• baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • wjrii@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Lojcs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

        • eric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • 3laws@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • eric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

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

    • Alto@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year 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.