7 ms·

2024? There's still plenty of time for them to remove the port altogether and go with just MagSafe/Qi. Which they control, and they still can get fees from. Tr

2024? There's still plenty of time for them to remove the port altogether and go with just MagSafe/Qi. Which they control, and they still can get fees from. Trust me when I say that Apple will NEVER submit to this legislation, they will find every sort of obscure or arcane tricks to comply with it without actually doing it. It would set a precedent that legislating can change Apple's behaviour, which they clearly do not want to give. If they show the EU Parliament it's pointless to go after them, maybe they will not try to dismantle their monopoly on the App Store, which is clearly the next thing they will go after this.

rbanffy 4y ago
They already use USB-C in the iPad line. What I imagine as the most likely outcome is keeping USB-C as an option for charging (as it already is - you don't need to use MagSafe for charging any supported) and offering USB-C and/or wireless-only charging on phones. Being wireless-only on phones makes a lot of sense for ruggedness - a completely sealed iPhone could be easily used underwater.
lekevicius 4y ago
I don't think this is the right take. - We already have reliable rumors that next-next iPhone (not this Sept, but next) will have USB-C port. - Qi is not a standard they control like Lightning either way. - Portless phone would be very unpopular (no fast charging), USB-C would be very popular. Apple would not choose to be unpopular just to watch the world hate them.
- glogla 4y ago
  > - Portless phone would be very unpopular (no fast charging), USB-C would be very popular. Apple would not choose to be unpopular just to watch the world hate them. The same Apple which removed headphone jack so they can sell more dongles and wireless headphones? I can see them making portless phone just out of pure spite (maybe having cheaper version with port and not selling that in EU).
  - kaba0 4y ago
    The headphone jack did take up a considerable amount of space and made waterproofing quite a bit harder. It't not like it was not a well-considered tradeoff. Companies don't work based on spite, but based on profit.
    - spacexsucks 4y ago
    - mattnewton 4y ago
      The existence of waterproof Samsung phones of the same thickness seems to disprove this line for me; it’s not a coincidence that AirPods were released at the same time. Removing the headphone jack and was at least in part about the upsell to wireless headphones apple also makes.
      - hda2 4y ago
        I concur. If anything, TRRS jacks should be easier to waterproof compared to other holes.
  - spacexsucks 4y ago
  - lekevicius 4y ago
    > I can see them making portless phone just out of pure spite (maybe having cheaper version with port and not selling that in EU). What kind of mindset is this? Sometimes Apple prefers aesthetics over practicality, but they are not a spiteful company (unless you are Nvidia), particularly when it hurts customers.
- irrational 4y ago
  > Portless phone would be very unpopular Apple dropped the headphone port, despite wireless headphones still not being as good as wired (IMHO). This shows that they are perfectly willing to do that which is unpopular.
lm28469 4y ago
> Qi What a complete waste of energy would that be
ohgodplsno 4y ago
Then Apple will be fined billions until they yield, just as every other tech company has tried to do in the EU and failed.
plonk 4y ago
They already use USB-C on macs and iPads. The only practical reason for Lightning to survive is existing iPhone accessories. It could have been on the way out even before this. Not sure the fight is worth picking.
- qalmakka 4y ago
  > The only practical reason for Lightning to survive is existing iPhone accessories Do you have any vague idea how much money Apple makes from Lightning accessories? Every single thing that wants to use Lightning has to pay an Apple tax, and go through an incredibly cumbersome and expensive certification process. Letting that slip away from Apple's control means they lose a bit of control on their walled garden. Meanwhile, MagSafe is also an environment for accessories they can control, and they can use as a way to extort fees from accessory developers. Apple has only one goal in mind - their margins. Everything they do must be seen in function of that. It's clear Apple is going to remove every single port from the iPhone, they only have to find how.
  - iainmerrick 4y ago
    Why do new Macs and iPads have USB-C, then?
    - qalmakka 4y ago
