Apple's PSU has been universal since the start. It's everyone else that used a built-in cable on the power brick that limited the devices that could be connected to that PSU. Of course, the EU isn't allowing FW400 as an option on the PSU, but it was still open to any other device to use that PSU and it's been about 8(?) years since Apple moved to USB-A which is part of the ruling.
I guess if you're happy with a 2.5w trickle charge you could consider it universal. While the current charger is allowed as compliant I don't think it would be under the new proposal.
I guess if you're happy with a 2.5w trickle charge you could consider it universal. While the current charger is allowed as compliant I don't think it would be under the new proposal.
1) Is there a new proposal that would force Apple to increase the max power output of their charger?
2) The bottom line is Apple has been using USB-A well before the EU ever considered reducing charger waste. The cable that connects to the phone is irrelevant here.
edit: Note that picture is talking about chargers but is showing cables and one end of the port interface, not the charger aka PSU.
edit: Here is the EPS law (Image from Wikipedia).
"A common EPS must include a cable with a Micro USB-B connector for connecting to a mobile phone. This cable can be either 'captive' (permanently attached to the power supply) or detachable. If detachable, the cable must connect to the power supply via a standard USB-A receptacle / connector."
But: "And Samsung's success hasn't been due to using Android; it's quite clearly due to using Apple's designs. "
That's just a ridiculous fanboy statement. HTC has consistently delivered superior designs to Samsung the last couple of years and still lost, simply due to the marketing power that Samsung delivers.
But: "And Samsung's success hasn't been due to using Android; it's quite clearly due to using Apple's designs. "
That's just a ridiculous fanboy statement. HTC has consistently delivered superior designs to Samsung the last couple of years and still lost, simply due to the marketing power that Samsung delivers.
And the HTC One looks much more like a iPhone than any current Samsung, so by the author's logic it should be successful.
But: "And Samsung's success hasn't been due to using Android; it's quite clearly due to using Apple's designs. "
That's just a ridiculous fanboy statement. HTC has consistently delivered superior designs to Samsung the last couple of years and still lost, simply due to the marketing power that Samsung delivers.
It was superior design that took the iPod to the top of the world, not marketing. It would seem that HTC's 'superior design' is not superior enough to match the success of the iPhone.
It was superior design that took the iPod to the top of the world, not marketing.
Marketing was the strong arm of the iPod's success, the later part of the iTunes ecosystem helped carry the iPod as well.
There was nothing superior about the iPod's design or performance. Feature wise, Apple was very far behind the competition such as Archos or RCA, who had media players that could record TV, watch video, view pictures, play music (take pictures/video with a camera accessory) around the same time Apple had the iPod Photo/Colour. As iPod popularity grew, Apple eventually dropped Wolfson and started to use less expensive / lower performing DACs.
Uh… except no one has seen them as superior designs. That’s why they lost. Nothing to do with marketing.
Can’t believe I’m defending Samsung on not being a marketing company… " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Marketing was a huge factor, the HTC One had stellar reviews. Even technology oriented sites that actually have the knowledge and resources to analyse the design (eg. Anandtech) rated the HTC One above the Galaxy S4.
<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">Marketing was</span>
<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> the strong arm of the iPod's success, the later part of the iTunes ecosystem helped carry the iPod as well.</span>
There was nothing superior about the iPod's design or performance. Feature wise, Apple was very far behind the competition such as Archos or RCA, who had media players that could record TV, watch video, view pictures, play music (take pictures/video with a camera accessory) around the same time Apple had the iPod Photo/Colour. As iPod popularity grew, Apple eventually dropped Wolfson and started to use less expensive / lower performing DACs.
No. The iPod revolutionised MP3 players. Those names you mention were clunky and made obsolete. Your comparison of features reveals your PC mentality of checking against a spec sheet. Apple did very little to market the iPod in its early years; there was no need.
There was nothing superior about the iPod's design or performance. Feature wise, Apple was very far behind the competition such as Archos or RCA, who had media players that could record TV, watch video, view pictures, play music (take pictures/video with a camera accessory) around the same time Apple had the iPod Photo/Colour.
<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">Marketing was</span>
<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> the strong arm of the iPod's success, the later part of the iTunes ecosystem helped carry the iPod as well.</span>
There was nothing superior about the iPod's design or performance. Feature wise, Apple was very far behind the competition such as Archos or RCA, who had media players that could record TV, watch video, view pictures, play music (take pictures/video with a camera accessory) around the same time Apple had the iPod Photo/Colour. As iPod popularity grew, Apple eventually dropped Wolfson and started to use less expensive / lower performing DACs.
