On 2024-09-16 20:33, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 17:36:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed wrote:
>
>> Another thought connected with the semi conductor shortage - they may have
>> felt that they couldn't produce enough usb-c chargers. Lightning iPhone
>> purchasers would likely be using an existing charger, especially Apple had
>> stopped automatically supplying them with a new phone. Switching to usb-c
>> is very likely to cause an uptick in usb-c charger purchases at the time of
>> buying your first usb-c iPhone. It would not look good if Apple said their
>> chargers were in supply constraint. Not being able to buy semiconductors
>> freely was a real issue for two years post Covid, as shown by the car
>> manufacturers.
>
> The real reason was stated in the business news at the time where Apple's
> profits for wireless chargers & high-power wired chargers went up something
> like five thousand percent year over year when Apple simply stopped
> supplying the chargers and instead - sold them at the point of sale.

Have you got a source for that claim...

....and while we're on the subject, what the percentage of Apple's total
revenue that represented?

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-09-16 10:06, Chris wrote:
>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-15 10:40, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agree. Lightning should have died 3-4 years ago.
>>>
>>> This is a product lifecycle decision that Apple make. EU should not be
>>> involved in business decisions.
>>
>> They are both equally entitled to make decisions within their sphere of
>> influence.
>>
>> Apple chooses to sell into the EU market and so needs to comply to the
>> rules.
>>
>>> If Apple are wrong about it, the market will punish them.
>>
>> Ridiculous statement. lol.
>>
>>> The USB-C force did not reduce e-waste - it prematurely increases the
>>> amount of Lightning compatible devices going to waste.
>>
>> It should happened earlier to avoid selling more obsolete lightning
>> devices.
>
> By forcing it, it will cause the early demise of existing Lightning
> accessories.
>
> Trod all over. Again.

I'm agreeing with you, so...

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-09-15 12:35, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 2024-09-15 16:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2024-09-15 10:40, Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Agree. Lightning should have died 3-4 years ago.
>>>
>>> This is a product lifecycle decision that Apple make.  EU should not
>>> be involved in business decisions.
>>
>> They gave Apple over a decade to make that decision, but Apple failed to
>> do so, so the EU had to make it for them.
>
> HS. Apple would have gotten the iPhone to USB-C on iPhone 16.

Cite? No-one knows this outside of Apple.

> This was
> their plan. Do not forget USB-C was defined by (amongst others) Apple.
>

On 2024-09-16 21:55, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2024-09-16 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-09-15 12:59, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2024-09-15 16:17, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2024-09-14 12:30, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> BOLLOCKS!  The above is just yet another predictable example of
>>>>> Apple propaganda & EU-bashing.  The simple truth is that nearly all
>>>>> the other manufacturers had already adopted the USB-C standard
>>>>> while it was still voluntary, but Apple had more or less refused
>>>>> point blank [my caps to highlight the overwhelming majority]:
>>>
>>> I note that you snipped the quote of the numbers of overwhelming
>>> majority, how unsurprising given your posting record.
>>
>> I'm not wasting time on your minutiae.  This stuff has been covered ad
>> nauseum in the past.
>>
>> You've just adapted a trolling attitude of which I'm getting quite bored.
>
> TRANSLATION:  I realise that I've lost this argument, but am not man
> enough to admit it.
>
>>>> Apple is a business and make business decisions.  Apple is one of
>>>> the original companies that _defined_ USB-C.  But, they also jumped
>>>> ahead of everyone with the Lightning connector quite a while before
>>>> that - and therefore there was (is) a lot of Lightning based cables
>>>> and accessories out there.
>>>
>>> And, even worse, from memory there are at least two EU technical
>>> boards giving advice to EU legislators over such matters, both of
>>> which Apple contribute to, so you have to ask yourself why they
>>> didn't bring their products into compliance sooner?
>>
>> Business decision.  Period.  As stated.
>
> TRANSLATION:  I realise that I've lost this argument, but am not man
> enough to admit it, so simply restate my flawed opinion as though it has
> the same ...

status

.... as fact; of course, everyone else can see that it
> does not.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2024-09-16 16:50, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2024-09-16 17:07, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-09-15 12:20, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2024-09-14 16:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  > The European USB-C fiasco just creates more e-waste.
>>
>> Not the point, of course.  Apple's path was clear - forcing the issue
>> had no effect on e-waste.
>
> Self-contradiction.

