Tim+ wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2023 07:47:09 -0700, sms wrote:
>
> > Actually there are still quite a few iPhone 6s and 6s Plus phones in
> > use. Users are reluctant to give them up because it's the last iPhone
> > model that has a 3.5mm headphone jack.
>
> True. Apple stuck that stick up its customers asses saying "Relax, it's
> rather courageous of us to shove this stick up your ass, isn't it."

Tim+ normally posts through news.individual.net. I've
never seen any posts from him through mixmin or eternal
september.
So these posts here from 'Tim+' are most probably 'Arlen
Holder' forgeries.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> the usb spec is public. anyone outside of apple can read it. even you.
>
> apple has supported usb-c for eight years, without having created any
> non-standard version.
>

Not to mention the fact that if any company created a “non-standard USB-C
port”, said company would not be able to call said port a “USB-C” port.

It would be very difficult to sell such a device.

Nice to see that Arlen is back - complete with sock puppets - spewing the
same bullshit as always.

In article <CW2dnS_-eJNWuPj5nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Bob
Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:

>
> > the usb spec is public. anyone outside of apple can read it. even you.
> >
> > apple has supported usb-c for eight years, without having created any
> > non-standard version.
> >
>
> Not to mention the fact that if any company created a ³non-standard USB-C
> port², said company would not be able to call said port a ³USB-C² port.

true. the usb consortium would not allow it.

On 2023-05-17 19:24, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-05-17 04:52, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-05-17 12:53, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <5tnejjxtof.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And the EU is going to force Apple to be serious with USB-C, meaning
>>>> that it has to be fully compatible with the standard, not Apple's own
>>>> version of it.
>>>
>>> that's nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
>>
>> <https://www.applesfera.com/iphone/violaria-directamente-ley-llegan-advertencias-comision-europea-planes-iphone-15-usb-c>
>>
>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-limiting-usb-c-iphone-cables/>
>>
>> <https://www.zeit.de/digital/mobil/2023-05/eu-kommission-apple-ladekabel-einschraenkungen-warnung?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.macrumors.com%2F>
>>
>>>
>>> apple is not creating their own version of usb-c.
>>
>> Yes, they do. It is called  MFi certification. See links provided for
>> more details.
>>
>
> You are apparently unfamiliar with the meaning of things like:
>
> "is expected" (link 1)
>
> "It was rumored" (link 2)
>
> "It is worth emphasizing that Apple potentially limiting the
> functionality of uncertified USB-C cables connected to iPhone 15 models
> is only a rumor for now" (link 2)

The letter of warning from the EU official to Apple is a fact.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-05-17 12:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-05-17 19:24, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-05-17 04:52, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-17 12:53, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <5tnejjxtof.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And the EU is going to force Apple to be serious with USB-C, meaning
>>>>> that it has to be fully compatible with the standard, not Apple's own
>>>>> version of it.
>>>>
>>>> that's nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
>>>
>>> <https://www.applesfera.com/iphone/violaria-directamente-ley-llegan-advertencias-comision-europea-planes-iphone-15-usb-c>
>>>
>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-limiting-usb-c-iphone-cables/>
>>>
>>> <https://www.zeit.de/digital/mobil/2023-05/eu-kommission-apple-ladekabel-einschraenkungen-warnung?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.macrumors.com%2F>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> apple is not creating their own version of usb-c.
>>>
>>> Yes, they do. It is called  MFi certification. See links provided for
>>> more details.
>>>
>>
>> You are apparently unfamiliar with the meaning of things like:
>>
>> "is expected" (link 1)
>>
>> "It was rumored" (link 2)
>>
>> "It is worth emphasizing that Apple potentially limiting the
>> functionality of uncertified USB-C cables connected to iPhone 15
>> models is only a rumor for now" (link 2)
>
> The letter of warning from the EU official to Apple is a fact.

But the letter admits that it is based on unsubstantiated rumours.

In article <c3mfjjxt1g.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> The letter of warning from the EU official to Apple is a fact.

it means absolutely nothing, and the eu is technically ignorant.

there is zero evidence that apple will create their own version of
usb-c, which as noted elsewhere, cannot be called usb-c.

apple has supported usb-c on various products for the past eight years,
all fully compliant with the official spec.

it is yet another one of the usual baseless apple conspiracy theories.

On Wed, 17 May 2023 21:21:48 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> "It is worth emphasizing that Apple potentially limiting the
>> functionality of uncertified USB-C cables connected to iPhone 15 models
>> is only a rumor for now" (link 2)
>
> The letter of warning from the EU official to Apple is a fact.

If Apple can restrict key choices of its customers to stray outside of the
purchasing direction that Apple wants them to, Apple will do everything in
their power to design hardware using loopholes in the standards to do so.