      Because 1. Macs have always had standard ports, such as USB-A and FireWire, and Lightning basically is never used in a master configuration anyway, so it would make no sense to put it on a Mac 2. iPads have just a tiny share of the overall market of iDevices, and they only put USB-C on the most expensive models with the selling point that the port could now be used also in a master configuration, and not only as a slave (and it's advertised as such on their website).
      - iainmerrick 4y ago
        1. Not to get too pedantic, I hope, but Macs have certainly not "always" had standard ports -- before USB, mice and keyboards used ADB! In fact, Apple were fairly early adopters of USB, and arguably helped make it a de facto standard for desktop peripherals. Firewire was also a technical standard but never became widespread; if I recall, it was Apple's attempt to push against the converging industry standards with what they saw as a technically superior solution. But only Apple and Sony ever bet on Firewire in a big way. If Lightning is never used in a master configuration, how come you can use it to plug headphone into an iPhone? It wouldn't have made "no sense" to put Lightning connectors on Macs (although I definitely agree it wouldn't have been wise and I'm glad they didn't). MagSafe is another non-standard Mac thing -- which was replaced with USB-C and then came back again, very unusually for Apple. So, they certainly haven't always have standard ports, and Apple have not always been consistent. 2. You don't need USB-C to have your device act as a host, whatever the marketing material might say. USB On-The-Go has been around for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_On-The-Go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_On-The-Go The advantage of USB-C is that it gives you access to a wider market of third-party peripherals -- I'd say Apple saw the way the wind was blowing, and decided to sacrifice the control and fat margins you mentioned in favour of a better overall product. Apple has only one goal in mind - their margins. Everything they do must be seen in function of that. It's clear Apple is going to remove every single port from the iPhone, they only have to find how. I agree that they love a fat margin, and feel entitled to it, but I don't think that's quite the full story. Maybe I'm buying too much into the reality distortion field, but I think they genuinely believe they make better products due to their unique approach. That involves exercising strict control where they can (walled garden app store, proprietary connectors) and aggressively removing features that 10% of users rely on in order to give what they see as a better experience for the 90% (e.g. removing headphone jack); but sometimes also bending to market forces and embracing standards when they think it benefits users -- sometimes very early indeed. Think of the 2015 MacBook, which launched with just a single USB-C port for everything, when USB-C peripherals hadn't even become very widespread. The test of all this will be whether iPhones continue using Lightning, or switch to USB-C. I'm very confident that they'll switch, in either the next revision or the one after. It'll be a painful switch, but Apple is very good at powering through those (ADB to USB, 68K to PowerPC, removing floppy drive, removing CD drive, PowerPC to x86, 30-pin connector to Lightning, removing headphone jack, x86 to ARM). When they make up their mind to switch, they make it happen very quickly.
Hamcha 4y ago
If it's going down to a pettiness war, I don't think the legislators will give up that easily. Apple reacting in a petty way not only shows that the legislators were right on the money (while adapting shows they were forced, whether for good or bad) but gives them even more reason to push the buttons further. Digital Markets Act is definitely getting more fuel and attention after Apple's petty response to ACM's complaints in the Netherlands. [1] 1. https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...
- urgentmessage 4y ago
  you seem to think that annoying Apple creates welfare for EU citizens But it doesn't. Regulators may "win" a battle. But consumers lose big time. And I don't think bureaucrats should take precedence versus consumers.
  - hda2 4y ago
    I think GP's point is that you almost never win when you go against regulators head-on. Ultimately, they're the ones who have the guns (i.e control imports, exports, and enforcement). Now that it got to this point, Apple will yield if it wants to continue profiting off those markets. I do agree that legislating technology this way is a big mistake on EU's part. This is basically South Korea's ActiveX law all over again, and like South Korea, the EU will eventually be left behind.
