In article <v1qfjjxnnp.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.

yes, the eu is laughable.

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

they're not going to ban apple products.

Am 17.05.23 um 14:17 schrieb Newyana2:
> Steve Jobs was a vain, power hungry fanatic who thought
> he was some kind of Zen master bringing higher vibes to the
> world. Meanwhile he exploited his customers. It was under Jobs
> that the programming was controlled and licensed, while anyone
> could write Windows software with standard tools.

OMG! You must be frustrated to spread such lies!

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 2023-05-17 13:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 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.
>

Got proof of that, do you?

Am 17.05.23 um 17:19 schrieb Tim+:
> On Wed, 17 May 2023 09:48:01 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> it was done because many cables, chargers and accessories
>> caused damage to the device.
>
> Every time Apple shoves another stick up its customer's ass, Apple smiles
> sweetly telling its customers "Relax, stop moaning, we shoved that MFI
> stick up your ass for your own good" (which the "mean EU" has figured out).

The EU will enforce the law. It is that simple. Apple better complies.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 17.05.23 um 21:46 schrieb Alan:
> On 2023-05-17 12:21, Carlos E.R. 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.

Bullshit!
The EU made clear what it would consider a circumvention of the law. The
EU never works on rumours.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 17.05.23 um 22:28 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> And then there is the fact that the official requested a meeting several
> times to clarify the situation, and Apple refused/declined.

I consider *this* a rumour.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 17.05.23 um 21:46 schrieb nospam:
> 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.

Your opinion in this respect is totally irrelevant. The EU will enforce
the law and it made clear what it considers a circumvention.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 2023-05-17, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

So?

--
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, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-05-17 13:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Got proof of that, do you?

Even if they did request a meeting, and even if Apple declined, it
proves nothing.

--
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, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 17.05.23 um 21:46 schrieb Alan:
>> On 2023-05-17 12:21, Carlos E.R. 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.
>
> Bullshit!

Nope, it's 100% the truth.

> EU never works on rumours.

There's the bullshit you were looking for.

--
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, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 17.05.23 um 21:46 schrieb nospam:
>> 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.
>
> Your opinion in this respect is totally irrelevant.

So is yours. This entire discussion is based on a toothless and unproven
*rumor*. ; )

--
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 14:01, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 17.05.23 um 21:46 schrieb Alan:
>> On 2023-05-17 12:21, Carlos E.R. 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.
>
> Bullshit!
> The EU made clear what it would consider a circumvention of the law. The
> EU never works on rumours.
>
>

And you know that...

....how?

On 18.5.2023 00:19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> the problem is people are *assuming* without evidence that apple will
> intentionally circumvent what the eu imposes on the world.

Apple intentionally circumvents laws all the time.

Like when Apple throttled batteries where Apple lied for years about why
they did it and why they changed the release notes & why they lied about
that too until Apple finally had to settle cases at the cost of billions.

It's what Apple is.
--
Doveryay, no proveryay.

Ilya Kraskov <Ilyanospam123Kraskov123@gomail.com.ua> wrote:

> Apple intentionally circumvents laws all the time.
>
> Like when Apple throttled batteries where Apple lied for years about why
> they did it and why they changed the release notes & why they lied about
> that too until Apple finally had to settle cases at the cost of billions.
>
> It's what Apple is.

Arlen sock puppets, spewing Arlen Facts. It’s what “Ilya Kraskov” is.

On Wed, 17 May 2023 16:22:30 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> 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.

Why did you lie?

It's well known what Apple did as iFixIt has reported extensively on it.

You seem to have a problem with what Apple did when Apple serialized
batteries if your response to what Apple did was to say "nope" to it.

Then you say many other companies do the same thing but you don't mention a
single smart phone manufacturer who serializes their smart phone batteries.

Then you talk about fake batteries when even the real batteries cause the
warning and nobody but you was talking about using fake iPhone batteries.

Sounds like you know what Apple did which is probably why you lied.

What Apple did was not only did Apple serialize certain iPhone batteries,
but many iPhones also output a permanent warning even when you use genuine
Apple batteries but you did the repair without special serialization tools.

Instead of lies, why don't you respond with a cite backing up your claims
that other smartphone companies serialized smart phone batteries like that.

In article <u43i56$2k8ro$1@news.mixmin.net>, Ilya Kraskov
<Ilyanospam123Kraskov123@gomail.com.ua> wrote:

> Like when Apple throttled batteries where Apple lied for years about why
> they did it and why they changed the release notes & why they lied about
> that too until Apple finally had to settle cases at the cost of billions.

hi arlen!

