It will cost them money, but I’d guess they did the math on whether it was worth it to stop fighting this one and potentially have a bill go through that cost them even more. There are also some things that seem to be carve outs that feel practically written by Apple’s lawyers.
Anyway, I will defend Apple against some of the absolute dogshit takes people have about them here, but Apple’s stance on repairability and right to repair is absolutely dumb. They spent a not inconsiderable amount of time on the action they’re taking to fight climate change and getting the Apple Watch to carbon neutral in the last big keynote and I couldn’t help thinking the entire time that if they just made it so that anyone with opposable thumbs could replace the back plate, screen, and battery in 20 minutes or less using tools you can find in any junk drawer, it would do far more than any recycling program or charging during off hours or whatever else.
Ditto for just basic support and software lockouts. Apple is generally pretty good keeping software support (5 years is entirely common) but the arbitrary cut offs are fucking dumb. I have an Apple Watch 3, and they cut software support for that last year which is fine. The form factor has aged out, it was bordering on under-powered a year or two after it launched, and it was time. But I also have a 2015 5k iMac that is just humming along running just fine and that a group of volunteers can get running the latest, no problem. I have no doubt that if that Apple Watch wasn’t locked down to hell and back, someone would figure out how to get it running debian or something so it isn’t just landfill fodder.
I’d really, really like to see legislation that addresses this. When I pay off a phone at a carrier, I can unlock it and take it where I want. When a manufacturer gives up on supporting that device, they should be required to at minimum unlock it, if not provide source for at least base level of user-space.
There were talks about how Apple was pushing to get some weird wording in the bill a few weeks ago, and people pointed-out how you could probably twist those interpretations to apply to some Apple products.
“California is home to a number of device makers, most notably Apple, which came out in support of the bill after initially trying to stall it.”
Aka they got whatever carve out they wanted and the bill doesn’t cost them money.
It will cost them money, but I’d guess they did the math on whether it was worth it to stop fighting this one and potentially have a bill go through that cost them even more. There are also some things that seem to be carve outs that feel practically written by Apple’s lawyers.
Anyway, I will defend Apple against some of the absolute dogshit takes people have about them here, but Apple’s stance on repairability and right to repair is absolutely dumb. They spent a not inconsiderable amount of time on the action they’re taking to fight climate change and getting the Apple Watch to carbon neutral in the last big keynote and I couldn’t help thinking the entire time that if they just made it so that anyone with opposable thumbs could replace the back plate, screen, and battery in 20 minutes or less using tools you can find in any junk drawer, it would do far more than any recycling program or charging during off hours or whatever else.
Ditto for just basic support and software lockouts. Apple is generally pretty good keeping software support (5 years is entirely common) but the arbitrary cut offs are fucking dumb. I have an Apple Watch 3, and they cut software support for that last year which is fine. The form factor has aged out, it was bordering on under-powered a year or two after it launched, and it was time. But I also have a 2015 5k iMac that is just humming along running just fine and that a group of volunteers can get running the latest, no problem. I have no doubt that if that Apple Watch wasn’t locked down to hell and back, someone would figure out how to get it running debian or something so it isn’t just landfill fodder.
I’d really, really like to see legislation that addresses this. When I pay off a phone at a carrier, I can unlock it and take it where I want. When a manufacturer gives up on supporting that device, they should be required to at minimum unlock it, if not provide source for at least base level of user-space.
There were talks about how Apple was pushing to get some weird wording in the bill a few weeks ago, and people pointed-out how you could probably twist those interpretations to apply to some Apple products.