this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
573 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37747 readers
209 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The power numbers I mentioned above would just cause modern phones to die slightly slower. But that's the minimum required for USB 2.0, and that was the rumored amount that Apple was going to allow without an MFI chip. But other users seem pretty confident that it won't matter because Apple won't be able to find a loophole there.
Still potentially the difference between being stranded without a phone and managing to trickle charge it over a long period of time while it's off
True. But I still think this would be a huge oversight, as it would completely go against the spirit of this regulation. It should be easy to keep this hole closed and a huge slam dunk if they can do it. If the EU whiffs on this, I definitely won't consider it a win. All it will do is make Apple users upset that they can't really use all the cables that they already own for non-apple devices. This will cause some families to purge every cable in their house and replace them with MFI cables, resulting in a ton of money for Apple, a ton of money spent by consumers, and a ton of e-waste. Is all that worth it when they could have just kept the loophole closed? An argument could be made, but I wouldn't change my mind on it, especially when it would have been so easy for the EU to do it right in the first place.
But again this argument is kind of moot, because other users are confident that the alleged loophole doesn't even exist.
We'll see I suppose
Also my argument is not that it won't suck if they find a loophole but it's still better than what we've got right now
I'll agree with that for sure.