On 2023-05-17, Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2023 07:47:09 -0700, sms wrote:
>
>> Actually there are still quite a few iPhone 6s and 6s Plus phones in
>> use. Users are reluctant to give them up because it's the last iPhone
>> model that has a 3.5mm headphone jack.
>
> True. Apple stuck that stick up its customers asses

*YAWN* Your trolls are boring, Timmy.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article <u43b0r$2j1v8$1@news.mixmin.net>, Erholt Rhein
<erholtr@pobox.com> wrote:

>
> If Apple can restrict key choices of its customers to stray outside of the
> purchasing direction that Apple wants them to, Apple will do everything in
> their power to design hardware using loopholes in the standards to do so.

yet history shows they do no do that.

*other* companies are the ones that violate the specs.

On 2023-05-17, William Stickers <bill.stickers@innocent.com> wrote:
> Tim+ wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 May 2023 07:47:09 -0700, sms wrote:
>>
>> > Actually there are still quite a few iPhone 6s and 6s Plus phones
>> > in use. Users are reluctant to give them up because it's the last
>> > iPhone model that has a 3.5mm headphone jack.
>>
>> True. Apple stuck that stick up its customers asses saying "Relax,
>> it's rather courageous of us to shove this stick up your ass, isn't
>> it."
>
> Tim+ normally posts through news.individual.net. I've never seen any
> posts from him through mixmin or eternal september. So these posts
> here from 'Tim+' are most probably 'Arlen Holder' forgeries.

Wouldn't surprise me. He has been forging other people as sock puppets
for a long time now. He's a deplorable shithead.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-05-17, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-05-17 19:24, Alan wrote:
>>
>> You are apparently unfamiliar with the meaning of things like:
>>
>> "is expected" (link 1)
>>
>> "It was rumored" (link 2)
>>
>> "It is worth emphasizing that Apple potentially limiting the
>> functionality of uncertified USB-C cables connected to iPhone 15
>> models is only a rumor for now" (link 2)
>
> The letter of warning from the EU official to Apple is a fact.

Are you suggesting EU officials never react to baseless rumors? : D

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-05-17, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <5tnejjxtof.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> And the EU is going to force Apple to be serious with USB-C, meaning
>>> that it has to be fully compatible with the standard, not Apple's
>>> own version of it.
>>
>> that's nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
>
> Time will tell.
>
>> apple is not creating their own version of usb-c.
>
> You nor anyone else outside of Apple knows that.

And you nor anyone else outside of Apple knows they are limiting USB-C.
See how that works, Sparky?

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-05-17, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <u433b1$3ufvg$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> >> And the EU is going to force Apple to be serious with USB-C,
>> >> meaning that it has to be fully compatible with the standard, not
>> >> Apple's own version of it.
>> >
>> > that's nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
>>
>> Time will tell.
>
> it's already told.
>
>> > apple is not creating their own version of usb-c.
>>
>> You nor anyone else outside of Apple knows that.
>
> the usb spec is public. anyone outside of apple can read it. even you.
>
> apple has supported usb-c for eight years, without having created any
> non-standard version.

We are all supposed to ignore that reality. Because: troll. ; )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-05-17, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> the usb spec is public. anyone outside of apple can read it. even
>> you.
>>
>> apple has supported usb-c for eight years, without having created any
>> non-standard version.
>>
>
> Not to mention the fact that if any company created a “non-standard
> USB-C port”, said company would not be able to call said port a
> “USB-C” port.
>
> It would be very difficult to sell such a device.
>
> Nice to see that Arlen is back - complete with sock puppets - spewing
> the same bullshit as always.

And it's always easily-disproved bullshit at that. Just fucking weak,
all around. Arlen and his little cohorts are complete losers.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 17-05-2023 21:51 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> If Apple can restrict key choices of its customers to stray outside of the
>> purchasing direction that Apple wants them to, Apple will do everything in
>> their power to design hardware using loopholes in the standards to do so.
>
> yet history shows they do no do that.

Apple serialized batteries "to do (exactly) that."

On 2023-05-17, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-05-17 12:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-05-17 19:24, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>> You are apparently unfamiliar with the meaning of things like:
>>>
>>> "is expected" (link 1)
>>>
>>> "It was rumored" (link 2)
>>>
>>> "It is worth emphasizing that Apple potentially limiting the
>>> functionality of uncertified USB-C cables connected to iPhone 15
>>> models is only a rumor for now" (link 2)
>>
>> The letter of warning from the EU official to Apple is a fact.
>
> But the letter admits that it is based on unsubstantiated rumours.

It's based on the fact that an Apple-branded USB-C cable some analyst
became aware of has a chip in it (without identifying what chip it is or
even whether it's Apple-proprietary), and it ignores the fact that it is
not uncommon for USB-C cables to have chips in them. It also
conveniently ignores the fact that Apple hasn't limited any of the
USB-C cables for existing Apple devices that use USB-C. ; )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Erholt Rhein <erholtr@pobox.com> wrote:

> If Apple can restrict key choices of its customers to stray outside of the
> purchasing direction that Apple wants them to, Apple will do everything in
> their power to design hardware using loopholes in the standards to do so.

Hey Arlen. How are those “cross platform, ultrasonic file transfers”
working out?

