Ha ha... very true. Japan is in the same time warp. And then there is the US and Canada still using paper cheques, but that is a topic for another day.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Stops Selling iPhone 14 and iPhone SE in More EU Countries
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thunderbolt is an entirely different standard, even though it uses the same connector. But it uses different pins than USB 3 or 4 does. And even Thunderbolt is going to need more pins in the future.
Like I said, they switched to MagSafe, with the plans to go entirely cableless in the future. But then they backpaddled on that and started testing USB-C iPhones. It takes around 2-3 years for a port to be implemented (and all accessories to switch etc). So you end up at 2023... with the.. iPhone 15.
No, I'll not join you - I think your arguments/position are ridiculous and short sighted, but best of luck fella.
haha... not yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if some Chinese crap from Ali-Express has it. 🤣
iPhone 14 still available in many third-party stores in Sweden. I guess the ban allows for already manufactured phoned to be sold out, rather than a mass destruction. Also the ban should not (I hope) affect the refurbed market.
Otherwise that would negate the e-waste purpose of the new law…
You are right. It's gone.
Attachments
Idiotic move from EU regulators in their witch hunting… the rule should be applied only to newly introduced devices , not to devices introduced 2 years ago.
The EU should not care about which port is on a phone to charge it too. What will they do next year? Disallow me to use a potato to charge my phone?
I'm not sure it will necessarily be easily accessible in the sense of pop open the cover and replace it like the old phones. It can still require tools:
A portable battery should be considered to be removable by the end-user when it can be removed with the use of commercially available tools and without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless they are provided free of charge, or proprietary tools, thermal energy or solvents to disassemble it. Commercially available tools are considered to be tools available on the market to all end- users without the need for them to provide evidence of any proprietary rights and that can be used with no restriction, except health and safety-related restrictions.
A lot will depend on what constitutes commercially available vs specialized; nor does it say a battery need be inexpensive. A manufacturer could make a battery pack, where the cells are not designed to be individually replaced, and be fully compliant. You could remove it but still need a specialized pack to power the device.
One solution I see is a battery pack they uses inductive charging and magnets to hold in place, maintaining the integrity of the phone and battery pack, easily removable and replaceable. It could be charged inductively wa well, eliminating the need for a USB-C connector. Data transfer via WiFi or BT, or a special data connection port that need not be USB-C. I doubt that will happen, but it would be a fully compliant solution.
One challenge is all the cheap batteries currently imported that may not comply with the directive, even if they mark them as such, and whose manufacturer is not going to recycle as will be required. The EU will need to crack down on the import of such items to meet the intent of the directive.
They are thinking about e-waste… creating potentially new e-waste with unsold phones
You could say my arguments are so ridiculous and short-sighted they could be construed as…satire!
In the long run it could be useful to have one single connector… but it makes no sense to apply this to models already on the market
Part of the problem, IMHO, is stuff is not designed to be recycled easily. Doing so would require rethinking how things are built and what materials are used where; potentially eliminating a lot of lower costs options in order to make a nearly fully recyclable product. That would add to the costs of products, and people everywhere want stuff that is cheap.
Should they also not care about what side of the road you drive on?
What about power outlets?
Should those be different in every building/room depending upon who made the outlet?
Expand this thinking outwards and you quickly see how unworkable and inconvenient it becomes for you .. me .. "us" .. the actual people.
The EU Jackboots absolutely insist you have the worst possible failure-prone connector for a mobile device.
That's quite the leap in logic. There's a significant difference between regulating something for the public safety and writing legislation that has little benefit whatsoever to the consumer.
It’s a balance though. While of course having every single appliance have the same types of plugs has significant benefits, on the flip side power outlets haven’t evolved in almost a century. Think about how much nicer it’d be if they’d been allowed to evolve to say, be safer, smaller, deliver networking, work the same all over the world etc.
Writing a specific standard into law has downsides that USB-C proponents never acknowledge. While I’m personally glad iPhone switched, USB-C is absolutely worse at its main job, being a charging plug, than lightning was. And we’ll be stuck with it for decades because no one has incentive to develop a new one anymore.
Fair points
I'm just not sure "not mandating" is any better.
Apple, for example, never seemed to be coming up with a "better Lightning" despite it being around for over a decade.
There were even rumors of them going fully "portless" which could create TURBO lock-in and force the MFI license payment situation dramatically so
To your point -- a balance is for sure required and I don't fault jurisdictions for wanting to get some control over these situations involving the largest and most well capitalized organizations in the history of the universe.
I would feel differently about a lot of Apple actions if they weren't all seemingly about increasing their own margins and overall revenue.
That relentless focus, too much so in many areas IMO, is something that would interfere with them designing the best new port for customers and interoperability, which is what the EU was going for here.
I would love Apple to have made a "Lightning 2" that is better than any alternatives and proactively try to get others to use it (no fees, etc) -- but I really really doubt they ever would, which leaves "forcing them to adopt" as the only way to get some unity.