On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 09:03:52 +0100, Scott wrote:

>>> My point is that if they can produce different variants of other
>>> products, why not phones? They are coping with different boxes,
>>> different languages, different voltages, different frequencies,
>>> different plugs so why not a different component in a batch of phones
>>> destined for a particular market? Obviously, the two sockets would
>>> need to be designed the same size so both will fit the same case.
>>
>>Because it would be an unnecessary and avoidable extra manufacturing
>>cost that would erode their profits.
>
> Are you seriously saying that substitution of one component in a batch
> of phones mass produced in the far east at low labour cost would make
> any significant difference to the unit cost of a product that is
> retailing at several hundred dollars?

Because Apple says: "Make it so"

On 7 Sep 2023 10:06:19 GMT, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 09:03:52 +0100, Scott wrote:
>
>>>> My point is that if they can produce different variants of other
>>>> products, why not phones? They are coping with different boxes,
>>>> different languages, different voltages, different frequencies,
>>>> different plugs so why not a different component in a batch of phones
>>>> destined for a particular market? Obviously, the two sockets would
>>>> need to be designed the same size so both will fit the same case.
>>>
>>>Because it would be an unnecessary and avoidable extra manufacturing
>>>cost that would erode their profits.
>>
>> Are you seriously saying that substitution of one component in a batch
>> of phones mass produced in the far east at low labour cost would make
>> any significant difference to the unit cost of a product that is
>> retailing at several hundred dollars?
>
>Because Apple says: "Make it so"

I think there is a long tradition of manufacturers following the
client's instructions :-)

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 10:12:36 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 09:38:51 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:11:10 +0100, Abandoned_Trolley
>><fred@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Apple will have to follow EU rules worldwide, because it won't be
>>>> economical to make two models of the same phone with different charging
>>>> connectors,
>>>
>>>Really ?
>>>
>>>What do US spec iPhones look like ?
>>
>>There's no published spec yet because the new range of iPhones won't
>>be announced for several more weeks. But chances are it will use a
>>USB-C charging port.
>
>Do you have a source for this?

It's been widely predicted in multiple Apple media sources.

On 07/09/2023 09:03, Scott wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:22:59 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> That is still a connection which is identical at the appliance end.
>
> Even for 110 volts where the current is doubled?
>>
>>> My point is that if they can produce different
>>> variants of other products, why not phones? They are coping with
>>> different boxes, different languages, different voltages, different
>>> frequencies, different plugs so why not a different component in a
>>> batch of phones destined for a particular market? Obviously, the two
>>> sockets would need to be designed the same size so both will fit the
>>> same case.
>>
>> Because it would be an unnecessary and avoidable extra manufacturing
>> cost that would erode their profits.
>
> Are you seriously saying that substitution of one component in a batch
> of phones mass produced in the far east at low labour cost would make
> any significant difference to the unit cost of a product that is
> retailing at several hundred dollars?

I researched this before making my first reply in this subthread. If
you want to continue arguing go and find evidence that recently Apple
have used different charging connectors over regional variations of the
same model of phone.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:55:33 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 07/09/2023 09:03, Scott wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:22:59 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That is still a connection which is identical at the appliance end.
>>
>> Even for 110 volts where the current is doubled?
>>>
>>>> My point is that if they can produce different
>>>> variants of other products, why not phones? They are coping with
>>>> different boxes, different languages, different voltages, different
>>>> frequencies, different plugs so why not a different component in a
>>>> batch of phones destined for a particular market? Obviously, the two
>>>> sockets would need to be designed the same size so both will fit the
>>>> same case.
>>>
>>> Because it would be an unnecessary and avoidable extra manufacturing
>>> cost that would erode their profits.
>>
>> Are you seriously saying that substitution of one component in a batch
>> of phones mass produced in the far east at low labour cost would make
>> any significant difference to the unit cost of a product that is
>> retailing at several hundred dollars?
>
>I researched this before making my first reply in this subthread.

