> I think it's fine to be stuck on a "good enough" standard, if this results in less e-waste and less need to upgrade all accessories simply because the dominant connection port changed.
That’s your opinion. I disagree and I certainly don’t want to see it written into law.
but without writing in law apple will never care about environment right? They are getting money from each connector so why would they? Is it possible to solve such issue without law?
What solution do you propose? If you have solution let us know?
I don’t think that’s entirely fair to Apple: they are trying to not include a charger at all in the first place (just the cable), which does a lot more for the environment than including a charger which you can use with anything as well as forcing the cable to be useful for more than one device.
Good, but not relevant to me defending Apple in this instance; Apple are even doing this (or at least tried to do this) where there not only wasn’t a legal requirement to do so, but a legal prohibition against doing so: https://www.engadget.com/apple-brazil-fine-over-iphone-12-ch...
If citizens care about the environment they will stop buying Apple products. They don’t, hence they don’t care about the environment. Why make laws that go against the citizen wishes?
It's not that they don't care, it's that they are not knowledgeable enough about the issue and don't have time or will to research it further. That's why we have laws and regulations, so that average Joe doesn't have to research the impact of everything he buys on his body/environment.
With that logic you could say, "why ban dangerous levels of pesticides in the food, if people don't like it, they will not buy the product."
Apple recycles huge amounts of materials from old products. I really hope that people are not following your suggestion and estimate the environmental impact only by iPhone cable and connector port.
If this was done years ago we’d be stuck using micro or even mini usb. I shudder at the thought. Lightning was superior to those two. Under this regulation, Lightning and USB-C couldn’t have happened.
That's why the EU back then banged the heads of the manufacturers together to force them to come up with a common standard, instead of picking one and forcing it down their throat.
Is that why the standard that USB-C cables use is such a ridiculous mess?
>Even the seemingly most basic function of USB-C — powering devices — continues to be a mess of compatibility issues, conflicting proprietary standards, and a general lack of consumer information to guide purchasing decisions.
Worst examples of USB-C in that list is better than USB2.0...
USB-C is not lacking. You simply get what you paid for. I am using USB-C to charge my laptop, phone, earbuds. It's been amazing having just 1 single cable dangling on my desk, instead of several. This alone has been enough positive to justify the move over to USB-C.
Even charging from cable to cable is completely different. But I do not believe at all that regular people do not ever have the need to connect their device to a computer. They might not most of the time, but that one time they do they'll be kicking themselves over it.
Also, $40 per cable is completely and utterly ridiculous. That's 5-8% of monthly salary of Bulgaria (EU country) for a short cable.
>> Also, $40 per cable is completely and utterly ridiculous. That's 5-8% of monthly salary of Bulgaria (EU country) for a short cable.
That's why you don't buy a $40 usb cable for charging. You don't need all the pins in usb-c standard for all purposes. You can have a few USB-C cables for various purposes. Fully-implemented ones are easy to identify, just by their weight difference really.
>> Even charging from cable to cable is completely different. But I do not believe at all that regular people do not ever have the need to connect their device to a computer. They might not most of the time, but that one time they do they'll be kicking themselves over it.
I wouldn't say they will be kicking themselves over it. If they really cared and knew about transfer speeds of different cables, they would be one to invest in a better cable ahead of time.
If they didn't know about those details, they will have no surprises to begin with. Because it works on par with USB2.0 at least.
First off, I am not sure we need to improve on it in the short term. USB-A has existed for ~20y by now on the desktop and is still going strong. If USB-C lives as long, we'll get a break from having to buy different cables for quite some time, which at least is great for /my/ nerves. When I threw away old phone chargers from 1996 and later, it was literally 10 different models.
And if USB-C doesn't cut it anymore, who's to say that industry can't move to a different system? EU legislation usually isn't outlandish but follows industry practices. If device manufacturers bring up a pressing need for USB-D, EU will allow both for a transition period and then mandate USB-D (or split up mandatory standards by device class if need be).
I don't see how every tiny iteration of a standard has to result in a different plug system - the incentive for companies to iterate plugs just to force consumers to re-buy gear is just too high.
See other thread. If the industry wants it, it is highly effective in influencing legislators. It is called lobbyism and typically we complain about it but sometimes it is also good.
Funnily enough, I just found out BT Info (or SuperBluetoothHack) still exists and you can run the old .jar with J2ME Loader on Android. Or you can use the new apk. But of course it only works on the old phones.
An anti-Semitic, inaccurate trope. Israel had no horse in the Afghanistan fiasco, no interest in seeing Iran consume Iraq's power elite (status quo now), no love for Assad's continued reign in Syria, and zero interest in US interventions in Kosovo, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam or Korea. By contrast, Israeli lives sacrificed in Lebanon & Syria & on behalf of Jordan have spared the US any need to intervene significantly (if at all) in those countries. Not to mention Iran's expenditures to undermine Israel limits its ability to undermine the Gulf States.
The influence of the Israel lobby on the 2003 Iraq invasion is not an anti-Semitic trope, it is recorded and acknowledged history. The final decision to invade lay with George W. Bush, and the Israel lobby was far from the only factor in his decision, but their influence was significant and cannot be denied. From the London Review of Books on John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's "The Israel Lobby":
>Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.
>According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
You're quoting Mearsheimer as if it's established truth; he is controversial to say the least and is clearly one sided regarding Israel/Palestine.
"Former Director of the CIA James Woolsey also wrote a strongly negative review, remarking that "... Reading [Walt and Mearsheimer's] version of events is like entering a completely different world." Woolsey contends the authors "are stunningly deceptive", and feature a "commitment to distorting the historical record is the one consistent feature of this book", proceeding with a few examples.[53]"
"Benny Morris, a professor of Middle East history at Ben-Gurion University, prefaced a very detailed analysis with the remark: "Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity"
Do you have non-biased ( former director of the CIA? The same guys that lied about WMDs in Iraq? Sure, they're reliable; and a professor of Middle East history in an Israeli university) sources disputing those claims? I haven't read the book in question, just asking.
That’s your opinion. I disagree and I certainly don’t want to see it written into law.