Apple Stops Selling iPhone 14 and iPhone SE in More EU Countries

[Baslea]

Nope. Multiple sources reported to Gruber that the amount of money Apple made licensing MFi was equivalent to “a rounding error” on Apple’s books. The idea that Apple would make an iPhone they considered worse for the majority of their customers for pocket change is laughable.

I know it’s hard for tech nerds to believe, but USB-C isn’t a huge win for the vast majority of Apple’s customers. Apple was right to take it slow transitioning their biggest and most important product. Especially considering the reaction they received the last time they switched - which unlike this change, was a significant improvement over the previous connector.

I couldn't care less what the reaction was last time they changed to lightning. Fact is, that now USB C is the way to go. Yes, it might have been better to set a standard USB C, but at least they made a decision on a connector.

And if you were right that it was all Cook or his lieutenants picking Lightening over a superior option for money, I think people inside of Apple would have absolutely leaked that. I think the far more likely scenario is there was a vigorous debate inside Apple every year about whether the time was right to switch and Apple was just more conservative than all of you when it comes to switching out the connector on its most important product.

They should have changed to USB C when they did it on iPad, maybe one or two years after. But now even ranting on the EU, just shows what a gross company they are. As stated in this thread, they want to mobilize EU citizens against the government for no reason. And people like you (and others) are falling for it. Good job.

Remember, Apple is estimated to finalize the design of iPhones two years prior to release. So, whichever year you think Apple should have switched the iPhone over to USB-C, subtract 2 years from that phone’s release date to determine when that decision was made. iPhone 14? Connector decided in 2020. 13? 2019. 12? 2018. etc. Maybe you do think USB-C was ubiquitous enough for Apple to make the switch in 2018 or before, but can you understand why, particularly after the reaction last time they switched (which was a switch to an actually far superior connector), they might be conservative about this?

That's just a made up excuse. It's not like it was decided from one day to another that EU wants to unify their chargers, even prior to October 2022 when the law passed. So again, that was still in Apples hand to decide. You also see it on the Mac Accessories or AirPods Max, that Apple waited until the last minute to introduce USB-C. And then you tell me that it's not due to profit? I also work in the field of HW Engineering, and to add/remove ports is - including prototypes - a matter of maybe half a year (if not less).

And remembered, they promised Lightening would be the connector for the next ten years when they introduced it.

Again, I don't care what they promised when they introduced Lightning. Tech changes and so do standards.

Now you may disagree that it was better for most customers, or they should have broken their promise and switched sooner, but that was Apple's decision to make. Or should have been rather.

I bet if EU didn't force them they would still stick to that outdated **** of Lightning connector.

 

[tomtad]

I’m surprised Apple got to the point of having to remove the SE from sale before the new USB-C model is available.

This law isn’t a surprise and there’s been plenty of time to plan for it.

Tim has plenty of stock that needs using up and he’d rather charge the full price for it, and still is outside of the EU.

 

[Reason077]

That is not correct. As with any spec, there are a variety of options that can be used. The spec specifically allows for data only specialty cables, as well as allows for power only plug applications.

There is no such allowance in the spec, to the best of my knowledge. If I'm wrong and you know the part of the USB Type-C specification that allows data-only cables, please point it out. [1]

I won't deny that weird, device-specific "frankencables" might exist, but they are not USB-C cables and certainly wouldn't/shouldn't be sold as such.

To claim that "some USB-C cables are data only" is a bit like claiming that "not all iPhone 16s have an A18 chip" because there wasn't one in the fake $100 phone you bought in a chinese market!

In normal consumer practice, the USB-C cable (i.e. one with USB-C at both ends) offerings will likely cover the gamut, with at least some charging capability but possible lacking data or other features.

Sure, there are lots of optional features. However, USB 2.0 data and 60W charging is the baseline supported by all USB-C cables, even the most basic.

[1] https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB Type-C Spec R2.0 - August 2019.pdf

 

[FlyingDutch]

Still, there is not a single (consumer friendly) reason, why Apple would stick to Lightning. It's outdated as hell. Why are people still debating whether it was good or not forcing them to move to USB-C...