In article <u43j1p$4gj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>, Michael
<michael@spamcop.com> wrote:

>
> What Apple did was not only did Apple serialize certain iPhone batteries,
> but many iPhones also output a permanent warning even when you use genuine
> Apple batteries but you did the repair without special serialization tools.

hi arlen!

it shows a warning until the battery can be guaranteed as genuine and
that the health data its reporting is accurate. once that's done, the
warning goes away. it is *not* permanent.

other than that *one* thing, the battery functions as normal. those who
choose to use fake batteries can simply ignore the warning.

On Wed, 17 May 2023 18:15:05 -0400, nospam wrote:

> hi arlen!

Don't know don't care who or what that means but anyone who refutes your
lies you are saying hi arlen to so maybe that's how you hide your lies.

> it shows a warning until the battery can be guaranteed as genuine and
> that the health data its reporting is accurate. once that's done, the
> warning goes away. it is *not* permanent.

I know what it does as iFixIt has reported extensively on what Apple did.
You lied.

> other than that *one* thing, the battery functions as normal. those who
> choose to use fake batteries can simply ignore the warning.

Where is your reference that other smart phone makers do what Apple does.
You lied.

In article <u43koh$2r56$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>, Michael
<michael@spamcop.com> wrote:

>
> > hi arlen!
>
> Don't know don't care who or what that means

bullshit.
> I know what it does as iFixIt has reported extensively on what Apple did.

unfortunately, you do not understand what you claim to have read.

On 2023-05-17 14:49, Ilya Kraskov wrote:
> On 18.5.2023 00:19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> the problem is people are *assuming* without evidence that apple will
>> intentionally circumvent what the eu imposes on the world.
>
> Apple intentionally circumvents laws all the time.

Given an example... ...Arlen.

>
> Like when Apple throttled batteries where Apple lied for years about why
> they did it and why they changed the release notes & why they lied about
> that too until Apple finally had to settle cases at the cost of billions.

Bullshit. From end to end.

>
> It's what Apple is.

A troll: that's what you are.

On 2023-05-17, Ilya Kraskov <Ilyanospam123Kraskov123@gomail.com.ua> wrote:
> On 18.5.2023 00:19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> the problem is people are *assuming* without evidence that apple will
>> intentionally circumvent what the eu imposes on the world.
>
> Apple intentionally circumvents laws all the time.
>
> Like when Apple throttled batteries where Apple lied for years about why
> they did it and why they changed the release notes & why they lied about
> that too until Apple finally had to settle cases at the cost of billions.

That's a lie that was debunked long ago. The whole Throttle Gate /
Battery Gate "issue" is a sensational line of nonsense from people who
don’t have a good understanding of the engineering challenges involved,
nor how the solutions to those challenges are actually implemented.

The facts:

* Apple introduced the CPU throttling feature in iOS 10.2.1 on January
23, 2017 and stated in the release notes that the release contained
"general bug fixes and performance improvements", which is true since
the feature improves (extends) the runtime of devices that have
batteries that are unable to supply required current. Apple didn't lie
as you are incorrectly claiming, and Apple routinely updates release
notes after release to clarify them, so this isn't some special case..

* A few days later in February 2017, after obtaining real world metrics
about how the feature was actually working on real world devices
outside of Apple, they revised the release note to further explain the
improvement saying it "improves power management during peak workloads
to avoid unexpected shutdowns". Any reasonable person who is even just
superficially knowledgeable about electronics can easily infer from
that statement that "power management" can at times mean reducing
power consumption, which naturally means reducing performance.

* The feature works by detecting a *malfunctioning* battery that cannot
supply enough current to the device, and reacting by automatically
applying what can be described as a sort of low pass filter to prevent
spikes in resource usage (performance), which in turn prevents the
device from spontaneously shutting down, extending runtime. Nobody
wants a phone that spontaneously shuts down at a critical moment, like
during a 911 emergency call, just because the battery is old and can’t
sustain the load anymore. That's a marked improvement, as anyone who
has ever had their phone spontaneously shut down on them can attest.

* The feature does not have *any* effect on devices with
well-functioning batteries. In fact the feature doesn't apply the
throttle until *after* the device first experiences a spontaneous
shutdown.

