Germany Urges EU to Require 7 Years of Updates and Repairs for iOS Devices

[Boris Bronson]

Frankly, I don’t mind, for the simple reason that Apple is clearly in a better position to weather this out compared to the competition. So if this results in less companies operating in the EU and consequently less competition for Apple, who am I to complain?

Do you work for Apple?

 

[laptech]

Frankly, I don’t mind, for the simple reason that Apple is clearly in a better position to weather this out compared to the competition. So if this results in less companies operating in the EU and consequently less competition for Apple, who am I to complain?

I am assuming you are extremely rich and therefore never have to work in your life because it's clear you do not give a damn about millions of workers who could lose their jobs if such a thing was to happen. 'oh look another company closed in the EU with the loss of 1000 jobs but I do not care because it means less competition for Apple' seems to be your outlook on this.

 

[Abazigal]

I am assuming you are extremely rich and therefore never have to work in your life because it's clear you do not give a damn about millions of workers who could lose their jobs if such a thing was to happen. 'oh look another company closed in the EU with the loss of 1000 jobs but I do not care because it means less competition for Apple' seems to be your outlook on this.

Remind me who’s the one in this thread cheering on about proposed legislation they think will “make Apple bleed”, not realising that it threatens to hurt the competition more than it will Apple?

If thousands of people lose their jobs in the EU, it will be because of said short-sighted policy, nothing else. So think long and hard before all of you start cheering on another policy designed to “stick it to Apple” without also considering the wider ramifications.

Do you work for Apple?

I don’t, and I have never received a cent from Apple for the tens of thousands of words I have probably typed here over the past 10 years.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Apple might need to introduce LTS version of iOS for old devices. Just like in Linux world.

Agreed, that would be a sensible compromise if this kind of legislation comes in. Ensure that companies provide at least one Long Term Support (LTS) product in their line-up, thus providing the choice to customers.

Forcing this for all products is not sensible and is too much interference with free market principles in my opinion.

 

[leifp]

Apple wasn’t singled out in the original report (in German), only in the MacRumors headline:

Bundesregierung: Smartphones sollen sieben Jahre lang Updates erhalten

Bei der Regulierung von Smartphones verfolgt die Bundesregierung noch ehrgeizigere Ziele als die EU-Kommission. Gegenwind kommt von den Herstellern.

www.heise.de

Yeah, I'm not surprised. That's what I was reacting to: the leap of ignorance in comments based on a misleading lede. I know, I know. n00b...

 

[laptech]

Remind me who’s the one in this thread cheering on about proposed legislation they think will “make Apple bleed”, not realising that it threatens to hurt the competition more than it will Apple?

If thousands of people lose their jobs in the EU, it will be because of said short-sighted policy, nothing else. So think long and hard before all of you start cheering on another policy designed to “stick it to Apple” without also considering the wider ramifications.



I don’t, and I have never received a cent from Apple for the tens of thousands of words I have probably typed here over the past 10 years.

Actually if you read my posts properly you will see that I am championing the cause to keep perfectly usable devices alive. This does not mean I am championing the cause for the proposed legislation, there is a difference.

Manufacturing a product that lasts for a long time is a situation I have personally experienced on numerous occasions and felt the result of it. Video recorders, thousands sitting in warehouse because they didn't break down and not enough people was purchasing the latest product, result production shuts down. The exact same scenerio happened when video recorder production closed, it switched to computer monitors, production shut down and switched to satellite revievers, production shut down, company shut down. Happened with another company, they made printers, many made, many sold, not enough broke down thus no need to purchase a new one. Production closed down and switched to copier machines. Same thing happened with result being the company closed down.

Companies can still stay in business but they need to think differently on product design and sustainability. For example, mobile phone standards change, 2G to 3G to 4G to now 5G. Why couldn't manufacturers design their phones for future proofing? If someone wants to keep their old phone but use it on the latest network offering, why not build a phone so it's transmitter and reciever parts can be upgraded to accept the latest mobile standards. Give the consumer the choice, either upgrade the old phone or purchase a new one. Bosses do not do this because they are educated and trained to have a one track mind, and that is to make as much money as possible and the current way to do that is to keep on making new and expensive things. This mindset has to change.

Television standards changes. Therefore instead of changing the whole TV because it's not compatible with the new standard, just change relevants parts inside the TV so it is compatible.

If manufacturers of devices stay stuck in their ways when the porposed legislation becomes law then yes, In my opinion the resulting effect will be many companies in the EU will close or just up and leave.

