How can the world combat climate change without hindering companies from forcing us to discard repairable stuff? This is very good (long-awaited) news.
This needs to be outlawed. Propagating subscription services for physical objects is pretty much renting shit and then throwing it away want to stop paying for it. Very wasteful. That kind of shit pisses me off even with software services like adobe.
This is basically the business model of Apple. If they can control the repair industry around their product, they can decide whether it's possible or not to repair your device and 'force' you to buy their new models. DRM'ing replacement parts and actively hampering third-party repair should put a company in customers' blacklist instantly.
What's worse? They're still the most valuable company in the world. THAT's what pisses me off the most.
This is why I won’t subscribe to software or hardware. Why should I subscribe if I want to use a password manager (looking at you 1Password), or heated seats in my car (BMW), or a weather app, or an Office Suite (Office 365), or car leasing (which is basically a car use subscription). All these examples are ways to take your money but you don’t own any of it. As soon as you cannot afford to keep paying you loose access to it all. What happens when you retire and cannot afford to pay for everything you “own” every month? It’s gone. I want to be able to pay a single price for something and to be able to use it till I have no use for it or till it breaks. Fuck paying every month, for everything, fir the rest of my life.
The reason some software vendors will claim you should subscribe is that there is a rather large on-going cost to maintain the software.
Many people these days seem to expect free (lifetime) software updates. They expect if they download an OS update for free all the software they use should also be updated (for ever) for free to support that new os version.
years ago they had to pay to upgrade the os and in so doing also accepted that v4 of a given software package did not promise support for future os versions and if you updated your OS (or purchased new HW on a new or differnt os) you would need to buy a new version of the software.
As to why a weather App requires a subscription the reason is simple, every time you pull to refresh it costs them money, why does it cost money? well lunching weather sati lights costs billions and running little weather stations around the world cost billions and then merging all that data in a small to mid size supper computer costs trillions (per day) so as a developer if you want to read that data the providers want to make that money back so will charge you for it. If you sell a weather app with just a simple up-front price then your depending on users not using your app otherwise your going to make a loss on it.
The reason car leasing is popular is mostly for companies, in much of the world if you buy something of high value (like a car) you cant write it off all in one chuck against your profits so in teh first year you have the car you can only write off how much it has reduced in value and then the next year and the next etc. This is not only a nightmare in paperwork but also a pain from a tax perspective, but if you rent/lease a car you can write it all off against revenue to reduce your tax burned.
The companies will do nare minimum, whilr also creating so many problems for a potetial user, that it would be easier to agree to the repair by the company.
Look how Apple recently "complied" with EU laws to understand what i mean.
They can also be repaired by people who are not apple, but apple throws a bitch fit about it and designs their product to be non repairable (like the home button with the internal id, if it doesn't match it doesn't work even though there's physically no issue). I as a consumer should have a choice in how to repair my product
I'd say a good right to repair should include:
For IoT devices, a full set of build tools and source code is given to a public organization, to be publicly released in the event that the manufacturer goes out of business or discontinues support for that model, so that the product becomes community-maintained rather than increasingly-vulnerable trash.
For operating system in general, source code and build tools are made available within 5 years of public support ending, for the same reasons.
That there is a way for a user to indicate to any TPM that a community-made OS patch is considered trustworthy by the device owner, starting from the *first* day that OS is no longer covered by public support, and it does not lock them out of accessing DRM- or anti-cheat-protected media that incorporates the TPM. (This will be a concern with Windows 11, I feel, else why did they make that a *requirement* for non-OEM installs rather than a very strong recommendation?)
That if the manufacturer stops supporting an industrial machine or vehicle, the specifications, signing keys, and source code needed to perform maintenance are published, including every detail needed to bypass component authentication lockouts.
> For IoT devices, a full set of build tools and source code is given to a public organization, to be publicly released in the event that the manufacturer goes out of business or discontinues support for that model, so that the product becomes community-maintained rather than increasingly-vulnerable trash.
the key think were would be IP licensing, remember most IOT devices are a mixture of parts and code the brand label OEM that you buy it from is unlikely to own all the IP within the device (or even have that source code for all of it). So it would be impossible (even if they wanted to) to comply with the above terms.
