52 replies
23h11m
I was wondering if this would be carved up with exceptions, but it's actually rather strong comparable to what state laws we have had so far per [1]
Like the repair rules passed in Minnesota last year, Colorado’s law notably covers data center and business-to-business equipment, only without Minnesota’s vague exclusion for “critical infrastructure” equipment.
There are some exclusions, like game consoles (due to lobbying from game console manufacturers over piracy concerns), medical devices, ATVs, and motor vehicles, which are also typical for repair rules introduced in other states like California and New York. Like Oregon’s right-to-repair law, Colorado’s HB24-1121 explicitly prohibits electronics manufacturers from using “parts pairing” to prevent replacement components from working unless approved by company software.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/29/24166894/colorado-right-t...
So what does this mean for Apple devices? They will have to back away from pairing? If yes, then it should work everywhere? Or will they agree to pay whatever fines in CO to avoid changing this elsewhere? Is there another option I should be thinking about?
My guess is they will retain "parts pairing" from a technical perspective, but frame it as an anti theft measure, and focus on preventing use of stolen device parts.
Perhaps they'll relax the restrictions on "non first party" components (likely you'll lose some functionality that aftermarket parts don't actually support), but use pairing to lock out parts from stolen phones.
I suspect that part of their strategy is to try to make stolen iPhones less attractive to thieves, and effective parts pairing would likely reduce the market for stolen phones stripped for parts.
Of course, if you can "blank" off a stolen part to appear as an unofficial one, that doesn't work! That idea is therefore likely to face challenges.
The challenge will be what is really meant by parts pairing - to some extent if you want to do some features securely (say touch ID), you probably want to pair the reader to the secure enclave with a shared AES key and similar. There could be tooling to reset and re-establish that pairing on an unlocked device.
Legislation often struggles to define exactly what is required though, so it will certainly be interesting to see how Apple responds.
Fine let me take my phone to the official store, do some authentication and let them give that configuration of components the stamp of approval. That way they know that I am aware of all the parts that comprise my phone and want them to work. If some component turns out to originate from a phone that was reported stolen then fine, it's not part of their remit to act on that and not my problem either, assuming I bought it fair and square. (Assuming common law or similar, ymmv)
Under the law, the rightful owner of stolen property can demand its return. If it's currently installed in your phone, that's your problem, even if you bought it "fair and square" - that just gives you a claim on the merchant who sold you stolen goods.
The exception to this is currency: if you're fairly paid with stolen money, you get to keep the money, regardless of whether the rightful owner is able to proof that it was originally theirs and stolen.
Which law is that now? As I'm sure an expert like you knows, this will vary by jurisdiction.
The fact that somebody may take a replevin claim against me because the digitizer in my phone was removed from their stolen phone does not, imho, have any bearing on Apple's rights and responsibilities with regard to me as a customer.
Sigh. You're both making claims that could be different between jurisdictions. If you don't know that, then you should probably stop now.
Friend, you were the one who assumed "common law or similar". This is ancient common law precedent from England.
Not sure what fair and square means wrt buying stolen property. In most cases you would lose possession of it, in some cases you’re actually criminally liable.
I'm referring to the concept also known as "bona fide purchaser"
Depends on here you live. In some places, buying stolen parts is illegal. In those places, they would probably have a defense, since it would not be “fair and square”.
Isn't that just what they already do? Apple has consistently framed the parts pairing as being about theft deterrence. I don't believe them for a second (and nor should anyone), but that is certainly what they claim.
What do you believe then?
I'm not GP, but I agree entirely with them. I believe apple is doing it to maximize the value of official parts, and to make it as hard as possible for people to do self-repairs and for third party shops to do repairs. They want you fully in their walled garden, and that includes their retail stores.
I don't doubt at all that they see the theft deterrence as a significant benefit. I wouldn't even doubt that internally they justify many of their actions based on theft deterrence.
However, if it was only about theft deterrence, I would expect to see some things be a little bit different. If they actually supported customers repairing their devices, or third-party stores, there would be differences in how they approach this. We have plenty of history of Apple's behavior to know how they feel about self-repair and third-party stores, without even considering the theft deterrent actions.
