Jump to content

Words aren't enough. We need ACTION.

ivycomb
5 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Sure, you can charge 2x the cost to prevent that, make a resonable margin that sustains the parts selling business and it all works. Apple does 10x, only so that it's too expensive and you buy a new device instead of repairing. 

Well if you take the raw parts i suppose the question is how much would apple charge for the SoC, if its just a flat equal markup not he raw unit cost they pay to much that they total sum cost comes to more than buying the device new then it would make sense for the screen (the most expressive per unit part of the phone) to cost $300+ of course apple could sale different parts differently (maybe charge $700 for the SoC even though per unit if you do not include the MASIVE R&D and tooling it costs apple less than $30). 

 

4 hours ago, CivBase said:

System76 seems to be getting along with this problem just fine, even though they're much smaller than Apple.

They do not share the needed specs if you wanted to replace the part with a different part, they share voltages and other stuff so that you can test if the part is working but they do not share Microns SSD die controller protocol that the controller uses to talk to the SSD die or intel's TB controller and the protocol it uses to talk to the intel cpu that would let you build a replacement TB controller if intel stopped making one.

 

Sharing things like the voltages etc is very very useful for diagnostics (and some repair tasks like capacitors, restores etc) and sharing the chip IDs this is useful as long s the people making these chips are still making them, depending on the chip that could be 5 years or could be 10 years some chips are still made 20 years after they first shipped but not all. You could write a law that is `best effort` but any company with lot of lawyers can walk all over such a law you need the law to be explicit about these things. 

 

To have proper plans that would enable proper repair you need the protocols between chips to be public so that if the SSD controller fails (and you can't source the same exact part) you can (10+ years down the road) get a generic chip and likely emulate in software the functions that the chip used to do (this is not uncommon in repair of old old computers, things like Apple II or early IBM compatibles) but without the protocols being public you are tired to the tooling schedule of the original part maker. The larger the vendor (apple, Sony etc,) the more custom they can demand of the chips they use (since they put in much larger orders and are able to do things like pay for custom designs changes and custom tooling) but that has its flip side in that after the factory has stopped making things they would normally not be permitted to use those custom tooling sets again without the partner who paid for their manufacturing getting a cut. 




 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CivBase said:

Then why is it okay for a manufacturer to make otherwise-solvable issues unsolvable?  Or only solvable by them for whatever they think it's worth?

Lemon Laws apply to defective cars which are sold new, i.e. the product was always defective and the manufacturer failed to deliver. 

 

Repair implies the product was perfectly functional when sold. As far as I'm concerned that is where the manufacturer's obligation ends (barring any explicitly provided warranty period). If the product later breaks due to user error or wear then tough, the manufacturer is under no obligation to provide any support. It'd certainly be nice if they did and I think they should be incentivized to do so. But under no circumstance should they be forced to do anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, harryk said:

The free market arrived at the current situation by natural means. Removing the freedom from the free market is not a good solution. Finding ways to sway the free market by offering economic incentives is.

"the free market", what you're talking about isn't a free market, it's an illusion of a free market that is influenced by lobbyists and wads of cash being thrown at politicians by them. A real free market would mean you would already be able to go to any repair place you like and get them to help fix <product>

 

7 hours ago, harryk said:

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. My point is that John Deere should be rewarded for making their software tools available rather than only enable certified John Deere technicians to service the tractors.

what kind of message do you think that will send?

"hey big companies, go fuck over your entire customer base and we'll give you even MORE money to fix what we let you do in the first place".

🌲🌲🌲

 

 

 

◒ ◒ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad he's giving this one attention, already donated to Louis Rossman's cause.

Useful threads: PSU Tier List | Motherboard Tier List | Graphics Card Cooling Tier List ❤️

Baby: MPG X570 GAMING PLUS | AMD Ryzen 9 5900x /w PBO | Corsair H150i Pro RGB | ASRock RX 7900 XTX Phantom Gaming OC (3020Mhz & 2650Memory) | Corsair Vengeance RGB PRO 32GB DDR4 (4x8GB) 3600 MHz | Corsair RM1000x |  WD_BLACK SN850 | WD_BLACK SN750 | Samsung EVO 850 | Kingston A400 |  PNY CS900 | Lian Li O11 Dynamic White | Display(s): Samsung Oddesy G7, ASUS TUF GAMING VG27AQZ 27" & MSI G274F

 

I also drive a volvo as one does being norwegian haha, a volvo v70 d3 from 2016.

