I'm a huge fan of federalism and giving states the ability to control their own laws, but this seems like a classic "interstate commerce" challenge. The feds should step in and preempt these types of laws--either by creating a nation "right to repair" law or prohibiting such a thing. I don't really care which, but forcing every company to deal with dozens of different state regime would be very burdensome.
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe in federalism or not. I think these are silly proposed laws as clearly the vast majority of people have no desire to try and repair complicated devices, nor can most of these devices be repaired at home; thus, they will only needlessly drive up costs for everyone else. That said, the Tenth Amendment clearly prohibits the national government from preempting the states from enacting these silly laws.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Respectfully, to suggest that whether I can buy a battery to repair my phone in Kansas has anything to do with the intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause is to deprive the ICC of any meaning, as they tried to do with the ACA. Yes, it has been a modern trend to try and subvert the 10th Amendment by making tortuously reasoned connections to Interstate Commerce, but hopefully, both a limited Constitutional Convention and a less partisan and more originalist Supreme Court will reinvigorate the liberty promised by the 10th Amendment. Meanwhile, I am crossing my fingers for an insanely great Next Gen Siri Home Device that I have no chance (or need!) whatsoever of repairing.
I'm a huge fan of federalism and giving states the ability to control their own laws, but this seems like a classic "interstate commerce" challenge. The feds should step in and preempt these types of laws--either by creating a nation "right to repair" law or prohibiting such a thing. I don't really care which, but forcing every company to deal with dozens of different state regime would be very burdensome.
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe in federalism or not. I think these are silly proposed laws as clearly the vast majority of people have no desire to try and repair complicated devices, nor can most of these devices be repaired at home; thus, they will only needlessly drive up costs for everyone else. That said, the Tenth Amendment clearly prohibits the national government from preempting the states from enacting these silly laws.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Respectfully, to suggest that whether I can buy a battery to repair my phone in Kansas has anything to do with the intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause is to deprive the ICC of any meaning, as they tried to do with the ACA. Yes, it has been a modern trend to try and subvert the 10th Amendment by making tortuously reasoned connections to Interstate Commerce, but hopefully, both a limited Constitutional Convention and a less partisan and more originalist Supreme Court will reinvigorate the liberty promised by the 10th Amendment. Meanwhile, I am crossing my fingers for an insanely great Next Gen Siri Home Device that I have no chance (or need!) whatsoever of repairing.
I would argue that this is a classic Commerce Clause issue. Apple is a California corporation and the only reason Minnesota is legislating about your right to report an iPhone is because that iPhone arrived in California via interstate commerce. Think of it this way, if the 50 states were fifty sovereign nations, what right would MN have to regulate Apple at all? The answer is only through it's control over imports into the state, i.e., interstate commerce. There's a reason that the Commerce Clause was specifically written into the constitution and it's specifically to avoid states crippling commerce by each state attempting to regulate the operations of firms in other states. So if the feds step in and address this particular issue, I would have zero concerns about SCOTUS slapping their hand away (no matter how the Scalia seat and upcoming openings are filled).
Opening up the detailed schematics would make much easier for hacking the hardware for nefarious purposes, like attaching a skimmer. I suppose Apple could simply seal the entire innards into one hermetically sealed component that cannot be serviced by anyone without destroying the component. In the age of severe security concerns this one-sealed-component model is a very likely approach to circumvent legislative stupidity and improve customer satisfaction.
I'm a huge fan of federalism and giving states the ability to control their own laws, but this seems like a classic "interstate commerce" challenge. The feds should step in and preempt these types of laws--either by creating a nation "right to repair" law or prohibiting such a thing. I don't really care which, but forcing every company to deal with dozens of different state regime would be very burdensome.
I'm a huge fan of federalism and giving states the ability to control their own laws, but this seems like a classic "interstate commerce" challenge. The feds should step in and preempt these types of laws--either by creating a nation "right to repair" law or prohibiting such a thing. I don't really care which, but forcing every company to deal with dozens of different state regime would be very burdensome.
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe in federalism or not. I think these are silly proposed laws as clearly the vast majority of people have no desire to try and repair complicated devices, nor can most of these devices be repaired at home; thus, they will only needlessly drive up costs for everyone else. That said, the Tenth Amendment clearly prohibits the national government from preempting the states from enacting these silly laws.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Respectfully, to suggest that whether I can buy a battery to repair my phone in Kansas has anything to do with the intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause is to deprive the ICC of any meaning, as they tried to do with the ACA. Yes, it has been a modern trend to try and subvert the 10th Amendment by making tortuously reasoned connections to Interstate Commerce, but hopefully, both a limited Constitutional Convention and a less partisan and more originalist Supreme Court will reinvigorate the liberty promised by the 10th Amendment. Meanwhile, I am crossing my fingers for an insanely great Next Gen Siri Home Device that I have no chance (or need!) whatsoever of repairing.
