41–50 of 525 posts
I'll miss lightning when it's gone if only because it was the most satisfying and secure feeling cable connection I've ever used. USB-C has some slack built into it by design but it just makes it feel lower quality.
The iPad Pro uses a usb c charger, as does the MacBook line; stifles innovation my ass.
As far as I remember, this piece of legislation has been floating around since USB mini. We have now gone through 2 revisions to a connector that is now reversible and can carry video. Locking onto USB-C now could be a very "640k ought to be enough for everybody" moment. And if Apple was going to switch to USB C anyways, whats the point of this legislation?
Let’s say this rule was in place 10 years ago and we standardised on micro USB. How would it have been possible to advance to the next generation of technology like USB-C. This feels that it’s banking on USB-C being forever future proofed or wireless connections does everything we ever need.
The iPad Pro uses a usb c charger, as does the MacBook line; stifles innovation my ass.
As far as I remember, this piece of legislation has been floating around since USB mini. We have now gone through 2 revisions to a connector that is now reversible and can carry video. Locking onto USB-C now could be a very "640k ought to be enough for everybody" moment. And if Apple was going to switch to USB C anyways, whats the point of this legislation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I remember, this piece of legislation has been floating around since USB mini. We have now gone through 2 revisions to a connector that is now reversible and can carry video. Locking onto USB-C now could be a very "640k ought to be enough for everybody" moment. And if Apple was going to switch to USB C anyways, whats the point of this legislation?
> Locking onto USB-C now could be a very "640k ought to be enough for everybody" moment. I agree in general; but at some point don't we hit diminishing returns? If I were to say, "18.4 exabytes of RAM ought to be enough for everybody", that'd be basically correct, even future-proofing for the craziest sci-fi holodeck use cases we can imagine, right?
As much as I am for interoperability, a legislation directing a specific technology is one way how we end up with ridiculous standards.
Remember, we still have laws on where we can or cannot tie a horse in town on the books a century after they were irrelevant. Laws move in centuries, while technology moves in years. They are not compliant with each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I know what is best for you and me, so I'll force you to make the chargers I want" I don't think Apple are the biggest assholes in this situation.
So, to be clear, your position is that the very concept of regulation is illegitimate? "I know what is best for you, so I'll force you to make the car safety features I want".
It's not legitimate to regulate manufacture or commercialization of products when that manufacture or commercialization poses no direct threat to the physical well-being of other individuals.
The joint motion points to adopting Directive 2014/53/EU which requires common _chargers_ but says nothing about the port that the phone uses. As far as I can tell this is only for the back half of the charger / brick that connects to the wall. Yet the Apple statement, and most of the articles about this (including the linked one), are talking about the phone's connector and talks about lightning and usb-c. Most of t…
Apple has protested this, so it seems like it must be more.