Reliability was a key thing and its my second car, working pretty well for its 6 years age xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, harryk said:

Repair implies the product was perfectly functional when sold. As far as I'm concerned that is where the manufacturer's obligation ends (barring any explicitly provided warranty period). If the product later breaks due to user error or wear then tough, the manufacturer is under no obligation to provide any support.

Then what is stopping companies from intentionally adding unrepairable defects to their devices so that users have to buy a new one after a while?  That should not be an acceptable future.

 

And nobody ever said the manufacturer had any obligation to support anything.  I don't want to force companies to provide repair services or even parts.  I just want them to not go out of their way to screw over people who are just trying to repair their property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the overwhelming evidence for right to repair, it is beyond me how anyone can believe it is bad. You as the consumer are the more vulnerable party, who has paid for a product from the manufacturer. You deserve to be able to have it repaired, you deserve to be able to use what you paid for. No multi-billion dollar company should be able to take that away from you because they want you to play into their hands and buy the new version. Right to repair without a doubt benefits the consumer, and barely disadvantages the company; for a huge company like Apple, or Dell, or whoever else, that would barely dent their profits, and that dent is something that they should be required to take. If they can afford to go to extreme lengths to stop people from accessing parts and knowledge to repair products, they can just as easily make those available. Purposely making products so difficult to repair that you need to buy a new one or pay extortionate fees should be illegal.

 

For anyone in doubt here, just think about the context. Last year in the UK, the average wage was £31,500 (keep in mind you lose 20% of that to tax, then roughly £4000 to transport, £7000 to overall housing costs, £3000 to food, and so on and so on), and mainstream computer costs vary between £300 and £1200. Imagine if you needed to buy a £1200 computer to work, yet the computer suddenly died just outside of warranty, but the manufacturer consciously prevented parts from being supplied, so you needed to purchase a new computer. Some may say "tough luck!", but what if the repair just required one small part from the manufacturer, for example, a dodgy display cable that caused bad screens on many brand new MacBooks just a couple of years ago, but Apple charged as much as the machine for the repair. So, you go to a local computer shop, sure, the quote is a lot lower, but they can't get the part, Apple blocks them from doing so. What do you do then? Cough up another £1200 for a brand new machine, severely denting your bank account? For a company like Apple, the biggest brand in the world, worth about $2 trillion US, they would not even notice the costs needed to supply the part. Hell, supplying the part could even cost less than conducting a smear campaign on people who just want to repair their own belongings!

 

Right to repair is a big issue in the industry, and I believe it will become ever more prevalent as more of us become clued up on and reliant on technology, so we can only hope that these brands decide to take positive action and listen to the consumer.

 

I do also think it is worth saying that I do not like the title of the video, but agree with the content and sentiment. In light of everything happening around the world, that clickbait just crosses a line, but I understand that they want as many clicks through as possible to spread the word.

Desktop - i5-9600KF @4.8GHz all core, MSI Z390-A PRO, 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance 3000MHz, MSI GTX 1660S OC 6GB, WD Blue 500GB M.2 SSD, Seagate Barracuda 2TB 7200RPM HDD

Laptop - ASUS ZenBook 14 with ScreenPad, i7-1165G7, Xe iGPU 96EU, 16GB Octa-Channel 4200MHz, MX450 2GB, 512GB SSD with 32GB Optane

 

Old Laptop 1 - HP Pavilion 15, A10-9600P, R5 iGPU, 8GB, R8 M445DX, 2TB HDD

Old Laptop 2 - HP Pavilion 15 TouchSmart, i3-3217U, Intel HD 4000, 4GB, 1TB HDD

 

iPad 2018 - 128GB

iPhone XR - 128GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CivBase said:

Then what is stopping companies from intentionally adding unrepairable defects to their devices so that users have to buy a new one after a while?  That should not be an acceptable future.

I want to be clear, a defect is an issue with a product present when sold new, even if discovered long after purchase. If I buy a new smartphone and the manufacturer advertises 10 hour battery life but I test it and only measure 6 hours, that is a defect and should be covered under warranty. If after 2-3 years the battery degrades as expected, that is normal wear and tear. Whether or not the battery is easily replaceable does not make it a defect.

