Report: Apple to Stop Selling iPhone 14 and iPhone SE in EU This Month

[Aoligei]

I don’t know what the argument is here, you would prefer that iPhones were still doing Lightning/USB 2.0?

It’s funny with all these complaints about EU regulation. But I don’t see anyone complaining about the cross compatibility of USB-C and the upgraded wired data transfer speed it offers over USB 2.0/Lightning.

Additionally, Apple has had 10+ years to either upgrade the specs of Lighting or launch a new proprietary ports that outperforms USB-C.

But Apple was too busy selling us USB 2.0 and doing (USB-C) Thunderbolt on Macs and iPads to change iPhone.

Gee, I wonder if there’s perchance, maybe, just maybe, a correlation between iPhones being Apple’s top selling and earning product throughout all of its history by far(!) and its reluctance to ditch Lighting and move to a port that doesn’t earn it any royalties or forces consumers to replace all their smartphone accessories to MFi Lightning accessories if they switch from another smartphone brand to iPhone?

I wonder, I wonder.

There were three devices with lightning port and USB-3 speed, those were iPad Pros. The lightning devices are capable for USB 3.0. But it is still pretty limited non-the-less.

I have no idea why Apple just insist to limit iPhone to USB 2.0 on the lightning and non-pro iPhones with USB-C.

I am glad Apple switch to USB-C. Means if I forgot my lightning cable when I am out, I can just grab USB-C cable from someone else.

 

[Aoligei]

The guy said his parent's flip phone had USB C. I am saying that is NOT possible

TCL FLIP

www.tcl.com

Here you go. Flip phones are still being produced in 2024 and they have USB-C. Jesus, even cheap a** phone has USB-C, but not iPhone.

 

[Abazigal]

Having more storage is strictly better than not having it.

Especially when we're talking 32GB on iPads or 256GB on Macs. When even my mother's iPad and MacBook come quite close to filling up their base storage, these devices have very little of it.

There's no "interpretation thereof" required.

I guess it's one thing to have more storage, and another to want more storage without wanting to pay for it.

There is nothing stopping customers from buying a device model with more storage or ram. I have been getting iPhones and iPads with 256gb storage back when base models shipped with way less than that (like when I sprung for 64gb model of the iPhone 5s back when the base model came with just 16gb storage). I also have the M1 MBA base model and have currently used less than half of the 256gb of storage that came with it, and it's going strong for me, 8gb ram and all.

Map out what you need, pay for it, and get on with your life. I am not going to waste my time complaining (since I am already dead set on owning that particular Apple product), nor am I going to quibble over spending a little extra for something that is likely going to last me years.

But I suppose that's something the EU could look at legislating next - that all computers need to come with a minimum amount of storage or something. 😉

On a side note, I wish I could pay more for a Switch with extra internal storage. I have had nothing but issues with the 512gb Samsung sd-card I purchased to use with it. Games not downloading or loading properly from it....

 

[Aoligei]

I guess it's one thing to have more storage, and another to want more storage without wanting to pay for it.

There is nothing stopping customers from buying a device model with more storage or ram. I have been getting iPhones and iPads with 256gb storage back when base models shipped with way less than that (like when I sprung for 64gb model of the iPhone 5s back when the base model came with just 16gb storage). I also have the M1 MBA base model and have currently used less than half of the 256gb of storage that came with it, and it's going strong for me, 8gb ram and all.

I have no problem paying for additional storage if the price is fair, but Apple's pricing is often unreasonable and inconsistent.

Take the iPhone 16 Pro, for example: the price difference between the 256GB model ($1599) and the 500GB model ($1899) is $300 (in CAD), which works out to over $1 per extra GB.

Similarly, with the MacBook Air 13-inch with the M3 chip, the 256GB model costs $1449, and upgrading to 500GB costs $1699, a $250 difference. In both cases, the storage increase is 250GB, yet the price differences are $50 apart. Why the inconsistency?

A quick search shows that a 2TB WD Black NVMe PCI-E Gen 4 SSD costs around $200. Yet Apple charges an eye-watering $1000 for 2TB of storage—5 times more expensive!

Another issue is the combination of 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD in many Apple devices. Computers with limited RAM will constantly use the SSD for page files, leading to frequent read/write operations. SSDs have a limited lifespan, measured in TBW (terabytes written), and this constant writing accelerates their wear. So, with only 8GB of RAM, the SSD will degrade much faster.

With most Apple devices having non-upgradable components, replacing the storage becomes nearly impossible. It feels like Apple is intentionally creating e-waste by making it difficult for users to extend or upgrade their devices.

 

[I7guy]

I have no problem paying for additional storage if the price is fair, but Apple's pricing is often unreasonable and inconsistent.

Take the iPhone 16 Pro, for example: the price difference between the 256GB model ($1599) and the 500GB model ($1899) is $300 (in CAD), which works out to over $1 per extra GB.