And how many cents did you conclude could be saved per unit by
avoiding this 'unnecessary and avoidable extra manufacturing cost'?

>If you want to continue arguing go and find evidence that recently Apple
>have used different charging connectors over regional variations of the
>same model of phone.

Of course they have not. The situation has only now arisen because of
a regulation made by the EU.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 11:47:33 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 10:12:36 +0100, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 09:38:51 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:11:10 +0100, Abandoned_Trolley
>>><fred@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Apple will have to follow EU rules worldwide, because it won't be
>>>>> economical to make two models of the same phone with different charging
>>>>> connectors,
>>>>
>>>>Really ?
>>>>
>>>>What do US spec iPhones look like ?
>>>
>>>There's no published spec yet because the new range of iPhones won't
>>>be announced for several more weeks. But chances are it will use a
>>>USB-C charging port.
>>
>>Do you have a source for this?
>
>It's been widely predicted in multiple Apple media sources.

Speculation then. I think it was also widely predicted that England
would win the Women's World Cup.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 12:06:53 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 11:47:33 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 10:12:36 +0100, Scott
>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 09:38:51 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:11:10 +0100, Abandoned_Trolley
>>>><fred@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple will have to follow EU rules worldwide, because it won't be
>>>>>> economical to make two models of the same phone with different charging
>>>>>> connectors,
>>>>>
>>>>>Really ?
>>>>>
>>>>>What do US spec iPhones look like ?
>>>>
>>>>There's no published spec yet because the new range of iPhones won't
>>>>be announced for several more weeks. But chances are it will use a
>>>>USB-C charging port.
>>>
>>>Do you have a source for this?
>>
>>It's been widely predicted in multiple Apple media sources.
>
>Speculation then. I think it was also widely predicted that England
>would win the Women's World Cup.

Of course it's speculation. You asked for specifications that you very
well know haven't been made public yet, so what did you expect?

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 12:15:30 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 12:06:53 +0100, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 11:47:33 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 10:12:36 +0100, Scott
>>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 09:38:51 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:11:10 +0100, Abandoned_Trolley
>>>>><fred@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple will have to follow EU rules worldwide, because it won't be
>>>>>>> economical to make two models of the same phone with different charging
>>>>>>> connectors,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What do US spec iPhones look like ?
>>>>>
>>>>>There's no published spec yet because the new range of iPhones won't
>>>>>be announced for several more weeks. But chances are it will use a
>>>>>USB-C charging port.
>>>>
>>>>Do you have a source for this?
>>>
>>>It's been widely predicted in multiple Apple media sources.
>>
>>Speculation then. I think it was also widely predicted that England
>>would win the Women's World Cup.
>
>Of course it's speculation. You asked for specifications that you very
>well know haven't been made public yet, so what did you expect?

No I didn't. 'Abandoned_Trolley' asked the question. I asked about
your source.

On 07/09/2023 12:05, Scott wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:55:33 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> If you want to continue arguing go and find evidence that recently Apple
>> have used different charging connectors over regional variations of the
>> same model of phone.
>
> Of course they have not. The situation has only now arisen because of
> a regulation made by the EU.

Regardless of regulation, they have always had the choice to use
different charging connectors in different parts of the world, but have
never done so, because manufacturers of globally available equipment try
to keep as much of their products as possible the same across all
regional variations, in order to keep costs to a minimum. That basic
economic rule has not changed, and henceforth Apple will make all their
phones with USB-C sockets, because nothing else will make economic sense
for them. That is why there was ever a BBC article for me to quote from
to begin this thread, while you have produced zilch evidence to the
contrary. So, as I said before, if you want to continue arguing, go and
find some *EVIDENCE*.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/09/2023 12:06, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 11:47:33 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 10:12:36 +0100, Scott
>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you have a source for this?

The original article I linked is one.

>> It's been widely predicted in multiple Apple media sources.
>
> Speculation then. I think it was also widely predicted that England
> would win the Women's World Cup.