I never defended lightning. I just pointed out Apple is not a monopoly

 

[jlc1978]

There is no such allowance in the spec, to the best of my knowledge. If I'm wrong and you know the part of the USB Type-C specification that allows data-only cables, please point it out. [1]

Page 31:

All of the defined USB Type-C receptacles, plugs and cables (except OIAC) support USB charging applications, including support for the optional USB Type-C-specific implementation of the USB Power Delivery Specification

To claim that "some USB-C cables are data only" is a bit like claiming that "not all iPhone 16s have an A18 chip" because there wasn't one in the fake $100 phone you bought in a chinese market!

Sure, there are lots of optional features. However, USB 2.0 data and 60W charging is the baseline supported by all USB-C cables, even the most basic.

I refer you to the spec I quoted.

 

[Reason077]

Page 31:

All of the defined USB Type-C receptacles, plugs and cables (except OIAC) support USB charging applications, including support for the optional USB Type-C-specific implementation of the USB Power Delivery Specification


I refer you to the spec I quoted.

USB-PD above 3A (60W) is optional. And requires the cable to have a chip in it which identifies it as such (ie: "electronically marked"). But all USB-C cables, even passive cables without a chip, support the baseline PD at 3A.

See, for example, Table 3-1: "USB Type-C Standard Cable Assemblies" on page 37.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That is a really great deflection. Well done. Do you really want to play with your life when you plug something into a wall socket?

Of course not.
Though neither do I want the (security) argument be abused by trillion dollar companies to justify charging non-competitive prices and gain anticompetitive advantages on other markets.

Remember, Apple is estimated to finalize the design of iPhones two years prior to release. So, whichever year you think Apple should have switched the iPhone over to USB-C, subtract 2 years from that phone’s release date to determine when that decision was made. iPhone 14? Connector decided in 2020. 13? 2019. 12? 2018. etc

...and yet, they released their first USB-C iPad in 2018.
Even their entry-level 10th generation iPad got USB-C in 2022.

can you understand why, particularly after the reaction last time they switched (which was a switch to an actually far superior connector), they might be conservative about this?

Fair enough. Particularly when they could deflect/deflate any blame pointing to European regulation.
Just don't bloody claim that "Oh, it's got nothing to do with EU regulation".

 

[surferfb]

Just don't bloody claim that "Oh, it's got nothing to do with EU regulation".

I’m sure the EU regulation moved up the switchover by a year or two, if for no other reason so they could still sell older phones on EU. I remain convinced they were going to switch over anyway - I know you disagree on that.

If MiFi was really making Apple so much money they would have left lightening for the rest of world. They also certainly wouldn’t have gone with Qi for wireless charging.

I honestly truly believe Apple was just more conservative about the switch than most here wanted them to be - which makes sense given how the 30-pin to Lightening transition went. iPhone is by far their biggest product, the needs for fast data transfer speeds aren’t there like they are for iPad - most users just use the port to charge - so it wasn’t as important. Not everything is a big bad conspiracy by evil money hungry Tim Cook.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that Apple would eventually have gotten around to change to USB-C.
Even in the absence of such legislation.

But...

1. the length of time it has taken them since launching their first USB-C products (and iPads)
2. their timing of switching AirPods and particularly their Mac peripherals basically coinciding with this deadline
3. the fact that they removed an entry-level iPhone model from sale in the region

...all suggest that it wouldn't have been in 2024.

 

[Baslea]

If MiFi was really making Apple so much money they would have left lightening for the rest of world. They also certainly wouldn’t have gone with Qi for wireless charging.

To get more hate? A lot of people are already blaming on Apple about that sideloading thingy, which only works for EU. With such essential like a charging port, it would’ve been even worse.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If MiFi was really making Apple so much money they would have left lightening for the rest of world.

Don't think so.

People aren't shedding many tears for Lightning. And even less so does the "tech press" and the YouTubers. The transition to USB-C has been positively received - with a sense that even Apple, finally have gotten around to do transitioning to the superior (faster charging, more compatible) standard that everyone else is using.

It's similar allowing retro gaming emulators in non-EU App Stores: They don't want the rest of the world clamouring for something imposed upon them by EU regulation. And they absolutely want to negative backlash for not giving something to the rest of the world that EU regulation has forced them to do in the EU.

