4 ms·
They tried the light-touch approach for years (i.e. the previous rulings), and it has improved things but Apple insists in, basically, respecting only the lette
by toyg 5y ago
They tried the light-touch approach for years (i.e. the previous rulings), and it has improved things but Apple insists in, basically, respecting only the letter of the law and not the spirit - and they are a third of the market. So this time, the Commission came up with a stricter approach.
> it’s an order of magnitude more difficult to change that legislation
The previous attempt is from 2009. A review every 10-15 years or so is not that difficult, when there is widespread political agreement on consumer matters.
> Lastly, is interoperability even a problem?
Before the EU committees stepped in, the market was a jungle of custom adapters. You don't remember the last time you had a problem partially because they forced the market to stop with shenanigans, and most manufacturer complied at least in the most visible sector (phones - stuff like watches is still a jungle, but they are less popular and definitely not as essential as phones). Some convergence was already happening but EU rules accelerated adoption and ensured it would happen across the board. Only Apple insisted in ignoring the spirit of the decision, so this is meant to force their hand somewhat to play ball (while also giving them something, since the unbundled charger was at risk of being challenged as anti-consumer).
> Similarly, are these chargers a major source of e-waste?
Yes.
> And how much of that is this legislation going to change?
More than the alternative of doing nothing.
- rglullis 5y ago> More than the alternative of doing nothing. Are you sure about that? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28630578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28630578
- toyg 5y agoI'm sure it's just a coincidence that the move towards less-integrated chargers started after the EU began the standardization process in 2009.
- rglullis 5y agoAnd I'm pretty sure you are being fooled by your biases. You want to believe that the EU is necessary for this kind of change to happen, ergo when the change happens (worldwide!) it can only be because of the EU?
- toyg 5y agoOr in other words, "I can't argue the facts, so I'll argue the man". Banging shoes next?
- rglullis 5y agoThe only facts that we really can observe: - Apple managed to get through all the regulation "mandates" without any serious repercussion to their operations, showing the complete lack of effectiveness of said regulations. - market conditions and the development timeline of the technology (USB-C with power delivery) can alone explain the gradual change in the Apple product line. Those are the facts. Now let's go to the opinion part and apply Occam's razor here: between the explanation that requires believing that Apple is changing its products out of fear from EU regulatory bodies (despite historical evidence of the contrary) and the explanation that says changes were bound to happen anyway due to being sensible business, which one is simpler? Which one is more likely to be correct?