Apple Opposes ‘Right to Repair’ Legislation in Nebraska

A report on Tuesday claimed that Apple is planning to send a representative to testify against a proposed “Right to Repair” bill in Nebraska that would require the company provide consumers and third-party repair shops access to service manuals and parts.

According to a new report from Motherboard, Apple is creating interesting arguments for the case. For instance, they are saying that this legislation will turn the state into a “mecca” for hackers. These legislation are currently making their way through eight states, including Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, Wyoming, Minnesota, Kansas, Illinois, and Massachusetts.

Right to repair bills in each state require manufacturers to provide software tools to bypass locks that prevent repair. Last year, a software update to iOS caused Apple’s infamous “Error 53,” which bricked iPhones that had been repaired by consumers or independent repair shops. Apple did not respond to a request for comment, and Kester, reached by phone, told me he is not authorized to speak to the press.

Apple intends to send a representative or lobbyist to present against the proposed bill in a hearing slated to take place in Lincoln on March 9.

Apple will be joined by AT&T and at least one of the companies plans to argue the passage of Nebraska’s bill. The concern is that device owners or independent shops performing unauthorized repairs might unintentionally cause lithium batteries to catch fire.

The use of high density lithium batteries in portable devices like the iPhone has become a talking point after Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 incident last year.

A software engineer with a passion for creation and innovation using technology. To learn more about me, check out my personal website, which contains links to my projects. Email: nick@iphoneincanada.ca

  • FragilityG4

    More like they don’t want to lose that expensive repair money ….

  • Bill___A

    Sometimes, attitudes get clouded by what one might assume to be the answer when it isn’t. Lithium batteries are dangerous. Are we talking about authorized repair centers with apple trained and certified technicians working on the iphones, or just anyone who can use a screwdriver. We don’t want fires and explosions. Maybe whomever is forcing the issue should try and prove why or why not this should be done, and people should pay attention to the technical merits of that proof.

  • Apple Consumer

    I can get my car repaired at any garage that I choose. Why is it any different with Apple equipment? It isn’t. Apple would seem to want to MONOPOLIZE equipment repairs.

  • Normand

    A very wise reply.

    Thank you.

  • IBoy

    Wrong. Your car is dangerous, your water heater is dangerous, lots of things are dangerous. Yet you have the right to repair these as you see fit. This is a pure money grab. Apple doesn’t anyone else to fix it because they lose out. Imagine if Ford says that from now on, you must buy “Ford Tires” for your car. If you put any other tire on your car, your warranty is voided. What would you think?

  • huddyrocks

    There are literally 1000’s of parts that, although can be installed by anyone, are “dealer only” parts. Ford ( or any other manufacturer) have been doing this for years. They also encrypt their ECU’s making it difficult for people to reprogram . If tools are let out for apple, android, blackberry OS’s that allow anyone to “crack” the OS, this could be potentially bad for all users.

  • IBoy

    Read the article. People just want the right to repair what they own. I bought it, i own it, I have the right to do anything I want with it. Companies should not be allowed to interfere with my property. What happened to property rights? Name another industry that can “brick” your property that you rightfully own, just because they don’t like what you are doing with it. What if Ford could brick your car just because you happened to install a non Ford battery? Just look at your other examples. Are these companies looking after your best interests? Do you actually trust any of these companies? Do you think that Volkswagen could have gotten away with their criminal activity if their software was open? How about Blackberry touting their security? Then we find out that there is a global backdoor into all of their phones. Do you think that would have happened if the OS was open? Security through obscurity is bad for all users.

  • huddyrocks

    Fundamental flaw to your argument, you bought a license to use the software , not manipulate it. It is clearly in the EULA that you agreed to and didn’t read. There are no property rights because you never owned it, and you agreed to that. I have no problem with software I don’t own stating it will only run on the hardware it supplied or exact OEM equivalent. That guarantees things work as they are designed. If iOS was open you wouldn’t need a back door, the front door is wide open. No thanks….

  • IBoy

    Again, read the article. The law that these States want is the “right to repair”. NOT the “right to hack”. You brought up the OS, not me. The law does not force companies to open their software. It enshrines the right to repair YOUR own property. This came about in part due to John Deere tractors in Nebraska. Even doing the simplest of minor repairs, like adjusting the firmness of the seat, required you to take the tractor into an authorized dealer. Is this right? Is this fair? This is what these laws are about, protecting consumer’s rights.

