Despite Apple pushback, Oregon has passed its right-to-repair bill banning parts pairing
Despite Apple lobbying hard against the bill, Oregon has passed its right-to-repair bill that outright bans the controversial practice of parts pairing in repairs.
Oregon signs its right-to-repair bill into law
On Wednesday, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed SB 1596 into law. The law is designed to make it easier for consumers to repair their own devices or have them repaired by someone outside of authorized service repair stations.
Most notably, the bill is the first of its kind to ban parts pairing. "Parts pairing" is a term that refers to Apple's practice of matching certain components, such as the screen or battery, with the specific iPhone they were originally installed in. This ensures that only genuine Apple parts are used in the device repair.
Apple has defended the practice by saying that it hasn't been designed to monopolize repairs but to make repair access easier. It claims that it ensures a device -- and its data -- remain secure during repair.
However, this practice has been controversial. It limits third-party repair options and has been criticized for creating a closed ecosystem that restricts consumer choice and potentially increases repair costs.
Critics argue that this practice hinders the right-to-repair movement by making it difficult for users to fix their devices independently or through non-authorized repair services. It's also known for generating a very large amount of electronic waste.
Currently, there are seven parts that trigger issues during repairs.
As The Verge points out, the bill also requires companies to make the same parts, tools, and repair documents available to owners as it does repair shops. Additionally, companies are not allowed to charge more for them.
The law does not apply to phones sold before July 1, 2021. However, it applies to other consumer electronics sold after July 1, 2015.
New York was the first US state to pass a Right to Repair bill, which is now law. However, it's so weak and watered down that it is virtually worthless for consumers.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
From what I've read previously, parts pairing actually goes further, by definition, and stops known genuine Apple parts from working correctly when they are swapped from identical phone models.
Parts pairing itself doesn't have to be bad for third parties (users included) but control should be with the owner. It is the owner who should be made aware of changes and authorise them.
Not unlike 'unlocking' carrier phones in the past.
Right to repair is much needed, as is 'design for repair' and a guarantee of parts into the future. I'm glad that a full array of manuals will be available to users as well.
It does sometimes feel like a lot of the pushbacks on Apple are almost harkening back to an earlier era when our devices weren't the center of our financial lives and so weren't critical to our personal and financial security.
Perhaps we will eventually at least be able to pay extra for locked-down phones that we can provide to relatives (who will then replace their login passcodes with "1111" thus undoing our of our efforts to keep them comparatively safe).
You paint a negative on the repair picture while completely ignoring the overwhelming positives.
Choosing to have your repair carried out by a reputable dealer is a clear first step. Having decent consumer protection laws to guarantee the repair is also essential.
And let's not forget that some 'cheap Chinese knockoffs' can even be very good.
One option is that Apple could make parts pairing an on-by-default option that power users could turn off if and when their phones need repair, possibly with the caveat that use of non-Apple parts or unauthorized service providers will void any remaining warranty. This would still prevent most theft and people who don't know what they're doing having their phones messed up with substandard parts, but it would allow the option for those with the know-how to repair their own devices with any parts they deem suitable.
Another option would be parts blacklisting: let devices use all Apple approved parts, but once a device is marked as stolen all the parts that might be swapped into other devices are added to a blacklist that would make them non-functional when installed in any device connected to the internet. They should still function in the original device, as Find My needs to still work to track them down. Once a device is confirmed returned to the rightful owner, its parts would be removed from the blacklist.
For the consumers who are willing to pay less for an increased risk of being defrauded, let them. It should be their right to take that increased risk.
It is the same thing with motor vehicles. Should all independently own body shops go out of business because some of them might use cheap Chinese knock offs and then sell the genuine parts on eBay?
It's creating a new market in stolen parts like the catalytic converter market (which will require some type of pairing)..... Apple in the end should fight this all the way to the Supreme Court why? The complexity of tech is moving forward at a rapid pace the days of the local chop shop on the corner or back alley fixing advanced electronics is receding into the past, for example that future mythical portable set of AR/VR glasses that sit on your face with 20x the power of current Apple Vision will be even more unfixable at a local chop shop.
There appears to be a new War of tech Luddites starting in the EU with a satellite office in the UK and spreading to America, I hope the this new decease can be fought off in the USA because I don't think East Asia will catch it in the same way to stop their forward progress.
Another aspect of this problem is the personal information contained within each device I don't and will not trust a temporary local chop shop on the corner.
1. Toothbrushes are specifically exempt. That powerful toothbrush lobby!
2. Although the law going into effect this coming January, there is no enforcement mechanism for violations before July 1, 2027. That should be plenty of time for Apple to comply (or hire the lobbyist used by the toothbrush cartel).
Your benefactor or whatever is no exception, considering it was founded by a ranking CCPer.
Fuck the CCP.
You claim Huawei is a 'knockoff' yet it consistently files more patents than most companies - worldwide. And around 800 of those are rumoured to be licenced to Apple.
https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2024/article_0002.html
Who are they 'knocking off' to achieve that? Definitely not Apple, right? As Apple is a CE company that does not do critical infrastructure or anything remotely like it.
Definitely not cars either. And definitely not AI either. 5G?...
Storage?