* Even on devices with failing batteries, the feature does *not* affect
most users most of the time because most smartphone apps don't cause
CPU/GPU usage to spike significantly on a regular basis. Certain apps
do, like games and so on. But you're not going to see a huge spike in
resource usage from a lot of the apps people use the most, like the
Contacts, Messages, or Safari apps, for instance.

Apple’s intent with this feature is clearly to *prolong* *runtime* of
devices with dying batteries. And this hair-brained idea that screwing
people over will convince them to buy *more* stuff from you rather than
running to your competition instead is frankly ludicrous and smacks of
anti-intellectual foolishness. But some people don’t understand the
facts or have an irrational hatred of Apple, and only see a grand
conspiracy by Apple to somehow fuck over millions of their customers,
which is patently false.

Not only did these lawsuits not add up to "billions" as you falsely
claim, but Apple settling these lawsuits is nothing more than a quick
and relatively painless end to a bullshit *farce*. And I’m sure that’s
how Apple views it as well - if you think 113 million dollars is
anything but a virtual shrug from Apple, a two-trillion-dollar company,
you’re naive. It’s less costly to Apple to pay these ridiculous people
off than to bother going to court, so they settled instead, and in doing
so admitted no wrongdoing. And rightly so.

Stop with the bullshit.

--
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 <u43j1p$4gj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>, Michael
><michael@spamcop.com> wrote:
>
>> What Apple did was not only did Apple serialize certain iPhone
>> batteries, but many iPhones also output a permanent warning even when
>> you use genuine Apple batteries but you did the repair without
>> special serialization tools.
>
> hi arlen!
>
> it shows a warning until the battery can be guaranteed as genuine and
> that the health data its reporting is accurate. once that's done, the
> warning goes away. it is *not* permanent.
>
> other than that *one* thing, the battery functions as normal. those
> who choose to use fake batteries can simply ignore the warning.

Not only that, but the warning isn't displayed unless you go to Settings
> Battery > Battery Health. Otherwise, you never see it.

--
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, Michael <michael@spamcop.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2023 18:15:05 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> hi arlen!
>
> Don't know don't care who or what that means but anyone who refutes
> your lies you are saying hi arlen to so maybe that's how you hide your
> lies.
>
>> it shows a warning until the battery can be guaranteed as genuine and
>> that the health data its reporting is accurate. once that's done, the
>> warning goes away. it is *not* permanent.
>
> I know what it does as iFixIt has reported extensively on what Apple
> did. You lied.

Nope, you and your little trollboi gang are the ones who lied claiming
the reason Apple serializes batteries is to supposedly prevent users
from replacing their own batteries. That's not the reason, and users can
replace their own batteries, either with a genuine Apple battery through
Apple's Self Repair program or with a third-party battery through iFixIt
and other sellers. Your lies are easily debunked, dip shit.

--
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 <kcl5htF58i2U2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> What Apple did was not only did Apple serialize certain iPhone
> >> batteries, but many iPhones also output a permanent warning even when
> >> you use genuine Apple batteries but you did the repair without
> >> special serialization tools.
> >
> > hi arlen!
> >
> > it shows a warning until the battery can be guaranteed as genuine and
> > that the health data its reporting is accurate. once that's done, the
> > warning goes away. it is *not* permanent.
> >
> > other than that *one* thing, the battery functions as normal. those
> > who choose to use fake batteries can simply ignore the warning.
>
> Not only that, but the warning isn't displayed unless you go to Settings
> > Battery > Battery Health. Otherwise, you never see it.

yep.

the problem is that a lot of batteries, not just counterfeit ones,
overstate the battery health and report inaccurate and misleading data.
displaying data that is not correct is not helpful, thus the warning.

verifying that the battery is genuine and that its health data is valid
is a good thing.

at least with iphones, fake batteries can be used.

nikon doesn't bother with a warning. the camera just stops working:
<https://old.reddit.com/r/Nikon/comments/yfb5or/battery_error_help/>
Got myself a dummy battery. My d5300 keeps saying:
This battery cannot be used. Use battery designated for this camera.
Any way to fix it, or is it because its not Nikon branded or whatever

I have the same issue with some 3rd party batteries. They work on my
older D750 but I get an error when I try to use them on my Z6II. They
are not compatible.

On Wed, 17 May 2023 19:35:30 -0400, nospam wrote:

> yep.

All you have are lies because it's only Apple smart phones & no others.

In other words, where is your still-missing backup reference for your lies
that it's not only Apple who serializes replacement smart phone batteries?

I'm not responding to your lies until you back your lies up with at least
one reference that other smart phone companies serialize their smart phone
replacement batteries.