How utterly and incredibly serendipitous for Apple, that they are able to solve the problem of theft, and it just so happens to also accomplish a ton of their other goals that they have been working on for a long time!
This is pretty vague. You claim there would be “differences” if it were actually about theft deterrence and that it accomplishes “a ton of other goals” but don’t give an example.
The problem with most of the theories about Apple having ulterior motives about parts pairing is that there’s no evidence that parts sales are even a blip on their revenue, not to mention a profit center. I have trouble imagining what those motives might be besides securing devices and restricting use of black market parts.
They also use the United States Customs to seize repair part shipments to undermine independent repair operations. Louis Rossman has some excellent videos on this.
there’s no “maybe” about it, people forget that this was legislatively mandated at the time, and considered a positive step to prevent muggings and phone theft (which were drastically reduced by these measures). And this was actually done over the objections of the tech industry at the time.
https://www.techlicious.com/blog/call-for-kill-switch-to-dea...
https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/20/tech/mobile/smartphone-kill-s...
https://www.pcmag.com/news/cell-phone-kill-switches-prompt-d...
Apple has already announced they are killing parts pairing as it is currently implemented. They will, however, block the use of parts which came from a parent device marked as stolen.
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/11/apple-to-allow-used-par...
This makes perfect sense and is a Good and Right thing to do. It properly devalues stolen goods while allowing a third party repair shop industry to exist that purchases "for parts" broken devices from some users and more cheaply repairs others' using said parts.
The main thing potentially missing is there has to be a way that the shop can verify the given device's parts are not marked stolen prior to purchasing it "for parts"...
That seems like a hard problem for a phone that won't boot. You'd only be able to verify the device's serial from the labels. To validate each component you'd have to take the device apart.
Stolen phones are blacklisted by serial and IMEI2, so the label will cover the vast majority of cases (unless they’re putting stolen parts inside of a legitimately purchased case…?)
Which they have no reason to do unless the device is functional (and then the parts could be identified in software), because they could just as easily fill a non-functional device with cat litter or old newspapers instead of going through the trouble of sourcing functional stolen parts.
That seems like a completely reasonable trade off. Phones that don’t boot are pretty much worthless right now anyways.
I assume they will just price their repair parts accordingly. Maybe this will drive 3rd party development of compatible parts, and then consumers will decide to pay for the Apple OEM part or the knock-off.
What's the reasoning for excluding motor vehicles when aftermarket mods have always been a staple of car culture?
I think you nailed it. The voting population generally disapproves of 'car culture'. Foolish trends like removing catalytic converters and running super loud exhausts for single digit horsepower gains or hooning on public roads don't do its image any favors. But the most basic reason is just that the industry lobby that wants to lock down cars is much stronger than the independent/shade tree mechanic lobby that doesn't.
And there is so much more. One of my pet peeves was idiots lifting their trucks but doing nothing with their headlights or worse getting "brighter" headlights. It is possible to be stuck in traffic and be practically blinded by the truck behind you in your mirrors.
This kind of behavior is why I have no problem with manufacturers moving towards digital camera-based sideview mirrors. Plenty of experience being blinded especially at night, very grateful for the "flip up" trick on the rearview that cuts brightness.
I like to adjust the side mirrors so that the excessive light from the car behind me is reflected back at them. Sometimes, they get the hint.
Don't worry, the Chinese got this trend covered with the 1000000 lumen headlights (actually producing about 1000 which is far less than the normal 1500).
Even worse when they replace the lights with LEDs that are brighter than the sun and color balanced heavily into the blue area of the spectrum.
Maybe safety. But also CO is a pretty high emissions state at the moment and many mods can contribute to that.
One of the many drawbacks of EVs is their lack of repair-ability and modability compared to ICE counterparts. This bill could be been an good way to change that.
EV's are mechanically much simpler that ICE and need less repair. The problem is all the computers which is really an all modern cars problem people blame on EV's.