Not at all. You're neglecting that there are tons of perfectly well
functioning Lightning based accessories and cables out there. Forcing
Apple to USB-C (1 year early) did nothing but accelerate a need for more
cables and (too a lesser degree) accessories.

--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

On 2024-09-16 16:55, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2024-09-16 17:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-09-15 12:59, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2024-09-15 16:17, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2024-09-14 12:30, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> BOLLOCKS!  The above is just yet another predictable example of
>>>>> Apple propaganda & EU-bashing.  The simple truth is that nearly all
>>>>> the other manufacturers had already adopted the USB-C standard
>>>>> while it was still voluntary, but Apple had more or less refused
>>>>> point blank [my caps to highlight the overwhelming majority]:
>>>
>>> I note that you snipped the quote of the numbers of overwhelming
>>> majority, how unsurprising given your posting record.
>>
>> I'm not wasting time on your minutiae.  This stuff has been covered ad
>> nauseum in the past.
>>
>> You've just adapted a trolling attitude of which I'm getting quite bored.
>
> TRANSLATION:  I realise that I've lost this argument, but am not man
> enough to admit it.
>
>>>> Apple is a business and make business decisions.  Apple is one of
>>>> the original companies that _defined_ USB-C.  But, they also jumped
>>>> ahead of everyone with the Lightning connector quite a while before
>>>> that - and therefore there was (is) a lot of Lightning based cables
>>>> and accessories out there.
>>>
>>> And, even worse, from memory there are at least two EU technical
>>> boards giving advice to EU legislators over such matters, both of
>>> which Apple contribute to, so you have to ask yourself why they
>>> didn't bring their products into compliance sooner?
>>
>> Business decision.  Period.  As stated.
>
> TRANSLATION:  I realise that I've lost this argument,

Not at all. What I lose here is time. Far too much.

--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

On 2024-09-16 17:38, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2024-09-16 17:10, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-09-15 12:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2024-09-15 16:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2024-09-15 10:40, Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree. Lightning should have died 3-4 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> This is a product lifecycle decision that Apple make.  EU should not
>>>> be involved in business decisions.
>>>
>>> They gave Apple over a decade to make that decision, but Apple failed
>>> to do so, so the EU had to make it for them.
>>
>> HS.  Apple would have gotten the iPhone to USB-C on iPhone 16.  This
>> was their plan.  Do not forget USB-C was defined by (amongst others)
>> Apple.
>
> HS here obviously applies to your claim, as I've just spent some time on
> some Apple/Mac/i* follower sites looking at rumours and reports of
> official statements about their intentions over the last two years or
> so, and not one of them even mentioned this, let alone gives a credible
> source, indeed it's not mentioned even in some reports of official
> statements that might have been expected to mention it, such as this one:

Cherry picking to find nothing is the easiest of the troll sports...

--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

On 2024-09-16 18:02, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2024-09-16 17:09, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-09-15 12:28, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-15 16:23, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The EU meddles in things it should leave well enough alone.
>>>
>>> The world needs standards so that items can be interoperable.
>>
>> For consumer appliances this should be a marketing choice, not a mandate.
>
> Opinion stated as if it were fact, and which is contradicted by the
> known facts: there is nothing sacrosanct about consumer appliances, on
> the contrary, the vast majority of, probably all, consumer appliances
> available in any western nation need to comply with that nation's
> relevant standards.

Not including low voltage/date connectors. There is no such standard in
the world other than the EU.

Your dog does not hunt.