I would argue that this is a classic Commerce Clause issue. Apple is a California corporation and the only reason Minnesota is legislating about your right to report an iPhone is because that iPhone arrived in California via interstate commerce. Think of it this way, if the 50 states were fifty sovereign nations, what right would MN have to regulate Apple at all? The answer is only through it's control over imports into the state, i.e., interstate commerce. There's a reason that the Commerce Clause was specifically written into the constitution and it's specifically to avoid states crippling commerce by each state attempting to regulate the operations of firms in other states. So if the feds step in and address this particular issue, I would have zero concerns about SCOTUS slapping their hand away (no matter how the Scalia seat and upcoming openings are filled).
You've got a major misunderstanding about the origins of the ICC. It had nothing to do with the operations of firms in a state, that is actually the opposite of why it was written into the Constitution, and generally speaking INTRAstate commerce is solely the province of the states. If Apple wants to set up shop in Minnesotat, they are going to have to follow Minnesota laws. Minnesota has the inherent right to regulate the sale of goods within its state's borders. Thus, Minnesota can generally pass as many silly ,or sensible, depending on your perspective, regarding the sale of products that it wants, including putting age limits on who can buy it, where you can buy something, who can sell it, special taxes, energy efficiency ratings, etc., and the feds can't preempt those laws.
Instead, the ICC had to do with states inhibiting the free flow of goods across state lines, such as setting limits on what type of trains could operate on the tracks in their states, or prohibiting other states from getting goods to a harbor in their state. So, if Minnesota wanted to slap a tariff on every phone that was transported on its highway system, then the federal laws preempting that would be constitutional under the ICC.
If laws undermine the exclusivity of authorized service providers, what is to stop them from ending exclusivity of authorized resellers, not just in electonics but in any industry? How many of these same states have laws that protect their car dealers from direct sales?
Legislation that is devoid of reality - if I could repair it in my home, electronics makers wouldn't need multibillion dollar production technologies to build it in the first place.
This issue dates all the way back to Steve Job's and the Macintosh.
Jobs designed the Mac to use special screws in order to keep non-Apple people out of the internals of "his" machine. He did that for a reason: Closed systems offer security and stability that Open Systems cannot match. Each has their advantages and the buyer gets to choose which one will best meet their needs when they buy the product.
That said: Apple needs to make upgrading older products more available. A Windows PC can often be given an additional 2, 3 or 4 years of life with new, expanded memory and hard drives. There is little reason why Mac's could not be the similar (even you have to have Apple do the upgrade).
Doesnt household insurance cover this type of damage?
Did you really want jack up your homeowners insurance rates over a laptop battery?
They're not going to jack his premium by $1500, which is what he paid for a new laptop.
They probably won't raise his rate at all for making a claim for this. Because... most homeowner's policies have a deductible of at least $500 or if percentage-based -- around 2% of the value of the home. Take a $300,000 home -- that's a $6,000 deductible. I took the 2% option and it paid for itself in seven years. I've had only one claim.
Oh, that failure to charge has a high likelihood of being the battery. It's one component that almost never recovers when it gets wet. They are about $130 and can be sourced from several different sites online. I'm not sure of your exact model MBP but some are a bit difficult to replace. For example, in the mid 2015 15" the battery is seriously glued into place.
I think this would be great!
I have over the years purchased ~$25k worth of Apple HW (PowerMacs, iMacs, iPods, iPhones, MacBooks... not to mention SW and media) and while very few have needed repairs inside or outside of warranties, I'm currently dealing with a MacBook Pro that my daughter spilled a orange soda into! Everything works (after cleaning the keys) except the battery will not charge so it has to be plugged in. I took it to Apple and they said $800 just to open it up and look! and most likely they would have to replace the entire inside so the cost would go up from there... I bought a MacBook Pro 15/i7/16GB/256GB refurbished from MicroCenter for $1500 instead! While that is a good deal on the 15", I would like to fix the old one. MacBooks are now considered disposable and not fixable for all but the most basic issues. If something like this goes through at least third party outfits would have a chance at fixing Apple products!
Lesson #1: ALWAYS buy AppleCare.
Lesson #2: Keep food and drinks far away from expensive computer equipment that do not have AppleCare!
Will do absolutely nothing to reduce costs. A tech will still require a minimum of one hour labor just to do a diagnostic and provide an estimate. Then add the cost of parts and additional labor to do the repair and you'll quickly find out why it is often uneconomical to repair the devices out of warranty. This is the way it's been for decades. I ran a consumer electronics store years ago and the question was why spend $300 to fix something that can replaced by something newer and better for the same price or only a few dollars more.