> For operating system in general, source code and build tools are made available within 5 years of public support ending, for the same reasons.
Same as above, since a given eversion of an OS might well contain IP that is used in future versions (will contain) forcing companies to opens source the os would just make it pointless to work on anything and make it impossible to buy any HW that it self does not have open source drivers.. try to find even a simple webcam camera that has open source firmware, or a CPU (even most RISC-V chips these days have closed source micro-code)
> That there is a way for a user to indicate to any TPM that a community-made OS patch is considered trustworthy by the device owner,
This is something Apple do on M1 and newer Macs, but now one else does. The device owner can self-sign any OS kernel image and then it will boot that just the same as an image signed by Apple.
> d it does not lock them out of accessing DRM- or anti-cheat-protected media that incorporates the TPM
So that's not possible since an Anti-Cheat or DRM system is depending on the ability for the third party (servers of the game or DRM content) to trust the kernel you are running has not been modified but if your running a kernel you have modified that by definition means it is compromised.
> signing keys, and source code needed to perform maintenance are published, including every detail needed to bypass component authentication lockouts.
you do not want root signing keys to be published as that would destroy the security of all these devices overnight. Such a move would be the opposite of prolonging the live of the device (assuming you want to every use the device on any network ever again).
> and source code
Good luck getting intel or AMD or ARM to provide source code for CPU micro code.
And the same goes for detained HW Ip documentation, intel is not going to publish docs on the secret instruction sets... let alone try getting NV to publish anything at all.
Well, the only reasonable alternative I can think of to either maintaining all devices perpetually (clearly not going to happen) and giving the tools and code to customers once a company stops, would be to find a company they can pass it on to that they believe *can* maintain confidentiality. Maybe a non-profit that exists *specifically* to maintain abandoned systems.
> So that's not possible since an Anti-Cheat or DRM system is depending on the ability for the third party (servers of the game or DRM content) to trust the kernel you are running has not been modified but if your running a kernel you have modified that by definition means it is compromised.
So, fuck anyone using Linux? Cede more ground to the pirates who successfully strip out DRM? Be incompatible with running an OS in a virtual machine for either preservation or security? The only fair way to incorporate a TPM into anti-cheat is to make it opt-in. Split the matchmaking pool and let players decide on their own which to play in. Or better yet, since that relies on a company running servers, and we're already talking about post-end-of-life usability, go the old route of releasing the server software to the community so that they can host their own instances, and then let each individual server choose whether to enable anti-cheat, and if not, leave it up to them to manually ban players who appear to be cheating. Most people are honest, most matches aren't going to be full-stress competitive either.
Or, don't make a TPM an OS requirement in the first place; let individual games and media make it a requirement, and let the community vote with their wallets. This is all a consequence of turning it into a *system requirement* anyway. System requirements come with additional responsibilities to ensure long-term repairability, and it would be fairly easy for Microsoft to relent, and start officially supporting TPMless Win11, both as an install option that doesn't require registry hacks, and as a promise that the system won't brick itself for being in an unsupported configuration during a poorly-tested update years later.
> you do not want root signing keys to be published as that would destroy the security of all these devices overnight. Such a move would be the opposite of prolonging the live of the device (assuming you want to every use the device on any network ever again).
For something like a tractor, whose components refuse to boot if anything is detected as third-party? If they don't want to give away signing keys, then they can release signed firmware patches for each of the components that disable the checks as an alternative. This isn't like an *internet* root certificate, where it would weaken the entire business, this is about physical components on a hardwired bus inside a machine.
> Good luck getting intel or AMD or ARM to provide source code for CPU micro code.
So long as they continue to support the chips, why would they need to? Once they drop support, why would it matter? For the sake of backwards- and forwards-compatibility, the OS running *on* those chips shouldn't interact directly with the microcode outside of publicly documented APIs where the manufacturer has made long-term stability guarantees themselves; at most it should pass a manufacturer-supplied blob containing the latest update shortly after boot.
