"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.
  • @BearOfaTime@lemm.eeEnglish
    -3•10 months ago

    Meh, the ice cream machine is a different thing. I haven’t figured out fully how it benefits McD’s, I suspect there’s little profit margin on ice cream, but having the machine at all still brings (hopeful) people in who buy something else. A bait-and-switch.

    McD’s uses the same machine as many other places, but they have the temp variance much tighter, so much tighter that after the daily cleaning cycle, it takes hours to get back to temp.

    Then (and this is probably what you’re referring to), if the machine has a code, the franchise is required by contract to use the repair service that comes with the machine lease.

    There’s an indedependent dev who wrote a code reader/reset tool for the machines, and McD’s isn’t happy about it.

    I’m not clear how doing the maintenence this way benefits McD’s, unless they own the servicing company, and it doesn’t appear that they do.

    In the end, it means McD’s will often not actually have ice cream available. But these are franchises, so it would hurt the franchise most directly. Seems there’d be a potential legal issue here, if it could be proven.