SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
Fnord666
on Saturday November 23 2019, @06:20PM
from the make-it-right-the-first-time dept.
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/
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Lose Money on Repairs, Apple? an Absurd Claim, Say Critics
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 27 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday November 23 2019, @09:25PM (7 children)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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
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
You may or may not know but there was an attempt to make planned obsolescence MANDATORY in the US. Thankfully it failed.