[larossmann]

>I would not support anything that added a microgram to my iPhone or MacBook or give up even one tiny feature to support the tiny fraction of people who can do repairs. I would be comfortable with establishing a legal framework that allows standing for litigation on the basis of "subverting the right-to-repair for anti-competitive reasons" with those reasons being constrained to behavior truly unwarranted and without meaningful contribution to the quality of the product I get.

Luckily, nothing I've advocated for will do that!

Keep your A1989 Macbook the way it is. Change nothing, but this one thing: when it stops charging, let Louis(or you) buy an ISL9240 from mouser.com. And let people buy a schematic from Apple, instead of waiting for it to get pirated to vinafix, or leaked to me by a fan who works at Apple.

That's it. That's all.

No change to your device's functionality, no change to your device's weight, no change to your device's software.

Does this sound fair?

I really do want to engage with people who have concerns about what Right to Repair might do to their devices. I want to learn your concerns. I want to learn how to ensure Right to Repair bills, as they are drafted, never inconvenience you or lower the quality of the devices you use. I want to learn how to create messaging that makes it clear that this is my goal.

Serious question, and I'd be honored to get a reply.