    EULA’s are a joke. Unless you are a Harvard educated contract lawyer, you have no idea what’s in the EULA and what it means.
    Did you know that if the company bricks your phone by accident, you can’t sue? Most EULA force you to arbitration, with judges and locations of their choosing. Did you know that you don’t even have to use their product to sign away your rights? Some EULA are agreed to just by opening the package.
    EULA (and DRM) threatens the very concept of “ownership”. BTW, “ownership” is a fundamental tenet of our democratic society.

    As for “open OS”, you are really naive. A great example is Linux. Linux (an open OS) is used everywhere. Banks, utilities, governments, even Apple uses Linux. Do you really think there is a huge “open front door” in Linux? Do you really believe banks would be using Linux if there were huge security holes?
    In fact Linux is more secure because it is open. Being open allows experts can examine the software, see what’s really happening. It allows experts to identify security holes and plug them. With closed OS’s, you just gotta hope the company fixes it before the bad guys exploit it. That’s even if they admit there ware any problems to begin with. You should be thanking open source software, it’s making all of us much safer.

    Let’s take a look at another example, self-driving cars. The self-driving car’s software will cause some accidents, it will happen. Some people might may even die. Now, would you rather have the engineers fix the problem AND show everyone they fixed it? Or just cross your fingers when they say they fixed the problem, but can’t show or tell you how, because the software is proprietary? Would you trust closed software from a company like Volkswagen? Once people die, you’ll be screaming for open OS’s for self-driving cars.

    These corporations are incrementally taking away your rights and you blindly click a check box to give up those rights. Wake up! Or soon, everything you buy, won’t be yours.

  • IBoy

    Again, read the article. The law that these States want is the “right to repair”. NOT the “right to hack”. You brought up the OS, not me. The law does not force companies to open their software. It enshrines the right to repair YOUR own property.This came about in part due to John Deere tractors in Nebraska. Even doing the simplest of minor repairs, like adjusting the firmness of the seat, required you to take the tractor into an authorized dealer. Is this right? Is this fair? This is what these laws are about, protecting consumer’s rights.

    EULA’s are a joke. Unless you are a Harvard educated contract lawyer, you have no idea what’s in the EULA and what it means. Did you know that if the company bricks your phone by accident, you can’t sue? Most EULA force you to arbitration, with judges and locations of their choosing. Did you know that you don’t even have to use their product to sign away your rights? Some EULA are agreed to just by opening the package. EULA (and DRM) threatens the very concept of “ownership”. BTW, “ownership” is a fundamental tenet of our democratic society.

    As for “open OS”, you are really naive. A great example is Linux. Linux (an open OS) is used everywhere. Banks, utilities, governments, even Apple uses Linux. Do you really think there is a huge “open front door” in Linux? Do you really believe banks would be using Linux if there were huge security holes? In fact Linux is more secure because it is open. Being open allows experts can examine the software, see what’s really happening. It allows experts to identify security holes and plug them. With closed OS’s, you just gotta hope the company fixes it before the bad guys exploit it. That’s even if they admit there ware any problems to begin with. You should be thanking open source software, it’s making us safer.

    Let’s take a look at another example, self-driving cars. The self-driving car’s software will cause some accidents, it will happen. Some people might may even die. Now, would you rather have the engineers fix the problem AND show everyone they fixed it? Or just cross your fingers when they say they fixed the problem, but can’t show or tell you how, because the software is proprietary? Would you trust closed software from a company like Volkswagen? Once people die, you’ll be screaming for open OS’s for self-driving cars.

    These corporations are incrementally taking away your rights. Wake up! Or soon, everything you buy, won’t be yours.

  • huddyrocks

    Actually the article you keep telling me to read (I did) is what brought up the OS not me. You might want to read it.
    As for EULA’s being a joke, they are actually legal binding agreements you enter into. Again, you don’t own software, you purchase a license to use it. Not sure why you’re not getting that.
    Although I appreciate the personal attacks , I won’t reply in kind. I don’t think it is either constructive or intelligent.
    Although I appreciate you believe you are right, I don’t. We could banter back and forth , Me quoting the dozens of very public times superior “open” operating systems have been breached, you coming back with another personal insult and make believe scenarios , like self driving cars killing people, of what could go wrong . We’ll have to agree to disagree I’m afraid . I’m not changing your mind, and you’re not changing mine…