"It is our belief that the bill’s current language around parts pairing will undermine the security, safety, and privacy of Oregonians by forcing device manufacturers to allow the use of parts of unknown origin in consumer devices."

Key Points:

  • Apple opposed a right-to-repair bill in Oregon, despite previously supporting a weaker one in California.
  • The key difference is Oregon’s restriction on “parts pairing,” which locks repairs to Apple or authorized shops.
  • Apple argues this protects security and privacy, but critics say it creates a repair monopoly and e-waste.
  • Apple claims their system eases repair and maintain data security, while Google doesn’t have such a requirement
  • Apple refused suggestions to revise the bill
  • Cybersecurity experts argue parts pairing is unnecessary for security and hinders sustainable repair.
  • bobs_monkey@lemm.eeEnglish
    81·
    9 months ago

    Nah I fully get where you’re coming from, but locking out users is a cop out. Considering Apple’s M-series chips being “system-on-chips” integrating the CPU, GPU, RAM, and more, I can slightly understand limitations with someone trying to do dual monitor video rendering or 3d modeling overloading the chip and crashing the system on lower end chips. But even then, there could easily be a software mechanism that disallows such use when loads are too high as well as a warning to the user by way of a pop up prompt. Modern monitors using display port via thunderbolt and USB C while claiming the chip can’t handle it is such a silly restriction when 3rd party software can mitigate it. Like I understand to an extent that they’ve made computing easy for the technologically uneducated and illiterate, but given their track record with other business decisions, this seems like more of just another “we like money” scenario instead of protect grandma.

    Awesome username btw

    • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
      8·
      9 months ago

      You don’t need additional monitors to overload the GPU you can do that with compute code alone, no actual graphics needed much less outputting graphics.

      Also it’s not terribly hard to prioritise scheduling such that certain aspects of the system remain responsive no matter how high the load, do that until you kill the resource-hungry process for exceeding hard limits and then display a popup sending the user to the apple store to buy an even stronger machine that’s even more overpriced. There, done. That still wouldn’t be a Mac I’d buy, but it’d be an Apple I’d respect, none of this “things are better when they’re worse” kind of gaslighting. That includes thinness of devices, btw, modern Apple laptops are severely crippled by their atrocious thermals, the beefiest CPU doesn’t do you any good if you can’t dissipate even half of the heat it produces, when you can run all cores at full tilt for a full half a second before it has to throttle to a crawl to not melt itself.

      Sidenote: Can OSX maximise windows nowadays? Did they get around to implementing it?

      • datavoid@lemmy.mlEnglish
        4·
        9 months ago

        Sidenote: Can OSX maximise windows nowadays? Did they get around to implementing it?

        Don’t worry, you can buy a program to accomplish everything they forgot to put in the OS…

        Seriously though, the M series hardware is impressive, but it’s not like apple software is actually more reliable. I’m running Ableton Live on an M1 air, and while it performs much better than on windows, it crashes exactly the same if you happen to choose the wrong order of operations. At least on windows you can choose “wait for this program to respond” - on mac you’re going straight to desktop.