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/huaweis-new-magneto-electrical-disks-promise-90-lower-power-consumption-than-hdds-ability-to-store-tons-of-archival-data
Antenas?
https://techitupme.com/huawei-metaline-antenna-how-the-matebook-d-16-boosts-wireless-connectivity/
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Apple does not have the greatest of records with antennas does it?
Wireless?
https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20231003PD200/china-east-asia-mobile+telecom-wireless-networking.html
I'm sure you don't want me to continue.
And in breakthrough technologies in almost any field, Apple isn't even trying. I'm talking about problems that have been around for decades, like overcoming Shannon's limit (polar codes) or moving beyond Von Neumann architecture. That nut has been cracked too.
In Apple's top product category (phones), Huawei has been a, no, is THE leader in almost the entire set of tentpole phone features that have come to iPhone over the last seven years.
Who is knocking off who? LOL.
Apple engineers went on record as saying the satellite communication feature to high orbit satellites was 'very challenging'. Apple does text to low orbit yet Huawei does two way voice to high orbit satellites.
It's the same in mobile operating systems. Are you aware that virtually every multidevice collaboration feature that has come to iOS over the last few years is basically what Huawei revealed with HarmonyOS back in 2019?
A system designed from the ground up with interoperability in mind. As opposed to siloed operating systems that are not designed for multi-device collaboration.
And for mobile security?
https://www.iotglobalnetwork.com/iotdir/2023/08/18/huawei-obtains-high-level-security-certification-for-smart-device-oss-47586/
Ren and the CCP:
https://www.huawei.com/fr/facts/voices-of-huawei/ren-zhengfei-interview-with-bbc
Huawei doesn't do politics but your claim on that could equally be applied to a swathe of US companies working for the US administration. An administration that laughably tries to promote, ehem, 'clean' networks to the world.
I'm no huge fan of autocracies but I'm not Chinese so I don't really care what other people do. Neither does the US because it does huge business with autocracies around the globe and, historically speaking, none more important than the Saudies.
No. Autocracies are not a problem for the US. The problem is anyone with the capacity to challenge US hegemony, and that is China. Huawei is a Chinese company and follows Chinese rules. Just like Coca-Cola and of course, Apple.
And on the subject of repairs, Huawei pricing is basically excellent save for a few well known cases. For years now, if you have a Huawei store near you, you have been able to watch the repair of your device. And, for as long as I can remember, Huawei has had a maintenence mode where the phone can be locked down before handing it in for repair.
No one is arguing that Apple is some sort of basic science think tank. I wouldn't expect Apple to make any breakthroughs in low level telecommunications tech. That they do at all, is a credit to them, but their "job" and stated goal is to integrate technologies to make products to make people's lives better.
Also "Huawei" appears nowhere on this thread except in your post, so why are you writing a thesis on why Huawei isn't a "knockoff" company rather than just conceding the obvious point that "Chinese knockoffs" are a huge industry and relevant to this discussion?
When I say Apple isn't even trying it's because it's a CE company and the problems I was referring to were the ones which had persisted for decades. Problems that require some serious R&D. Let's not forget that over half of Huawei's workforce is made up of engineering talent and they have research centers around the globe. You have to put it into a 'knockoff' context.
I gave some examples but just a random selection.
I wouldn't say Apple doesn't plough money into R&D. What top player doesn't? But the 'knockoff' claim is literally so far off base that that really is absurd. Especially when we are supposed to be believing it is Apple that is being knocked off.
Apple just does not have the resources or the knowledgebase to dedicate to what Huawei (or Samsung for that matter) can do. In part due to it being a public company and very dependent on sales of a CE product.
We've seen the car project wound down and, if rumours are to be believed, resources transferred to other areas like AI, where again, things seem to be lacking. Even having bought an entire wireless division (with patents included) the 5G modem is still not out of the oven.
Huawei released its full stack AI solution back in 2018. Its Balong 5000 5G modem was released in 2019 (NSA/SA). NearLink came into being in 2020. Those are things that Apple could have aspired to but so far hasn't. Although there is no guarantee they could pull it off.
But 'knockoffs'! It's laughable.
The 'knockoff' comment is the typical (and habitual) ignorant post that 9 times out of 10 I simply let go, but every once in a while needs to be called out for what it is. Nonsense.
If this is knockoff we need to redefine the term:
https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-breakthrough/
Apple delivered UWB in phones before any other company, and in multiple devices, including AirTag; NearLink is just an evolved UWB.
Apple gave up on the car business because the only way it would be profitable was with Level 5 Autonomy, which isn't around the corner. EV's are not going to be any more profitable that pure ICE, and I am very supportive of hybrids, being a more practical solution to living in the American West.
Fair point on Apple's cellular modem, but even with that, it would appear that Apple is fully capable of finishing the task.
Apple is, in fact, a public company, and Huawei and Samsung are in fact, both very closed tied to their governments. At least South Korea is a democracy.
Apple does in fact, spend more that Huawei on R&D, $28B for last year alone, all paid for out of revenues and profits.
I don't support China due to its abundant threats to Taiwan, and its minority human rights abuses. Why would I want to support Huawei, which is deeply entrenched within the CCP?