 

Selling a product with an intentional defect is fraud. Selling a product with an expected lifetime is not. All products have a finite lifetime, be it 1 year or 100 years. If we want products to be serviceable and/or last longer then we should reward and incentivize manufacturers to do that, but don't punish those that don't.

10 hours ago, CivBase said:

And nobody ever said the manufacturer had any obligation to support anything.  I don't want to force companies to provide repair services or even parts.  I just want them to not go out of their way to screw over people who are just trying to repair their property.

I absolutely agree. The challenge is how does the law determine if a business is going out of their way to harm a consumer or making a design decision which will yield functional benefits. It's extremely blurry and rife with bias. IMO it's not reasonable or even possible to do.

 

Non-user-replaceable batteries are often criticized as being anti-consumer, but they undoubtedly provide some functional benefit and are ubiquitous today. If 20 years ago a law passed requiring all batteries to be user-replaceable I argue that would have stifled innovation. We absolutely cannot predict the future and if design decisions will prove to be beneficial or not, even if it seems asinine today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Everyone,

I posted quite a large comment on Linus's video on this in support of right to repair and raising further issues that goes far beyond repairing damaged phones. I am a very techy person that worked I'm auto repair before going to school for business and now work in finance at an automotive company. I do a lot of mechanical work on my own car which I bought used and when my iPhone screen broke i went on amazon bought a new one and replaced it myself. I even do it for friends and family free of charge just to keep them from wasting $300 on a screen they can usually get for under $100

 

I want to briefly go over planned obsolescence as I did a university paper on it. Anyone who is thinking this is a conspiracy theory should just do a few google searches. Apple is notorious for this and I'm not saying thus as an android person, I've had an Iphone since the Iphone 3 came out. But I think this article speaks for itself.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay-113-million-to-settle-batterygate-case-over-iphone-slowdowns#:~:text=In March%2C Apple agreed to,as too little%2C too late.

 

 

Now automotive is my expertise so I want to expose how new car dealers really make their money. A little fact most people don't know is that new car dealers actually make more profit from servicing your vehicle rather than the slight profit margin. This is why I never buy brand new cars because it obligates you to have any repair work and possibly even maintenance done at the overpriced dealer under the threat of voiding your warranty. If you've bought a new car this is skimmed over but clearly outlined in the warranty contract. They will typically throw in 10 sometimes 20 oil changes for free, this is when they offer a "free inspection." This is where mechanics look for any minor or major services that they can sell you on. Now don't get me wrong there are honest dealer repair shops and some that are borderline criminal.

 

I could go on endlessly but I feel this post might be a little long already,.

 

please feel free to ask questions or comment .

 

Cheers

-Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, harryk said:

The challenge is how does the law determine if a business is going out of their way to harm a consumer or making a design decision which will yield functional benefits. It's extremely blurry and rife with bias. IMO it's not reasonable or even possible to do.

The law has already been written.  We just want to extend it to cover consumer electronics and eventually other classed of products.  The existing law would not force manufacturers to use user-replacable batteries.

 

Instead of arguing against hypothetical regulations in hypothetical laws, I suggest you give Massachusetts's General Laws, Part I, Title XV, Chapter 93K a read.  It's not terribly long, although legalize is always a bit dense.  Right to repair is a broad concept, but Linus is endorcing Louis's campaign in particular which focuses on that particular law in MA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CivBase said:

Instead of arguing against hypothetical regulations in hypothetical laws, I suggest you give Massachusetts's General Laws, Part I, Title XV, Chapter 93K a read.  It's not terribly long, although legalize is always a bit dense.  Right to repair is a broad concept, but Linus is endorcing Louis's campaign in particular which focuses on that particular law in MA.

Thanks for the link

Quote

a manufacturer of motor vehicles sold in the commonwealth shall make available for purchase by owners of motor vehicles manufactured by such manufacturer and by independent repair facilities the same diagnostic and repair information, including repair technical updates, that such manufacturer makes available to its dealers through the manufacturer's internet-based diagnostic and repair information system 

This certainly reads like the law is forcing manufacturers to do things against their will, and it is for that simple reason why I do not like it. Take the same exact law but make it an optional incentive. Put the onus on the manufacturer to prove they have satisfied the requirements to a satisfactory degree, and reward them for such behavior. That I will support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, harryk said:

This certainly reads like the law is forcing manufacturers to do things against their will, and it is for that simple reason why I do not like it. Take the same exact law but make it an optional incentive. Put the onus on the manufacturer to prove they have satisfied the requirements to a satisfactory degree, and reward them for such behavior. That I will support.

