this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
52 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37740 readers
854 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The support is equal to cutting the teeth off the bill.
Or some garbage like that that I am missing. The same thing was done when we didn't want isps to control the net and coined the term "net neutrality" then the isps rebranded it to mean isp controls if you are neutral on the net... Sigh.
They support this because they are already doing this, any other things would make them change it up. It is better than nothing though, and other manufacturers will be playing catch up (which Apple won’t mind either).
Hard to say. The bill is neutral on the question of vendor-locked parts, it only says that the company has to make the real parts available to product owners as they would make them available to authorized repair centers.
I mean, it would be nice to mandate that the vendor can't implement technology to prevent the installation of third-party clone parts, but I don't know how you would structure that, legally.
So nothing preventing them from locking away the “calibration” tools like they do already?