 

[randyhudson]

This law is going in the right direction, but they should also consider how recyclable the device is at the end of life.

 

[polyphenol]

Companies can still stay in business but they need to think differently on product design and sustainability. For example, mobile phone standards change, 2G to 3G to 4G to now 5G. Why couldn't manufacturers design their phones for future proofing? If someone wants to keep their old phone but use it on the latest network offering, why not build a phone so it's transmitter and reciever parts can be upgraded to accept the latest mobile standards. Give the consumer the choice, either upgrade the old phone or purchase a new one.

That is one reason I decided to go for a Mac mini rather than an iMac. I can choose the monitor that works for me. Bigger or smaller. And can use the same monitor attached to a PC.

 

[Abazigal]

Companies can still stay in business but they need to think differently on product design and sustainability. For example, mobile phone standards change, 2G to 3G to 4G to now 5G. Why couldn't manufacturers design their phones for future proofing? If someone wants to keep their old phone but use it on the latest network offering, why not build a phone so it's transmitter and reciever parts can be upgraded to accept the latest mobile standards. Give the consumer the choice, either upgrade the old phone or purchase a new one. Bosses do not do this because they are educated and trained to have a one track mind, and that is to make as much money as possible and the current way to do that is to keep on making new and expensive things. This mindset has to change.

I will go out on a limb and argue that this is because the consumer has demonstrated that they do not care for much modularity.

There was a time when android phones offered expandable storage and removable batteries, while the iphone never did, and guess which design philosophy ultimately won out?

Right from the very beginning, Apple decided that supporting these features would sacrifice the integrity and the beauty of the iPhone, and they were right. Having a solid frame with an internal battery makes the phone more durable, and the phone lasts longer, because the battery can be built larger within the phone. Having no removable media is also less complicated for the end user, and helped simplify and perfect the design of the iphone for consumers overall.

This goes back to how Steve Jobs and Jony Ive didn’t want moving parts because they would mess up the “zen” of the device. Notice how even the 2011 iMac’s CD drive had no moving tray? You just stuck the CD into the slot. Nothing should really be popping in or out of the device. No “motion”, no swappable parts, as few ports and buttons as possible. Just a product, cut down to its absolute most basic form, with nothing standing between the user and the device (which also explains why Apple replaced Touch ID for Face ID on their phones).

Besides, by the time you are ready to swap out the antennae module of the phone, every other part probably needs to change as well, from the processor, to the camera. That’s just the pace at which technology evolves. At this point, may as well just trade in your old iphone to Apple, where they can either refurbish it for sale in the gray market, or take it apart for recycling.

It’s probably still more economical than keeping tons of spare parts in the open market, packaging and all.

 

[Apleeseed84]

The US is pro Business the EU is pro Consumer, simple as that.

 

[I7guy]

Actually if you read my posts properly you will see that I am championing the cause to keep perfectly usable devices alive. This does not mean I am championing the cause for the proposed legislation, there is a difference.

Manufacturing a product that lasts for a long time is a situation I have personally experienced on numerous occasions and felt the result of it. Video recorders, thousands sitting in warehouse because they didn't break down and not enough people was purchasing the latest product, result production shuts down. The exact same scenerio happened when video recorder production closed, it switched to computer monitors, production shut down and switched to satellite revievers, production shut down, company shut down. Happened with another company, they made printers, many made, many sold, not enough broke down thus no need to purchase a new one. Production closed down and switched to copier machines. Same thing happened with result being the company closed down.

Companies can still stay in business but they need to think differently on product design and sustainability. For example, mobile phone standards change, 2G to 3G to 4G to now 5G. Why couldn't manufacturers design their phones for future proofing? If someone wants to keep their old phone but use it on the latest network offering, why not build a phone so it's transmitter and reciever parts can be upgraded to accept the latest mobile standards. Give the consumer the choice, either upgrade the old phone or purchase a new one. Bosses do not do this because they are educated and trained to have a one track mind, and that is to make as much money as possible and the current way to do that is to keep on making new and expensive things. This mindset has to change.

Television standards changes. Therefore instead of changing the whole TV because it's not compatible with the new standard, just change relevants parts inside the TV so it is compatible.

If manufacturers of devices stay stuck in their ways when the porposed legislation becomes law then yes, In my opinion the resulting effect will be many companies in the EU will close or just up and leave.

Planned obsolescence as an engineering concept (as opposed as an allegation toward apple to sell more phones) exists to balance out cost of the product with longevity.