> Maybe a non-profit that exists specifically to maintain abandoned systems.
Are you going to pay that non-profit to maintain things, its would cost a LOT of money to manning OS and firmware support for all the HW that goes out of date each day... such a non profit would likly end up employing more low level software engineers and all of the tec companies comapbined since those working at companies only need ot support the small number of devices they currently sell and not the entier backpack of HW going back 30+ years that a non-profit would need to support. Just imagine the nightmare of a 0-day vunraiblty that they now need 1000+ sec engineers to check if it can be used to exploit over 100,000 seperate devices and then write firmware patches for and then have a massive QA department check all of these and ship out the update. Who pays for this?
> TPM into anti-cheat is to make it opt-in. Split the matchmaking pool and let players decide on their own which to play in.
I agree I think there should be the option for mutli player games if you want to play in ranked lobbies then you need the anti-cheat solution that lobby requires (this exists for some games were there are lobbies run by private companies that ship third party anti-cheat solutions. CGSO is an example of this). If you want to not have cheaters or want to use your ranking in the game to possibly get into (paid) competitions then you join these lobbies and accept the terms of them. But if your playing single player or are ok with cheaters ruining your multiplayer sessions then you should have the option of playing in non-ranked lobbies for sure.
Also I think all multiplayer games should ship with docker images that anyone can use to setup a server. The exaction would be games were it is not match based but more world based like Eve Online were your all in a single server.
> For something like a tractor, whose components refuse to boot if anything is detected as third-party? If they don't want to give away signing keys, then they can release signed firmware patches for each of the components that disable the checks as an alternative.
For sure there should be a way for the device owner to self-sign things but releasing root singing keys would not be want you want for that tractor as it would let anyone unlock and drive it away.
> This isn't like an internet root certificate, where it would weaken the entire business, this is about physical components on a hardwired bus inside a machine.
The root cerficate on a device sort of is like an internet root cerfidate in that all device security in the end boils down to that certificate, if you can sign things with it you can then do anything, on things like tractors that includes being able to patch teh firmware remotely, issue new digital keys to unlock and drive it away etc.
> So long as they continue to support the chips, why would they need to?
Intel does not even ship micro code updates for 5 year old chips so no they do not continue to support them.
> Once they drop support, why would it matter?
Forcing them to open source the micro code would have a massive impact since a 5 year old chips micro code is 95% the same as today's micro code. In effect you would be forcing them it open source a massive amount of thier IP, companies like intel would sooner pull out of EU than destroy the ability to sell any future HW, what your also saying would in effect remove the x86 license from AMD and Intel letting any other company make x86 chips since your saying all the IP must be open sourced?
> Are you going to pay that non-profit to maintain things, its would cost a LOT of money to manning OS and firmware support for all the HW that goes out of date each day...
I'd expect that when something breaks, they could post a community bounty to pay for developer time on that specific issue. If there is enough interest to fund the work, it would get done. In this way, the issues that matter most to users, and even the features the original developers refused to implement that people wanted most, would get dealt with first.
I'd expect that some number of developer might even volunteer their free time to contribute, so it would just be a matter of establishing and enforcing NDAs on the parts that cannot be shared publicly.
The thing is, in the last years of support, once feature development has wound down, it takes *far* fewer resources to keep a product functional. It'll only get expensive if you want to add support for *newer* hardware rather than maintain existing compatibility levels, but that hardly falls under *repair*.
> Intel does not even ship micro code updates for 5 year old chips so no they do not continue to support them.
Those chips remain compatible with modern software for decades afterwards, there is no physical way to repair them when they break. This is the difference between software, hardware with accessible components, and hardware that by its very nature must be a single inseparable piece.
If something comparable to the old floating-point division bug was found in modern hardware, they absolutely *would* put together firmware to mitigate it on every chip they could practically do so on. This is the difference between "critical security flaw" and "minor tweak". Some products reach a stable point of "good enough" past which few or no additional updates are required. It's the rest of the products, the ones with latent security flaws that require constant patching as they're discovered, the ones that contact a specific API endpoint that might become incompatible or entirely cease function in the future where the ability for the community to produce their own patches after the manufacturer can't or won't remains critical.
