force behaviors, though? California legislation would have MUCH less of an impact if it wasn't for the fact they've got these tech companies all headquartered there with a long history of Silicon Valley as THE
competitive advantage for apple (Score:2)
Apple wants this because they’ve now reached a point where they can support ‘right to repair’ and it will tangible improve their competitive position against those companies ( like Samsung ) for whom it will be tougher.
Right to repair in general ( here and in Europe ) is actually a tangible advantage for Apple because their logistical footprint and higher volume makes it easier for them to meet parts availability obligations.
Re: (Score:2)
Better look more closely at the bill then (Score:1)
What changed recently? (Score:1)
Combine with pre-existing:
Re: (Score:1)