While it’s not a stretch that iPhones can last 7 years…its not inconceivable that what a 7 year old iphone can do relative to a newer iPhone would be much more basic.

I do not think it’s possible to engineer modern consumer devices to be totally upgradable for years to come and not increase the cost substantially.

 

[laptech]

I will go out on a limb and argue that this is because the consumer has demonstrated that they do not care for much modularity.

.......

I think your wrong on that poiint. Where modularity has existed, the consumer has cared. The biggest area of technology for modularity has been computers. Consumers and businesses around the world have enjoyed upgrading their computer with modular parts because it has allowed them to use updated parts and thus save money. Whilst maintaining the core funcationality of a computer, it could be vastly improved which having to making any changes or modifications to the core funtionality of the computer. Power supplies, sound cards, cd drives, graphic cards, all could be udpated to the latest versions.

In my opinion, in general people do not care about modularity because they have not experienced it due to the fact that many day to day items are not modular. If many day to day items were modular, in the same manner that computers are then I feel a huge amount of people would care about being able to upgrade their old item to work with modern day standards.

There are many good examples in this forum, members complaining of wanting the old ways back of being able to upgrade your computer/laptop. members in the car forum complaining of not being able to upgrade parts in their car due to the way the car manufacturer has designed the car.

 

[Abazigal]

Consumers and businesses around the world have enjoyed upgrading their computer with modular parts because it has allowed them to use updated parts and thus save money. Whilst maintaining the core funcationality of a computer, it could be vastly improved which having to making any changes or modifications to the core funtionality of the computer. Power supplies, sound cards, cd drives, graphic cards, all could be udpated to the latest versions.

And what was the cost of that modularity?

I still remember the time when the conventional wisdom in the PC market was that design wasn't important, and the result was that users had to make do with uninspiring beige boxes containing crappy hardware running crappy software. Apple's success has been nothing short of revolutionary, not just because of their record earnings every quarter, but precisely because their record earnings have demonstrated that design does matter in the mass market. It completely upended the value system in the PC market, every company (from Microsoft to Google to even Samsung) values design today more than they did a decade ago, and we are better off for it.

Design led to the invention of the iMac (which basically shoved an entire desktop behind the screen of the computer). Design led to the creation of the MacBook Air (which challenged conventional wisdom about what really mattered in a laptop). Design led to the birth of the iPad (which was Apple's answer to the netbook, and a far superior one at that). And design birthed the M1 processor, which offers superior performance over the competition not by embracing modularity, but by doing away with it altogether. Look at what is possible (eg: the immense space savings afforded by the M1 iMac) when everything is integrated into one single chip, and you don't have a dozen different PC components all fighting for space in your computer.

The only benefit modularity brings is cost savings for those willing to invest the time in upgrading their devices, and my observation is that this is mattering less and less to people because PC specs have largely hit a plateau, and even standard configurations of off-the-shelf computers have become more than adequate for 99% of computer work, even for heavy users. This isn't like 30 years ago when my desktop's ram and processor were outdated the week I bought it.

And if specs and upgradeability don't matter as much anymore, then logic dictates that the consumer would start to look for other differentiating factors like "design", like how thin and light a laptop can be. You don't miss what you don't need, and I very much suspect the reality today is that modularity simply is not giving the majority of users more of what they want, and it may in fact have a hidden cost in the design tradeoffs the OEM had to make to ensure that parts could still be readily swapped when desired.

 

[klunernet]

Agreed, that would be a sensible compromise if this kind of legislation comes in. Ensure that companies provide at least one Long Term Support (LTS) product in their line-up, thus providing the choice to customers.

Forcing this for all products is not sensible and is too much interference with free market principles in my opinion.

Apple already does that. Older versions of iOS/iPadOS/WatchOS still get security fixes. Those devices do not receive major new version of the operating system. the S2 apple watch on my wrist is one of those. I still get fixes, but it's 'stuck' on 6.3.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Lol,
And where will we dump all these parts that were manufactured for no good reason after 7 years or storage costs?

Easy. They sell the parts to other electric stores allowing people or companies to just buy them. For example in China or Japan they have entire neighborhoods just for computer parts you can buy old nixi tubes still in their box or apple 2 chips. This is literally a non issue. These parts are usable untill nobody want to repair iPhones anymore.

 

[Shirasaki]

I've got mobile phones, PDA's, computer sound cards, computer TV capture cards, media recording devices, all operational, not a single thing physically or mechanically wrong with them but none of them can be used because the manufacturers of each device stopped providing software/firmware support for them.