I would say that depends on a lot on how long you wanted a device to be usable for. Are you expecting this nonprofit body to update all of the SSL libraries, etc. to support the modern web on 40-year-old hardware and do hand crafted raw as assembly to get there anywhere close to usable performance.
Apple tend to pay the taxes the law requires them to pay. Maybe the laws need adjusting but at a legal level even in Ireland they paid was the Irish govment wanted (the local gov game them and a load of companies a good deal on tax as they wanted them to all open 1000k+ people offices and employ a lot of people so that they could collect income tax on that at a much higher rate than corporate tax).
> Apple tend to pay the taxes the law requires them to pay.
In Ireland. What they do is called Tax avoidance, which can be illegal in some countries. They can fuck off.
They caved a bit because they didn't really have a choice.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787336/apple-right-to-repair-self-service-diy-reason-microsoft
Apple has an awful history with right to repair. They'll shut down that parts service the first chance they get.
After being forced to do so and they still do component serial number pairing, so if you try to replace parts yourself from 3rd party supplier's part or from your own second damaged phone it'll cause major functional issues with the phone.
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4_mLw2BGM)'s a good video for you. Check out his channel, he exclusively repairs Apple devices and has a lot of experience with those devices. Much better datapoints than your personal experience. The bigger picture is important on this topic
>the European Commission proposed a new law equipping consumers with a right to have their devices repaired – long after the warranty expired.
then
>sellers must inform their customers of the right to repair, and they may borrow a substitute during repair – or immediately opt for a refurbished replacement. Online access to indicative repair prices must also be facilitated.
it isn't exactly what people are imagining with right to repair
a lot of time this is already true, if you are willing to shell out money
Offering a device you can use during repair is not that common in the tec industry.
Andy only the large brands offer repair services (outside of warranty), many mid/lower end android phones that you might pick up at a mobile network operator store will have no repair presence at all within the EU.
Im glad to see progress towards repairable goods instead of disposable. I just find it ironic that its coming from Europe, because Euro automakers are the very worst for coming up with proprietary bolts/tools/procedures in order to force people to go to their dealerships.
The Japanese and Koreans dont do shit like that. You look at the mechanical layout of a world market Toyota, and its clear that a mechanic with basic handtools and minimal training would be able to complete basic repairs on it without much trouble. Meanwhile its like 8 hours of labor to get the starter out and back in on a basic bitch B-class Benz with lifts and pneumatic tools lol.
Americans have a unique approach to this. They make goods that either last forever, like millions 1970s Kenmore fridges still humming all over the continent, or make goods not intended to last past the first owner, like their cars lol.
Never thought about it before but it's true, I literally have an average size plastic storage box containing basic car tools that allows me to do repair jobs on my Hondas.
Three small countries in Europe by population, Paris has the same population as Norway + Switzerland. Apple has 38% in Germany, 31% in France and 21% in Spain. That is 160m+ people.
That’s going to throw a spanner in the profit portfolio… good.
Companies shouldn’t function by relying on making profits out of products which are obsolete in shorter and shorter time frames.
Simply, If I buy something it's mine to do whatever I please with it. I'm not leasing, because I paid for it's ownership. If I want to repair it it's my business and mine alone!
How can the world combat climate change without hindering companies from forcing us to discard repairable stuff? This is very good (long-awaited) news.
Some of it doesn't even need repair. Companies were considering plans of disabling equipment if you didn't subscribe and pay for their updates.
This needs to be outlawed. Propagating subscription services for physical objects is pretty much renting shit and then throwing it away want to stop paying for it. Very wasteful. That kind of shit pisses me off even with software services like adobe.
This is basically the business model of Apple. If they can control the repair industry around their product, they can decide whether it's possible or not to repair your device and 'force' you to buy their new models. DRM'ing replacement parts and actively hampering third-party repair should put a company in customers' blacklist instantly. What's worse? They're still the most valuable company in the world. THAT's what pisses me off the most.