Maybe the costs they think it'll be to fix a iPhone will be like in China, CHEAP. I don't see what the problem is. There's Apple stores all around. Take your device to one and get it fixed under warranty. As for so called e-waste, Apple has their robots taking the devices apart. All that so called waste, Apple is getting Gold, Copper, etc out of those old devices as they are being recycled. Apple is way out on the lead on this.
Not sure that the good intentions in the proposed legislation can work. These devices are highly integrated and very compact, making repair difficult. In fact, often the devices are replaced with returns since repairs are problematic and expensive.
Since these devices have a max 2 year possible warranty not sure of the warranty expectations are under the new legislation. Certainly having a failed repair from someone not authorized (trained and accountable) would make following repair with Apple problematic.
Regarding waste, I think this problem while something to attend is vastly small contributor the waste compared to other electronics (printers toys) and general waste (cans, plastic containers, etc ). Apple recycle program accepts any Appledeice for proper disposal and recycling.
Comments
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Respectfully, to suggest that whether I can buy a battery to repair my phone in Kansas has anything to do with the intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause is to deprive the ICC of any meaning, as they tried to do with the ACA. Yes, it has been a modern trend to try and subvert the 10th Amendment by making tortuously reasoned connections to Interstate Commerce, but hopefully, both a limited Constitutional Convention and a less partisan and more originalist Supreme Court will reinvigorate the liberty promised by the 10th Amendment. Meanwhile, I am crossing my fingers for an insanely great Next Gen Siri Home Device that I have no chance (or need!) whatsoever of repairing.
They're not going to jack his premium by $1500, which is what he paid for a new laptop.
I would argue that this is a classic Commerce Clause issue. Apple is a California corporation and the only reason Minnesota is legislating about your right to report an iPhone is because that iPhone arrived in California via interstate commerce. Think of it this way, if the 50 states were fifty sovereign nations, what right would MN have to regulate Apple at all? The answer is only through it's control over imports into the state, i.e., interstate commerce. There's a reason that the Commerce Clause was specifically written into the constitution and it's specifically to avoid states crippling commerce by each state attempting to regulate the operations of firms in other states. So if the feds step in and address this particular issue, I would have zero concerns about SCOTUS slapping their hand away (no matter how the Scalia seat and upcoming openings are filled).
That's not Federalism. Far from it.
You've got a major misunderstanding about the origins of the ICC. It had nothing to do with the operations of firms in a state, that is actually the opposite of why it was written into the Constitution, and generally speaking INTRAstate commerce is solely the province of the states. If Apple wants to set up shop in Minnesotat, they are going to have to follow Minnesota laws. Minnesota has the inherent right to regulate the sale of goods within its state's borders. Thus, Minnesota can generally pass as many silly ,or sensible, depending on your perspective, regarding the sale of products that it wants, including putting age limits on who can buy it, where you can buy something, who can sell it, special taxes, energy efficiency ratings, etc., and the feds can't preempt those laws.
Instead, the ICC had to do with states inhibiting the free flow of goods across state lines, such as setting limits on what type of trains could operate on the tracks in their states, or prohibiting other states from getting goods to a harbor in their state. So, if Minnesota wanted to slap a tariff on every phone that was transported on its highway system, then the federal laws preempting that would be constitutional under the ICC.
Jobs designed the Mac to use special screws in order to keep non-Apple people out of the internals of "his" machine. He did that for a reason: Closed systems offer security and stability that Open Systems cannot match. Each has their advantages and the buyer gets to choose which one will best meet their needs when they buy the product.
That said: Apple needs to make upgrading older products more available. A Windows PC can often be given an additional 2, 3 or 4 years of life with new, expanded memory and hard drives. There is little reason why Mac's could not be the similar (even you have to have Apple do the upgrade).
Oh, that failure to charge has a high likelihood of being the battery. It's one component that almost never recovers when it gets wet. They are about $130 and can be sourced from several different sites online. I'm not sure of your exact model MBP but some are a bit difficult to replace. For example, in the mid 2015 15" the battery is seriously glued into place.
Lesson #2: Keep food and drinks far away from expensive computer equipment that do not have AppleCare!
Lesson #3: There is no Lesson #3.
Since these devices have a max 2 year possible warranty not sure of the warranty expectations are under the new legislation. Certainly having a failed repair from someone not authorized (trained and accountable) would make following repair with Apple problematic.
Regarding waste, I think this problem while something to attend is vastly small contributor the waste compared to other electronics (printers toys) and general waste (cans, plastic containers, etc ). Apple recycle program accepts any Appledeice for proper disposal and recycling.