Similarly, with the MacBook Air 13-inch with the M3 chip, the 256GB model costs $1449, and upgrading to 500GB costs $1699, a $250 difference. In both cases, the storage increase is 250GB, yet the price differences are $50 apart. Why the inconsistency?

A quick search shows that a 2TB WD Black NVMe PCI-E Gen 4 SSD costs around $200. Yet Apple charges an eye-watering $1000 for 2TB of storage—5 times more expensive!

Another issue is the combination of 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD in many Apple devices. Computers with limited RAM will constantly use the SSD for page files, leading to frequent read/write operations. SSDs have a limited lifespan, measured in TBW (terabytes written), and this constant writing accelerates their wear. So, with only 8GB of RAM, the SSD will degrade much faster.

With most Apple devices having non-upgradable components, replacing the storage becomes nearly impossible. It feels like Apple is intentionally creating e-waste by making it difficult for users to extend or upgrade their devices.

So you feel government is justified in banning devices it doesn’t feel has the proper “green” factor?

 

[omenatarhuri]

EU is such a **** show. Can’t wait for better times for Europe.

 

[Expos of 1969]

Just curious. What was so wrong with the lightning port that the European Union found it necessary to require a different port. Usually that kind of reg stifles creativity.

Personally I have no issues at all with lightning cables and ports but that is just me. I reside in the EU but I was not consulted.

 

[10anta]

Just curious. What was so wrong with the lightning port that the European Union found it necessary to require a different port. Usually that kind of reg stifles creativity.

The EU are a bunch of meddling control freaks. If there's not a regulation to make something more difficult or profitable for them then they invent one.

 

[Aoligei]

So you feel government is justified in banning devices it doesn’t feel has the proper “green” factor?

Yes. That is function of government, it exist to pass law and regulations. You might not like it and you can vote the government down, in the meantime, companies need to follow the rule.

 

[I7guy]

Yes. That is function of government, it exist to pass law and regulations. You might not like it and you can vote the government down, in the meantime, companies need to follow the rule.

And people around here support government to do just that. Keep the air safe, food safe and water safe as long a personal rights are trampled. But when it comes to apple, government support to do what it takes is limitless.

 

[theluggage]

Someone showed me Apple's thunderbolt cable on the apple store, wondered why it cost so much, and I decided it wasn't a battle I wanted to fight, so I just smiled and shrugged as he went around telling the rest how Apple sells a $200 usb cable.

So, what's your point? Anti-apple trolls will troll - 5 minutes of research will show why the $200 TB5-certified cable isn't comparable with a $10 Amazon Basics charge cable. If you go to the Apple website and look for iPhone charging accessories you'll see 1m and 2m USB-C charge cables for $20 and $30. Thanks to USB-C you can also buy an Amazon Basics equivalent for half that and still be confident that it will works. What the EU has done, by forcing manufacturers like Apple to use USB-C (and, more importantly, follow the USB power delivery standard), is prevented manufacturers from telling people that they have to buy their overpriced proprietary cables to be sure they'll work (they can try but EVENTUALLY Trading Standards will have their guts for garters).

Right now, I am willing to bet that the average consumer has absolutely zero idea what version of usb-c cable they are using

That "average user" just wants to charge their phone and doesn't need to know whether the cable is Thunderbolt 5 compatible. Just buy the best deal from any reputable brand and it will charge their phone. The above-average user can do the 5 minutes research to see if the cable provides the wattage and data rate that they need without worrying whether a Brand X cable will support the proprietary fast charging used by a Brand Y phone, or being gaslit into thinking that an off-brand cable will invalidate the warranty on their device.

Maybe if the EU feels compelled to want to stick their nose into every single thing, perhaps they could look at regulating how these cables are named or something?

As far as the EU is concerned, any USB-C cable will safely charge your USB-C phone at the minimum rate without letting the magic smoke out. If not, the cable was faulty or missold and the cable maker is clearly at fault. Job done.

I completely agree that the USB-IF has made a pigs ear of standardising the labelling of cables - but that's the USB-IF's dumpster fire. You think the EU should have crossed the line between backing an industry-designed standard and actually interfering with the design of that standard? Of course not.

What exactly is the endgame here? Wait for technological advancement to petter out and hope that we all standardise around thunderbolt 6 for all cables or something?

The endgame is here - we now have a charge/sync connector standard that can negotiate what voltage & current the device can accept from the charger and what data protocols it can support on which pins - "technological advancement" has petered out in terms of what sort of physical electrical connection you need - almost everything has settled on 4 pairs of twisted copper wires, and advancement is coming from signal processing in the device and peripherals.