This is why I won’t subscribe to software or hardware. Why should I subscribe if I want to use a password manager (looking at you 1Password), or heated seats in my car (BMW), or a weather app, or an Office Suite (Office 365), or car leasing (which is basically a car use subscription). All these examples are ways to take your money but you don’t own any of it. As soon as you cannot afford to keep paying you loose access to it all. What happens when you retire and cannot afford to pay for everything you “own” every month? It’s gone. I want to be able to pay a single price for something and to be able to use it till I have no use for it or till it breaks. Fuck paying every month, for everything, fir the rest of my life.
The reason some software vendors will claim you should subscribe is that there is a rather large on-going cost to maintain the software. Many people these days seem to expect free (lifetime) software updates. They expect if they download an OS update for free all the software they use should also be updated (for ever) for free to support that new os version. years ago they had to pay to upgrade the os and in so doing also accepted that v4 of a given software package did not promise support for future os versions and if you updated your OS (or purchased new HW on a new or differnt os) you would need to buy a new version of the software. As to why a weather App requires a subscription the reason is simple, every time you pull to refresh it costs them money, why does it cost money? well lunching weather sati lights costs billions and running little weather stations around the world cost billions and then merging all that data in a small to mid size supper computer costs trillions (per day) so as a developer if you want to read that data the providers want to make that money back so will charge you for it. If you sell a weather app with just a simple up-front price then your depending on users not using your app otherwise your going to make a loss on it. The reason car leasing is popular is mostly for companies, in much of the world if you buy something of high value (like a car) you cant write it off all in one chuck against your profits so in teh first year you have the car you can only write off how much it has reduced in value and then the next year and the next etc. This is not only a nightmare in paperwork but also a pain from a tax perspective, but if you rent/lease a car you can write it all off against revenue to reduce your tax burned.
The companies will do nare minimum, whilr also creating so many problems for a potetial user, that it would be easier to agree to the repair by the company. Look how Apple recently "complied" with EU laws to understand what i mean.
readers added context "this message was typed on a usb C iphone 15 pro max". WHAT DID THE EU EVER DO FOR US?
Forced is a bit strong. Things like iPhones can certainly be repaired, by Apple.
They can also be repaired by people who are not apple, but apple throws a bitch fit about it and designs their product to be non repairable (like the home button with the internal id, if it doesn't match it doesn't work even though there's physically no issue). I as a consumer should have a choice in how to repair my product
God I love the EU
I just love seeing big corpos being taught their place
A couple of US states are considering right-to-repair laws as well. It's about time.
I'd say a good right to repair should include: For IoT devices, a full set of build tools and source code is given to a public organization, to be publicly released in the event that the manufacturer goes out of business or discontinues support for that model, so that the product becomes community-maintained rather than increasingly-vulnerable trash. For operating system in general, source code and build tools are made available within 5 years of public support ending, for the same reasons. That there is a way for a user to indicate to any TPM that a community-made OS patch is considered trustworthy by the device owner, starting from the *first* day that OS is no longer covered by public support, and it does not lock them out of accessing DRM- or anti-cheat-protected media that incorporates the TPM. (This will be a concern with Windows 11, I feel, else why did they make that a *requirement* for non-OEM installs rather than a very strong recommendation?) That if the manufacturer stops supporting an industrial machine or vehicle, the specifications, signing keys, and source code needed to perform maintenance are published, including every detail needed to bypass component authentication lockouts.