The reason why it is written that way is to stop from what's currently happening in the electronics industry including Tesla, tho I wonder how they get around that law... (maybe via d(2) of the section you quoted)

 

Equally why did you cut this out? Next to try to make everyone here like the bad guys that is, as you threw that whole line out of context by doing so.
 

Quote

Each manufacturer shall offer such tools for sale to owners and to independent repair facilities upon fair and reasonable terms.

The law doesn't make companies provide the tools and parts for free, however it requires them to provide the tools and parts at a reasonable price. This allows independent shops to buy the proper diagnostics equipment and oem parts from them, equally allows individuals to do the same, but more importantly allows the individuals to have a choice. Do it themselves go to the local shop or go to the dealer.

 

This law prevents car manufacture from holding a monopoly in their own parts and repairs sector to help the citizens from being price gouged, sounds familiar doesn't it?

 

If this kind of law was to be implemented in the USA/Canada/Worldwide Apple would no longer have a monopoly (that is what it is, esp how hard Apple attacks people like Louis) in their own products repair service sector, something the automotive sector hasn't seen for decades till Tesla showed up, more specifically the Model S onward since the Original Roadster is basically the EV version of a Lotus Elise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe this thread. Some of you are saying you oppose it because you're unsure if the companies will obey, fair enough. But do some people here actually give a s*** about the rights of a trillion dollar company? What the f*** is wrong with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Egg-Roll said:

The law doesn't make companies provide the tools and parts for free, however it requires them to provide the tools and parts at a reasonable price. This allows independent shops to buy the proper diagnostics equipment and oem parts from them, equally allows individuals to do the same, but more importantly allows the individuals to have a choice. Do it themselves go to the local shop or go to the dealer.

If I run a business, I decide what I sell and what I don't. The law should not be allowed to dictate how I run my own business. That's what a free market is.

1 hour ago, maskmcgee said:

But do some people here actually give a s*** about the rights of a trillion dollar company?

It doesn't matter if the company is worth a trillion dollars or a thousand dollars. The law is universal and blind, and should be equally applied to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, harryk said:

If I run a business, I decide what I sell and what I don't. The law should not be allowed to dictate how I run my own business. That's what a free market is.

So you are telling me you expect the law to look the other way if you wish to sell illegal goods? No wonder criminals are always mad when their stuff gets stolen by the cops, because it's their business and they have the right to decide what to sell and what not too. Because that is what you just said.

 

You want protection? Register Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, which Apple has all 3 of. If I own a product I should have every right to repair said device within my own terms. Without that right and the laws side with companies like Apple then their repair fees can (and have) become out of control as they hold a monopoly. However because I don't have the right to repair a device within my own terms with Apple they lose out on a sale with me (I have other issues with them as well, but others might not), so by being this way "because they can" is actually hurting them financially in unit sales potentially hurting them more than repair sales.

 

44 minutes ago, harryk said:

The law is universal and blind, and should be equally applied to all.

Right so why should companies like Apple be excluded from the laws that apply towards car manufactures? See how you contradicted yourself with that statement? I'm sure you don't complain every time you go and buy a new set of tires, windshield wipers, get a oil change done, or even a tuneup for your car for stupidly low prices because they are a standard item that is under regulation to ensure just that, low prices.

 

How do companies make money with these laws? Licensing, becoming an approved place is how auto shops get more clients and how companies grab money from them. No requirement to do so, but typically warranties will not be "voided" (you can fight that and likely win) going to shops with the approved sign so long as they are up to date in their training. While yes Apple has licensed repair shops (now), they however dominate them with strict access to parts to the point they might as well either not bother or just become a Apple store, and worst yet you as a consumer don't save much if anything and like I stated on page one could be without your device for weeks instead of a hour or 2.

