Apple forced to ditch iPhone lightning charger::Apple confirms new iPhone 15 will have a common USB-C charging port after EU forces it into the change.

  • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    261
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Regulations work. Suck it, predatory businesses. Literally, eat shit.

      • BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        96
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They first started using USB c on the macbooks in 2015. There’s no way that it took 8 years to get it ready for the iPhone. In that time they’ve also released several other devices and accessories which have used lightning.

        To me this doesn’t point to a planned gradual shift over to USB c but one that was forced by neccesity on the macbook then by regulation on the iPhone.

        • June@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          1 year ago

          The narrative around Lightning was always that they’d keep it for 10 years and then move to something new, Schiller even called it “a modern connector for the next decade” when it was announced, and at the time it was better than anything else on the market.

          No one who’s been paying attention is surprised that Apple switched this year and not next. I’d love to go dig up my years old comments on Reddit about this but like many of us I deleted my whole history. I had hoped they’d advance the timeline and release the 14 with USBC because of the EU regs, but I’m convinced this was the plan because they waited for the lighting to fulfill its 10 year target (just like with the 30 pin connector) and not until the EU regs actually forced them in 2024.

          When the iPad switched to USBC in 2018 it was a foregone conclusion that iPhone would too, and the assumption was always for it to happen in 2023.

          • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            How does it take 5 years to integrate the world’s most popular and standardised connector?

            Call me a cynic, but maybe they just wanted another five years of selling over priced cables and another five years of controlling another part of the “ecosystem”.

            • June@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m saying it was a choice to ride out the full 10 years with lightning, not a limitation. They tooled up for 10 years of lightning and they stuck to the plan.

            • anlumo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              Apple produces hardware at a scale not imaginable to mortal people. When they want to use a chip in their phone, they just buy up the chip’s factory’s entire production run for the next few years.

              Apple was the only company that had no shortages during the chip troubles of 2020/21/22. That’s because they plan ahead. They have a logistics person at the helm, and it’s very visible.

              All of this naturally leads to ridiculous planning cycles.

          • Rootiest@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            as every accessory with a lightning port just became e-waste. I guess Mother Nature didn’t see that.

            I think it’s interesting that you see this as USB-C’s fault.

            If Apple had stuck to a standard connector they would have been on usb-c in a year or two anyway and none of that e-waste would exist.

            Or if they went back on their word and switched to usb-c from lightning after a couple years, there would also be way less Lightning e-waste. What do you think happens to all those Lightning accessories when someone switches from iPhone to a different device?

            Apple’s proprietary Lightning connector is responsible for the e-waste, not USB-C or regulators.

            These regulations will stop companies like Apple making proprietary connectors purely for profit that generate all the e-waste in the first place.

            • Petter1@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol, a cable is barely e waste. The power Adapter is where the e waste is, and those usb A blocks can easily still be used, even if you only have usb-C cables lying around. For very little money, you can buy an Adapter from usb-A to C and you can still use them. I don’t get the eWaste argument on copper cables…

              • Rootiest@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                16
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                USB-C was finalized 2 years later so the decade of Lighting e-waste is still on Apple for holding out as long as they did.

                Maybe instead of designing a whole new Lightning connector they should have been pioneers and been one of the first to make a USB-C phone.

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

                  No it wasn’t. The very first version of USB-C was standardized 2 years later. It didn’t get to feature parity with lightning until Thunderbolt support was added at the 5 year mark.

          • BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            As far as I know the fastest charging over lightning even now is 20 Watts which is far too slow for a laptop with a large battery. I suspect that they couldn’t use lightning on the macbooks for that reason.

            If their intention was to limit waste then they wouldn’t have continued to produce lightning accessories if the plan was to transition in just a few years

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

                They have a magsafe port and come with a MagSafe cable (which is USB -> MagSafe) but they charge just fine with usb-c. I can’t remember when I last used my MagSafe cable (I think it’s in a box somewhere) because it normally charges while docked and it makes more sense to carry an USB cable on the go.

      • Dum@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This law is more than a decade in the making, the only reason it was on Apples roadmap is because of this law.

        The EU doesn’t have to mandate a new connector when something new comes up, it just has to be an open standard, ANY open standard. This is miles better for everyone. And the EU doesn’t force the whole world to adapt their standard, it’s just not economical to produce different versions for different markets, but they are very much allowed to sell whatever to their non EU customers.

        If you really want the lightning adapter back, you can ask one of the many people who soldered a usb-c connector in an iphone 12/13/14. If one person can do it, I’m pretty sure Apple can, too.

