(No, just keep on. These kinds of regulations were long overdue)

  • Dmian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Maybe you should try reading what’s proposed…

    The EU is not saying “companies should use USB-C”, they are saying “the industry should agree on a connector, and all should use that”.

    They went to the companies that are key players in the market and asked “what connectors do you think should be used right now?”, and the companies said “USB-C”, so that’s what it’s used.

    If in the future a better connector appears and the industry wants to change to it, they have to tell the EU “Now we want to use connector XYZ”, and that will be what everybody use. The standard is set by the industry, not the EU.

    The EU knows what it’s doing. They don’t claim to know better than the industry. They just want the industry to do things that favor the consumer, not screw them to favor themselves…

    American consumers are used at being screwed by companies that only see for the benefit of their shareholders. It doesn’t matter if the consumer has to spend more, or produce more waste. That’s not how the EU want things. Consumers and the environment are a priority here, not only shareholders returns.

    • 0x4E4F@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do agree on this, the EU doesn’t just blindly fly out with a proposal, they actually do research before they plan on passing anything.

    • weinermeat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the EU knows what it’s doing, why are they only using phone OSes from US based companies? I’d argue that they don’t know what they are doing at all considering they have made extremely little contribution to the space and yet want to regulate those products. Imagine the kind of trash they would have to use if the US companies pulled out of the EU.

      • Dmian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re talking about technological advancements, I’m talking about market regulation and the environment. If the price for technological advances is to let companies pollute and destroy the Earth, I don’t want it, sorry. I prefer a slower pace, but not destroy the only planet we have. And I’m saying this from a record braking temperatures summer. And I’m not even mentioning other things we do differently in the EU, because if we start comparing, it becomes rather unfair, and i’m not looking to humiliate people.

        • weinermeat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And I’m not saying those changes are necessarily negative, I’m saying that the EU is overreaching when they contribute very little at this point. And if you really want to talk about how you “do things differently”, without the US you’d all be using PutinPhones in 2030 and have no environmental regulations at all lol.

          If you’re worried about the environment you should be looking at industrial waste from China, not Apple phones.

          • Dmian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s the difference. You think the EU is “overreaching”. I think the EU is putting necessary regulations to companies that are prone to cross the line again and again.

            That Volkswagen cheats in the emission tests? Here comes the EU sanctions. That Meta spies on people without letting them know? Start paying the fines! That Google abuses its privilege position to eliminate competition? Behave or pay the price. The EU keeps companies in line, and as a result, we have a healthier market. That’s how things are done here…

            And please, don’t mention Putin. Our tanks and weapons are used in Ukraine as well as the American ones. NATO is a thing, you know?

      • Dmian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because if it’s done right, a single USB-C charger and cable is all you’ll need, instead of 2 or three different chargers. You buy less things, less trash out there polluting the environment. And it’s not like Apple hasn’t made you throw charging cables before… remember the 30-pin connector?

          • Dmian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The fact that you need to buy a special cable to connect an iPhone to a MacBook (for example) should be a motivation enough for the change.

            Apple has moved most of their products to USB-C, except the iPhone, and the only explanation possible is that using Lighting is profitable for them, even if it’s not convenient for users. Not all iPhone users are Mac users, and as you said, there are more iPhone users than mac users. All those iPhone users (and Mac users that use iPhones) are forced to buy cables from Apple or an authorized MFi manufacturer) that money will be gone with USB-C, as you’ll be able to use any cable brand you want.

            On my part, I’m glad they’re being forced to do it. They seem more worried on incrementing their pile on money than doing something that may benefit their customers, in this case. So, good riddance lightning cables! You won’t be missed. And thanks EU, for doing it.

              • Dmian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Apple makes as much good and reasonable decisions as they make questionable ones.

                But why could that be? Simple, they make what interest and benefits THEM first. And if it incidentally benefits the customers, fine. If not, people will go up in arms, but they don’t care because they know that in the end, they’re powerless and will keep buying their products.

                They don’t care if customers have to change accessories (the move to Lightning is the proof), they change things, or use new standards as long as it benefits THEM in any way, or is in their interest. All those changes you mentioned benefited THEM, and in some cases, the customers too, but in others, they didn’t and then customers got upset.

                And they simply don’t want to change to USB-C on the iPhone because it’s not beneficial for them, it just benefits the customers. And that’s, in my opinion, all that there’s to it. And again, I’m glad that, for a change, they’ll be forced to do something that benefits the customers and not them.

                Hope that clears the point.

            • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The other explanation for lightning on the phone is that it’s a better connector for a phone.

              It’s simpler, easier to clean, more durable and is designed to break the cable instead of the phone when twisted or bent.

              • Dmian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lightning was better that the 30-pin one. Or maybe the first iterations of USB-C. These days, USB-C is way more capable, technically, than Lightning, and that’s why the industry use it so massively (even Apple for other products).

                They don’t charge it because it will only benefit consumers, but not the company. And they only care for things that benefit them, irregardless of it benefiting the customers.

                • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t know what makes any company make the decisions they do, but it’s easy to see that lightning is a better connector for a phone.

                  You’re right that usbc supports more lanes and by extension a higher transfer speed and that usbc has a higher voltage power delivery standard.

                  The better physical port to have on a phone is lightning. It’s more durable, easier to clean, and the cable breaks instead of the port.

                  The environment phones live in makes those much more important than faster transfers and charging speed (every phone I’ve dealt with from any manufacturer actually throttles back the charging speed to save the battery!).

                  So while usbc has significant advantages over lightning, it’s physically a bad port to have on a device that’s hanging around in your pocket and that makes it worse.

                  • Afiefh@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s more durable, easier to clean, and the cable breaks instead of the port.

                    Citation on the durability claim?

                    I’ve been using USB-C since it was released, and none of them ever broke on me.