Re: "Right to Repair" vs FRUs

On 10/2/24 08:43, Don Y wrote:

Is it safe to assume that any Right-to-Repair legislation (US)
would *not* require finer-grained subassembly availability
than that available to their depots?
 I.e., if the *documented* repair policies don't call for
replacing a particular component with another but, instead,
indicate replacing the containing FRU, then one would
likely never have to make the "particular component"
available to customers?
 Said another way, consumers should never be expected to be
able to use the vendor as a general purpose "parts warehouse"
at any level finer than the documented FRUs...
 

what would be the point of right to repair then?
Apple could continue to use a power-supply chip they
deliberately have made to be incompatible with $0.10
otherwise identical IC, so they can say sorry you can't
buy that, but we'll sell you a new motherboard for $1000