They supported this legislation before it was passed. Still not out of the goodness of their hearts, this version includes provisions that they had wanted previously.
They "supported" this legislation by implementing a system where parts still require users to call in to activate them, you are "strongly encouraged" to rent or buy specialized tools from apple, and the price of parts plus rental generally comes out as only slightly less than paying an apple store to do it for you.
It is malicious compliance that they get to use for a PR boost.
So everyone's still on leashes. Got it.
Still a step forward, and it will make it easier to pass further steps.
It really isn't.
Because this has highlighted the "loophole" to these kinds of laws. Strict control of parts and equipment to manipulate pricing so that third parties cannot exist and this becomes "your phone is under warranty" by another name.
It definitely sounds like the law kind of sucks and needs to go further in the future, but are you really saying that being able to repair your existing device, even if the parts are overpriced, is exactly as bad as having to buy a whole new one? The reduction in e-waste alone seems like a potential improvement.
If anything, this has increased the amount of waste.
Because, as a customer (making up the numbers but it IS something like this)?
I can pay Apple 300 bucks to let their geek squad repair it for me. Or I can pay 290 bucks to have their special tools shipped to me as well as their official parts, with all the packaging associated. And then I have to ship them back my old parts. All with extra packaging because you can't send a customer a box full of monitor mainboards. And, because I need to source all of these directly from Apple, the moment they are no longer legally required to offer replacement parts, they won't.
So... I can save something ridiculous (let's say 10%) to fulfill my own warranty and nothing else.
But let's think about this as a repair shop.
I can't use third party or even OEM parts because basically everything requires the customer to authenticate with Apple. I can't stock parts because Apple strictly controls parts and requires customers to special order them and return the old part during a repair. And I can't compete with the geek squad because THEY get to stock spare screens in the back room. So I am exactly where I used to be of "Some stuff I can repair even though Apple says not to. Most stuff I can't"
So yeah. The end user experience is almost exactly as bad as it used to be. And this is "a win" which means pressure has been let down and companies have a path to neuter these laws. So yeah, it is worse.
Well if it really works out like you're speculating that definitely sounds shitty I'll give you that!
That is less speculation and more pointing out the actual policy.
Prohibitively expensive tools that push anyone but a repair shop to rent
Pricing so that, with renting, you are paying more or less the same to fix it yourself or have apple do it for you
You need to provide the old broken parts to Apple for them to send you the new ones. This adds considerable hassle to the end user and ensures that third party repair companies will always be a worse experience.
Incredibly invasive terms if you want to authenticate your phone after the repair. ifixit speculate this is a limitation of their tools but it still boils down to needing to phone home to Apple to activate your new screen and so forth.
So how about you actually look at the policy you are championing rather than vaguely imply that other people are being dishonest for actually having looked into it?
I was trying to agree with you in the previous comment, but I guess that wasn't clear. I appreciate all the explanation, but no need for the hostility and rudeness. Saying something was a step forward is a pretty far cry from championing something, too. You've really jumped to conclusions on where I stand on this and you clearly know more about it. Hopefully you can treat the next person with greater kindness, as you clearly have a lot to teach and people will listen better if you do. I wish you well.
parts still require users to call in to activate them
How else would you do it? Phone theft used to be way too common. I’m fine with Apple reducing phone theft by making it harder for thieves to get value from stolen devices
I’m buying my phone as a functioning device: I may need to repair it or replace the battery but why would I want to mod it? Those who do, can go through the extra steps
This is far different than a server, which I buy with very different expectations
So you are arguing this is to prevent some Gone in 60 Seconds like movement where Giovanni Ribisi and Scott Caan are in the wings waiting to rapidly replace a single component to sell those stolen phones before the Faraday cage bag mysteriously dissolves?
This has nothing to do with thieves. This has everything to do with keeping third parties from not being able to exist. And I should not have to explain why someone might want to buy a third party version of an apple accessory.
Why would preventing someone from replacing a broken part without calling in to Apple, prevent phone theft?
The phone isn't going to magically disconnect from Apples network just because you replaced the screen.
Maybe if they replaced the internal storage, but Apple could easily require to call if you only replaced that part. Everything else should be more than fair game.
And what about those who would rather mod their Apple phone than have phone theft security? Their opinion does not matter because you decide you don't need it?
Why would preventing someone from replacing a broken part without calling in to Apple, prevent phone theft?
Digitally locking some of the major components together make it harder for a thief to part out the phone - you can’t just buy a new screen from someone on the street who stole a phone and took it apart, and expect it to work
IIRC: They battled this talking point/discussion and legislation for years. Up until a week before it was voted on and passed.
They are not your friend.
Maybe because EU passed this before California. Then it's easy to on board.