No. The iPod revolutionised MP3 players. Those names you mention were clunky and made obsolete. Your comparison of features reveals your PC mentality of checking against a spec sheet. Apple did very little to market the iPod in its early years; there was no need.
Two things made the ipod a success
ITunes and it being available for the windows market.
Coupling the software with a place to buy media created the prototype ecosystem that people found a revalation at the time.
Buy music and put it on your device.. easily.
Rip your own music and put it on your ipod... easily.
Taking the ipod by itself it wasnt the best media player on the market and might have gone nowhere.
I honestly don't see how anyone can say that Apple is a better company than Google is when Google has the strongest backing on Wall Street. Market share remains the most important measure of how well a company is doing and Apple looks pretty sick based on shrinking market share.
That is the mystery to members of the Church of MarketShare, isn't it?
Only, Apple's marketshare of all mobiles isn't shrinking, it's growing. What's "shrinking", is share of arbitrary sub-set smartphone. This is largely unimportant, because the definition of that category changes every month, and that category is rapidly growing to subsume all of Mobile, of which it is a subset.
So, by definition, you can't measure more than all mobile; therefore, that is the best metric, and one in which Apple is growing. Apple aimed for 1%, now they seem to be passing 10%. Of course, anyone's share "shrinks" by half when the market being measured ("smartphone") doubles overnight. That's basic math. As the article points out, Android is already present in both parts ("smart" and "feature") of all mobile, as the new default OS. Whoopee! After all, something has to be put on new phones. And that something, Android, isn't doing as well as Symbian did, according to the article. It certainly doesn't benefit Google as much as Windows benefits MS.
Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.
But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.
Thats why its an antitrust issue and will be corrected sooner or later! Read Google MADA an judge for yourself....
Thats why its an antitrust issue and will be corrected sooner or later! Read Google MADA an judge for yourself....
Both Apple and Google have potential antitrust issues under informal investigation according to reports, Google for MADA stipulations and Apple over carrier stipulations. Personally I don't expect much to come from either one. Can't say Microsoft isn't doing their best to get the EU to investigate tho.
As I said in my previous post I was curious. The same reason you come here? My point is that your posts are usually full of conjecture. Like the points that you try to make about Apple's data collecting being similar to Googles. Let me ask you a question if the user of either platform didn't change any of the privacy settings, which platform of the two would be more intrusive? Also does Samsung have its own set of privacy rules that come into play? In Apple's documentation in the user manual it explains what is collected & how it is collected & how regulate it. It may do this when you sign up for Google's services on the phone...I don't know which is why I asked. Most people are not going to search for this to find the answer. I guess the real question would be how accessible is the information to the normal user? You don't seem to know. Yet you go on about it as if you do.
So now you've set up your "smartphone" sans Google, what have you got?
A glorified feature phone, which must happen a lot, seeing as most claimed Android activations mysteriously vanish from online usage figures.
Apart that if you don't use Google services you can use other Stores and cloud services if you set up a Google account, ad and location services are opt in.
Apart that if you don't use Google services you can use other Stores and cloud services if you set up a Google account, ad and location services are opt in.
OH wow!! google and android is just the greatest ever!!
Apart that if you don't use Google services you can use other Stores and cloud services if you set up a Google account, ad and location services are opt in.
So here we are, back to the danger of side loading trojans from untrusted sources.
Comments
I guess if you're happy with a 2.5w trickle charge you could consider it universal. While the current charger is allowed as compliant I don't think it would be under the new proposal.
1) Is there a new proposal that would force Apple to increase the max power output of their charger?
2) The bottom line is Apple has been using USB-A well before the EU ever considered reducing charger waste. The cable that connects to the phone is irrelevant here.
edit: Note that picture is talking about chargers but is showing cables and one end of the port interface, not the charger aka PSU.
edit: Here is the EPS law (Image from Wikipedia).
"A common EPS must include a cable with a Micro USB-B connector for connecting to a mobile phone. This cable can be either 'captive' (permanently attached to the power supply) or detachable. If detachable, the cable must connect to the power supply via a standard USB-A receptacle / connector."
But: "And Samsung's success hasn't been due to using Android; it's quite clearly due to using Apple's designs. "
That's just a ridiculous fanboy statement. HTC has consistently delivered superior designs to Samsung the last couple of years and still lost, simply due to the marketing power that Samsung delivers.
And the HTC One looks much more like a iPhone than any current Samsung, so by the author's logic it should be successful.
It was superior design that took the iPod to the top of the world, not marketing. It would seem that HTC's 'superior design' is not superior enough to match the success of the iPhone.
Uh… except no one has seen them as superior designs. That’s why they lost. Nothing to do with marketing.
