Sure, that part is straightforward. But it's also tied to the mechanism by which a repair shop would get parts... which gets us back to the business decisions at the heart of the conflict between AASP and Right to Repair.
Therefore bringing up Apple attaching their name to the repair as a justification when someone is criticizing the AASP's design is a deflection.
I guess I am out of touch on the topic. Why would Apple ever want to engage with this unless forced to do so by an external entity? There looks to be zero benefit except for power users who can self repair and repair shops. Would it be fair to say these changes are primarily to get ahead of legal concerns and any tangible gains are vapor?
>Why would Apple ever want to engage with this unless forced to do so by an external entity?
You're right, this gets to the heart of the way manufacturers exert control over goods after sale. Apple is far on the restrictive end of the spectrum regarding consumer electronics. [Insert your own speculation about business reasons behind the obviously deceptive and incomplete public justifications here.]
>Would it be fair to say these changes are primarily to get ahead of legal concerns
Yes, nakedly so.
>any tangible gains are vapor?
Anyone with passing awareness of Apple's previous aftermarket repair stance would have to be blindly optimistic to see this press release as anything but expanding the customer base of a program that let select shops do a limited number of fixes, often at might-as-well-buy-new cost of goods.
I don't mean to be standoffish to people like yourself that don't have the context. But when it's just us chuckleheads talking shop on the internet, I'm no fan of the people who are informed on context kidding themselves that PR statements shouldn't be read as critically as possible.
Therefore bringing up Apple attaching their name to the repair as a justification when someone is criticizing the AASP's design is a deflection.