• Re: France Wants to Sue Apple for Planned Obsolescence

    From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to tim.downie@gmail.com on Wed May 17 15:22:30 2023
    On 2023-05-17, Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wed, 17 May 2023 03:17:00 +0000, Here is the News wrote:

    "Following a complaint, an investigation was opened in December 2022
    into deceptive marketing practices and programmed obsolescence," the
    office said in a statement on Monday, adding that the complaint was
    filed by an activist group called 'Halte a L'Obsolescence
    Programmee' (HOP).

    The group's complaint centers around the practice of
    'serialization', whereby spare parts like microchips or speakers are
    matched with serial numbers to a specific generation of iPhone.

    OK. That a specific "this" that they say that only Apple is doing.

    No matter how Apple makes excuses for serialization, they did it to
    prevent the users from easily replacing parts

    Actually, there's no evidence of what Apple's actual justification is,
    and there are other logical reasons for serialization including enhanced security and counterfeit/theft mitigation.

    --
    E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
    I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

    JR

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to Erholt Rhein on Wed May 17 20:09:12 2023
    On 2023-05-17, Erholt Rhein <erholtr@pobox.com> wrote:
    On Wed, 17 May 2023 21:21:48 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

    "It is worth emphasizing that Apple potentially limiting the
    functionality of uncertified USB-C cables connected to iPhone 15
    models is only a rumor for now" (link 2)

    The letter of warning from the EU official to Apple is a fact.

    If Apple can restrict key choices of its customers to stray outside of
    the purchasing direction that Apple wants them to, Apple will do
    everything in their power to design hardware using loopholes in the
    standards to do so.

    Yet another sock puppet pushing more baseless speculation with an
    anti-Apple slant. *YAWN*

    --
    E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
    I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

    JR

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jolly Roger@21:1/5 to Bob Campbell on Thu May 18 18:48:35 2023
    On 2023-05-18, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
    Michael <michael@spamcop.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 May 2023 03:56:55 +0000, Bob Campbell wrote:

    I know what it does as iFixIt has reported extensively on what
    Apple did. You lied.

    So, how does iFixit "know what Apple did"?

    What's obvious is you & he don't know anything about what Apple did.

    More importantly, how does iFixit know WHY Apple did whatever Apple
    allegedly did?

    I'll post the links - but if you don't know, you know nothing about
    Apple.

    Where is your link for all of this?

    Why can't you look it up before demanding links that are all over the
    place?

    How many links do you need to learn what you should long ago have
    known?

    Funny how you demand "backup links" for the "lies" of others, yet
    you spew absurd claims without any "backup links".

    I knew very well what Apple did, so I knew right away that he was
    lying.

    So because “Apple is locking iPhone battery repair, says iFixit”, that means it is true? Even though one can - in fact - replace the
    battery?

    As if iFixIt is now an authoritative source for Apple news, with no
    agenda.

    “How Parts Pairing Kills Independent Repair”. Hmm, no agenda here.
    This is clearly the OPINION of iFixIt. It is not a fact.

    Well, it qualifies as an Arlen Fact. An opinion piece that agrees
    with your opinion.

    Arlen has never been able (or willing) to distinguish fact from opinion.

    --
    E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
    I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

    JR

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to scharf.steven@geemail.com on Fri May 19 15:11:19 2023
    In article <u48het$onog$1@dont-email.me>, sms
    <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:


    In the meantime, Apple could choose to not support USB-C PD fast
    charging for non-Apple chargers and cables.

    they won't do that, nor is there any reason to do so.

    all existing macbooks and ipads support usb-c pd with any pd compatible
    cable from any manufacturer.

    note that not all usb-c cables support pd, even some of apple's own
    cables.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sms@21:1/5 to Carlos E.R. on Fri May 19 12:08:12 2023
    On 5/17/2023 1:29 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

    <snip>

    It doesn't matter, if they ban Apple products.

    There's still 24 months before the EU regulation takes effect.

    In the meantime, Apple could choose to not support USB-C PD fast
    charging for non-Apple chargers and cables.

    Once the regulation takes effect it's more dicey. If a device
    manufacturer supports the USB Power Delivery charging protocol then they
    must allow the use of cables and power adapters that support the protocol.

    A PDF of the regulation can be found at <https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10713-2022-INIT/x/pdf>.

    We all owe a big thank-you to the EU for this regulation though Apple
    might have moved to USB-C anyway because of higher-power charging and
    faster data speeds than are possible on Lightning (as they already did
    for iPad).

    --
    “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
    really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
    indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
    they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 20 07:15:19 2023
    XPost: comp.misc, comp.mobile.android

    In article <u4a3ce$11f21$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    Thing is we'll never know if Apple changed their mind following the
    response to the rumours.

    the iphone product cycle is *long* (3-4 years),

    You regularly say. How do you know seeing as you always say no one knows >> anything about Apple other than Apple.

    there is a *lot* of evidence, including statements from apple.

    here's some of it:

    for more than a decade, iphones have had major changes every 4 years:

    they can be grouped as follows:
    - 4/4s/5/5s (the 5/5s is essentially a stretched 4 without the glass
    back, a relatively minor difference)
    - 6/6s/7/8
    - x/xs/xr/11 (3 year)
    - 12/13/14 and soon to be 15.

    back in the iphone 4/4s days, phil schiller stated that they were aware
    of demand for a larger iphone, but were limited in what they could do beyond stretching the 4/4s to the 5/5s, which was already in progress.
    the soonest they could address that demand was with the 6 and 6+.

    Right the 3-4 year cycle is for a new design not a new model.

    it's both.

    apple sells ~250 million iphones per year (~700k per *day*, or ~10 per *second*), and at that volume, a long cycle is the only option.

    Those numbers are simply astonishing.

    it is, and as i said, it's something that requires a long cycle and
    long supply chain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)