Maybe there's already sufficient laws in place (due to the car culture) to not need an overlap?
Agreed. There's already a lot of legislation around automotive (and it's pretty good) so maybe they wanted to steer clear of that to avoid legal conflicts with other state's laws. The dealer lobby is also particularly litigious, so perhaps they want to avoid going down that path when it's not really necessary at this time.
Car dealerships are a massive lobbying/influence group in local politics.
Some car dealerships are actually bigger and have higher profits than manufacturers. It's wild.
John Deere maybe?
Medical devices and aircraft are the only legitimate exceptions - everything else should be repairable.
Medical devices and aircraft should NEVER be the exemptions.
Those are two category of product that have one of the longest lives of consumer goods, and have serious external guardrails and regulations around their safety.
There are MANY 50 year old aircraft flying around still, the average GA fleet age is 35+. Part of that is that replacement parts are approved by the FAA, and not the OEM. If the FAA says I can use an Garmin transponder in my Cessna, Cessna can't brick my plane even if they have a deal with Icom. There are still aftermarket parts being sold for models that were discontinued in the 1950s. Imagine if we had to throw away every old airplane when the manufacturer went bust.
Medical devices are the same, if a third party manufacturer is selling an FDA approved replacement battery for an older hearing aid, I would be pissed if the manufacturer bricked my device for not using their battery. Or even worse, how mad would you be if the original manufacturer, and the secret signing key for their batteries, went out of business and you didn't even have the option of an expensive OEM battery.
Medical devices include the likes of x-ray machines. I don't think I would relish the idea of my dentist saving a buck on maintainance and calibration. I think a more precise follow-up bill that covers things that aren't life threatening (like hearing aids) would be more appropriate.
Forcing an x-ray to be serviceable is not the same as making it legal for an amateur serviced machine to be used.
There are also all sorts of existing legal remedies for things like this. If you blast someone with x-rays through negligence like letting an amateur fiddle with the x-ray machine, you will have some serious legal issues regardless of whether or not the OEM is legally required to sell replacement parts.
You can have one law that says that medical machines must be repairable, and then you can have another law that says that medical machine repairers must be trained, or that repairs have to be inspected.
This is already a common thing in life or death services, yeah, anyone can do the work to wire their own house (since its an open standard), but that doesn't mean that a qualified electrician and inspector doesn't have to put their names that the work has been done to a safe standard.
That is not universally true in the US--and is probably widely ignored even in jurisdictions where it is theoretically true.
Would the availability of such things as documented, published, manufacturer-supplied methods for maintenance and calibration of dental x-ray machines increase the likelihood of your dentist trying to save a buck on these tasks, compared to the unavailability of these things?
Why, or why not?
I'm pretty sure malpractice insurance would love to not pay the doctor if they are caught doing anything like this. That threat alone would prevent doctors from doing stupid things.
The FDA and FAA are massive bureaucracies that are not going to get into the business of regulating electronics. Practically, medical devices and aircraft should be exempt, as things are today. Suggesting legislation should be written otherwise, is negligent at best and malicious at worst.
The FAA has been in the business of regulating electronics for more than half a century. They are also in the business of certifying that replacement parts meet the same standards even when not endorsed by the manufacturer. There is a reason that a 1970 Cessna can have a modern avionics suite.
Not ships or other forms of transportation?
To heck with that. My right to reverse engineer and fabricate parts for an airplane that I own is ALREADY enshrined in federal law, and our aviation user groups are funded and motivated to protect this privilege. It is as applicable to American Airlines (they have used it, for example, to produce replacement MD-80 tailcones) as it is to a dude with a Cessna.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/january/09...
Edit - Source on AA fabricating their own tailcones: https://www.flightglobal.com/american-airlines-drives-effici...
Is this sarcasm? I disagree vehemently. These are things that should be the most repairable.
What are your thoughts on the artificial eye company that shut down, possibly leaving patients with non-working and non-repairable implants in their head [1]?
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete
We must not allow exceptions, it must be every single universal machine!