 

Years ago I paid about $60 to get a new USB charting port on my Android phone, took them 1 hour (ish) to do, and that is someone who had to solder the new port onto the device, not a disconnect/reconnect it like a little Lego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see something like this becoming a problem in the future when EVs are more standard and industries aren't preparing enough for them. Like the auto industry has warranties and repair shops and things because there are so many parts to a combustion engine that can fail and need to be maintained and repaired. But those don't exist with an EV, from what I remember it's roughly 20 parts for an EV compared to 2000 for a regular car. People often upgrade to newer cars because it is a better option than keeping an older one and repairing something every year. But that's not really a concern with an EV. It's not apples to apples depreciation like with a standard car. Probably another reason the tech was never explored further until now just like lightbulbs. I'm looking to get an EV myself soon, and I see no reason why I would swap out for a new model in 2-5 years when the battery on it would be just fine for a decade or more. But I'm hoping these EV manufacturers can explore battery replacement options. Because it just seems wasteful to toss out a perfectly fine vehicle all because the battery is dead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out, this is kinda deny to repair or simple fix by your self, owners of these machines cannot even diagnose the the problem unless there is a hack or accesses to manufacture only diagnostic information. 

This is why we should push for the right to repair, because simple information for a no brains fix should not be denied.

Gaming With a 4:3 CRT

System specs below

 

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5700X with a Noctua NH-U9S cooler 
Motherboard: Gigabyte B450 Aorus M (Because it was cheap)
RAM: 32GB (4 x 8GB) Corsair Vengance LPX 3200Mhz CL16
GPU: EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC Blower Card
HDD: 7200RPM TOSHIBA DT01ACA100 1TB, External HDD: 5400RPM 2TB WD My Passport
SSD: 1tb Samsung 970 evo m.2 nvme
PSU: Corsair CX650M
Displays: ViewSonic VA2012WB LCD 1680x1050p @ 75Hz
Gateway VX920 CRT: 1920x1440@65Hz, 1600x1200@75Hz, 1200x900@100Hz, 960x720@125Hz
Gateway VX900 CRT: 1920x1440@64Hz, 1600x1200@75Hz, 1200x900@100Hz, 960x720@120Hz (Can be pushed to 175Hz)
 
Keyboard: Thermaltake eSPORTS MEKA PRO with Cherry MX Red switches
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

So you are telling me you expect the law to look the other way if you wish to sell illegal goods? No wonder criminals are always mad when their stuff gets stolen by the cops, because it's their business and they have the right to decide what to sell and what not too. Because that is what you just said.

If it were up to me there would be no illegal goods.

4 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

You want protection? Register Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, which Apple has all 3 of.

IP lawsuits take years to resolve. By the time the dispute is settled the patent is often not even relevant anymore. The best way to protect IP is to never share it with anyone in any form.

4 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

If I own a product I should have every right to repair said device within my own terms.

You do have the right to repair your own device. You will not be arrested for taking apart your smartphone. The right to repair is different from the ability to do so. You can do whatever you want with your own devices but you are not entitled to demand someone else aid you.

4 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

Right so why should companies like Apple be excluded from the laws that apply towards car manufactures?

IMO the laws for car manufacturers is not a good one. If it were up to me there wouldn't be such specific laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, harryk said:

Take the same exact law but make it an optional incentive. Put the onus on the manufacturer to prove they have satisfied the requirements to a satisfactory degree, and reward them for such behavior. That I will support.

Prepare to see your taxes raised becasue it'll be expensive to give incentives high enough to compensate and exceed what companies are able to make through consumer-unfriendly practices.

7 hours ago, harryk said:

If I run a business, I decide what I sell and what I don't. The law should not be allowed to dictate how I run my own business. That's what a free market is.

So you should be allowed to sell drugs too?

F@H
Desktop: i9-13900K, ASUS Z790-E, 64GB DDR5-6000 CL36, RTX3080, 2TB MP600 Pro XT, 2TB SX8200Pro, 2x16TB Ironwolf RAID0, Corsair HX1200, Antec Vortex 360 AIO, Thermaltake Versa H25 TG, Samsung 4K curved 49" TV, 23" secondary, Mountain Everest Max

Mobile SFF rig: i9-9900K, Noctua NH-L9i, Asrock Z390 Phantom ITX-AC, 32GB, GTX1070, 2x1TB SX8200Pro RAID0, 2x5TB 2.5" HDD RAID0, Athena 500W Flex (Noctua fan), Custom 4.7l 3D printed case

 

Asus Zenbook UM325UA, Ryzen 7 5700u, 16GB, 1TB, OLED

 

GPD Win 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, harryk said:

the law is forcing manufacturers to do things against their will

So you don't think comapnies should be forced to make sure their product does not explode when you turn it on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, harryk said:

If it were up to me there would be no illegal goods.