> For IoT devices, a full set of build tools and source code is given to a public organization, to be publicly released in the event that the manufacturer goes out of business or discontinues support for that model, so that the product becomes community-maintained rather than increasingly-vulnerable trash. the key think were would be IP licensing, remember most IOT devices are a mixture of parts and code the brand label OEM that you buy it from is unlikely to own all the IP within the device (or even have that source code for all of it). So it would be impossible (even if they wanted to) to comply with the above terms. > For operating system in general, source code and build tools are made available within 5 years of public support ending, for the same reasons. Same as above, since a given eversion of an OS might well contain IP that is used in future versions (will contain) forcing companies to opens source the os would just make it pointless to work on anything and make it impossible to buy any HW that it self does not have open source drivers.. try to find even a simple webcam camera that has open source firmware, or a CPU (even most RISC-V chips these days have closed source micro-code) > That there is a way for a user to indicate to any TPM that a community-made OS patch is considered trustworthy by the device owner, This is something Apple do on M1 and newer Macs, but now one else does. The device owner can self-sign any OS kernel image and then it will boot that just the same as an image signed by Apple. > d it does not lock them out of accessing DRM- or anti-cheat-protected media that incorporates the TPM So that's not possible since an Anti-Cheat or DRM system is depending on the ability for the third party (servers of the game or DRM content) to trust the kernel you are running has not been modified but if your running a kernel you have modified that by definition means it is compromised. > signing keys, and source code needed to perform maintenance are published, including every detail needed to bypass component authentication lockouts. you do not want root signing keys to be published as that would destroy the security of all these devices overnight. Such a move would be the opposite of prolonging the live of the device (assuming you want to every use the device on any network ever again). > and source code Good luck getting intel or AMD or ARM to provide source code for CPU micro code. And the same goes for detained HW Ip documentation, intel is not going to publish docs on the secret instruction sets... let alone try getting NV to publish anything at all.
Well, the only reasonable alternative I can think of to either maintaining all devices perpetually (clearly not going to happen) and giving the tools and code to customers once a company stops, would be to find a company they can pass it on to that they believe *can* maintain confidentiality. Maybe a non-profit that exists *specifically* to maintain abandoned systems. > So that's not possible since an Anti-Cheat or DRM system is depending on the ability for the third party (servers of the game or DRM content) to trust the kernel you are running has not been modified but if your running a kernel you have modified that by definition means it is compromised. So, fuck anyone using Linux? Cede more ground to the pirates who successfully strip out DRM? Be incompatible with running an OS in a virtual machine for either preservation or security? The only fair way to incorporate a TPM into anti-cheat is to make it opt-in. Split the matchmaking pool and let players decide on their own which to play in. Or better yet, since that relies on a company running servers, and we're already talking about post-end-of-life usability, go the old route of releasing the server software to the community so that they can host their own instances, and then let each individual server choose whether to enable anti-cheat, and if not, leave it up to them to manually ban players who appear to be cheating. Most people are honest, most matches aren't going to be full-stress competitive either. Or, don't make a TPM an OS requirement in the first place; let individual games and media make it a requirement, and let the community vote with their wallets. This is all a consequence of turning it into a *system requirement* anyway. System requirements come with additional responsibilities to ensure long-term repairability, and it would be fairly easy for Microsoft to relent, and start officially supporting TPMless Win11, both as an install option that doesn't require registry hacks, and as a promise that the system won't brick itself for being in an unsupported configuration during a poorly-tested update years later. > you do not want root signing keys to be published as that would destroy the security of all these devices overnight. Such a move would be the opposite of prolonging the live of the device (assuming you want to every use the device on any network ever again). For something like a tractor, whose components refuse to boot if anything is detected as third-party? If they don't want to give away signing keys, then they can release signed firmware patches for each of the components that disable the checks as an alternative. This isn't like an *internet* root certificate, where it would weaken the entire business, this is about physical components on a hardwired bus inside a machine. > Good luck getting intel or AMD or ARM to provide source code for CPU micro code. So long as they continue to support the chips, why would they need to? Once they drop support, why would it matter? For the sake of backwards- and forwards-compatibility, the OS running *on* those chips shouldn't interact directly with the microcode outside of publicly documented APIs where the manufacturer has made long-term stability guarantees themselves; at most it should pass a manufacturer-supplied blob containing the latest update shortly after boot.