>
>>>> It's not like USB-C is guaranteed to be adequate in 5 years from now.
>>>
>>> The British have had regulations about the sort of plugs that should
>>> be supplied in houses for many decades, yet nobody seems to think
>>> that they are now obsolete just through being decades old.
>>
>> That is an electrical standard - as such is in the rest of the world.
>
> The USB-C is an electronic standard - as such as is to be found in the
> rest of the world.
>
>>>> "It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
>>>>   the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
>>>> Winston Churchill.
>>>
>>> So why are you propagating baseless anti-EU propaganda of the sort
>>> hyped by Russian disinformation trolls?
>>
>> I wasn't.  Do keep up.
>
> You are someone who lives far away from the EU and is therefore largely
> unaffected by it but who nevertheless is propagating anti-EU propaganda
> that has no basis in fact, just like a Russian troll.

You're mis-construing my opinion - which shocks nobody.

Things like accessory cables should not be regulated. They should be
left to a business to do as the business sees fit.

--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

On 2024-09-17 00:11, Chris wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-09-15 12:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-15 16:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2024-09-15 10:40, Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree. Lightning should have died 3-4 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> This is a product lifecycle decision that Apple make.  EU should not
>>>> be involved in business decisions.
>>>
>>> They gave Apple over a decade to make that decision, but Apple failed to
>>> do so, so the EU had to make it for them.
>>
>> HS. Apple would have gotten the iPhone to USB-C on iPhone 16.
>
> Cite? No-one knows this outside of Apple.

Pretty sure it was the consensus of all those who track these things by
inference or insider info. The Gurmans et al of the world.

--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

On 2024-09-17 13:33, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-09-16 16:50, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 2024-09-16 17:07, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2024-09-15 12:20, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2024-09-14 16:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>  >
>>>>  > The European USB-C fiasco just creates more e-waste.
>>>
>>> Not the point, of course.  Apple's path was clear - forcing the issue
>>> had no effect on e-waste.
>>
>> Self-contradiction.
>
> Not at all.  You're neglecting that there are tons of perfectly well
> functioning Lightning based accessories and cables out there.  Forcing
> Apple to USB-C (1 year early) did nothing but accelerate a need for more
> cables and (too a lesser degree) accessories.

If you can't see that "forcing the issue had no effect on e-waste"
directly contradicts "European USB-C fiasco just creates more e-waste"
then you're obviously too stupid to be worth arguing with, and there's
absolutely no point in continuing this discussion

Re-instates plonk filters.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2024-09-17 10:16, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2024-09-17 13:33, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-09-16 16:50, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-16 17:07, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2024-09-15 12:20, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-09-14 16:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > The European USB-C fiasco just creates more e-waste.
>>>>
>>>> Not the point, of course.  Apple's path was clear - forcing the
>>>> issue had no effect on e-waste.
>>>
>>> Self-contradiction.
>>
>> Not at all.  You're neglecting that there are tons of perfectly well
>> functioning Lightning based accessories and cables out there.  Forcing
>> Apple to USB-C (1 year early) did nothing but accelerate a need for
>> more cables and (too a lesser degree) accessories.
>
> If you can't see that "forcing the issue had no effect on e-waste"
> directly contradicts "European USB-C fiasco just creates more e-waste"
> then you're obviously too stupid to be worth arguing with, and there's
> absolutely no point in continuing this discussion
>
> Re-instates plonk filters.
>

I think what would have made his statement clearer would have been the
word "positive".

'Not the point, of course. Apple's path was clear - forcing the issue
had no POSITIVE effect on e-waste.'

But forcing the issue does mean that many useful devices will be
replaced while they are still useful.

That is wasteful.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-09-17 00:11, Chris wrote:
>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-15 12:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-15 16:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-09-15 10:40, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree. Lightning should have died 3-4 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a product lifecycle decision that Apple make.  EU should not
>>>>> be involved in business decisions.
>>>>
>>>> They gave Apple over a decade to make that decision, but Apple failed to
>>>> do so, so the EU had to make it for them.
>>>
>>> HS. Apple would have gotten the iPhone to USB-C on iPhone 16.
>>
>> Cite? No-one knows this outside of Apple.
>
> Pretty sure it was the consensus of all those who track these things by
> inference or insider info. The Gurmans et al of the world.