Congratulations, your local government is now interested in you, but not in the good way. Equally if some things (like drugs) are not regulated who knows what would happen. Oh wait we do, it's call the tobacco industry, for decades they could advertise and sell to minors, causing damage to their health.

 

5 hours ago, harryk said:

IP lawsuits take years to resolve. By the time the dispute is settled the patent is often not even relevant anymore. The best way to protect IP is to never share it with anyone in any form.

What the people want isn't to grab the PCB design and make one at home, we just want to have access to the parts which is not IP infringing at all. If someone wanted to steal Apples tech all they would have to do is buy a iPhone and tear it down and read all publicly accessible documents...

 

5 hours ago, harryk said:

You do have the right to repair your own device. You will not be arrested for taking apart your smartphone. The right to repair is different from the ability to do so. You can do whatever you want with your own devices but you are not entitled to demand someone else aid you.

I've already stated how this is not true on page one. Even if you open up your device esp iPhones/Pads and try to repair it yourself you have a high chance (in some cases 100%) of not having a device afterwards. So while yes one can open up their device one can not repair their device therefore you do not have the right to repair but the right to open and close the device like a door, but if that door squeaks or breaks you can't fix/replace the broken part.

 

The right to repair requires the ability to do so, else you do not have the right to repair. We are not demanding them to aid us outside to having the ability to buy the parts they have access too already at no loss to them, tho I guess technically they would lose money for not fixing it but they would still make money potentially more than repairing the units. A few years ago a major appliance died on me which needed a $100 part, had 2 options $100 part no warranty(as it's untested even tho it was new, it was the main board), or spend $250 to have the part professionally installed cost included the part and if the part didn't work they'd keep trying others till one did. Didn't like the 0 accountability of the DIY so won't be supporting said brand anymore, 30/60/90 days would have been better.

 

6 hours ago, harryk said:

IMO the laws for car manufacturers is not a good one. If it were up to me there wouldn't be such specific laws. 

Serious question, how much Apple stock do you own? It's the only logical reasoning why you wouldn't be behind people having access to the parts to repair their devices.

Equally it's a good thing such laws are not up to people who think like you are right now, it would be very good for the big companies but very bad for the people and smaller companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get confused on the strong focus of "made with" recycled materials by apple. It´s great leap and I believe them. But there´s something fishy about it.

The M1 surely is a good thing with less components?

 

- I was thinking Governments could reduce taxes towards companies on the continued sale of a flagship product that hasn´t had an upgrade after 12months or that has a certain percentage of recycled materiel and cleaner shipping costs. 2 to 5% would be huge.

- Or we could force them to only do upgrades when it´s actually "necessary" (by showing no interest). I mean the iPhone 7/8/X/12 could have not been released and the average person would have not really noticed a difference. Similar to the iPad 2020, which I bought and now I find myself raging with the integration of the M1... (And I am certain that they planned that 2/3 years ago) Adobe could have a field day with development for the M1 but 80% will still have a ABionic whatever chip... so hands tied until they phase out the A chips.

 

Soon it will ALL be subscriptions and we´ll just have a sheet of fancy glass (like an iPad) with light speed access to gpu´s and data centre etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PvK1312 said:

I get confused on the strong focus of "made with" recycled materials by apple. It´s great leap and I believe them. But there´s something fishy about it.

The M1 surely is a good thing with less components?

 

- I was thinking Governments could reduce taxes towards companies on the continued sale of a flagship product that hasn´t had an upgrade after 12months or that has a certain percentage of recycled materiel and cleaner shipping costs. 2 to 5% would be huge.

- Or we could force them to only do upgrades when it´s actually "necessary" (by showing no interest). I mean the iPhone 7/8/X/12 could have not been released and the average person would have not really noticed a difference. Similar to the iPad 2020, which I bought and now I find myself raging with the integration of the M1... (And I am certain that they planned that 2/3 years ago) Adobe could have a field day with development for the M1 but 80% will still have a ABionic whatever chip... so hands tied until they phase out the A chips.