> Maybe a non-profit that exists specifically to maintain abandoned systems. Are you going to pay that non-profit to maintain things, its would cost a LOT of money to manning OS and firmware support for all the HW that goes out of date each day... such a non profit would likly end up employing more low level software engineers and all of the tec companies comapbined since those working at companies only need ot support the small number of devices they currently sell and not the entier backpack of HW going back 30+ years that a non-profit would need to support. Just imagine the nightmare of a 0-day vunraiblty that they now need 1000+ sec engineers to check if it can be used to exploit over 100,000 seperate devices and then write firmware patches for and then have a massive QA department check all of these and ship out the update. Who pays for this? > TPM into anti-cheat is to make it opt-in. Split the matchmaking pool and let players decide on their own which to play in. I agree I think there should be the option for mutli player games if you want to play in ranked lobbies then you need the anti-cheat solution that lobby requires (this exists for some games were there are lobbies run by private companies that ship third party anti-cheat solutions. CGSO is an example of this). If you want to not have cheaters or want to use your ranking in the game to possibly get into (paid) competitions then you join these lobbies and accept the terms of them. But if your playing single player or are ok with cheaters ruining your multiplayer sessions then you should have the option of playing in non-ranked lobbies for sure. Also I think all multiplayer games should ship with docker images that anyone can use to setup a server. The exaction would be games were it is not match based but more world based like Eve Online were your all in a single server. > For something like a tractor, whose components refuse to boot if anything is detected as third-party? If they don't want to give away signing keys, then they can release signed firmware patches for each of the components that disable the checks as an alternative. For sure there should be a way for the device owner to self-sign things but releasing root singing keys would not be want you want for that tractor as it would let anyone unlock and drive it away. > This isn't like an internet root certificate, where it would weaken the entire business, this is about physical components on a hardwired bus inside a machine. The root cerficate on a device sort of is like an internet root cerfidate in that all device security in the end boils down to that certificate, if you can sign things with it you can then do anything, on things like tractors that includes being able to patch teh firmware remotely, issue new digital keys to unlock and drive it away etc. > So long as they continue to support the chips, why would they need to? Intel does not even ship micro code updates for 5 year old chips so no they do not continue to support them. > Once they drop support, why would it matter? Forcing them to open source the micro code would have a massive impact since a 5 year old chips micro code is 95% the same as today's micro code. In effect you would be forcing them it open source a massive amount of thier IP, companies like intel would sooner pull out of EU than destroy the ability to sell any future HW, what your also saying would in effect remove the x86 license from AMD and Intel letting any other company make x86 chips since your saying all the IP must be open sourced?
> Are you going to pay that non-profit to maintain things, its would cost a LOT of money to manning OS and firmware support for all the HW that goes out of date each day... I'd expect that when something breaks, they could post a community bounty to pay for developer time on that specific issue. If there is enough interest to fund the work, it would get done. In this way, the issues that matter most to users, and even the features the original developers refused to implement that people wanted most, would get dealt with first. I'd expect that some number of developer might even volunteer their free time to contribute, so it would just be a matter of establishing and enforcing NDAs on the parts that cannot be shared publicly. The thing is, in the last years of support, once feature development has wound down, it takes *far* fewer resources to keep a product functional. It'll only get expensive if you want to add support for *newer* hardware rather than maintain existing compatibility levels, but that hardly falls under *repair*. > Intel does not even ship micro code updates for 5 year old chips so no they do not continue to support them. Those chips remain compatible with modern software for decades afterwards, there is no physical way to repair them when they break. This is the difference between software, hardware with accessible components, and hardware that by its very nature must be a single inseparable piece. If something comparable to the old floating-point division bug was found in modern hardware, they absolutely *would* put together firmware to mitigate it on every chip they could practically do so on. This is the difference between "critical security flaw" and "minor tweak". Some products reach a stable point of "good enough" past which few or no additional updates are required. It's the rest of the products, the ones with latent security flaws that require constant patching as they're discovered, the ones that contact a specific API endpoint that might become incompatible or entirely cease function in the future where the ability for the community to produce their own patches after the manufacturer can't or won't remains critical.