If a manufacturer builds a product that they know is going to last 10,20 even 30 years, they should support that product. It is totally unacceptable in my opinion to build a product that will last for years and years for it to become useless after only a couple of years because the manufacturer refuses to update the software/firmware to allow the product to still be useable.

In the world of IoT devices, manufacturer cancelling support will become a far bigger problem. These devices individually are cheap, but they are manufactured and deployed in huge quantities, meaning an upgrade cycle results in hundreds, thousands, if not millions of "obsolete" devices become unusable even though for their designed purposes, they are still working just fine.

Mandating a longer device lifespan will surely force designers to think ahead of time and implement what I call "forward-thinking design" rather than just focusing on satisfying what's happening now.

If they were forced to do that they'd simply design products that only last 5 years. Problem solved.

Or design products that do not suck and last.
Otherwise, god bless.

 

[subi257]

Sounds like a fantastic proposal especially now that smartphones have reached maturity and most don’t need to upgrade yearly or even every five years. This will force phones to be better engineered so they last longer. The main issue here is when does the clock start on security updates, is it seven years from purchase or seven years from the OS version you installed a day ago on your seven year old phone?

Most likely from date of last release. Computers are supported for 5 years from last date of sale.

 

[Gog2495]

I really dislike the EU dictating to American companies.

The arrogance of this comment is staggering!!!!

Easy solution! Don't likeit? Move out! You want access to the EU and the 445 million people in it, then you follow the EU's rules. The EU, thankfully, grants it's citizens more rights than the US does and as a consumer, I'm extremely glad it does.

 

[subi257]

Never really understood the hatred of laws that look after the consumer interests. I guess I fail at capitalism greed 101.

Well, in a capitalist country, failure to continue to be as profitable leads to a failure of the company.....as in a company that fails to provide the best ROI that it can will have shareholders selling off the stock, therefore killing the company., just kind of the way it is,

 

[subi257]

You realize that this proposal is in your interest, do you? If you are a consumer, that is.

And it's in the interest of generations to come for whom we'd like to leave a habitable planet.

Forcing manufacturers to make devices that last longer and are better repairable is a good thing.

It's all doable to a point, they will just make up for it in the price. We as Apple users will pay whatever they charge for iOS devices.....or jump ship to Android.

 

[subi257]

Do tell me how far Apple is off that mark? Perhaps someone who understands why Apple was singled out in the lede can explain how this impacts Apple much at all, let alone more than their competition? Here, let me help: how long after they stop selling it before Apple moves a product to the "vintage" list? How long before "obsolete" (when they no longer service them)? How old a device still receives iOS updates? How much of that is de jure policy and how much of it is de facto Apple's behaviour?

5 years till it is "unsupported"

 

[subi257]

Easy. They sell the parts to other electric stores allowing people or companies to just buy them. For example in China or Japan they have entire neighborhoods just for computer parts you can buy old nixi tubes still in their box or apple 2 chips. This is literally a non issue. These parts are usable untill nobody want to repair iPhones anymore.

There will always some level of NOS (new old stock) until it runs out, they are not doing any new manufacturing runs. That just shows, that there is a point where nobody wants to repair and get a shiny new "thing"

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Again, my problem is that EU countries seem to have a problem with American tech companies.

A great example is Spotify complaint to the EU about Apple. Even though both were competing in the American market. Spotify went to the legal venue they thought they would have the best luck in

Lol, absolute ********. Apple and Spotify is competing in EU markets. EU have no jurisdiction in USA. But EU can force apple App Store to comply within European borders or apple can chose not to sell apps in EU. Apple being an America company have no relevance to European laws

 

[subi257]

They don’t reduce the performance, it’s just that newer devices have better and faster chips. This tech moves fast and customers want new features.

They can reduce performance...or not run at all. Do you have a magic wand that makes a 32 bit processor run 64 bit apps without any intermediary app? if not, the intermediary app has to process and uses power from the battery...however minuscule, it does contribute to shorter battery life. There is and always will be a practical cut off point where older devices are done as far as keeping up with updates.

 

[ericwn]

Easy. They sell the parts to other electric stores allowing people or companies to just buy them. For example in China or Japan they have entire neighborhoods just for computer parts you can buy old nixi tubes still in their box or apple 2 chips. This is literally a non issue. These parts are usable untill nobody want to repair iPhones anymore.

Or maybe the real innovation would be to produce these spare parts on demand in a few days?