661–670 of 868 posts
Relying on Apple's discretion is futile. Craft an iron clad law with substantial consequences and be done with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many responses to my comment made the same argument, so I’ll just reply here. What do you see as the main safety differences between Lightning and USB-C? As both systems have been in use at scale for some time now, this should be easy enough to answer quantitatively. My understanding is that they offer equivalent safety, in spite of Lightning not having been standardized by the EU, but I may be wrong.
You're missing the point. It's not that Lightning is bad, it's probably great (I don't have any iThings to compare). But left to themselves, it's entirely plausible that Apple will just abandon it in a few years in favor of some exciting new technology called Laser or Quantum or Telluric. Sure, people will complain, but they'll upgrade because there are some other great new features on the iPhone 17, plus clinging to…
USB for small devices like phones has gone: Proprietary -> Mini -> Micro -> USB-C
In the same timespan apple has gone: 30-pin -> Lightning
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. If you come up with such a superior plug, you can easily have it sold on the 1st largest market in the world. Not everything has to be sold in EU, there are plenty of things not available across all markets.
No, I can't. I need to sell it on both markets to make it profitable. There's no way to have that large margins it could sell just in the US.
Do you think Apple intended to stick with Lightning forever? They were just taking their own sweet time. The fact that their other products switched a couple of years ago should make this obvious. Of course the EU will crow when the next iPhone has USB-C worldwide. I doubt this has had a significant impact on Apples internal planning. If any. It seems to me this will be more significant post USB-C and it's much more…
> do you think Apple intended to stick with Lightning forever? What?? Of course they did. Why do you think they are even considering USBC? Apple has zero incentive to use a common cable format; I'm sure they rake in money with their proprietary apple-only connectors. Look at magsafe. Changed it twice so everyone had to get a whole new set of chargers. Sure, they changed it to C now, but I'm guessing that's just becau…
Apple still sells the adapter (and the original magsafe) despite being more than a decade since they sold original computers. If anything, this shows that apple very much doesn't want you to stop using your old charging blocks and computers.
Any current iPhone will work with a charging cable from 2012, which is very much not true for any other phone brand.
I don't know why apple resisted micro-usb, but I am glad they did. Its a bad standard. It has a lower power capability, and the number of insertion cycle and abuse it can take is WAY lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Look at magsafe. Changed it twice so everyone had to get a whole new set of chargers. You can still use USB-C for charging macbooks that have the new Magsafe, just like you could with any macbooks since their introduction of USB-C. Not sure what you were trying to say about everyone suddenly needing to get a new set of chargers either. I have two different M1 macbooks in my household (one from my workplace, one per…
Not sure what you were trying to say about everyone suddenly needing to get a new set of chargers either. They are talking about the original MagSafe (2006) and MagSafe 2 (2012). These versions of MagSafe had incompatible connectors and the cable couldn't be detached from the adapter like you can do with MagSafe 3. So, if you bought an additional MagSafe adapter, it was useless with a MagSafe 2 MacBook.
Not much different than forcing someone to trash a micro-usb cable for a new usb-c cable. except the magsafe adapter has far less plastic in it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wireless charging loses 30% of the energy. It looks bad on the carbon sheets of the products, and Europe is also moving towards regulating carbon a lot.
i doubt that wireless charging makes any difference on carbon footprint.
Where are you getting the manufacturing carbon savings to offset the loss of efficiency?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But some kind of "warning" to "do something we didn't say in the law" is just plain wrong. No. Acting in bad faith is what is wrong. If Apple doesn't like it, then they can shut down their business in the EU. Companies acting in bad faith should be explicitly punished, to an extra degree, that is intentionally designed to hurt them. We have this right, to use laws, in a society, to punish bad faith actors. If you d…
> No. Acting in bad faith is what is wrong. Do you have explicit evidence that Apple is acting in bad faith or are we merely inferring this?
If they end up pulling back on the plan to do this, then the warning worked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering that this is almost certainly related to your own personal behavior and/or environment, it isn't surprising that you find it reproducible, albeit a bit odd. Hey, before you accuse people of doing the wrong thing, make sure you're right. Lighting has historically had shorts issues when inserting, and Apple has tried their best to resolve the problem. They never 100% resolved the problem however, although…
If someone else has the problem 100% of the time, and you have the problem 0% of the time, I think it is reasonable to presume the fault lies with them or their environment (or at least, not the hardware).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wireless charging by definition has no physical port - if you have to plug it in, it's not wireless. No manufacturer is going to waste space that could be use for battery and further compromise water/dust proofing to add another port, for a total of 2, even if it's better than USB-C because the opportunity cost is too high.
The better connector would start on laptops, maybe high-end tablets too, and it would take a few years anyway before it moves to phones. That's what happened with USB-C at least.
The EU will supposedly upgrade the mandate when a better standard comes along … but who gets to determine if the new standard is “better” enough to trigger a replacement.
Some will want it replaced while some will demand that we keep the current standard. Can the EU really speak for everyone when people can have conflicting needs and wants?
Ever thought what would happen if there are competing standards next round that are quite close in capability but are nonetheless significantly different - with pros and cons that are important to various people.
I wonder how that’s going to play out in the EU and how ugly things could get - especially with lots of money on the line.
Also who watches the watchmen? The EU is clearly not immune to corruption given recent scandals.
None of these would be issues if there wasn’t a stupid mandate. People will just use what they want and what is best for their needs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wireless charging loses 30% of the energy. It looks bad on the carbon sheets of the products, and Europe is also moving towards regulating carbon a lot.
i doubt that wireless charging makes any difference on carbon footprint.