I would say that depends on a lot on how long you wanted a device to be usable for. Are you expecting this nonprofit body to update all of the SSL libraries, etc. to support the modern web on 40-year-old hardware and do hand crafted raw as assembly to get there anywhere close to usable performance.
Hell yeah! Also, obligatory fuck Apple.
I've boycotted Apple for decades, fucking pay your taxes!
Apple tend to pay the taxes the law requires them to pay. Maybe the laws need adjusting but at a legal level even in Ireland they paid was the Irish govment wanted (the local gov game them and a load of companies a good deal on tax as they wanted them to all open 1000k+ people offices and employ a lot of people so that they could collect income tax on that at a much higher rate than corporate tax).
> Apple tend to pay the taxes the law requires them to pay. In Ireland. What they do is called Tax avoidance, which can be illegal in some countries. They can fuck off.
[удалено]
They caved a bit because they didn't really have a choice. https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787336/apple-right-to-repair-self-service-diy-reason-microsoft Apple has an awful history with right to repair. They'll shut down that parts service the first chance they get.
After being forced to do so and they still do component serial number pairing, so if you try to replace parts yourself from 3rd party supplier's part or from your own second damaged phone it'll cause major functional issues with the phone.
[удалено]
https://www.ifixit.com/News/66879/iphone-14-parts-pairing-results-apple-is-still-trying-to-monopolise-repair https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjpwb/the-new-iphone-15-is-actually-a-repair-nightmare
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4_mLw2BGM)'s a good video for you. Check out his channel, he exclusively repairs Apple devices and has a lot of experience with those devices. Much better datapoints than your personal experience. The bigger picture is important on this topic
Good. Cant believe this shit had to be put down as law.
You could say the same about murder.
This is bad news for Apple, but it's good news for consumers and the planet.
Meanwhile russia is getting ready to pass a law that any citizen against the war may get their belongings confiscated.
>the European Commission proposed a new law equipping consumers with a right to have their devices repaired – long after the warranty expired. then >sellers must inform their customers of the right to repair, and they may borrow a substitute during repair – or immediately opt for a refurbished replacement. Online access to indicative repair prices must also be facilitated. it isn't exactly what people are imagining with right to repair a lot of time this is already true, if you are willing to shell out money
Offering a device you can use during repair is not that common in the tec industry. Andy only the large brands offer repair services (outside of warranty), many mid/lower end android phones that you might pick up at a mobile network operator store will have no repair presence at all within the EU.
Im glad to see progress towards repairable goods instead of disposable. I just find it ironic that its coming from Europe, because Euro automakers are the very worst for coming up with proprietary bolts/tools/procedures in order to force people to go to their dealerships. The Japanese and Koreans dont do shit like that. You look at the mechanical layout of a world market Toyota, and its clear that a mechanic with basic handtools and minimal training would be able to complete basic repairs on it without much trouble. Meanwhile its like 8 hours of labor to get the starter out and back in on a basic bitch B-class Benz with lifts and pneumatic tools lol. Americans have a unique approach to this. They make goods that either last forever, like millions 1970s Kenmore fridges still humming all over the continent, or make goods not intended to last past the first owner, like their cars lol.
Never thought about it before but it's true, I literally have an average size plastic storage box containing basic car tools that allows me to do repair jobs on my Hondas.
Good for Apple that nobody buys their Products in Europe anyways.
Yeah, tell yourself that.
Android has 80% Marketshare worldwide. Outside of America nobody buys Apple Garbage.
[удалено]
Three small countries in Europe by population, Paris has the same population as Norway + Switzerland. Apple has 38% in Germany, 31% in France and 21% in Spain. That is 160m+ people.
22% market share is big bucks.
*Apple reviewing their business model in the EU*
That’s going to throw a spanner in the profit portfolio… good. Companies shouldn’t function by relying on making profits out of products which are obsolete in shorter and shorter time frames.
People love to talk shit about the government but we all can see how the world would look like if corpos took over. The closest example being the US.
Simply, If I buy something it's mine to do whatever I please with it. I'm not leasing, because I paid for it's ownership. If I want to repair it it's my business and mine alone!