 

Soon it will ALL be subscriptions and we´ll just have a sheet of fancy glass (like an iPad) with light speed access to gpu´s and data centre etc...

Initially, in terms of the environment it is better to have fewer components, as fewer resources are used. During the life of the M1 it is also better, as it is much more power efficient, so less energy will be used by the product, with all the associated environmental benefits. However, at the end of a devices life, for example, it can help to add more RAM or storage. That can't be done with the M1 chip, so it could be disposed of earlier than otherwise. That said, that impact will only be felt with the most tech literate users, so most of the user base would still dispose of the laptop at the same earlier time anyway.

 

I'm not entirely sure what your first suggestion is about, but these companies do not need tax breaks. Apple pays very little tax in the EU and European Economic Area, despite having an absolutely massive presence, practically a monopoly in some areas.

 

Your second suggestion makes pretty much no sense at all in the context of right to repair. Who gets to decide what is just an incremental upgrade and what is substantial enough to allow for a product to be released? Technology will always progress, but right to repair isn't about stifling that, you've got your argument confused here. Right to repair is the right to have your products repaired, it isn't meant to stop companies from releasing new products just because you want to have the latest and greatest, but don't want to upgrade. Right to repair is about making repairs accessible, such that you don't need to resort to buying a new device or giving the OEM extortionate amounts of money just for a simple failure. In terms of the environment, yes, this could make sense, but again it's extremely subjective, so who would police this? One person could look at a product and decide it's revolutionary, yet another could look at it and find it completely underwhelming. Plus, when big companies come into play, bribes and underhanded tactics would be the norm, so they'd likely get products through anyway.

 

Case in point, I bought an i5-9600KF last year, Intel brought out the -10600KF shortly after with 6 more threads and higher clock speeds (which was arguably an incremental upgrade) but although I'm into tech, I sucked it up and accepted that I'll never have the latest and greatest for that long. Besides, the -9600KF is still a great CPU, as is the A series chip in the 2020 iPad Pro (I believe it was compared to mobile Intel and AMD chips in Apples marketing, so you're not going to be left behind for a long time), as is even the old Apple A10 from 2017. Apple bringing out a new version of the iPad to replace your 2020 model in the product line has nothing to do with right to repair, it's just progress.

 

As people interested in tech, sure, we want the latest and greatest, but for the average user, it doesn't matter whether their iPad has an M1 or an A14X chip inside; that only goes as far as just marketing through a few vague percentages, and the newer chip may get an additional year of support. In fact, stifling incremental upgrades can harm the consumer even more, because it would prevent these improvements that manufacturers make from reaching the consumer, effectively erasing a year or even two of progress. If Apple hadn't released the 2020 Pro, they wouldn't have gained as much knowledge or experience in producing that chip, which would eventually have helped them to port the M1 to iPad, so an iPad that powerful could be maybe two or even three years into the future if we prevented manufacturers from doing any incremental upgrades whatsoever. I believe that if you erased every incremental Apple device ever, in terms of CPU, GPU, power efficiency, cameras, displays, software, and so on, we'd be generations behind where we are now. Furthermore, research and development doesn't end once a product has been released; the product contributes massively towards the R&D of the next product. For example, Apple shipping dodgy MacBook keyboards, which were fixed in a multiple incremental upgrades.

 

That's not to say that I think every incremental upgrade is worth it, for example, Intel could have skipped their 9th gen mobile chips, and the iPhone 8 wouldn't have exactly been missed. Those do represent some progress, but are in other ways just a waste of time and resources, but there's no reason for governments to step in and prevent those upgrades, however incremental, from being made. Every incremental upgrade adds up and contributes to that one big upgrade in the future, again, like the M1 iPad.

Desktop - i5-9600KF @4.8GHz all core, MSI Z390-A PRO, 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance 3000MHz, MSI GTX 1660S OC 6GB, WD Blue 500GB M.2 SSD, Seagate Barracuda 2TB 7200RPM HDD

Laptop - ASUS ZenBook 14 with ScreenPad, i7-1165G7, Xe iGPU 96EU, 16GB Octa-Channel 4200MHz, MX450 2GB, 512GB SSD with 32GB Optane

 

Old Laptop 1 - HP Pavilion 15, A10-9600P, R5 iGPU, 8GB, R8 M445DX, 2TB HDD

Old Laptop 2 - HP Pavilion 15 TouchSmart, i3-3217U, Intel HD 4000, 4GB, 1TB HDD

 

iPad 2018 - 128GB

iPhone XR - 128GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, maskmcgee said:

So you don't think comapnies should be forced to make sure their product does not explode when you turn it on?