Can’t believe I’m defending Samsung on not being a marketing company…
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
It was superior design that took the iPod to the top of the world, not marketing.
Marketing was the strong arm of the iPod's success, the later part of the iTunes ecosystem helped carry the iPod as well.
There was nothing superior about the iPod's design or performance. Feature wise, Apple was very far behind the competition such as Archos or RCA, who had media players that could record TV, watch video, view pictures, play music (take pictures/video with a camera accessory) around the same time Apple had the iPod Photo/Colour. As iPod popularity grew, Apple eventually dropped Wolfson and started to use less expensive / lower performing DACs.
Uh… except no one has seen them as superior designs. That’s why they lost. Nothing to do with marketing.
Can’t believe I’m defending Samsung on not being a marketing company…
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Marketing was a huge factor, the HTC One had stellar reviews. Even technology oriented sites that actually have the knowledge and resources to analyse the design (eg. Anandtech) rated the HTC One above the Galaxy S4.
No. The iPod revolutionised MP3 players. Those names you mention were clunky and made obsolete. Your comparison of features reveals your PC mentality of checking against a spec sheet. Apple did very little to market the iPod in its early years; there was no need.
Sync
Simplicity
ITunes and it being available for the windows market.
Coupling the software with a place to buy media created the prototype ecosystem that people found a revalation at the time.
Buy music and put it on your device.. easily.
Rip your own music and put it on your ipod... easily.
Taking the ipod by itself it wasnt the best media player on the market and might have gone nowhere.
I honestly don't see how anyone can say that Apple is a better company than Google is when Google has the strongest backing on Wall Street. Market share remains the most important measure of how well a company is doing and Apple looks pretty sick based on shrinking market share.
That is the mystery to members of the Church of MarketShare, isn't it?
Only, Apple's marketshare of all mobiles isn't shrinking, it's growing. What's "shrinking", is share of arbitrary sub-set smartphone. This is largely unimportant, because the definition of that category changes every month, and that category is rapidly growing to subsume all of Mobile, of which it is a subset.
So, by definition, you can't measure more than all mobile; therefore, that is the best metric, and one in which Apple is growing. Apple aimed for 1%, now they seem to be passing 10%. Of course, anyone's share "shrinks" by half when the market being measured ("smartphone") doubles overnight. That's basic math. As the article points out, Android is already present in both parts ("smart" and "feature") of all mobile, as the new default OS. Whoopee! After all, something has to be put on new phones. And that something, Android, isn't doing as well as Symbian did, according to the article. It certainly doesn't benefit Google as much as Windows benefits MS.
Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.
But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.
Thats why its an antitrust issue and will be corrected sooner or later! Read Google MADA an judge for yourself....
Both Apple and Google have potential antitrust issues under informal investigation according to reports, Google for MADA stipulations and Apple over carrier stipulations. Personally I don't expect much to come from either one. Can't say Microsoft isn't doing their best to get the EU to investigate tho.
As I said in my previous post I was curious. The same reason you come here? My point is that your posts are usually full of conjecture. Like the points that you try to make about Apple's data collecting being similar to Googles. Let me ask you a question if the user of either platform didn't change any of the privacy settings, which platform of the two would be more intrusive? Also does Samsung have its own set of privacy rules that come into play? In Apple's documentation in the user manual it explains what is collected & how it is collected & how regulate it. It may do this when you sign up for Google's services on the phone...I don't know which is why I asked. Most people are not going to search for this to find the answer. I guess the real question would be how accessible is the information to the normal user? You don't seem to know. Yet you go on about it as if you do.
Let me ask you a question if the user of either platform didn't change any of the privacy settings, which platform of the two would be more intrusive?
None, Android tracking and advertising features are all opt in, not opt out.
None, Android tracking and advertising features are all opt in, not opt out.
So now you've set up your "smartphone" sans Google, what have you got?
A glorified feature phone, which must happen a lot, seeing as most claimed Android activations mysteriously vanish from online usage figures.
So now you've set up your "smartphone" sans Google, what have you got?
A glorified feature phone, which must happen a lot, seeing as most claimed Android activations mysteriously vanish from online usage figures.
Apart that if you don't use Google services you can use other Stores and cloud services if you set up a Google account, ad and location services are opt in.
Apart that if you don't use Google services you can use other Stores and cloud services if you set up a Google account, ad and location services are opt in.
OH wow!! google and android is just the greatest ever!!
LOL
Apart that if you don't use Google services you can use other Stores and cloud services if you set up a Google account, ad and location services are opt in.
So here we are, back to the danger of side loading trojans from untrusted sources.
That must explain all the malware on Android.