      • lustrum@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Give over. They were passive aggressive as fuck in their statements after the EU mandated it.

          • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know any reason why switching to USB-C would’ve been on Apple’s roadmap. Controlling the lighting ecosystem is far too valuable for them. Apple’s refusal to switch to the common USB-C is one of the reasons this law exists in it’s current form.

              • Rootiest@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If it’s all about pumping up Lightning, why did the iPad leave it?

                Because Lightning is too slow and low-power for the functionality they felt necessary for the iPad.

                You can’t do real video output over USB2.0, charging current is limited, and you can’t effectively use it for data and charging at the same time outside of limited configurations.

                Your mistake is overlooking the fact that Lightning is woefully outdated.

                iPhones have been able to get away with it this long by doing most everything wirelessly and convincing users like you that it’s somehow better to have a slower, less powerful connector on their phone.

                They couldn’t get away with the same limitations on a tablet.

          • Rootiest@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess if a new/better connector comes along we have to wait for the EU to give everyone permission to move the technology forward?

            The EU is mandating open standards, not specific open standards.

            If a new and better connector comes around they are welcome/encouraged to use it. As long as it’s an open standard and not proprietary e-waste generating junk

          • lustrum@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Theyre not stupid if you read it before writing about it on Lemmy you’d see they’re required to review regularly with stakeholders to agree and amend requirements ‘in line with scientific and technological progress, consumer convenience and environmental developments’

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Apple would have implemented USB-C ages ago if they had any intention of ever doing it willingly.

            Everything they make uses USB-C except the iphone which uses lightning and funnily enough they get a substantial cut out of every accessory and cable sale.

            The EU has a FAQ somewhere addressing this, can’t find it though.

            And calling the EU a regional government is underplaying their power and international influence a LOT.

      • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Eh, I don’t know Apple’s intentions but this specific design change isn’t that complicated. The lightning port still uses the USB protocol so the firmware will be the same or very similar. The supporting electronics also wouldn’t change much, but at most they’d omit/add a few small passives and slightly reroute that part of the circuit to make things fit together. They’d also have to lock down a large production run of USB ports, but any manufacturer would accommodate a customer as large as Apple. They’d need to test fit it with the new phone chassis but that’s relatively simple as well. Regulatory certification would also be smooth sailing for a change this simple, since most of what’s changing is simply the form factor.

        I figure it would take two years before customers would see this design change from the moment engineering was assigned it.

        I’m an electrical engineer who works in production if that matters.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I doubt Apple just learned of the pending EU rule 12 months ago as it was passed.

            The alternative is to take a gamble that it won’t be approved and then be stuck with phones that weren’t in compliance (ignoring the 24 month grace period) and having the development clock start immediately for future models. I’m sure they saw which way the winds were blowing, knew they had no populist counter argument opposing the change, and decided it was in their best interest to join literally every other manufacturer on the planet in using a standard port.

          • GooseFinger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s really hard to say without being personally involved. Two years is a very comfortable amount of time to implement that specific change. The biggest hurdle is passing regulatory testing early enough to begin manufacturing in time to build a large enough stockpile before release. If they really pushed it and threw enough people at it, manufacturing could begin as little as 6 months after starting. But that’s a very risky timeline because about a million things will still go wrong all throughout the process, and “simple” design changes like this are never, ever simple.

            I’m impressed if they began production one year after deciding to make the change. The EU directive might’ve been approved roughly a year ago, but Apple might’ve seen writing on the wall and started earlier too. Regardless of context, this is definitely not a >2-3 year process though.

          • Rootiest@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Could they?

            Yeah probably. USB-C connectors are ubiquitous, I’m certain they could acquire the necessary components in short notice if they had to. From my understanding they essentially did just swap the connector and kept the same USB2.0 controller.

            Did they?

            I doubt it, they had plenty of notice this was coming and were likely already preparing for it.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if the second USB-C iPhone release gets a modern controller with USB 3.2 or even 4, and Apple talks it up like they have single-handedly made USB-C fast all by theirselves (and imply that other mobile devices haven’t had the same for far longer)

              • Petter1@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why are you getting downvoted 🤔 I’m pretty sure apple would have kept lighting on the “cheap” phones until the complete removal of any port (I assume they kill the port on the “cheap” phone in the next 5 years) and give the pro thunderbolt like they did this year. I’m thinking this, because I bet not even 1% of “cheap” iPhone users uses the port for data transfer (keep in mind that 1% of “cheap” iPhone users are still plenty talking in absolute numbers)

                • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Just because Apple forced their users to switch everything to wireless, doesn’t mean cables are obsolete.