Health and Safety regulations are an interesting topic. Generally I am supportive because these types of regulations preemptively prevent harm which would otherwise be irreversible; once you're dead you're dead. I think it is reasonable to have laws to prevent that.

8 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

It's the only logical reasoning why you wouldn't be behind people having access to the parts to repair their devices.

I think having access to parts and repair documentation would be great. Personally I would love it. But I don't think we should infringe on the rights of business owners to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about the money. That's all it's about. Companies don't give a shit about you. And if they make the parts, they're going to be outrageously priced. And the government doesn't give a shit about you either. It's money that runs the country. You can talk about this all you want, but it doesn't change a damned thing. As much as I understand the need for right to repair, until these money grubbing companies get out of the governments pocket, It's not going to happen.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, harryk said:

I think having access to parts and repair documentation would be great. Personally I would love it. But I don't think we should infringe on the rights of business owners to get there.

Right except they are selling to the public domain, if they wanted to keep all closed door hush hush access like, they should never have sold to the public (like ARM or Snapdragon) and sold to the private sector where they could force contracts with them or go elsewhere. You want to know how invasive the public domain is in general? I can walk up to your house stay on the sidewalk and take a picture of/record your house even if you are on your porch, so long as I don't walk onto your property to do so or if a privacy fence exists and I don't obviously try to record over it (if I'm taller then your fence it's basically fair game), it's also the same reason why you can get charged for drinking in public on your own property. You could call the cops but outside of asking nicely and collecting my information there is absolutely nothing they could do to me (depending on local regulations, specific situations (usually vulnerable people, or if I keep going to the same home), etc, but typically it's legal and you have no say in it), how else do you think Google gets away with street view in residential areas? (you can get your house blurred, but you have to ask) Equally I can take my same camera out to a busy street and record you driving down the road so long as I comply with local laws for pedestrians (including loitering laws), privacy on public and even private grounds is non-existence if the public can view it (within reasonable limits and circumstances).

 

Same thing towards companies you sell to the public domain you have to play nicely with the public domain and the laws around it (legal or not, aka common sense, good business practices towards the public etc), which Apple is not and therefore because one bad apple (literally it seems as their old icon used to be a bitten apple) is not playing nice with the public things will have to change and by force. Apple can stop these changes from happening by easily opening up their repair sector to companies and let them select their pricing, as long as the parts are sold at reasonable prices to them. If Apple doesn't like their consumers opinions, get out of the public sector, no one is forcing them to sell to us. Louis Rossmann's gofundme isn't about going threw the politicians directly, it's about what the people want, the people get to decide if the bill gets herd or stuck in a endless loop. This means if the people want it they will likely get it heard at least, threw his means Apple (and others) can't stop it (afaik), and politicians have no say in it by pushing and/or ignoring the matter any longer.

 

For more info on how stupidly invasive the public domain is you can check out this channel and watch people basically go to the extremes of the laws in place https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc-0YpRpqgA5lPTpSQ5uo-Q

Company stuff is a little different sure but the basics are the same, restrain too much people will retaliate, and that's what's happening right now, and it is a good thing for 90% of the people.

 

6 minutes ago, billm_mz3gt said:

It's all about the money. That's all it's about. Companies don't give a shit about you. And if they make the parts, they're going to be outrageously priced. And the government doesn't give a shit about you either. It's money that runs the country. You can talk about this all you want, but it doesn't change a damned thing. As much as I understand the need for right to repair, until these money grubbing companies get out of the governments pocket, It's not going to happen.

That's why Louis is going to the people route, if enough people demand it via Initiative the government has a legal obligation to listen at least in the states that have it, what happens after that is foreign to me, however remember the government wile typically doesn't care about the people (esp those who are pro business) they do care about themselves more then the companies they are enslaved to. So if by rejecting said laws that the people wanted to be put into place could mean next election they will not get back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×