'But Apple has also argued that if the European Union had imposed a
common charger in 2009, it would have restricted innovation that led to
USB-C and Lightning connectors. In a statement, Apple said that although
it welcomed the European Commission’s commitment to protecting the
environment, it favored a solution that left the device side of the
charging interface open for innovation.'

<https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/09/23/eu-usbc-mandate>

And yes: in 2009 the EU was looking at mandating a common charging port.

'Benedict Evans:

"This is a profoundly stupid way to approach product design and
standardisation. What happens in 5 years when someone wants to use a
better connector? What if they’d picked USB 3 five years ago?"'

<https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1441009296540676096>

Am 24.09.21 um 19:08 schrieb Alan Baker:
> 'But Apple has also argued that if the European Union had imposed a
> common charger in 2009, it would have restricted innovation that led to

With your threads in the Android-Group you are behind the curve to say
the least.

BTW: Learn to think a bit more differentiated.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 2021-09-24 12:09 p.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 24.09.21 um 19:08 schrieb Alan Baker:
>> 'But Apple has also argued that if the European Union had imposed a
>> common charger in 2009, it would have restricted innovation that led to
>
> With your threads in the Android-Group you are behind the curve to say
> the least.

In what way?

Or you afraid to be specific?

Am 24.09.21 um 21:12 schrieb Alan Baker:
> On 2021-09-24 12:09 p.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 24.09.21 um 19:08 schrieb Alan Baker:
>>> 'But Apple has also argued that if the European Union had imposed a
>>> common charger in 2009, it would have restricted innovation that led to
>>
>> With your threads in the Android-Group you are behind the curve to say
>> the least.
>
> In what way?
>
> Or you afraid to be specific?

Sepcific?
Nobody gives a shit on your Apple-lickspittle in an Android-Group.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 2021-09-24 12:18 p.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 24.09.21 um 21:12 schrieb Alan Baker:
>> On 2021-09-24 12:09 p.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 24.09.21 um 19:08 schrieb Alan Baker:
>>>> 'But Apple has also argued that if the European Union had imposed a
>>>> common charger in 2009, it would have restricted innovation that led to
>>>
>>> With your threads in the Android-Group you are behind the curve to say
>>> the least.
>>
>> In what way?
>>
>> Or you afraid to be specific?
>
> Sepcific?
> Nobody gives a shit on your Apple-lickspittle in an Android-Group.
>
>
>

So you care enough to claim that I'm behind the curve...

....but you're too much of a pussy to actually support your claim.

Got it.

On 24/09/2021 18:08, Alan Baker wrote:
> [A timewasting spew of OT propaganda]

Fuck off, OT troll

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 2021-09-24 2:57 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 24/09/2021 18:08, Alan Baker wrote:
>> [A timewasting spew of OT propaganda]
>
> Fuck off, OT troll
>

How is it off topic to discuss the same topic as in another thread that
you didn't whine about?

:-)

On 24/09/2021 22:58, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> On 2021-09-24 2:57 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 24/09/2021 18:08, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>> [A timewasting spew of OT propaganda]
>>
>> Fuck off, OT troll
>
> How is it off topic to discuss the same topic as in another thread that
> you didn't whine about?

I did complain about it, and the name of this ng is comp.mobile.android,
not comp.mobile.apple, so fuck off, OT troll.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 2021-09-24 5:20 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
> On 24/09/2021 22:58, Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-09-24 2:57 p.m., Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/09/2021 18:08, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [A timewasting spew of OT propaganda]
>>>
>>> Fuck off, OT troll
>>
>> How is it off topic to discuss the same topic as in another thread
>> that you didn't whine about?
>
> I did complain about it, and the name of this ng is comp.mobile.android,
> not comp.mobile.apple, so fuck off, OT troll.
>

Nope.

You only complained about the rebuttal of falsehoods.

You never complained about the off topic claims about Apple in the first
place.

