PauloSeraa

My 15 Pro Max is a lot cooler in regular operation than my 14 Pro was.

saarek said:

beowulfschmidt said:

saarek said:

It’s such a shame that Apple left Lightning to effectively die (despite the EU being a big reason for the change). There was nothing stopping them from upgrading Lightning to take faster speeds, etc. I’ll never understand why they did not bother investing money into it.

They fought the EU over the directive, but had they worked to keep Lightning up to date, indeed made it better than USB-C they could have pointed to the advantages as an example of why they should be allowed to keep proprietary ports.

It's cute that you think the advantages or disadvantages of Lightning versus USB-C had anything to do with the EU's decision, other than providing high sounding justification.

I never claimed that, the writing was on the wall for lightning ever since the iPad Pro’s went USB-C.

Although the EU directive may well have sped the transition on. 

My central point remains though. Had they kept lightning more up to date and even offered some advantages the EU directive would have been much easier to stand against.

Considering Apple's history with USB-C and the fact that iPhones are planned 3 years in advance, there is no justification that anyone can make to claim that the EU had any impact on Apple's decision or timing with moving to USB-C on iPhone. Apple always planned to move to USB-C. But they wisely waited until USB-C grew up around iPhone and became so common that the move would be welcomed rather than detested by the wider iPhone market. Moving much sooner would have met with anger and consternation amongst the millions who don't know or care what USB-C is, and would simply prefer their existing cable not change.

Standing against the EU directive also has nothing to do with USB-C itself. It has to do with an inept governing body getting involved in something they are incapable of being involved in, and ruining future innovation. The only reason USB-C became as ubiquitous as it is (ubiquitous enough to be the EU's choice) is because companies were free to adopt it, by choice, and prove it out in the market place. How exactly is that supposed to ever happen again? Why would anyone bother making the next great standard when no major manufacturer is free to adopt it onto their devices and start making it popular? The EU is utterly batshit and this law of theirs is a disaster for the future. 

Jim_MAY said:

The carbon-neutral products are not up to Apple standards. I've returned my Nike watch. The Nike sports band was horrible. Nothing like the previous bands. No durability either way. I'd be replacing this every 3 to 4 months with everyday use. 

Where is the benefit of being carbon neutral when you have to replace the item every few months? 

Well in all fairness, who ever said there was a benefit? I mean a real-world, tangible benefit. It's never been about anything other than virtue signaling.

I think this cases sums up Tim Cook's Apple in a big way. 

If you want leather, buy it from Nomad. Apple's cases have plummeted in quality, paralleling many of their quality declines of late. Both their leather and silicone cases have become unusable as they don't even last a year before falling apart.