    - Longhanks 4y ago
      Apple and Google won when EU countries tried the centralized covid control tracing, and they both went "you're not going to get this". Some countries were furious, yelled they're going to force Apple, that the EU is going to force Apple, yadda yadda. Nothing prevailed. Apple and Google dictated the API and the EU countries submitted, because they did not have time to enforce their will. It is not Apple's, Google's, or America's fault that the EU has become so little innovative, rather hostile towards software developers and entrepreneurs, that they have no power in the digital world. And for the EU it is easier to blame american companies, instead of admitting failure and working towards creating an more enterprise-friendly hub in Europe. I mean, as others have noted, why isn't the EU regulating the other side of the connector? Why are there 3+ power plugs in the EU? Shouldn't this be regulated first, if the EU's argument of reducing electronic waste be considered? No, those aren't created by american companies. I'm sick of the EU, its constant attempts to circumvent privacy (such as the current legislation of ending end to end encryption for chats), while obviously lacking in the democracy department (why is the comission not elected?).
pfortuny 4y ago
In Europe, and this is well known, companies must comply with the intent of the law, especially on something related to customers and compatibility. This is very very different from the US legal system, which can be tricked “ad nauseam”. Apple may well do what they please but there will be fines, and even prohibition of sales. Because the EU “knows” that it can be done without much burden and “sees” it as a benefit for the citizens. I agree in this case on both things.
- filoleg 4y ago
  This is a nice fantasy and all, but how did that whole "In Europe [...] companies must comply with the intent of the law" work out for GDPR? As far as I am aware, all the big tech companies that were used as the primary reason for creating GDPR are still doing the exact same things (that people were upset about) they were doing back then (just in a legally compliant™ way now according to "the intent of the law"). Not trying to take a dig at GDPR with this, it definitely made some tech companies to make some small concessions, like being able to export your data easier. But it would be difficult to argue that companies comply with GDPR according to the intent of the law, and not according to the letter of the law instead.
  - pfortuny 4y ago
    Well, ok. I specify: in hardware matters.
    - filoleg 4y ago
      I mean, "in EU, law interpretation tends to follow the intent of the law when it comes to hardware, but it tends to follow the letter of the law when it comes to software" feels like an extremely strange and unrealistic statement. Both software and hardware are tightly related areas (i.e., tech), and I cannot imagine why the baseline of the law interpretation would be radically opposite.
kalleboo 4y ago
Basically what I'm assuming is that Apple will adopt USB-C on the iPhone Pro models (since they need faster file transfer for the huge 4K ProRes video files anyway, and they were happy to adopt USB-C on the iPad "Pro" models early) and drop the ports completely on the non-Pro models.
- mort96 4y ago
  I wonder if they'll do that with all their "Pro" stuff. Like, would the AirPods be Qi-only or Lightning+Qi-only, with USB-C reserved for AirPods Pro? Or would they go USB-C across the board? Or does Apple imagine a world in which their ideal "Pro" customer, with their iPad Pro, iPhone Pro, MacBook Pro and AirPods Pro, keeps around a Lightning charger for only their earbuds while literally everything else uses USB-C? IMO, the only clean solution here is to go with USB-C across the board. But I also have no faith that will happen.
  - kalleboo 4y ago
    The EU law also requires headphones and headsets recharge over USB-C. The annex says "Hand-held mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers"
ratww 4y ago
> MagSafe/Qi. Which they control, and they still can get fees from Apple doesn't control Qi. I charge my phone with a random $5 charger and it works quite alright.
- qalmakka 4y ago
  Yep, but Apple controls MagSafe, which extends Qi. In a wireless iPhone, you would use whatever magical shenanigan Apple comes up with to seamlessly pair and communicate with MagSafe accessories, all while they get huge fees from accessory sales and certifications. It's a true and tested approach.

