"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.
  • the post of tom joadEnglish
    7·
    11 months ago

    shareholders less profit, which is illegal in the US.

    This is a bit of a misnomer. It is illegal for a company to deliberately lower share value, not to make a business move that ends up lowering share value.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      11 months ago

      Specifically, it’s the fiduciary duty of the directors to act in the best interests of the shareholders.

      In other words, the consumer doesn’t matter, the employees don’t matter beyond what the law mandates, and the quality of the product or service doesn’t matter until it starts impacting profits or stock values. The only time these actually need to be given any consideration is when it would serve to benefit shareholders, such as with hiring skilled talent or before the company has a reputation for quality products.