There is a difference in speculation based on sound economic principles
and observed manufacturing history, and pulling vague uncertainties out
of the air because you can't bear to lose an argument. As others have
pointed out, we'll know for certain this time next week anyway, but, in
the meantime, if you want to continue arguing against the flow of
available evidence, at least go and find some *EVIDENCE* of your own to
justify doing so, instead of just trolling, as you are at the moment.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 09:03:56 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:22:59 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On 06/09/2023 19:51, Scott wrote:
SNIP
> >>>
> >>> But leads with different plugs at the wall end to match different
> >>> countries' electrical supplies usually have the *SAME* connector at the
> >>> appliance end!
> >>
> >> Depends what you mean by 'connector'. A lot of appliances have the
> >> mains lead hard wired.
> >
> >That is still a connection which is identical at the appliance end.
> Even for 110 volts where the current is doubled?

Yes - usually a little switch to change voltage and becoming more common [switched mode] PSU's that can cope with either.

> >
> >> My point is that if they can produce different
> >> variants of other products, why not phones? They are coping with
> >> different boxes, different languages, different voltages, different
> >> frequencies, different plugs so why not a different component in a
> >> batch of phones destined for a particular market? Obviously, the two
> >> sockets would need to be designed the same size so both will fit the
> >> same case.
> >
> >Because it would be an unnecessary and avoidable extra manufacturing
> >cost that would erode their profits.
> Are you seriously saying that substitution of one component in a batch
> of phones mass produced in the far east at low labour cost would make
> any significant difference to the unit cost of a product that is
> retailing at several hundred dollars?

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 16:06:40 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 07:47:53 -0700 (PDT), "notya...@gmail.com"
> <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 15:38:45 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
> >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 12:18:56 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >> >https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66708571
> >> >
> >> >"New iPhone, new charger: Apple bends to EU rules
> >> >
> >> >Apple's latest iPhone will almost certainly feature a USB-C charge point
> >> >when it is unveiled on 12 September.
> >
> >And they are going to slug the charging rate n cheaper models...
> >
> >> >
> >> >The firm's phones currently use its proprietary Lightning adaptor,
> >> >unlike rivals, including Samsung.
> >> >
> >> >A European Union law requires phone manufacturers to adopt a common
> >> >charging connection by December 2024 to save consumers money and cut waste.
> >> >
> >> >Most new Apple products such as the latest iPads already use USB-C, but
> >> >the firm had argued against the EU rule."
> >> What will happen outside the EU?
> >
> >Y You mean in Rip Off Brexit Britain. Apple will probably carry on selling phone that need a charger incompatible with everything else and a phone incompatible with every other charger. So you will need to buy two and take them both with you on a trip.

> No, I mean significant markets such as US, Asia, Africa, Australia etc
> which probably account for far more sales than the EU.

Well not having to buy another charger and / or cables to charge an iPhone is another reason why I won't be buying one.

BTW adoption of USB connectors for chargers is pretty much worldwide not just the EU, the difference is in the EU they made manufacturers stick to the standard.

> >Apple will probably carry on selling phone that need a charger incompatible with everything else and a phone incompatible with every other charger. So you will need to buy two and take them both with you on a trip.

> How is it incompatible? I have a lightning to USB lead I can use abroad.

So it will charge an iPhone from a USB charger and a normal phone from an Apple one? Impressive IF true.

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 15:46:51 UTC+1, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
> On 06/09/2023 12:18, Java Jive wrote:
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66708571
> >
> > "New iPhone, new charger: Apple bends to EU rules
> >
> > Apple's latest iPhone will almost certainly feature a USB-C charge point
> > when it is unveiled on 12 September.
> >
> > The firm's phones currently use its proprietary Lightning adaptor,
> > unlike rivals, including Samsung.
> >
> > A European Union law requires phone manufacturers to adopt a common
> > charging connection by December 2024 to save consumers money and cut waste.
> >
> > Most new Apple products such as the latest iPads already use USB-C, but
> > the firm had argued against the EU rule."
> >

Apple did.