rbanffy 4y ago

They already use USB-C in the iPad line. What I imagine as the most likely outcome is keeping USB-C as an option for charging (as it already is - you don't need to use MagSafe for charging any supported) and offering USB-C and/or wireless-only charging on phones. Being wireless-only on phones makes a lot of sense for ruggedness - a completely sealed iPhone could be easily used underwater.

lekevicius 4y ago

I don't think this is the right take. - We already have reliable rumors that next-next iPhone (not this Sept, but next) will have USB-C port. - Qi is not a standard they control like Lightning either way. - Portless phone would be very unpopular (no fast charging), USB-C would be very popular. Apple would not choose to be unpopular just to watch the world hate them.

glogla 4y ago
> - Portless phone would be very unpopular (no fast charging), USB-C would be very popular. Apple would not choose to be unpopular just to watch the world hate them. The same Apple which removed headphone jack so they can sell more dongles and wireless headphones? I can see them making portless phone just out of pure spite (maybe having cheaper version with port and not selling that in EU).
- kaba0 4y ago
  The headphone jack did take up a considerable amount of space and made waterproofing quite a bit harder. It't not like it was not a well-considered tradeoff. Companies don't work based on spite, but based on profit.
  - spacexsucks 4y ago
  - mattnewton 4y ago
    The existence of waterproof Samsung phones of the same thickness seems to disprove this line for me; it’s not a coincidence that AirPods were released at the same time. Removing the headphone jack and was at least in part about the upsell to wireless headphones apple also makes.
    - hda2 4y ago
      I concur. If anything, TRRS jacks should be easier to waterproof compared to other holes.
- spacexsucks 4y ago
- lekevicius 4y ago
  > I can see them making portless phone just out of pure spite (maybe having cheaper version with port and not selling that in EU). What kind of mindset is this? Sometimes Apple prefers aesthetics over practicality, but they are not a spiteful company (unless you are Nvidia), particularly when it hurts customers.
irrational 4y ago
> Portless phone would be very unpopular Apple dropped the headphone port, despite wireless headphones still not being as good as wired (IMHO). This shows that they are perfectly willing to do that which is unpopular.

lm28469 4y ago

> Qi What a complete waste of energy would that be

ohgodplsno 4y ago

Then Apple will be fined billions until they yield, just as every other tech company has tried to do in the EU and failed.

plonk 4y ago

They already use USB-C on macs and iPads. The only practical reason for Lightning to survive is existing iPhone accessories. It could have been on the way out even before this. Not sure the fight is worth picking.

qalmakka 4y ago
> The only practical reason for Lightning to survive is existing iPhone accessories Do you have any vague idea how much money Apple makes from Lightning accessories? Every single thing that wants to use Lightning has to pay an Apple tax, and go through an incredibly cumbersome and expensive certification process. Letting that slip away from Apple's control means they lose a bit of control on their walled garden. Meanwhile, MagSafe is also an environment for accessories they can control, and they can use as a way to extort fees from accessory developers. Apple has only one goal in mind - their margins. Everything they do must be seen in function of that. It's clear Apple is going to remove every single port from the iPhone, they only have to find how.
- iainmerrick 4y ago
  Why do new Macs and iPads have USB-C, then?
  - qalmakka 4y ago
    Because 1. Macs have always had standard ports, such as USB-A and FireWire, and Lightning basically is never used in a master configuration anyway, so it would make no sense to put it on a Mac 2. iPads have just a tiny share of the overall market of iDevices, and they only put USB-C on the most expensive models with the selling point that the port could now be used also in a master configuration, and not only as a slave (and it's advertised as such on their website).
    - iainmerrick 4y ago
      1. Not to get too pedantic, I hope, but Macs have certainly not "always" had standard ports -- before USB, mice and keyboards used ADB! In fact, Apple were fairly early adopters of USB, and arguably helped make it a de facto standard for desktop peripherals. Firewire was also a technical standard but never became widespread; if I recall, it was Apple's attempt to push against the converging industry standards with what they saw as a technically superior solution. But only Apple and Sony ever bet on Firewire in a big way. If Lightning is never used in a master configuration, how come you can use it to plug headphone into an iPhone? It wouldn't have made "no sense" to put Lightning connectors on Macs (although I definitely agree it wouldn't have been wise and I'm glad they didn't). MagSafe is another non-standard Mac thing -- which was replaced with USB-C and then came back again, very unusually for Apple. So, they certainly haven't always have standard ports, and Apple have not always been consistent. 2. You don't need USB-C to have your device act as a host, whatever the marketing material might say. USB On-The-Go has been around for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_On-The-Go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_On-The-Go The advantage of USB-C is that it gives you access to a wider market of third-party peripherals -- I'd say Apple saw the way the wind was blowing, and decided to sacrifice the control and fat margins you mentioned in favour of a better overall product. Apple has only one goal in mind - their margins. Everything they do must be seen in function of that. It's clear Apple is going to remove every single port from the iPhone, they only have to find how. I agree that they love a fat margin, and feel entitled to it, but I don't think that's quite the full story. Maybe I'm buying too much into the reality distortion field, but I think they genuinely believe they make better products due to their unique approach. That involves exercising strict control where they can (walled garden app store, proprietary connectors) and aggressively removing features that 10% of users rely on in order to give what they see as a better experience for the 90% (e.g. removing headphone jack); but sometimes also bending to market forces and embracing standards when they think it benefits users -- sometimes very early indeed. Think of the 2015 MacBook, which launched with just a single USB-C port for everything, when USB-C peripherals hadn't even become very widespread. The test of all this will be whether iPhones continue using Lightning, or switch to USB-C. I'm very confident that they'll switch, in either the next revision or the one after. It'll be a painful switch, but Apple is very good at powering through those (ADB to USB, 68K to PowerPC, removing floppy drive, removing CD drive, PowerPC to x86, 30-pin connector to Lightning, removing headphone jack, x86 to ARM). When they make up their mind to switch, they make it happen very quickly.

