this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
272 points (97.2% liked)

Apple

17525 readers
42 users here now

Welcome

to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!

Rules:
  1. No NSFW Content
  2. No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
  3. No Ads / Spamming
    Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread

Lemmy Code of Conduct

Communities of Interest:

Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple

Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode

Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] L26@ttrpg.network 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

“The big exceptions are video game consoles and alarm systems.”

Why specifically exclude game consoles?

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

Because they lobbied hardest.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not saying this is a good excuse, but I suspect it's related to DRM / cheating.

Video game consoles exist for the sole purpose of playing protected content, and they rely on part on verifying things haven't been tampered with to discourage creating.

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Video game consoles exist for the sole purpose of playing protected content,

Consoles have never been good at handling protected content. I'm pretty sure they have higher piracy rates than PC, purely because PC will emulate them.

Pretty sure the main reason has always been form factor and self-contained. People get consoles because they don't want the setup that a PC entails. That and up until around 10 years ago maybe, PCs were prohibitively more expensive than consoles.

But hell, even back in the 90s my first experience with Pokemon was on no$GB

[–] The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Legal and liability nightmare I'd guess. Imagine someone dies in a house fire so they sue the repair shop, or insurance refuses to pay because you modified your alarm.

[–] The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org -2 points 1 year ago

Nobody talking about fire alarms still

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm guessing because then states would need to heavily modify code laws on things like fire alarm requirements. Those regulations are for anyone who might have to walk into your house.

[–] The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org 1 points 1 year ago

There aren't regulations on security systems to my knowledge. Fire alarms work independent but they can optionally operate with a security system. Security systems are consumer devices, you can buy them yourself anywhere without any licensing or regulation.

[–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For the same reason you need a licence in most places to install fire and security systems. If you make a mistake, people can die.

[–] The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The proposed legislation:

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB244/id/2832427

(ii) A product or component of an “alarm system” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 7590.1 of the Business and Professions Code. Code, including a fire protection system, as defined in the California Fire Code.

[–] The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org 1 points 1 year ago

That makes sense then. When you search alarm system anywhere else you will get results for security systems which these days are simple consumer devices that lock customers into sketchy proprietary "ecosystems" that require subscription services that prevent users from operating and repairing by themselves.

[–] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

I would assume because at that point you have a PC.