Even the current USB standards can deliver 80-160Gbps of data and 240W of power, which is way beyond what current phones can use. All future "innovations" have to do is keep the plug form-factor, negotiate to - I don't know, use all the data pins to carry power - and fall-back if that fails. In any case, anything needing more power than USB PD can provide is exempt from the EU directive anyway... and if any new wired data protocol comes along that needs more than 4 twisted pairs just add another connector, or invent a new connector that still accepts USB-C plugs (as happened with USB 3). Seen any news about Apple dropping the iPhone version of MagSafe? No, the directive doesn't affect it.

You know those shiny new M4 Mac Minis that everybody seems to love - that mains connector was designed in the 1970s. The cassette tape player I used to load programs into my 8-bit micro used one. The UK wall plug design dates from 1947. Somehow, though, I'm not still listening to music on a 1940s wire recorder or loading Mac software from a cassette tape. So all this "it will stifle innovation" stuff is unfounded unless you have some plausible theory why future iPhones will need more than 240W of power. There comes a point at which it is safe to say "this standard is going to be OK for a decade or two - so let's stop businesses trying to restrict competition by using expensive proprietary connectors".

If your greatest criticism of USB-C is the labelling of cables - nothing in the EU directives prevents
cable manufacturers or the USB-IF getting their act together and stamp something like "USB 3.1 - 60W" on their cables, so I'm sure that the invisible hand of the market will fix that real soon now.

Any day.

I mean, it hasn't quite been 10 years yet, let's not be impatient.

Wait for it...

 

[theluggage]

But when it comes to apple, government support to do what it takes is limitless.

It's not just Apple affected by these regulations.

All other phone manufacturers are subject to these rules and have quietly, and without fuss, moved first to microUSB and are now well along the road to switching to USB-C - hard to say how much this was due to the EU pressure and how much it just made sense - but if it was going to happen anyway the EU rules at worst do nothing and at best help ensure a level playing field where one player can't gain an advantahge by locking customers into as proprietary system.

It's just Apple who are dragging their heels and having to be forced, kicking and screaming (although that may be more from Apple fans than the company itself), to do the obvious. Which is ironic considering Apple are a major contributor to, and promoter of USB-C, and are basically just being told to eat their own dogfood.

Google, Amazon, Microsoft et. al. have all been in regulatory wrangles with the EU over the years - probably moreso than Apple - and the Digital Markets Act that's the source of the App Store wrangles very much affects them as well (Edit - correction: e.g. Google trying to force pre-installed Google Apps on 3rd party Android phone manufacturers who wanted to include the Play Store).

 

[I7guy]

It's not just Apple affected by these regulations.

All other phone manufacturers are subject to these rules and have quietly, and without fuss, moved first to microUSB and are now well along the road to switching to USB-C - hard to say how much this was due to the EU pressure and how much it just made sense - but if it was going to happen anyway the EU rules at worst do nothing and at best help ensure a level playing field where one player can't gain an advantahge by locking customers into as proprietary system.

Yes, apple which uses different connectors across its product line was the only company that was “forced” to switch. What level playing field are you referring to? That keeps being cited, but it’s nonsense. It’s not like apple has any control of what people buy.

It's just Apple who are dragging their heels and having to be forced, kicking and screaming (although that may be more from Apple fans than the company itself), to do the obvious.

What is the obvious? There is no obvious. There is only a set of stale regulations that will ultimately cause unintended side effects.

Which is ironic considering Apple are a major contributor to, and promoter of USB-C, and are basically just being told to eat their own dogfood.

Again nonsense. Under the guise of “leveling the playing” field instead of vote with your $$$.

Google, Amazon, Microsoft et. al. have all been in regulatory wrangles with the EU over the years - probably moreso than Apple - and the Digital Markets Act that's the source of the App Store wrangles very much affects them as well (e.g. Google trying to force the Play Store on 3rd party Android phone manufacturers).

All android manufacturers will support the google olay store because it benefits them to do so.

 

[theluggage]

All android manufacturers will support the google olay store because it benefits them to do so.

Sorry - I mangled that point. It was Google requiring 3rd party makers to pre-install Google Apps if they wanted to include the Play Store.

What level playing field are you referring to?

As in: Manufacturer X decides to adopt a common charge connector for the good of its customers, Manufacturer Y uses a proprietary charge connector and uses its profits from selling or licensing proprietary chargers or connectors to subsidise the cost of the phone - or simply make higher margins. Because competing chargers can't legitimately claim compatibility with Manufacturer Y's unpublished, trade-secret specs without licensing them, so Man. Y can gaslight customers into thinking unofficial chargers will damage their machines - a self fulfilling prophecy because only shady manufacturers will risk selling unlicensed products. If you don't think that variations of that have repeatedly happened throughout the history of computing, you're living on another planet. One where Apple's MFi program didn't happen, for starters.

Under the guise of “leveling the playing” field instead of vote with your $$$.

