I believe this is genuine support of the bill from Apple. Between Right to Repair winning in Massachusetts and the EU demanding compliance, I think Apple decided to flip the script. They would want to continue the illusion of customer friendly tech.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    It could be Apple has concluded it’s going to get forced into this, so it’s pushing for laws that apply to all makers in order to avoid a law specific to itself.

    Generally speaking a law that creates a responsibility can be a win if it also creates that same responsibility for everyone else.

    Meaning it could be apple trying to ensure its competitors are also subject to any rulings.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      They decided a law is coming and they have the margins to absorb the cost better than their competitors.

    • nous@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah, it is them trying to control the bill by saying they are for it - if only these concessions are made. The article shows what they dont want to give up, under the guise of safety and security and disallowing repairs that might weaken that. And since they have been increasing the number of parts that are serialised in the name of security I bet they would argue repairing these parts will weaken their security and therefore cannot be allowed. Also, they want to focus on authorised repair channels, which they already massively lock down to the point they are more shipping stations than actual repair places. But also want to force third parties to disclose when they use used or non genuine parts - which since they only sell whole assemblies rather than individual components will likely force everyone that is actually making repairs to advertise that they use used/refurbished parts.

      So they still want control, they just realise they can have better control by claiming to be fighting for right to repair while undermining any useful impact any bills would otherwise have - all while claiming they are for right to repair.