this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
1111 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

63186 readers
3659 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 29 points 2 years ago (5 children)

mcdonalds is somehow profiting from this, or it just wouldnt be happening.

[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Taylor must pay McDonald’s a tidy sum for the exclusivity contract. Both parties make out like bandits in the deal. I’m kind of surprised McDonald’s never in-housed it out of greed, but that day may be coming due to all the negative publicity.

[–] gammasfor@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

I suspect it's a case of they thought they were getting a good deal out of this when they signed the contract but didn't realise how much Taylor was going to take the piss until it was too late. Likely when the contract expires it probably won't be renewed.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

It's not an exclusive contract, franchise owners can also buy Carpigiani machines.

[–] wjrii@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

From the article: "A DMCA exemption would allow McDonald’s franchises to legally do repair work on their own machines."

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Wait, copyright can be used to prevent repairs? What is the justification? Is it a "ice cream machine company owns the copyright to mcdonalds ice cream and if you tamper with the machine you can't call it McDonald's ice cream anymore" kind of deal or is tampering straight up illegal?

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

More likely someone at McDonalds than the company itself.

[–] 3laws@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The company itself, they profit from the repairs.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How? A different company sells and services the machines, and it is not a subsidiary of the McDonalds Corporation.

[–] 3laws@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There's literally no other explanation, McDonald's can only do whatever brings them profit, and they did the math I'm sure, this HAS to be profitable.

[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

No. I already gave another more probable explanation that happens all the time in business.

[–] Alto@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Eh not necessarily. It's a common joke, and ifixit gets publicity both for their own brand and for right to repair out of it

Edit: unless you meant they're getting something out of it being so locked down, in which case yeah. Corporate basically gets to pass the costs down to individual franchisees even more

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Not necessarily. If the losses they are sustaining aren't understood or obfuscated through corporate and bureaucratic bullshit, it could go unnoticed for quite a while.