Ah yes... the good old illusion of choice, where every transaction in life is just like choosing the cheapest from three 30oz bags of identical sugar with no stinkin' government to ensure that they all used the same definition of "sugar" and "ounce", or that the company wasn't paying the storekeeper not to sell the cheaper brand.

 

[Aoligei]

And people around here support government to do just that. Keep the air safe, food safe and water safe as long a personal rights are trampled. But when it comes to apple, government support to do what it takes is limitless.

This is not a political form, so there is clear divide between your belief and my belief. But let just keep as this way.

 

[I7guy]

Sorry - I mangled that point. It was Google requiring 3rd party makers to pre-install Google Apps if they wanted to include the Play Store.

So seems like a fair deal. Free operating system in exchange for installing apps.

As in: Manufacturer X decides to adopt a common charge connector for the good of its customers, Manufacturer Y uses a proprietary charge connector and uses its profits from selling or licensing proprietary chargers or connectors to subsidise the cost of the phone - or simply make higher margins. Because competing chargers can't legitimately claim compatibility with Manufacturer Y's unpublished, trade-secret specs without licensing them, so Man. Y can gaslight customers into thinking unofficial chargers will damage their machines - a self fulfilling prophecy because only shady manufacturers will risk selling unlicensed products. If you don't think that variations of that have repeatedly happened throughout the history of computing, you're living on another planet. One where Apple's MFi program didn't happen, for starters.

This is more of a back-end view of things. A connector does not level the playing field. It’s the illusion of leveling the playing field to your point t below. The entirety of the dma is smoke and mirrors.

Ah yes... the good old illusion of choice, where every transaction in life is just like choosing the cheapest from three 30oz bags of identical sugar with no stinkin' government to ensure that they all used the same definition of "sugar" and "ounce", or that the company wasn't paying the storekeeper not to sell the cheaper brand.

As I said above the dma regulations are the illusion of choice.

 

[I7guy]

This is not a political form, so there is clear divide between your belief and my belief. But let just keep as this way.

Correct. It’s an opinion of what seems to be the truth.

 

[surferfb]

Ah yes... the good old illusion of choice, where every transaction in life is just like choosing the cheapest from three 30oz bags of identical sugar with no stinkin' government to ensure that they all used the same definition of "sugar" and "ounce", or that the company wasn't paying the storekeeper not to sell the cheaper brand.

Your sugar example is an example of an appropriate regulation - if a company is advertising 30oz of sugar in the box, there should be consequences if the box has less than 30oz or doesn't actually contain sugar, because all the consumer has to go on is what's printed on the box.

The reason we're never going to agree on this is that you fundamentally think it's good and proper for the government to regulate what charging connector electronic device manufacturers are allowed to use, and I think that it's a ridiculous overreach that has a significant possibility of stifling innovation and making future products worse. As long as the connector placed in the phone isn't a safety risk, the government shouldn't be sticking its nose in to regulate - the market is perfectly capable of doing that on its own. I personally decided to stop buying products that didn't charge via USB-C years ago. I voted with my wallet, and in my opinion that's how these sorts of decisions ought to be made.

We just saw this in the US with EV charging cables, where a standard that wasn't designed by committee won out over the committee-designed options because it was a better solution and the EU is stuck with the worse option because they felt the need to mandate it years ago. The US didn't mandate the connector, they let the free market work, and the US got a better solution. While this is slightly different because USB-C may be the best option now, who is to say it would have been in 10, 15 years? And don't kid yourself, the standard will not be changed.

That said, all this back and forth isn't going to change each other's minds - we just have an entirely different opinion of the appropriateness of regulations like this.

 

[John_Blackthorne]

It depends on people’s priorities - iPhone SE 2025 perks are the rumoured 8GB of RAM and Apple Intelligence support (not yet available in the EU), whereas iPhone 15 has two cameras and a Dynamic Island vs SE’s notch.

If the phone is over six inches long and has OLED, I could see myself picking one up.

The older I get, the more routine functions are fine for me.

 

[John_Blackthorne]

So seems like a fair deal. Free operating system in exchange for installing apps.

This is more of a back-end view of things. A connector does not level the playing field. It’s the illusion of leveling the playing field to your point t below. The entirety of the dma is smoke and mirrors.

As I said above the dma regulations are the illusion of choice.

"Leveling the playing field" to many in the tech community (and Europe, especially) seems to be: kneecap the more successful company so the slower companies can keep up.

If you hobble a fast horse, slow horses can "complete" with them (in some twisted minds, anyway).

Very lowest common denominator thinking.

Harrison Bergeron-esque.

 

[Alex.ne]

Will they have to ditch all lightning iPhones from refurbished store in EU as well ?

 

[TechnoTiger3000]

This is so sad! Apple should have stopped selling iPhones in the EU in protest! Bring back the Lightning connector!

Why?