That's the narrative they want to control.

They also certainly wouldn’t have gone with Qi for wireless charging.

Again, don't think so.

Wireless charging has been implemented in public spaces, cars, furniture, tables, lamp bases, etc. To be used without bringing your own (or any) cable.

When your train or restaurant table has a wireless charging pad built in, an "Oh, it works with any Android but not iPhones" creates negative customer experience, backlash and bad press.

Apple had to adopt the (de facto) standard. Which is catering to the majority of Android devices. Something that's beyond Apple's control.

It's not 2007 anymore, where every speaker had a (proprietary 30-pin "dock") connector controlled by Apple - and nothing else for "docking" your phone.

So what they did was offering higher charging rates for their proprietary "MagSafe" accessories - while maintaining compatibility with Qi.

 

[jlc1978]

USB-PD above 3A (60W) is optional. And requires the cable to have a chip in it which identifies it as such (ie: "electronically marked"). But all USB-C cables, even passive cables without a chip, support the baseline PD at 3A.

See, for example, Table 3-1: "USB Type-C Standard Cable Assemblies" on page 37.

You asked for an example of a non powered USB -C cable allowed by the spec. I showed you where it was first mentioned in the spec.

 

[Reason077]

You asked for an example of a non powered USB -C cable allowed by the spec. I showed you where it was first mentioned in the spec.

No, you're misinterpreting the spec. Power delivery is not optional for a USB-C cable. It's optional for chargers and devices to support the USB-PD protocol, but all USB-C cables passively support power at 3A.

 

[I7guy]

Of course not.
Though neither do I want the (security) argument be abused by trillion dollar companies to justify charging non-competitive prices and gain anticompetitive advantages on other markets.
[…]

They haven’t been accused or convicted of abusing their position with phones, computers, accessories nor anticompetitive behavior with same. This is a market issue, not a government issue. Period.

 

[Baslea]

They haven’t been accused or convicted of abusing their position with phones, computers, accessories nor anticompetitive behavior with same. This is a market issue, not a government issue. Period.

If you cut the compatibility on purpose to not make it compatible with standards and refuse to open up then it becomes imho a governmental issue. That’s why the EU has to intervene, for the sake of all customers. If you don’t like it that’s up to you.
Again, why don’t let people use their phones who the fk they want?

 

[AppliedMicro]

They haven’t been accused or convicted of abusing their position with phones, computers, accessories nor anticompetitive behavior with same

Not for their Lightning port and the devices (AFAIK).
But otherwise: Of course have they been accused.
Including by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Keep in mind that anticompetitive behaviour isn‘t necessarily illegal.

 

[Neodym]

even Thunderbolt is going to need more pins in the future.

Not necessarily. Unless one would want to go back to parallel data transmission (DB25 or SCSI, anyone?), it’s about improving speed over serial (2 data pins + 2 power pins), i.e. (improved) wire shielding in the cable and transmission / IO multiplex in the hardware attached to both ends of the cable.

 

[Luis Ortega]

Sad! This will really affect low income consumers. Shame on you, Apple!

lol…low income consumers don’t waste money on overpriced smart phones.

 

[surferfb]

To get more hate? A lot of people are already blaming on Apple about that sideloading thingy, which only works for EU. With such essential like a charging port, it would’ve been even worse.

The only people annoyed about “no sideloading” are tech nerds, malware developers, software pirates and (apparently) EU bureaucrats who presumably don’t understand they’re enabling malware developers and software pirates. If side loading is important to you Android has 75% market share in the EU (and a 95% malware share) and I’m sure would love your business. I’d go into more detail but this thread is about the EU’s regulation designing Apple’s hardware for them, not the EU’s regulation designing Apple’s software for them. If you’re interested in that, a bunch of us have gone around arguing about it in multiple other threads - just search for me or @AppliedMicro and “DMA” and you’ll find them - spoiler alert you’re going to agree with AppliedMicro and not me .

My only point was that if MFi was such a huge money maker for Apple they could have kept it going in the rest of the world. They could have also made a proprietary wireless charging solution too (or not offered wireless charging at all) to keep that money train going. But they didn’t, presumably because the reason they were keeping lightening was not about the money.