> Another piece of anti Brexit trolling ?

Typo methinks - another bit of anti-Brexit truth. A bit like all the Leave lampreys who are now again sucking up roaming charges in the EU.

>
> Is theres any need to argue about a EU rule when trading in non-EU markets ?
>
As discussed elsewhere use of USB for charging is commonplace worldwide and a de facto standard.
Looks like it will become de jure in the USA too!: -
https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/17/senators-call-for-us-to-adopt-common-charger/

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:55:33 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/09/2023 09:03, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 20:22:59 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is still a connection which is identical at the appliance end.
>>>
>>> Even for 110 volts where the current is doubled?
>>>>
>>>>> My point is that if they can produce different
>>>>> variants of other products, why not phones? They are coping with
>>>>> different boxes, different languages, different voltages, different
>>>>> frequencies, different plugs so why not a different component in a
>>>>> batch of phones destined for a particular market? Obviously, the two
>>>>> sockets would need to be designed the same size so both will fit the
>>>>> same case.
>>>>
>>>> Because it would be an unnecessary and avoidable extra manufacturing
>>>> cost that would erode their profits.
>>>
>>> Are you seriously saying that substitution of one component in a batch
>>> of phones mass produced in the far east at low labour cost would make
>>> any significant difference to the unit cost of a product that is
>>> retailing at several hundred dollars?
>>
>> I researched this before making my first reply in this subthread.
>
> And how many cents did you conclude could be saved per unit by
> avoiding this 'unnecessary and avoidable extra manufacturing cost'?
>
>> If you want to continue arguing go and find evidence that recently Apple
>> have used different charging connectors over regional variations of the
>> same model of phone.
>
> Of course they have not. The situation has only now arisen because of
> a regulation made by the EU.

Incorrect. Many countries have different plugs and voltages. Manufacturers
have dealt with it by externalising transformers or creating universal
transformers whilst keeping the rest identical.

Also the EU had already decreed mobile phones are compatible with USB,
voluntarily. The difference now is that they're specifying which end of the
cable has to be USB, mandatory.

On 06/09/2023 12:18, Java Jive wrote:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66708571
>
> "New iPhone, new charger: Apple bends to EU rules
>
> Apple's latest iPhone will almost certainly feature a USB-C charge point
> when it is unveiled on 12 September.
>
> The firm's phones currently use its proprietary Lightning adaptor,
> unlike rivals, including Samsung.
>
> A European Union law requires phone manufacturers to adopt a common
> charging connection by December 2024 to save consumers money and cut waste.
>
> Most new Apple products such as the latest iPads already use USB-C, but
> the firm had argued against the EU rule."
>

Most of this is just another swipe against the IT version of the Chelsea
tractor. Most very capable Android phones are a quarter of the price
(and yet we have iPhones - more compatible with the company BYOD
security policy)

Will Apple bend to UK security rules on encryption backdoors?

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3703055/apple-proposed-uk-law-is-a-serious-direct-threat-to-security-privacy.html

--
Adrian C

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/09/2023 12:05, Scott wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:55:33 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you want to continue arguing go and find evidence that recently Apple
>>> have used different charging connectors over regional variations of the
>>> same model of phone.
>>
>> Of course they have not. The situation has only now arisen because of
>> a regulation made by the EU.
>
> Regardless of regulation, they have always had the choice to use
> different charging connectors in different parts of the world, but have
> never done so, because manufacturers of globally available equipment try
> to keep as much of their products as possible the same across all
> regional variations, in order to keep costs to a minimum. That basic
> economic rule has not changed, and henceforth Apple will make all their
> phones with USB-C sockets, because nothing else will make economic sense
> for them. That is why there was ever a BBC article for me to quote from
> to begin this thread, while you have produced zilch evidence to the
> contrary. So, as I said before, if you want to continue arguing, go and
> find some *EVIDENCE*.
>

USB-C was already the direction of travel for Apple - see iPads. My guess
is they delayed fitting them to iPhones because of the Covid induced
component supply problems. They wouldn’t be competing with anyone for
Lightning semiconductors, but USB-C controller silicon might have been
harder to come by in the quantities they need.

Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:11:10 +0100, Abandoned_Trolley
> <fred@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Apple will have to follow EU rules worldwide, because it won't be
>>> economical to make two models of the same phone with different charging
>>> connectors,
>>
>> Really ?
>>
>> What do US spec iPhones look like ?
>
> There's no published spec yet because the new range of iPhones won't
> be announced for several more weeks.

12th September

> But chances are it will use a
> USB-C charging port.

Expect so.

On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 13:01:59 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 07/09/2023 12:06, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 11:47:33 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 10:12:36 +0100, Scott
>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a source for this?
>
>The original article I linked is one.
>
>>> It's been widely predicted in multiple Apple media sources.
>>
>> Speculation then. I think it was also widely predicted that England
>> would win the Women's World Cup.
>
>There is a difference in speculation based on sound economic principles
>and observed manufacturing history, and pulling vague uncertainties out
>of the air because you can't bear to lose an argument. As others have
>pointed out, we'll know for certain this time next week anyway, but, in
>the meantime, if you want to continue arguing against the flow of
>available evidence, at least go and find some *EVIDENCE* of your own to
>justify doing so, instead of just trolling, as you are at the moment.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but I do resent the
suggestion that I am trolling. I would say that the charging system to
be used for Apple phones in probably 80% of the world is an entirely
legitimate topic for discussion in a discussion group about mobile
phones. If you do not want to participate but continue to post, then I
would respectfully suggest you are the one who is trolling.

On 10/09/2023 17:20, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 13:01:59 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/09/2023 12:06, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 11:47:33 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 10:12:36 +0100, Scott
>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a source for this?
>>
>> The original article I linked is one.
>>
>>>> It's been widely predicted in multiple Apple media sources.
>>>
>>> Speculation then. I think it was also widely predicted that England
>>> would win the Women's World Cup.
>>
>> There is a difference in speculation based on sound economic principles
>> and observed manufacturing history, and pulling vague uncertainties out
>> of the air because you can't bear to lose an argument. As others have
>> pointed out, we'll know for certain this time next week anyway, but, in
>> the meantime, if you want to continue arguing against the flow of
>> available evidence, at least go and find some *EVIDENCE* of your own to
>> justify doing so, instead of just trolling, as you are at the moment.
>
> Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but I do resent the
> suggestion that I am trolling.

You cared enough to continue arguing when you had no *EVIDENCE* to
support your argument, which is a form of trolling.

> I would say that the charging system to
> be used for Apple phones in probably 80% of the world is an entirely
> legitimate topic for discussion in a discussion group about mobile
> phones.

Which is why I started the discussion in the first place.

> If you do not want to participate but continue to post, then I
> would respectfully suggest you are the one who is trolling.

As above, your suggestions, however respectful, are not supported by
*EVIDENCE* in this case either, as the thread history shows.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive wrote:
[...]
> pulling vague uncertainties out
> of the air because you can't bear to lose an argument.

Did I hear someone say Brexit?
Hehehehe.

