10 ms·

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

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-to-repair-law-electronics-devices-parts-pairing https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/29/24166894/colorado-right-t...

bberenberg 2y ago
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?
- g_p 2y ago
  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.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    > 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. 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.
    - mozman 2y ago
      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.
    - willseth 2y ago
      What do you believe then?
      - freedomben 2y ago
        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!
        willseth 2y ago
- Nifty3929 2y ago
  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.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  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-parts-for-repairs/ https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/11/apple-to-allow-used-par...
  - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
    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"...
    - batch12 2y ago
      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.
      - SkyPuncher 2y ago
        That seems like a completely reasonable trade off. Phones that don’t boot are pretty much worthless right now anyways.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - freeone3000 2y ago
        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…?)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
j-bos 2y ago
What's the reasoning for excluding motor vehicles when aftermarket mods have always been a staple of car culture?
- userbinator 2y ago
  Maybe there's already sufficient laws in place (due to the car culture) to not need an overlap?
  - bonestamp2 2y ago
    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.
- tbeseda 2y ago
  Maybe safety. But also CO is a pretty high emissions state at the moment and many mods can contribute to that.
  - patrick451 2y ago
    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.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      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.
- smolder 2y ago
  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.
mozman 2y ago
Medical devices and aircraft are the only legitimate exceptions - everything else should be repairable.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  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.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    > Medical devices and aircraft should NEVER be the exemptions. > "if a third party manufacturer is selling an FDA approved replacement battery for an older hearing aid," 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.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      > The FDA and FAA are massive bureaucracies that are not going to get into the business of regulating electronics 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.
rustcleaner 2y ago
>There are some exclusions We must not allow exceptions, it must be every single universal machine!

bberenberg 2y ago

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?

g_p 2y ago
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.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  > 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. 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.
  - mozman 2y ago
    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.
  - willseth 2y ago
    What do you believe then?
    - freedomben 2y ago
      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!
      - willseth 2y ago
Nifty3929 2y ago
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.
gjsman-1000 2y ago
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-parts-for-repairs/ https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/11/apple-to-allow-used-par...
- dumbo-octopus 2y ago
  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"...
  - batch12 2y ago
    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.
    - SkyPuncher 2y ago
      That seems like a completely reasonable trade off. Phones that don’t boot are pretty much worthless right now anyways.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - freeone3000 2y ago
      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…?)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

j-bos 2y ago

What's the reasoning for excluding motor vehicles when aftermarket mods have always been a staple of car culture?

userbinator 2y ago
Maybe there's already sufficient laws in place (due to the car culture) to not need an overlap?
- bonestamp2 2y ago
  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.
tbeseda 2y ago
Maybe safety. But also CO is a pretty high emissions state at the moment and many mods can contribute to that.
- patrick451 2y ago
  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.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    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.
smolder 2y ago
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.

mozman 2y ago

Medical devices and aircraft are the only legitimate exceptions - everything else should be repairable.

dghlsakjg 2y ago
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.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  > Medical devices and aircraft should NEVER be the exemptions. > "if a third party manufacturer is selling an FDA approved replacement battery for an older hearing aid," 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.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    > The FDA and FAA are massive bureaucracies that are not going to get into the business of regulating electronics 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.

rustcleaner 2y ago

>There are some exclusions We must not allow exceptions, it must be every single universal machine!