 

[Baslea]

@surferfb Yea so? Ofc it’s just a small percentage, but why don’t give this small percentage the possibility to sideload? there is already an easy way to pirate apps. And people who want to pirate apps will do it nevertheless. So why don’t let the nerds do whatever they want with their purchased device?
If Apple wants to purposely make their devices - both hardware and software - bad, imho that’s good that EU intervenes. Also up to macOS 11.3.1 I think you were able to sideload normal IPAs on MacBook. Now it’s not possible anymore (or better said; natively). That’s just dumb and imho useless harassment towards the users. Oh no wait, it’s to help dumb companies like PDF Expert, Things 3, who charge for full price for all three, MacOS, iPadOS and iOS app (to get commission all the times).

 

[Stiksi]

I agree completely with your comments on home button and Face ID. However, regarding your probable plans, it sounds like you do not travel much. Unfortunately a smart phone is a necessity now for tickets, bookings, banking etc. etc. Unless you plan on carrying an iPad with cell service everywhere.

Depends on how frantic your schedule is. If you’re traveling for business, then a smartphone is essential, but if you’re on a laid back vacation, free wifi is easy to find and reasonably safe with VPN. Not for me, but I’ve done it when I had a problem with the mobile network. I managed fine and definitely talked with locals more 😀

 

[Stiksi]

The only people annoyed about “no sideloading” are tech nerds, malware developers, software pirates and (apparently) EU bureaucrats who presumably don’t understand they’re enabling malware developers and software pirates.

That is one big ass assumption with nothing to back it up.

 

[surferfb]

That is one big ass assumption with nothing to back it up.

They didn’t understand forcing Microsoft to give third parties kernel access might lead to issues and gave us the Crowdstrike fiasco, and despite that experience are insisting Apple enable malware developers and software pirates so either they don’t know what they’re doing or worse, they don’t care.

@surferfb Yea so? Ofc it’s just a small percentage, but why don’t give this small percentage the possibility to sideload? there is already an easy way to pirate apps. And people who want to pirate apps will do it nevertheless. So why don’t let the nerds do whatever they want with their purchased device?

Quick version: Because Apple owns iOS and how it operates should be their decision, particularly when the market leader (that has 75% market share) allows software to be side loaded. If you don’t like Apple’s decision you can buy a phone that runs Android and sideload to your heart’s content.

For more detailed discussions see the other threads. Here’s a recent one.

If Apple wants to purposely make their devices - both hardware and software - bad, imho that’s good that EU intervenes. Also up to macOS 11.3.1 I think you were able to sideload normal IPAs on MacBook. Now it’s not possible anymore (or better said; natively). That’s just dumb and imho useless harassment towards the users. Oh no wait, it’s to help dumb companies like PDF Expert, Things 3, who charge for full price for all three, MacOS, iPadOS and iOS app (to get commission all the times).

Even if Apple wanted to purposely make their devices bad, (and they don’t, they just have a different opinion on what is bad and good than you do) that’s their right to. The market will fix that problem when fewer people buy Apple’s devices. The EU shouldn’t be interfering.

 

[Baslea]

Quick version: Because Apple owns iOS and how it operates should be their decision, particularly when the market leader (that has 75% market share) allows software to be side loaded. If you don’t like Apple’s decision you can buy a phone that runs Android and sideload to your heart’s content.

No, why should I? I do want to have iPhone, but I also want to sideload apps. So either let people sideload or get punished by EU. So easy

Even if Apple wanted to purposely make their devices bad, (and they don’t, they just have a different opinion on what is bad and good than you do) that’s their right to. The market will fix that problem when fewer people buy Apple’s devices. The EU shouldn’t be interfering.

Still, that’s monopoly abuse.

 

[I7guy]

Not for their Lightning port and the devices (AFAIK).
But otherwise: Of course have they been accused.
Including by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Keep in mind that anticompetitive behaviour isn‘t necessarily illegal.

To MR posters accused = guilty. Hence my post was worded precisely that way. So yeah, best left to the market and not government.

Anticompetitive behavior according to some on this site is a wet finger in the air.