JonG

There will be problems created by anybody.  This legislation already exists for something a lot more complicated and dangerous than our stupid phones: Cars.

Would you like to be told that the only person who could fix a Ford is the Ford dealership.  Then the dealership near you closes, and the next closest dealership is 75 miles away.

What happens to all those people that don't live near an Apple Store?  Oh... go to Best Buy.. where they never have the appropriate parts in stock. And why should Best Buy be "blessed" any more than any other technician?  They aren't trained by Apple Inc., they are trained by Best Buy (and having worked there I can give you first hand information of the uselessness of their training).

Right to repair legislation gives access to owners and repair centers for the documentation on how to fix something.  It also gives access to purchase genuine parts.  It doesn't make Apple "bless" the repair center as authorized, it just means that consumers have a choice.  They have a choice now, but the problem is that the choices get limited because those repair people can ONLY purchase 3rd party, crap, parts.

For anyone that is against this, please explain how users would be harmed by having information and genuine parts access?  Bearing in mind that users and repair centers can already access cheap, knockoff parts that make "your phone explode".

They are all for privacy, except when it comes to their backdoors for spying on people. The companies need to work out a way to do this, but the government, oh we have to be able to know.

"Privacy is a great thing, but if you aren't doing anything wrong then why would you need it from US."

flydog said:

texfla said:

They also left several-hundred-year-old rules against murder and theft intact...as well as the constitution. The article appears to imply that the age of the rules is an inherent negative. There are lots of old laws that are good and new laws that are crummy that have been put in place by both parties.

Licensing rules and laws shouldn't be judged as good or bad based on their age or by which party is in power when they're implemented.

They're good or bad based on their effectiveness in creating a fair balance between the rights of content creators and the interests of the consumers that they're willing to sell to. The middle men are unimportant except in the context how the rules impact their ability to add value to creators and consumers.

So...ignoring the age of the laws and the particular administration making the decision...what are the actual merits of keeping the existing rules vs scrapping them?

Talk about reading way too much into something. Geez. 

Actually, since the Headline and lede of the article are both centered around the age of the rules, that would seem to me that it is the major thrust of the argument. In fact, as opposed to "reading into" something, I thing that texfla actually found the exact message that the writer was trying to send.

I think there is a case for anticompetitive behavior, which does not require a monopoly.  All of these comments about "monopoly" address Epic's case (which I agree is rather laughable).  The Cydia case rests on anticompetitive behavior, not a monopoly.

Apple does not OWN the platform, since they sell it to me and do not rent it.  None of these EULAs have been tested in court really. Note that Apple continues to tell me what I can do with something I have purchased. No one would accept this logic in a car; here's the only parts, oil, and gas you are permitted to use. Or how about a lightbulb; you can only use it with the light fixtures that I make, or vice-versa.

How about selling a refrigerator and then saying that it is monitored and will shut down if you buy certain foods that aren't on the approved list?

I'm an Apple user, and even an admin for a company that predominantly uses Apple.  I'm very submerged in their ecosystem, but that doesn't mean I have to defend all of their behaviors.  This all harkens back to a few years ago when everyone who is defending Apple right now was up in arms because Sony started going after hackers who modded their PS systems to run linux.

Also, everyone can remember a few years ago when it wasn't a government regulation that once you had paid off a cell phone, that the original carrier, at their own option, could keep it locked to the network.  Now, once you own it, you own it and a carrier can't tell you that you have to use their service.  You can't call Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile a monopoly, but they CAN engage in anti-competitive behavior that freezes out smaller businesses in the same space.

The simple basis is this:  All of these devices are computing platforms and laws have to be universal for computing platforms. Either platforms need to remain open so that you have a right to do with a hardware platform as you please, or we have to agree that all computing platforms can be locked down and companies are allowed to dictate how their product is used after you purchase it.