On 24/09/2021 23.57, Java Jive wrote:
> On 24/09/2021 18:08, Alan Baker wrote:
>> [A timewasting spew of OT propaganda]
>
> Fuck off, OT troll
>

+1

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:08:18 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
| 'But Apple has also argued that if the European Union had imposed a
| common charger in 2009, it would have restricted innovation that led to
| USB-C and Lightning connectors. In a statement, Apple said that although
| it welcomed the European Commission’s commitment to protecting the
| environment, it favored a solution that left the device side of the
| charging interface open for innovation.'
| | <https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/09/23/eu-usbc-mandate>
| | And yes: in 2009 the EU was looking at mandating a common charging port.
| | 'Benedict Evans:
| | "This is a profoundly stupid way to approach product design and
| standardisation. What happens in 5 years when someone wants to use a
| better connector? What if they’d picked USB 3 five years ago?"'
| | <https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1441009296540676096>

Does this proposed standard prevent phone from having more than one type
of connector? Or does it just mandate "must be able to be charged via
USB-C"? And is it actually limited to charging, or does it cover data
interconnection as well?

I've had several phones over the years where the data connector was
separate from the charging connector. Usually when the main charger was
magnetically attached. The phone could still be charge via the data
connector as well.

Would there be anything (except profit margin) stopping Apple from
including both Lightning and USB-C connectors?
They could even play their normal games and make the USB-C charge-only
and not usable as a data connector.

--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

On 26/09/2021 05:07, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> Would there be anything (except profit margin) stopping Apple from
> including both Lightning and USB-C connectors?
> They could even play their normal games and make the USB-C charge-only
> and not usable as a data connector.

My Google phone already has a USB-C connector fpr power and data.
My iPad already has a USB-C connector for both power and data.

I see no reason for Apple not to comply with at least the physical part of the
ruling but what Apple do is outside the scope of this group.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Paul Colquhoun <newsposter@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
[...]

> Does this proposed standard prevent phone from having more than one type
> of connector? Or does it just mandate "must be able to be charged via
> USB-C"? And is it actually limited to charging, or does it cover data
> interconnection as well?

No. Yes. No, yes (but not required).

> I've had several phones over the years where the data connector was
> separate from the charging connector. Usually when the main charger was
> magnetically attached. The phone could still be charge via the data
> connector as well.
>
> Would there be anything (except profit margin) stopping Apple from
> including both Lightning and USB-C connectors?

No.

> They could even play their normal games and make the USB-C charge-only
> and not usable as a data connector.

On 2021-09-25 9:07 p.m., Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:08:18 -0700, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> | 'But Apple has also argued that if the European Union had imposed a
> | common charger in 2009, it would have restricted innovation that led to
> | USB-C and Lightning connectors. In a statement, Apple said that although
> | it welcomed the European Commission’s commitment to protecting the
> | environment, it favored a solution that left the device side of the
> | charging interface open for innovation.'
> |
> | <https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/09/23/eu-usbc-mandate>
> |
> | And yes: in 2009 the EU was looking at mandating a common charging port.
> |
> | 'Benedict Evans:
> |
> | "This is a profoundly stupid way to approach product design and
> | standardisation. What happens in 5 years when someone wants to use a
> | better connector? What if they’d picked USB 3 five years ago?"'
> |
> | <https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1441009296540676096>
>
>
> Does this proposed standard prevent phone from having more than one type
> of connector? Or does it just mandate "must be able to be charged via
> USB-C"? And is it actually limited to charging, or does it cover data
> interconnection as well?

Would it drive up the cost of devices that had to have two connectors
instead of one?

>
> I've had several phones over the years where the data connector was
> separate from the charging connector. Usually when the main charger was
> magnetically attached. The phone could still be charge via the data
> connector as well.
>
> Would there be anything (except profit margin) stopping Apple from
> including both Lightning and USB-C connectors?
> They could even play their normal games and make the USB-C charge-only
> and not usable as a data connector.

What are Apple's "normal games" supposed to be?

Give an example.

On 2021-09-25 9:46 p.m., David Taylor wrote:
> On 26/09/2021 05:07, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
>> Would there be anything (except profit margin) stopping Apple from
>> including both Lightning and USB-C connectors?
>> They could even play their normal games and make the USB-C charge-only
>> and not usable as a data connector.
>
> My Google phone already has a USB-C connector fpr power and data.
> My iPad already has a USB-C connector for both power and data.
>
> I see no reason for Apple not to comply with at least the physical part
> of the ruling but what Apple do is outside the scope of this group.

Apparently, it's only outside the scope of this group if you say
something positive or refute something negative about Apple.