On 2023-05-17, Michael <michael@spamcop.com> wrote:
> On 17-05-2023 21:51 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> If Apple can restrict key choices of its customers to stray outside
>>> of the purchasing direction that Apple wants them to, Apple will do
>>> everything in their power to design hardware using loopholes in the
>>> standards to do so.
>>
>> yet history shows they do no do that.
>
> Apple serialized batteries "to do (exactly) that."

Nope, there is no evidence that Apple's motivation for serializing parts
isn't based on enhanced security and/or theft/counterfeit mitigation.
Sorry. You lose.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-05-17, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
> Erholt Rhein <erholtr@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> If Apple can restrict key choices of its customers to stray outside
>> of the purchasing direction that Apple wants them to, Apple will do
>> everything in their power to design hardware using loopholes in the
>> standards to do so.
>
> Hey Arlen. How are those “cross platform, ultrasonic file transfers”
> working out?

Oh man, memories... he's such an idiot. Thanks for the giggle! : D

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-05-17 13:04, Michael wrote:
> On 17-05-2023 21:51 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> If Apple can restrict key choices of its customers to stray outside of the
>>> purchasing direction that Apple wants them to, Apple will do everything in
>>> their power to design hardware using loopholes in the standards to do so.
>>
>> yet history shows they do no do that.
>
> Apple serialized batteries "to do (exactly) that."

Did they?

Quote and source, please!

In article <kckqgmF3g1sU10@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> The letter of warning from the EU official to Apple is a fact.
> >
> > But the letter admits that it is based on unsubstantiated rumours.
>
> It's based on the fact that an Apple-branded USB-C cable some analyst
> became aware of has a chip in it (without identifying what chip it is or
> even whether it's Apple-proprietary), and it ignores the fact that it is
> not uncommon for USB-C cables to have chips in them. It also
> conveniently ignores the fact that Apple hasn't limited any of the
> USB-C cables for existing Apple devices that use USB-C. ; )

they also ignore that the usb spec explicitly allows for authentication
chips.

another thing they ignore is that *other* companies (hp in particular)
artificially limit functionality to lock customers into their products.

<https://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/03/usb_c_laptop_chartin
g-100649896-orig.png>

In article <u43c02$7aq$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>, Michael
<michael@spamcop.com> wrote:

>
> >> If Apple can restrict key choices of its customers to stray outside of the
> >> purchasing direction that Apple wants them to, Apple will do everything in
> >> their power to design hardware using loopholes in the standards to do so.
> >
> > yet history shows they do no do that.
>
> Apple serialized batteries "to do (exactly) that."

nope. there is no restriction on which batteries can be used.

genuine apple batteries have what you call a serial number due to
counterfeit batteries which at best overstate their capacity and worst
case, ignite and catch fire, potentially causing injury and in at least
two cases, death.

if someone doesn't care about fake batteries with the risk of problems,
then they can use a fake one. the choice is entirely theirs.

many other companies do the same thing, and not just with batteries.

early olmypus digital cameras offered additional functionality when
olympus branded memory cards were used. the sony mavica that used
mini-cds would display a warning with non-sony cds.

In article <u43clp$3vear$5@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> >
> >>> If Apple can restrict key choices of its customers to stray outside of the
> >>> purchasing direction that Apple wants them to, Apple will do everything in
> >>> their power to design hardware using loopholes in the standards to do so.
> >>
> >> yet history shows they do no do that.
> >
> > Apple serialized batteries "to do (exactly) that."
>
> Did they?

sort of.

genuine apple iphone batteries have an authentication chip due to
counterfeit batteries, some of which look *exactly* like an actual
apple battery.

however, users are not restricted to use only apple batteries. they can
use fake batteries if they choose to, with the associated risks.

On 2023-05-17 21:46, nospam wrote:
> In article <c3mfjjxt1g.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The letter of warning from the EU official to Apple is a fact.
>
> it means absolutely nothing, and the eu is technically ignorant.

LOL.

It doesn't matter, if they ban Apple products.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-05-17 22:07, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2023-05-17, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-05-17 12:21, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-17 19:24, Alan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You are apparently unfamiliar with the meaning of things like:
>>>>
>>>> "is expected" (link 1)
>>>>
>>>> "It was rumored" (link 2)
>>>>
>>>> "It is worth emphasizing that Apple potentially limiting the
>>>> functionality of uncertified USB-C cables connected to iPhone 15
>>>> models is only a rumor for now" (link 2)
>>>
>>> The letter of warning from the EU official to Apple is a fact.
>>
>> But the letter admits that it is based on unsubstantiated rumours.
>
> It's based on the fact that an Apple-branded USB-C cable some analyst
> became aware of has a chip in it (without identifying what chip it is or
> even whether it's Apple-proprietary), and it ignores the fact that it is
> not uncommon for USB-C cables to have chips in them. It also
> conveniently ignores the fact that Apple hasn't limited any of the
> USB-C cables for existing Apple devices that use USB-C. ; )
>

And then there is the fact that the official requested a meeting several
times to clarify the situation, and Apple refused/declined.

--
Cheers, Carlos.