                  More users would use cable if it was actually decently implemented, like with many Android manufacturers.

                  Because cable has many advantages over wireless, like having transfer speeds more than 10 times faster.

      • Cheez@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah totally planned. That’s why it seems like they’ve just jury rigged a new connector onto the USB 2.0 internals.

        • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I know you didn’t mean it that way, but that is actually the best solution from a production side, which Cook is. Just change one line in the process. Instead of a lightning port, it’s a usbc port.

          It’s a phone. I don’t know why everyone wants 40 Gbps. Not that you’ll ever get unless you pony up for a $100 cable.

          With all that said, it was hilarious to see them talk about usb 2 and how 3 is 20x faster because that shit was straight out of 20 years ago.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know you’re not the same person they replied to, but this is “arguing out of both sides of your mouth.”

            It can’t be that “Apple carefully plans out everything years in advance so it had to be USB-C anyway due to the difficulty in adapting a new port” and also that “they do a simple one line change in the production run to swap to USB-C” because these two things are diametrically opposed to one another.

            • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Never said they carefully planned out usb c. All I said was that changing the physical port is the cheapest and most cost effective way of doing it. No need to change the entire module.

              It’s all right there. So no idea man

              • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I acknowledged that you weren’t the person making the initial claim right at the beginning of my comment, but the flow of the discussion here is:

                A) Initial claim: USB-C was coming anyway because it takes years to integrate this stuff into new devices

                B) Counter-argument: If it took them years to integrate this port into the device then why does it appear to be slapped together with shit data speed?

                C) Your counter counter-argument: it appears slapped together because it’s a simple one line change in the production process and is very simple

                A and C can’t be true because they’re diametrically opposed. If B and C are true then A is false.

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

            I think it’s more that USB 2 speeds at the bare minimum are a really trash value for an $800 phone. I get what you mean, as this will push the “pro” consumers who absolutely must have 4K ProRes RAW video/photo transfers to buy the Pro models, but for real. It is shitty from a consumer perspective regardless.

            • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You get the same speeds on the 15 as lightning. Same power delivery. The Pro got bumped up to usb 3.0. Nothing ground breaking but fast enough to record video to an external source.

              The rest is the internet being the internet. Not sure why everyone expected TB4 40 Gbps speeds on a phone 🤷‍♂️

      • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh man you have not followed all of this progress have you? the EU has been pushing for this for a long time now, if this was their planall along Apple could have stated that they planned to do this in the future but that they were waiting for closure of their original connector, but they didn’t, all their communications until this decission was made have been that lightning was not going away. Suddenly, it was their plan all along. It’s… so much like apple to do this and so in line for their fans to eat it up.

          • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            itr’s not about sharing their plans publicly, it’s about their intent being 180 of what they say now. When this was being worked on in the EU, Apple was pretty clearly against it. If their plan was to do it anyway them opposing the forced change would make no sense.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If they were going to switch anyway, they wouldn’t have struggled until the EU had to make regulations around it.

        Regulations means the market can’t regulate itself. The market in this case being Apple.

      • lorez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They had until the beginning of 2024, that is by 2024 USB C had to be the standard, leaving Apple no choice with Iphones introduced in 2023’s fall.

      • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think they wanted to go to usb-c (as that’s what all their other products use) but they didn’t want to face the backlash from customers when “all their cables and docks had to be changed again”. Luckily for apple the EU gave them a fall guy.

        • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If that was the case apple wouldn’t talk so openly about how that’s bad for the consumer. They want to keep Lightning since they want to control the iPhone accessory ecosystem.

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

            Of course they would, “I’m sorry that all your accessories no longer work guys, it was all the EU’s fault”.

            • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It probably depends on the consumer. Most (older) people I know are always irritated which cable they actually need, so it’s great to just be able to give them one with USB C.

              Edit: They often have other devices with USB C anyway (e.g. headphones).

  • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    So funny seeing Apple fans eat up their PR. Ooh it was Apple’s plan all along? They did it because it’s more environmentally friendly? Yeah right and it only coincides the very same year EU is enforcing every manufacturer to go USB-C route. No one ever stopped to think if Apple is so environmentally friendly why were they fighting right to repair act.

    And don’t give me that “iPad had USB-C” speech. If lightning port could handle higher currents, iPad would have gone that route as well. USB has been standard for many years now but they have pushed so many different ports instead of going USB route. They don’t care about anything else other than milking a bit more money from their users.

    • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In my opinion, Apple’s choice to reduce the number and variety of ports on their devices in order to sell more dongles was where mobile device enshitification began in earnest. Now my phone just spys on me and vomits ads constantly and I can’t even plug in my fucking headphones.

      • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They take ages to adopt great features that have existed on Android devices for years, and yet are THE leader of what corners to cut in the industry.

        • RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We like to call it innovation here, innovative ideas to fuck everyone and get a bit of bonus for the ceo

    • Cheez@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      “iPad had USB-C”

      Any argument they make for iPads having USB-C is moot because they are still selling Lightning iPads.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      For me, nothing could ever possibly top Apple’s rejection of strain relievers on their cables. It’s absolutely the perfect blend of their overrated design sense with their unerring corporate instinct for planned obsolescence.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also let us not forget Apple is the only laptop manufacturer whose laptops have failing SATA cables. I am yet to run into any laptop with drive cables failing.

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

          Sata cables? There aren’t sata cables in MacBooks and haven’t been for like a decade.

          • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Indeed. And yet I have never mentioned anything about what age laptops I was talking about. Then again, Apple was also only manufacturer with unibody laptop whose two parts unglued when you used your laptop for anything more intensive because they designed air flow in such a way so that hot air blows on “unibody” glued part. It’s just comedy all around.

      • sep@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        They saw the the writing on the wall, and turned colours as soon as they saw they were fighiting a loosing battle.

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Like any populist leader, they have just seen which way the crowd is moving, ran to the front and pretended that’s what they were going to do all along.

        I want to say that people like you falling for this is mind blowing, but it actually just seems to be a rather depressing part of human nature. I’ll never understand why people show such loyalty to a company that only cares about how much money they can extract from your pockets.

      • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ye no, i will only say they support it the moment their devices isnt made to not be repaired and have dark patterns all over them

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, they were forced to.

        If you actually look closer to their setup, it is extremely difficult and costs tons of money. Just to make their Genius bars seem reasonable.

    • Petter1@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      😏next will be replaceable batteries, alternative App Stores and messengers who have to use a open protocol for chat (open in a sense that different chat apps can Talk to each other, but the privacy is still protected. Like eMail but with end to end encryption)

        • rmuk@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not, really. They’re not being forced to interoperate or adopt a standard intermediary protocol, just to publish APIs. WhatsApp and iMessage will still be totally separate services if they want to be.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hope that the protocol is open source and approved by trusted privacy protection peoples everywhere in the world. But yea, better everyone would have their own matrix servers, I agree.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Which government? There isn’t just one in the EU.

          Or are you talking about the US government?

          • PR_freak@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I live in the EU so yes I know

            I was talking about an abstract entity government not any government in particular

    • johnthedoe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s disgusting. Knowing for some that would be a dealbreaker to upgrade to the pro.

      • EddieTee77@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        And thus they get extra money for the sale of the more expensive one. That’s the plan for why the cheaper model exists anyway

      • June@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly I can’t imagine anyone that would care enough about hardwire transfer speeds more than raw performance. Imo, anyone that cares about those raw transfer speeds will already want the A17 Pro and wouldn’t settle for the A16 Bionic.

        • johnthedoe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think there’s high speed and standard speed. I’d understand more if the pro was thunderbolt and the non pro was usb 3. Going usb2 is way below standard speed in this day and age.

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

      The 15 uses an older chip that was designed for iPhones with lighting cables limited to USB 2. So it’s unlikely the hardware is there for USB 3/4 speeds. But it’s not unfeasible to add a dedicated chip for faster USB speeds.

      Where as the pro model uses a new chipset. Designed for the 15 pro and likely the 16 non-pro. This has on due USB 3. It would be short sighted to not include it here.

      Both phones would have very fast WiFi, I imagine that’s the use case for 90%+ of users.

  • HRDS_654@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    NOOOOOOO! This goes against their narrative that they chose to do it! How dare you!

    The only thing Apple chose themselves was placing an artificial limit on the port.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Apple has confirmed its new iPhone will not feature its proprietary lightning charging port, after the EU forced it into the change.

    The tech giant said that the iPhone 15, unveiled at its annual event on Wednesday, would use a USB-C cable as the “universally accepted standard”.

    The EU had told the tech giant to ditch its proprietary charging ports to make life easier for consumers, save them money, and help reduce e-waste by encouraging re-use of chargers.

    But some experts questioned whether consumers would be prepared to pay the high price tags given the devices are not hugely different to their predecessors.

    “Convincing users to fork out for these new devices will not be easy during a cost-of-living crisis,” said Paolo Pescatore, analyst and founder of PP Foresight.

    “Some will see the new features as incremental, [although] collectively they enhance the overall experience which is priceless among Apple’s core user base.”


    The original article contains 457 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!