I believe this is genuine support of the bill from Apple. Between Right to Repair winning in Massachusetts and the EU demanding compliance, I think Apple decided to flip the script. They would want to continue the illusion of customer friendly tech.
I believe this is genuine support of the bill from Apple. Between Right to Repair winning in Massachusetts and the EU demanding compliance, I think Apple decided to flip the script. They would want to continue the illusion of customer friendly tech.
While this is very much welcome news, I am a little skeptical because this might still be a PR stunt.
Apple has shown they have the engineering capacity to design their devices to be virtually unfixable, all while still technically being compliant with this proposed piece of legislation.
Nonetheless, this show of support might finally be a means for us to end the ongoing culture war on repairability. It has been too much of a polarized debate lately, where opponents seem to be under the impression that a lack of repairability is a good thing for everyone, when it is really just having a choice that matters most.
Now that Apple has officially put in writing it’s support for repairability of consumer electronics, we can finally stop debating wether or not repairability is a good thing, and instead how we’re going to ensure the new situation works for everyone involved. Hopefully.
Those people you are talking about sound like the „willfully ignorant“. People who can’t be bothered to understand a topic they’re talking about. Oh, and sociopaths who just like others to suffer.
Agreed, they’re usually influenced by their emotional attachment to the Apple brand (or [insert fashionable electronics manufacturer here]). And my hunch is they respond to valid criticism with a defense along the lines of “they obviously know what they’re doing” or “tech is hard/dangerous/intellectual property, we can’t have just anybody working on it”.
The reality is, they often fail to see the bigger picture because they’re blinded by what they’ve convinced themselves is the truth. This unfortunately also means that clowning on them is counterproductive, as they won’t see the light without being eased into it.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t judge people for believing soldering an SSD to the motherboard is somehow innovative and progress, but it is hard to accompany our laughter with the patience to actually explain to them in a respectful manner that this is not the way.
It takes a hard reality check in the form of their data being gone when their SSD inevitably dies someday, and recovery not being an option “because you should have paid for an iCloud subscription”. Or it takes a way for “them” not to see “us” as the enemy when we’re advocating for Apple and competitors not to pull us further into a dystopian technological hellscape where devices are single use. Try convincing a cultists that they’re in a cult and they’ll see you as a threat. We have to make sure this doesn’t escalate into polarizing tech culture war any further than it already has.
We need repairability and sustainability to be the basis for consumer electronics going forward. Corporate profits don’t justify wasting resources on single-use electronics.
Very well thought out statement imo, thank you.
I agree that the hardcore apple people are kind of cult like. But next comes where I disagree: We can’t teach a cult member that his cult is bad without being a trained therapist (most times).
So imo we need to start earlier and outlaw the formation of these cults. They‘re not healthy and definitely not necessary as marketers would like you to believe.
Think about it: sports teams, digital games, consoles. They all are cult like and all of them take away critical thinking. People go nuts over their favorite sports team and will often complain (in my experience) of spending too much money on them, even if they struggle to keep stuff running smoothly.
The counter argument will be: „but that strengthens morale and keeps them going!“ No, wrong. It is one form of socializing that could have been done without alcohol in a better setting. It also keeps a lot of them on the hook.
The counter argument again is: „But not everyone has that kind of problem. No need to ruin it for everyone!“ Again, wrong. This argument is also self defeating as it implies that the person using it has no regard for people who fall victim to these practices. Also, I don’t want to outlaw soccer teams but the marketing strategies behind them. The aggravating language, the false sense of purpose behind owning a certain console and so on.
Interesting take, mind if I dig a little deeper?
The key part of Apple’s success is that they make idiotproof devices for people who want something to “just work” (insert linux desktop memes here). The way I’ve come to understand it in the last couple years (having relatives who’ve drank the cool-aid and are starting to spot the cracks in the facade), is that they have been pulled in by values way up high in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. They are locked into the ecosystem, believing that their current solution is somehow ideal and they seem most of all afraid that anything else will completely turn their world upside down. The weird part is that Apple manages somehow to convince people they are the only ones capable of providing an experience that will cover those needs.
The thing is: Being convinced that there is no greener grass elsewhere puts up a barrier to entry into the unknown. I really do wonder if the solution there is cracking down on marketing, as it would require broad sweeping legislation that would likely defeat the purpose.
Sure, companies will put forth the occasional blatant lie, misrepresenting their product, but oftentimes the heavy lifting is done by the established brand image. I would not know where to begin preventing such an image from forming in the first place without community pushback.
