511–520 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot the springs. Lighting has the springs in the device, while USB-C has them on the cable. That is why Apple stopped improving Lighting and developed USB-C. The stem can break, but it is far more rare than a tired spring, which is an inevitability.
> That is why Apple stopped improving Lighting and developed USB-C They did not develop USB-C. That was a thing started by Gruber.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lazy reasoning. Previous bad press when changing 30-pin to lightning.
The bad press was because it was a proprietary-connector-against-a-newer-proprietary-connector. Had Apple changed for USB-C at the time, or USB mini, it would have made the same positive press as when the Macbook Pro got back to normal (ie not “Here’s a single port for everything, go buy an Apple dongle if you want to plug a screen”).
USB was _awful_ at that point.
I think Apple should just make USB-C the norm for iPhones. But the idea that a trans-national government over 750M people should be trying to regulate in this level of detail is just obviously a recipe for disaster. For every one time they successfully push a company to do something correct -- but ultimately trivial, like this thing -- there are going to be 10 cases where some bureaucrat makes a bad decision and they…
I think Apple should just make USB-C the norm for iPhones. But the idea that a trans-national government over 750M people should be trying to regulate in this level of detail is just obviously a recipe for disaster. For every one time they successfully push a company to do something correct -- but ultimately trivial, like this thing -- there are going to be 10 cases where some bureaucrat makes a bad decision and they…
The gazillion iPhone users in the EU use this twice a day, in physical space, and honestly that feels ok rather than nit-picking. If they do an EU-only model, I’ll absolutely go out of my way to get one
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wtf are you smoking? You can add other ports, the law is about mandating usb-c. If you want thunderlightening port or anything you want besides usbc, like HEADPHONE JACK, you can doo this...
How many phones have you seen with multiple different ports for the exact same purpose: charging?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Standards are good for everyone, even when very old and seemingly outdated. Being "locked" on a a few not awful standard connectors is a good thing. The Edison screw bulb is very simple, reliable, still used today even if I am sure that many companies would have invented more sophisticated standards over the years, I am glad they did not. I still use audio jack connectors as much as possible, and I think that the wor…
> Standards are good for everyone, even when very old and seemingly outdated. This is definitely not the case. As an example, the Official Standard way to encode data structures in the 90s was ASN.1 from the ITU. Problem is, ASN.1 kinda sucked and so nobody uses it anymore outside of cryptography. Then the Official Standard became XML. Eventually people decided that also wasn't that great and switched to JSON, which…
Okay, ELI5—why does the EU care so damn badly about a charging cable providing the same speed no matter who manufactures it?
Lol and a lot of Apple's charging cables are Lightning to USB C now. I can't wait to get a USB C iPhone. All my stuff is USB C, from my Braille display to my game controllers. It'll make things so much easier to only need one kind of cable for everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So what exactly is his "warning" about? Not sure about this particular one, but in general, this sort of warning is along the lines of "If you continue expending effort in subverting the spirit of the law, we shall tighten the regulations to such an extent that it will hurt you" . The world and their dog knew what the goal of the regulations were: if the goal is not met because "Apple has a lot of lawyers and presu…
Then it's very childish. It's the responsibility of legislators and regulators to be clear and precise -- to mean what they say and say what they mean. To "punish" a company for following a law, because of something the law doesn't actually say, is not what rule of law means, and would be a shameful thing. No company should have to intuit or guess what the government "really" meant, over and above what the law actual…