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:19:37 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/09/2023 17:20, Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 13:01:59 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/09/2023 12:06, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 11:47:33 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 10:12:36 +0100, Scott
>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a source for this?
>>>
>>> The original article I linked is one.
>>>
>>>>> It's been widely predicted in multiple Apple media sources.
>>>>
>>>> Speculation then. I think it was also widely predicted that England
>>>> would win the Women's World Cup.
>>>
>>> There is a difference in speculation based on sound economic principles
>>> and observed manufacturing history, and pulling vague uncertainties out
>>> of the air because you can't bear to lose an argument. As others have
>>> pointed out, we'll know for certain this time next week anyway, but, in
>>> the meantime, if you want to continue arguing against the flow of
>>> available evidence, at least go and find some *EVIDENCE* of your own to
>>> justify doing so, instead of just trolling, as you are at the moment.
>>
>> Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but I do resent the
>> suggestion that I am trolling.
>
>You cared enough to continue arguing when you had no *EVIDENCE* to
>support your argument, which is a form of trolling.
>
>> I would say that the charging system to
>> be used for Apple phones in probably 80% of the world is an entirely
>> legitimate topic for discussion in a discussion group about mobile
>> phones.
>
>Which is why I started the discussion in the first place.
>
>> If you do not want to participate but continue to post, then I
>> would respectfully suggest you are the one who is trolling.
>
>As above, your suggestions, however respectful, are not supported by
>*EVIDENCE* in this case either, as the thread history shows.

Is every discussion supported by evidence? I naively thought
discussions were about ideas.

On 10/09/2023 20:53, Scott wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:19:37 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> As above, your suggestions, however respectful, are not supported by
>> *EVIDENCE* in this case either, as the thread history shows.
>
> Is every discussion supported by evidence? I naively thought
> discussions were about ideas.

You were arguing against others who were backing their claims with
evidence, but not providing any contrary evidence of your own, so you
were wasting everyone's time, and still are, by trolling.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/09/2023 20:28, William Stickers wrote:
>
> Did I hear someone say Brexit?
> Hehehehe.

As has already been pointed out, Brexshit has very little to do with
this, so I don't know why some people keep bringing it up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 01:55:40 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/09/2023 20:53, Scott wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:19:37 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As above, your suggestions, however respectful, are not supported by
>>> *EVIDENCE* in this case either, as the thread history shows.
>>
>> Is every discussion supported by evidence? I naively thought
>> discussions were about ideas.
>
>You were arguing against others who were backing their claims with
>evidence, but not providing any contrary evidence of your own, so you
>were wasting everyone's time, and still are, by trolling.

As is everyone who replies and perpetuates a discussion they think is
without merit. I'm going to move on. Are you?

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 20:53:32 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 19:19:37 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On 10/09/2023 17:20, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 13:01:59 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/09/2023 12:06, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 11:47:33 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 10:12:36 +0100, Scott
>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have a source for this?
>>>>
>>>> The original article I linked is one.
>>>>
>>>>>> It's been widely predicted in multiple Apple media sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Speculation then. I think it was also widely predicted that England
>>>>> would win the Women's World Cup.
>>>>
>>>> There is a difference in speculation based on sound economic principles
>>>> and observed manufacturing history, and pulling vague uncertainties out
>>>> of the air because you can't bear to lose an argument. As others have
>>>> pointed out, we'll know for certain this time next week anyway, but, in
>>>> the meantime, if you want to continue arguing against the flow of
>>>> available evidence, at least go and find some *EVIDENCE* of your own to
>>>> justify doing so, instead of just trolling, as you are at the moment.
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but I do resent the
>>> suggestion that I am trolling.
>>
>>You cared enough to continue arguing when you had no *EVIDENCE* to
>>support your argument, which is a form of trolling.
>>
>>> I would say that the charging system to
>>> be used for Apple phones in probably 80% of the world is an entirely
>>> legitimate topic for discussion in a discussion group about mobile
>>> phones.
>>
>>Which is why I started the discussion in the first place.
>>
>>> If you do not want to participate but continue to post, then I
>>> would respectfully suggest you are the one who is trolling.
>>
>>As above, your suggestions, however respectful, are not supported by
>>*EVIDENCE* in this case either, as the thread history shows.
>
>Is every discussion supported by evidence? I naively thought
>discussions were about ideas.

When I said I thought it likely that USB-C power connectors would be
used you wanted evidence from me.

>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 10:12:36 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 09:38:51 +0100, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>There's no published spec yet because the new range of iPhones won't
>>>be announced for several more weeks. But chances are it will use a
>>>USB-C charging port.
>>
>>Do you have a source for this?