They supported this legislation before it was passed. Still not out of the goodness of their hearts, this version includes provisions that they had wanted previously.
They "supported" this legislation by implementing a system where parts still require users to call in to activate them, you are "strongly encouraged" to rent or buy specialized tools from apple, and the price of parts plus rental generally comes out as only slightly less than paying an apple store to do it for you.
It is malicious compliance that they get to use for a PR boost.
So everyone's still on leashes. Got it.
Still a step forward, and it will make it easier to pass further steps.
It really isn't.
Because this has highlighted the "loophole" to these kinds of laws. Strict control of parts and equipment to manipulate pricing so that third parties cannot exist and this becomes "your phone is under warranty" by another name.
It definitely sounds like the law kind of sucks and needs to go further in the future, but are you really saying that being able to repair your existing device, even if the parts are overpriced, is exactly as bad as having to buy a whole new one? The reduction in e-waste alone seems like a potential improvement.
If anything, this has increased the amount of waste.
Because, as a customer (making up the numbers but it IS something like this)?
I can pay Apple 300 bucks to let their geek squad repair it for me. Or I can pay 290 bucks to have their special tools shipped to me as well as their official parts, with all the packaging associated. And then I have to ship them back my old parts. All with extra packaging because you can't send a customer a box full of monitor mainboards. And, because I need to source all of these directly from Apple, the moment they are no longer legally required to offer replacement parts, they won't.
So... I can save something ridiculous (let's say 10%) to fulfill my own warranty and nothing else.
But let's think about this as a repair shop.
I can't use third party or even OEM parts because basically everything requires the customer to authenticate with Apple. I can't stock parts because Apple strictly controls parts and requires customers to special order them and return the old part during a repair. And I can't compete with the geek squad because THEY get to stock spare screens in the back room. So I am exactly where I used to be of "Some stuff I can repair even though Apple says not to. Most stuff I can't"
So yeah. The end user experience is almost exactly as bad as it used to be. And this is "a win" which means pressure has been let down and companies have a path to neuter these laws. So yeah, it is worse.
Well if it really works out like you're speculating that definitely sounds shitty I'll give you that!
That is less speculation and more pointing out the actual policy.
Plenty of youtubers have done videos on the subject. Here is the ifixit article https://www.ifixit.com/News/59751/apple-self-service-repair-is-this-the-end-of-ifixit
But it boils down to everything I said:
Prohibitively expensive tools that push anyone but a repair shop to rent
Pricing so that, with renting, you are paying more or less the same to fix it yourself or have apple do it for you
You need to provide the old broken parts to Apple for them to send you the new ones. This adds considerable hassle to the end user and ensures that third party repair companies will always be a worse experience.
Incredibly invasive terms if you want to authenticate your phone after the repair. ifixit speculate this is a limitation of their tools but it still boils down to needing to phone home to Apple to activate your new screen and so forth.
So how about you actually look at the policy you are championing rather than vaguely imply that other people are being dishonest for actually having looked into it?
I was trying to agree with you in the previous comment, but I guess that wasn't clear. I appreciate all the explanation, but no need for the hostility and rudeness. Saying something was a step forward is a pretty far cry from championing something, too. You've really jumped to conclusions on where I stand on this and you clearly know more about it. Hopefully you can treat the next person with greater kindness, as you clearly have a lot to teach and people will listen better if you do. I wish you well.
How else would you do it? Phone theft used to be way too common. I’m fine with Apple reducing phone theft by making it harder for thieves to get value from stolen devices
I’m buying my phone as a functioning device: I may need to repair it or replace the battery but why would I want to mod it? Those who do, can go through the extra steps
This is far different than a server, which I buy with very different expectations
So you are arguing this is to prevent some Gone in 60 Seconds like movement where Giovanni Ribisi and Scott Caan are in the wings waiting to rapidly replace a single component to sell those stolen phones before the Faraday cage bag mysteriously dissolves?
This has nothing to do with thieves. This has everything to do with keeping third parties from not being able to exist. And I should not have to explain why someone might want to buy a third party version of an apple accessory.
Why would preventing someone from replacing a broken part without calling in to Apple, prevent phone theft?
The phone isn't going to magically disconnect from Apples network just because you replaced the screen.
Maybe if they replaced the internal storage, but Apple could easily require to call if you only replaced that part. Everything else should be more than fair game.
And what about those who would rather mod their Apple phone than have phone theft security? Their opinion does not matter because you decide you don't need it?
Digitally locking some of the major components together make it harder for a thief to part out the phone - you can’t just buy a new screen from someone on the street who stole a phone and took it apart, and expect it to work
IIRC: They battled this talking point/discussion and legislation for years. Up until a week before it was voted on and passed.
They are not your friend.
Maybe because EU passed this before California. Then it's easy to on board.