And that is where my original point comes in: If we push back by ridiculing the userbase we’ll have a culture war on our hands. The trick is to be smarter than that and actually show them that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Every time the consumer gets fucked over by corporate greed, it is because we’ve let it happen by accepting the slippery slope brought upon us. (Publicly traded) companies will only listen to financial consequences from their actions, which means we have the power to stop their bullshit by not buying into it. Doing so requires a large enough group of people to start spending money elsewhere.
Problem is: The current market is affected by Apple’s shenanigans (though examples of the same pattern are also found in other industries). Which means other manufacturers are copying all the anti-consumer design decisions and you’re not left with much of a choice.
This is where legislation comes in. By providing basic consumer protections like in the proposed right to repair bills, we can at least be sure to have the option of choosing our own repair provider.
Though I’m curious if there is an additional angle we need to explore as consumers. Having said all the above, would you still disagree that educating our peers in a respectful manner will lead to people changing their behaviour, and if so, why?
Thanks again for explaining ans elaborating in depth.
I‘ve been saying this for years and I might sound like a broken record by now:
As someone who has spent 18 yrs in marketing I have the strong suspicion that „occasional blatant misrepresentations“ are not the problem. They are pretty easy to spot.
What isn’t as easy to spot is the following:
Those are two types of ads that don’t „misrepresent“ the product but still play with your desires (being accepted and having status).
Now people always go like „but thats how you make ads!“ Not true. Thats how you make them now. It used to be (google it) and in parts still is a product representation instead of a lifestyle brand thing.
This is where I see the danger, especially for young and/or vulnerable people. They are told that „cool, connected people need this“ and their subconscious gobbles it up.
Now a lot of people go „but I am not like this.“ Wrong, you and I and everyone else is like this. You just may not be as susceptible to it than others are, hurray! This argument still makes you unempathetic towards the endless number of people who are less mentally strong than you are.
I could go on for days. Probably should write a q & a about it and link to it at some point.
Some facts:
That was awesome, thanks for sharing.
I fully get what you’re saying and I think I know a thing or two about how lifestyle branding consumes people’s lives to the point where they’re fully absorbed.
Social media platforms seem to be by far the worst offenders of stimulating this kind of addiction (let’s just name it for what it is).
Coming from a background of designing products, as opposed to selling them I tend to be focused on product representation, rather than selling an idea. Which is not actually the route to making stupid amounts of money.
You’ve convinced me that marketing is definitely part of the problem. Here in the Netherlands they’ve recently (about two years ago) relaxed some legislation on online gambling (gambling itself is legal, just the ads weren’t) and since we’ve seen a surge of ads on television and social media featuring sports icons and influencers. The result has been a giant increase in profits, which directly corelates to figures of increased debt, prevalent mostly in young adults. I firmly believe this is toxic and needs to be fixed asap.
If you do decide to host a Q&A I’ll be sure to have a look for more cool insights.
Thank you very much! I appreciate the acknowledgment.
You‘re correct and then some, Social Media is more or less a giant ad platform, at least conventional ones are. The fediverse has no real „ads“ but a lot of jerks try to advertise for free here. That’s hardly gonna be a real problem (I hope).
Product design sounds like a cool job as well. Still tech or something else entirely?
The issue with marketing is precedent:
From there we have precedent that we are allowed to lie „a little bit“. Not keep information for us like a good salesman but outright misrepresent the product.
The same goes for all other products. You see a motor drill in a hardware store prospect: 39,99* Farther down the page, it says „if you are gold member [and we sell your data], otherwise 139.99.“
And there you have it again, precedent. If we allow giant companies to market like this, we shouldn’t wonder why they bullshit us in every other alley (taxes, labor laws, environment).
Thanks for encouraging me to make a q&a, will definitely let you know if I do. But since you‘re seemingly one of three people on the internet who is open to learn stuff, how would you think some kind of podcast/blog? Would you participate?
All they are doing is shifting the argument because they have realised they cannot outright go against it any more. Now their argument will be they are for right to repair, so long as it does not compromise on security, only focus on authorised channels, and force people to declare the use of used and non genuine parts. All of those points they make in this support letter. And all give them control to stifle the repairability of their devices.
You can see this already with the amount of parts that are serialised already - they will just continue to argue that you cannot replace these parts are it will compromise the security of the product. Or that parts will only be made available to authorised places - where they have to sign a whole bunch of documents giving up on a lot of your rights to enter. Then offer no real useful parts except some expensive whole assemblies.
I don’t think this changes their stance on right to repair at all - now they are just arguing the same points they always have been but from the other side. So they have better sway over the bills and look better to the public. I don’t see this changing anything.