So not a fact. A guess at best.

On 2024-09-17 17:11, Chris wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-09-17 00:11, Chris wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-15 12:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-09-15 16:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-09-15 10:40, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agree. Lightning should have died 3-4 years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a product lifecycle decision that Apple make.  EU should not
>>>>>> be involved in business decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> They gave Apple over a decade to make that decision, but Apple failed to
>>>>> do so, so the EU had to make it for them.
>>>>
>>>> HS. Apple would have gotten the iPhone to USB-C on iPhone 16.
>>>
>>> Cite? No-one knows this outside of Apple.
>>
>> Pretty sure it was the consensus of all those who track these things by
>> inference or insider info. The Gurmans et al of the world.
>
> So not a fact. A guess at best.

When Gurman is on something, he's usually on it. Others as well.

--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-09-17 17:11, Chris wrote:
>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-17 00:11, Chris wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-09-15 12:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-15 16:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-09-15 10:40, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agree. Lightning should have died 3-4 years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a product lifecycle decision that Apple make.  EU should not
>>>>>>> be involved in business decisions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They gave Apple over a decade to make that decision, but Apple failed to
>>>>>> do so, so the EU had to make it for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> HS. Apple would have gotten the iPhone to USB-C on iPhone 16.
>>>>
>>>> Cite? No-one knows this outside of Apple.
>>>
>>> Pretty sure it was the consensus of all those who track these things by
>>> inference or insider info. The Gurmans et al of the world.
>>
>> So not a fact. A guess at best.
>
> When Gurman is on something, he's usually on it. Others as well.

Except when they're not. Which is quite often.

On 15.09.24 17:24, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-09-15 09:21, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 14.09.24 17:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> The European USB-C fiasco just creates more e-waste.
>>
>> Brain dead idiot. And you do not understand the technicalities at all
>> and the fiasco is a figment of your imagniation.
>
> Proven in the past that I know far more technically than you'll ever know.

What you proved in the first place in this thread and in the past is
that you urgently need the same professional help Arlen needs.

I have never seen so much pathological obsession about really nothing
and especially nothing you or Arlen can influence or change the public
perception about.

Two tragic figures.

X-posting intentionally left untouched

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 16.09.24 16:24, Chris wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-09-14 13:24, Tweed wrote:
>>
>>> Something else I’ve just discovered - vendors will not be able to bundle a
>>> USB-C charger with the device, it must always be sold separately. So not
>>> the vendor trying to swizz you with an extra sale.
>>
>> Countries like Brazil (IIRC) actually *require* the charger be sold with
>> the device.
>>
>> Another country meddling in business decisions.
>
> "Business decisions" are not sacrosanct. They have to comply with all the
> relevant laws and regulations in the territories they trade in.
>
> US government is "meddling" relentlessly against Chinese companies and
> products. That's OK, right?

IMHO two very relevant arguments.

It is very hard for Americans to digest that the EU is in the driving
seat. The darwinistic approach to economic issues is a relict of the
last Century and leads directly into the abyss. And tariffs just show
the lack of creativity and competitivness in the global game.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 2024-09-18 03:02, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 15.09.24 17:24, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-09-15 09:21, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 14.09.24 17:26, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> The European USB-C fiasco just creates more e-waste.
>>>
>>> Brain dead idiot. And you do not understand the technicalities at all
>>> and the fiasco is a figment of your imagniation.
>>
>> Proven in the past that I know far more technically than you'll ever know.
>
> What you proved in the first place in this thread and in the past is
> that you urgently need the same professional help Arlen needs.
>
> I have never seen so much pathological obsession about really nothing
> and especially nothing you or Arlen can influence or change the public
> perception about.
>
> Two tragic figures.

No comparison, but you do you ...

Like claiming a battery indicating 0% will be damaged.

Like claiming cell phone signals are ionizing radiation...

And other nuggets of stupid you drop from time to time.

--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill