Pluralistic: Apple fucked us on right to repair (again) (22 Sept 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.net

Right to repair has no cannier, more dedicated adversary than Apple, a company whose most innovative work is dreaming up new ways to sneakily sabotage electronics repair while claiming to be a caring environmental steward, a lie that covers up the mountains of e-waste that Apple dooms our descendants to wade through.

  • lobut@lemmy.caEnglish
    899·
    1 year ago

    Tim Cook laid it out for his investors: when people can repair their devices, they don’t buy new ones. When people don’t buy new devices, Apple doesn’t sell them new devices. It’s that’s simple.

    I mean, there we go. For anyone wondering. Capitalism can’t be green.

    edit: thanks for pointing out that the article said it but doesn’t back it up, leaving my comment up regardless

    • Zoolander@lemmy.worldEnglish
      33·
      1 year ago

      Except Tim Cook never said that and the source linked to in this article even shows that he didn’t say that.

    • Taleya@aussie.zoneEnglish
      243·
      1 year ago

      I mean they could instead realise the market for replacement parts…

      • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago

        I get what you’re saying, but what is the return on those, though? Does it compare to the returns selling a phone? I mean, it could be better returns selling parts, but companies as big as Apple tend to get moribund in their view of the revenue stream. The current model works, so why mess with it?

        • MoogleMaestro@kbin.social
          1·
          1 year ago

          The smartest thing to do would be to bake in more profit percentage on the parts compared to the phone. Doesn’t seem all that complicated for them honestly.

    • JoShmoeEnglish
      83·
      1 year ago

      Its all part of the newest trend, Techno Feudalism. Look it up. The elite are still trying to implement the subscription model wherever possible.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      It can - they may produce long-living tank-solid devices and sell for the price that would make it worth remaining in business.

      We can lease them for a fixed amount of time, which would be cheaper. Or we can buy them, but much more expensive. Or, as it already often happens, we can buy them with some contract with a mobile operator attached.

      There are lots of business models.

      Hate to sound statist, but if you somehow account for externalities here, these can become more common.

      Ah, also they may consider producing upgradeable modular things, so that you wouldn’t have to change or recycle the box or the touchscreen, but you could replace the motherboard or the antenna, which are goods that can be sold …

      Situation would be better with better school education informing children what a fucking portable computer is and why it’s not cool to buy a new one every two years and why these companies are bullshit.

      Now, coming to the bullshit part - the incentive to buy a new thing every could become less if patent and IP laws were relaxed to some Wild West level. There would be plenty of companies and over time those with the business models I describe would gain reputation and faithful customer base, and eventually press out bullshitters.