"It is our belief that the bill’s current language around parts pairing will undermine the security, safety, and privacy of Oregonians by forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices."

Key Points:

  • Apple opposed a right-to-repair bill in Oregon, despite previously supporting a weaker one in California.
  • The key difference is Oregon’s restriction on “parts pairing,” which locks repairs to Apple or authorized shops.
  • Apple argues this protects security and privacy, but critics say it creates a repair monopoly and e-waste.
  • Apple claims their system eases repair and maintain data security, while Google doesn’t have such a requirement
  • Apple refused suggestions to revise the bill
  • Cybersecurity experts argue parts pairing is unnecessary for security and hinders sustainable repair.
  • Sanctus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    77·
    9 months ago

    Apple is a hardware company. They get the biggest bang from people buying their hardware. They aren’t going to make this easy cause it quite literally means giving the shareholders less profit, which is illegal in the US.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      8·
      9 months ago

      They aren’t going to make this easy cause it quite literally means giving the shareholders less profit, which is illegal in the US.

      Making less profit than previous periods of time or even operating at a loss is not illegal in the US. Many companies have periods where they lose money or sacrifice short term profits for long term growth.

      Investors with enough control might boot the leadership out, but they can also do that for whatever reason including unrealistic expectations.

      • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        9 months ago

        Hell, some of the highest valued tech companies right now have never turned a profit in their entire existence.

        • pivot_root@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          9 months ago

          Suckling the teat of VC firms and investors works really well until the money dries up. After that, enshittification. Lots and lots of enshittification.

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        42·
        9 months ago

        FFS sake, our CEO told the Board, for a couple of years, “We’re gonna lose money to invest in $X, $Y and $Z.” They applauded him. Out loud. Literal clapping.

        (We accidently made profits for those years. Oops. But that’s beside the point.)

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      7·
      9 months ago

      shareholders less profit, which is illegal in the US.

      This is a bit of a misnomer. It is illegal for a company to deliberately lower share value, not to make a business move that ends up lowering share value.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        9 months ago

        Specifically, it’s the fiduciary duty of the directors to act in the best interests of the shareholders.

        In other words, the consumer doesn’t matter, the employees don’t matter beyond what the law mandates, and the quality of the product or service doesn’t matter until it starts impacting profits or stock values. The only time these actually need to be given any consideration is when it would serve to benefit shareholders, such as with hiring skilled talent or before the company has a reputation for quality products.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      72·
      9 months ago

      giving the shareholders less profit, which is illegal in the US

      Cite me chapter and verse. Point to the illegality that hurt you.

      https://uscode.house.gov/

      This idea is a childish notion of how corporations work. And it’s a lie. I’m not saying there’s nuance here, I’m saying it’s a LIE. But bullshit scores internet points!

      https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits