Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday November 23 2019, @06:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the make-it-right-the-first-time dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956_

Right to repair advocates have described Apple's recent claim to lose money on repairs as 'absurd' and 'misleading.'

Apple made the claim to a Congressional judiciary committee investigating, among other things, whether Apple's locked-down approach to device repairs is anti-competitive...

Apple has always insisted that its control of the repair process is for reasons of safety and reliability. Others have, however, argued that Apple is deliberately preventing customers from obtaining lower-cost repairs from independent shops in order to force them to use Apple Stores.

Source: https://9to5mac.com/2019/11/21/lose-money-on-repairs/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:02PM (11 children)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:02PM (#923919)

    The term 'misleading" is not strong enough. They claim they have a RIGHT to profit from their product breaking. That is a LIE.

    What if we were talking about something much less complicated, like a doorstop? So you break your doorstop. Should you be forbidden from sloppily sloshing on some super glue just so a doorstop manufacturer can make money? Should you be forbidden from taking your doorstop to some non-"authorized" repairman (you must really like that doorstop) because of some nebulous "quality" risk? Even if there were a risk, wouldn't you want the choice?

    They already do a damn good job of getting consumertards to throw everything away every couple of years and buy all new stuff. Somehow these days they even think throwing old stuff away is "good for the planet" as long as they put it in the green bin. But I'd never buy a doorstop in the first place that required me to buy an entirely new house every time one broke.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:08PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @07:08PM (#923921)

    People replace computers no more frequently now than ever in the last forty years. Perhaps even _less_ often than in the past, actually.

    This perennial gripe is more persistent than Moore’s law.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @09:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 23 2019, @09:31PM (#923965)

      As an infrequent hardware buyer, i can tell you it is has gotten into lightbulb territory, many software vendors, especially those tied to a hardware cycle are only concerned with the leading edge of tech. For all the constant security updates required these days, one would think some hardware drivers warranted updates at least once in 15 years.

  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday November 23 2019, @09:25PM (7 children)

    by RamiK (1813) on Saturday November 23 2019, @09:25PM (#923963)

    They claim they have a RIGHT to profit from their product breaking. That is a LIE.

    Are you sure? Reading about it a bit suggests Planned obsolescence [wikipedia.org] isn't illegal and is barely regulated in the US outside the automobile industry.

    --
    compiling...
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Saturday November 23 2019, @10:54PM (5 children)

      by vux984 (5045) on Saturday November 23 2019, @10:54PM (#923986)

      At most, they have a "right to try to profit" subject to the legal constraints imposed on their business; but not an actual "right to profit".

      A "right to profit" would suggest that if a course of action such as a law forcing them to authorize 3rd party repairs with 3rd party parts violates their right to profit, and the law should be struck down. And that would be absurd.

      A "right to try and profit" would mean, that the same law above would pass without dispute, and apple would be free to try and find ways of staying within the law while still making profit. For example, they could price replacement parts competitively with 3rd parties, advertise the 'benefits' of using OEM parts, to try and eke some profit from the repair process.

      No company ever has a right to profit, and any attempt to assert one should be smacked down HARD.

      • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday November 24 2019, @11:16PM (4 children)

        by RamiK (1813) on Sunday November 24 2019, @11:16PM (#924307)

        Did they say they have an absolute right for profits? Is there a law saying they don't have a "right to profit"? The way the US laws work is that you have every possible right unless specifically told otherwise by a "legal constraints imposed on their business". That is, they're not lying if they're saying they have such a right. They're just being redundant and misleading. Which again, probably isn't illegal.

        Regardless, it's very likely the US will require 3-5years warranties and parts supply as a way to stifle overseas competition in consumer products and electronics and Apple will be the first to profit from this. So all this smells like a dog and pony show.

        --
        compiling...
        • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday November 25 2019, @04:41AM (3 children)

          by vux984 (5045) on Monday November 25 2019, @04:41AM (#924404)

          Is there a law saying they don't have a "right to profit"?

          If there was such a thing as a 'right to profit' then a business could not lose money without that right being violated.
          So... yes. Businesses absolutely do NOT have a right to profit, and no such right to profit exists.

          • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday November 25 2019, @04:32PM (2 children)

            by RamiK (1813) on Monday November 25 2019, @04:32PM (#924561)

            If there was such a thing as a 'right to profit' then a business could not lose money without that right being violated.

            Implicitly, you're failing to distinguish between absolute rights and rights. You have the right to pursue happiness; But not if it's hurting other people. You have the right to free speech; Unless it violates someones' copyrights / trademarks / patents; You have the right to bear arms; Unless it's field artillery on capital hill. You have a right to live; But not at someone's expense. Well, more or less. That one hasn't been framed too well.

            Explicitly, the right to profit can be seen as an amalgamation of the right for life and the right to pursue of happiness: Income supports existence. Growth and prosperity gives rise to the opportunities that can afford you happiness. Living without profits means living without a chance to pursue happiness since every moment and resource must be dedicate to survival.

            --
            compiling...
            • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Monday November 25 2019, @05:37PM (1 child)

              by vux984 (5045) on Monday November 25 2019, @05:37PM (#924586)

              "You have the right to pursue happiness; But not if it's hurting other people."

              "Explicitly, the right to profit can be seen as an amalgamation of the right for life and the right to pursue of happiness"

              Corporations can exist practically indefinitely, with virtually nothing dedicated to 'survival'.
              Corporations as legal constructs do not feel "happy".
              I don't really think your argument here is convincing.

              Nevertheless, I actually already agreed a corporation has a "right to pursue profit". This is not the same as a "right to profit". Just as your example "right to PURSUE happiness" is not a "right to BE happy"; and for the same rationale -- if you are unhappy you don't automatically get to assert your rights have been violated. Society doesn't owe you happiness. There is an implicit understanding that people should be allowed to pursue happiness, but society is not obligated to lift a finger if you don't get it.

              Contrast that with the right to life and the right to free speech where you are owed both by default. In those cases if society deprives you of either then society better have a damned good reason, because in those cases the default is that you should have them. There is no equivalent default that society needs to make you happy or profitable.

              • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday November 25 2019, @09:38PM

                by RamiK (1813) on Monday November 25 2019, @09:38PM (#924648)

                I don't really think your argument here is convincing.

                Try this: A business's life line is their profitability. Its happiness is wealth and prosperity. Take the profits and the right to pursue them, and you've taken both their food and their right to get more food so you've condemned them to death.

                Mind you, I know this is bullshit. But, in principle, so long as the law attributes individual rights to corporations, that's what you get. Of course, there's other laws and regulations. But still, it is what it is.

                --
                compiling...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 24 2019, @06:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 24 2019, @06:37PM (#924228)

      You may or may not know but there was an attempt to make planned obsolescence MANDATORY in the US. Thankfully it failed.

  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday November 23 2019, @09:29PM

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday November 23 2019, @09:29PM (#923964) Journal

    That is a LIE.

    And in front of congress? Don't we have a thing about that?

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..