“The big exceptions are video game consoles and alarm systems.”
Why specifically exclude game consoles?
I’m guessing because then states would need to heavily modify code laws on things like fire alarm requirements. Those regulations are for anyone who might have to walk into your house.
For the same reason you need a licence in most places to install fire and security systems. If you make a mistake, people can die.
Legal and liability nightmare I’d guess. Imagine someone dies in a house fire so they sue the repair shop, or insurance refuses to pay because you modified your alarm.
Not saying this is a good excuse, but I suspect it’s related to DRM / cheating.
Video game consoles exist for the sole purpose of playing protected content, and they rely on part on verifying things haven’t been tampered with to discourage creating.
That’s the slipperiest slope ever. All modern computing is full of DRM. I watch Netflix on my Mac and game on my desktop, should I have no rights?
Again not saying it’s a good excuse. You’re right that modern computing is full of DRM, but unlike a computer, an Xbox is literally just a DRM box. They rely on their hardware DRM to prevent piracy.
Not sure if it’s still the case but back in the day, people would install aftermarket disc readers in early 360s specifically to allow it to play unprotected game discs, so anyone with a DVD burner could burn a pirated ISO onto a disc for their Xbox
Video game consoles exist for the sole purpose of playing protected content,
Consoles have never been good at handling protected content. I’m pretty sure they have higher piracy rates than PC, purely because PC will emulate them.
Pretty sure the main reason has always been form factor and self-contained. People get consoles because they don’t want the setup that a PC entails. That and up until around 10 years ago maybe, PCs were prohibitively more expensive than consoles.
But hell, even back in the 90s my first experience with Pokemon was on no$GB
Louis Rossmann’s video is a good take on this. Basically the anti-repair stance they have held for so long is evolving into a passive approach where it is either too costly or too difficult to repair
What they are saying is that Apple is now fine with people repairing their own devices because the cost of the equipment/parts to replace parts in their own devices likely is more expensive than the average Joe is willing to sink into a DIY project, with none guaranteed results, as opposed to just send it to Apple for a repair.
Sure people can now send it to a third party for a fix but if the cost for a repair at a third party shop is marginally lower than an Apple repair, Apple is betting that a customer will likely choose them vs. a third party.
Apple will be gatekeepers over NEW replacement parts for their devices so it’s a win win win for them. They win if you buy their parts to replace parts, they win if you take it to a third party and you buy their parts and they win if you take it to Apple for service and repairs.
I couldn’t really give two flying fucks what any business supports for legislation.
However, I do care that their opinions weigh more heavily than anyone else’s.
