avon b7

charlesn said:

I really wish Apple would release data on how many people are actually using its self-repair options. Would love to know what tiny fraction of 1% all of this "right to repair" legislation is designed to serve, although I'm sure the Radio Shack and Heathkit diaspora are thrilled with it. Gosh, maybe we should force Apple to provide the parts, tools and instructions so I can build my own iPhone? No surprise that the EU, which leads the world in tech regulation, badly lags the U.S. and Asia when it comes to tech manufacturing and innovation. 

The key here is to design for repair. When designs are easily repairable (remember, one of the requirements is to be able to use common tools for repair) more people will likely opt for repair instead of upgrading. 

Will Apple go back to standard screw options? 

If you tie this in with the Batteries Directive (user replaceable batteries), perhaps even more people will hang onto their phones for longer. 

Sealing phones with glue was always a highly debatable move. 

Phones only really need to be splashproof and Apple has never made waterproofing a warranty option. Nano coatings have been around for years. 

I believe making a phone for submerged use would allow it to get some exemptions (especially for battery requirements) but then Apple would have to warranty against water ingress. 

Perhaps even less than 1% of iPhones have ever been submerged in water for a prolonged period.

Personally, in the last 15 years I've only seen a person jump into a pool with his phone in his pocket. Submerged for less than two minutes. And one other case of a phone ending up in a washing machine. 

The EU requirements are perfectly reasonable for the goals they have in mind.

9secondkox2 said:

avon b7 said:

williamlondon said:

"64-bit is a marketing gimmick"

- Official Qualcomm Statement 2013

"Apple's 64-bit A7 Chip 'Set off Panic in the Industry'", "the A7 'sent ripples of disbelief' throughout their [Qualcomm] offices"

- Qualcomm Employees

Not sure losing such a big revenue stream warrants a "that's what it is" blasé response from the CEO. Downplay it all you want, but it's actually quite a big thing.

It's lost revenue. That's a fact. 

However, it's lost revenue that they never expected to have in the first place. 

Literally money for nothing. 

It was only Intel failing to deliver that got them this current contract. Just a bonus. It also saw the end of a multi-billion dollar legal fight as Apple had no option but to abandon that. 

They have always known it was temporary. The contract itself was temporary. Right from the start. 

What isn't temporary are the patent royalties that Apple will continue to pay them. 

Apple wouldn't have gone into the modem business if Qualcomm wasn't so shady. That's what triggered this. Qualcomm has 5G on lockdown as far as getting the best out of it. anyone else has to work around their patents. But 6G is a whole new ballgame. And it's time fore 6G.

Believe me, Qualcomm, Huawei and Samsung aren't resting on their laurels with regards to 6G.

Apple will want to contribute (just as it should IMO) and I can tell you for a fact that Huawei and Apple are working together (with others) in the EU on network sensing technologies. 

But before that, 5.5G support is needed. 

williamlondon said:

"64-bit is a marketing gimmick"

- Official Qualcomm Statement 2013

"Apple's 64-bit A7 Chip 'Set off Panic in the Industry'", "the A7 'sent ripples of disbelief' throughout their [Qualcomm] offices"

- Qualcomm Employees

Not sure losing such a big revenue stream warrants a "that's what it is" blasé response from the CEO. Downplay it all you want, but it's actually quite a big thing.

It's lost revenue. That's a fact. 

However, it's lost revenue that they never expected to have in the first place. 

Literally money for nothing. 

It was only Intel failing to deliver that got them this current contract. Just a bonus. It also saw the end of a multi-billion dollar legal fight as Apple had no option but to abandon that. 

They have always known it was temporary. The contract itself was temporary. Right from the start. 

What isn't temporary are the patent royalties that Apple will continue to pay them. 

ericthehalfbee said:

Seen a few comments on ASML.

If the EU regulated ASML and their monopoly like they do Apple then ASML would be forced to give competitors and startups access to their proprietary technology so ASML doesn’t have an unfair advantage.


avonb7 is still an idiot, I see. To bad blocking losers doesn’t also block you from seeing them when they’re quoted. How pathetic to find you still here after all these years doing the same old shtick.

It's worth pointing out that my opinion, while only being my opinion, is actually shared by authorities across the globe. It isn't 'shtick'. 

Unfortunately, you never actually read the rulings on the investigations carried out on Apple (and others) nor do you read the legislation that is created as a result of Big Tech control of the digital space. 

If you did, you would have a better understanding of what is going on and why it is going on. 

You might not like those decisions and that's fine, but at least try to accept that we're talking about subjects that have, in many cases, been through years of investigations and the resulting fines and regulations have been well reasoned and laid out. 

And you could be well unaware of this, but there are plenty of Apple users (and let's not forget that I am a long time Apple user) who share my opinion. Not all MEPs are scurrying around with Android handsets in there pockets. 


ASML is where it is today because US companies (and companies from other parts of the world), faced with multi-billion dollar R&D investments (to get where ASML is today), pulled back (many years ago) as there were no guarantees of overcoming the challenges involved.

Ditto 5G. The US should have seen the strategic importance of that 15 years ago, but it didn't. 

ASML moved ahead and has reaped the rewards. 

On the chip manufacturing side Intel took a whole list of wrong decisions and TSMC came to lead. 

ASML has a de-facto monopoly of sorts but where is the problem with that? Have they acted to stifle competition? Nope. The US government (of either colour) has done that through pressure on the Dutch government combined with extra territorial export restrictions. 

ASML would like to sell to whoever is willing to buy. 

Are they open to competition? Yep! And they are probably going to get it some time next year if rumours prove true. 

Also ASML is not even in the same business category of Apple and as such is not even covered by the DSA/DMA. 

Colibrinyc said:

John Gruber makes a good example on Daring Fireball. AirDrop is not an industry standard but a piece of Apple IP that they use to differentiate their offering from other industry players. Why should they be forced to share that tech with other manufacturers or software developers? Why should they be forced to open low level processes to third parties?

The vast majority of consumers - Europeans included - just want a well made and secure smartphone. We buy iPhones because of their quality construction and privacy/security differentiators and with knowledge of its "walled garden."  Apple has <25% market share in Europe, so it's nowhere near the dominant (or monopolist) OS or hardware manufacturer. I don't see a lot of European consumers screaming for change, and there are plenty of Android-based options here, more so than in the US. What exactly is the EU trying to protect its citizens from here? How are European consumers being actively harmed by Apple?

It would seem that the EU would be better off creating the economic and regulatory conditions that would encourage and allow European companies to develop their own OSes, hardware, etc. While that will take time, simply targeting Apple isn't going to accomplish that. Apple has enough problems dealing with Trump in its primary market, so it will probably just result in the loss of features and functionality for European consumers.

Then why has the iPhone never (AFAIK) supported the Bluetooth file transfer profile?

Something that has been around for years. 

The reason is clear. That is an interoperable direct file transfer method but is not in the interest of Apple's lock in mentality.