Hamcha 4y ago

If it's going down to a pettiness war, I don't think the legislators will give up that easily. Apple reacting in a petty way not only shows that the legislators were right on the money (while adapting shows they were forced, whether for good or bad) but gives them even more reason to push the buttons further. Digital Markets Act is definitely getting more fuel and attention after Apple's petty response to ACM's complaints in the Netherlands. [1] 1. https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitlement/ https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...

urgentmessage 4y ago
you seem to think that annoying Apple creates welfare for EU citizens But it doesn't. Regulators may "win" a battle. But consumers lose big time. And I don't think bureaucrats should take precedence versus consumers.
- hda2 4y ago
  I think GP's point is that you almost never win when you go against regulators head-on. Ultimately, they're the ones who have the guns (i.e control imports, exports, and enforcement). Now that it got to this point, Apple will yield if it wants to continue profiting off those markets. I do agree that legislating technology this way is a big mistake on EU's part. This is basically South Korea's ActiveX law all over again, and like South Korea, the EU will eventually be left behind.
  - Longhanks 4y ago
    Apple and Google won when EU countries tried the centralized covid control tracing, and they both went "you're not going to get this". Some countries were furious, yelled they're going to force Apple, that the EU is going to force Apple, yadda yadda. Nothing prevailed. Apple and Google dictated the API and the EU countries submitted, because they did not have time to enforce their will. It is not Apple's, Google's, or America's fault that the EU has become so little innovative, rather hostile towards software developers and entrepreneurs, that they have no power in the digital world. And for the EU it is easier to blame american companies, instead of admitting failure and working towards creating an more enterprise-friendly hub in Europe. I mean, as others have noted, why isn't the EU regulating the other side of the connector? Why are there 3+ power plugs in the EU? Shouldn't this be regulated first, if the EU's argument of reducing electronic waste be considered? No, those aren't created by american companies. I'm sick of the EU, its constant attempts to circumvent privacy (such as the current legislation of ending end to end encryption for chats), while obviously lacking in the democracy department (why is the comission not elected?).

pfortuny 4y ago

In Europe, and this is well known, companies must comply with the intent of the law, especially on something related to customers and compatibility. This is very very different from the US legal system, which can be tricked “ad nauseam”. Apple may well do what they please but there will be fines, and even prohibition of sales. Because the EU “knows” that it can be done without much burden and “sees” it as a benefit for the citizens. I agree in this case on both things.

filoleg 4y ago
This is a nice fantasy and all, but how did that whole "In Europe [...] companies must comply with the intent of the law" work out for GDPR? As far as I am aware, all the big tech companies that were used as the primary reason for creating GDPR are still doing the exact same things (that people were upset about) they were doing back then (just in a legally compliant™ way now according to "the intent of the law"). Not trying to take a dig at GDPR with this, it definitely made some tech companies to make some small concessions, like being able to export your data easier. But it would be difficult to argue that companies comply with GDPR according to the intent of the law, and not according to the letter of the law instead.
- pfortuny 4y ago
  Well, ok. I specify: in hardware matters.
  - filoleg 4y ago
    I mean, "in EU, law interpretation tends to follow the intent of the law when it comes to hardware, but it tends to follow the letter of the law when it comes to software" feels like an extremely strange and unrealistic statement. Both software and hardware are tightly related areas (i.e., tech), and I cannot imagine why the baseline of the law interpretation would be radically opposite.

kalleboo 4y ago

Basically what I'm assuming is that Apple will adopt USB-C on the iPhone Pro models (since they need faster file transfer for the huge 4K ProRes video files anyway, and they were happy to adopt USB-C on the iPad "Pro" models early) and drop the ports completely on the non-Pro models.

mort96 4y ago
I wonder if they'll do that with all their "Pro" stuff. Like, would the AirPods be Qi-only or Lightning+Qi-only, with USB-C reserved for AirPods Pro? Or would they go USB-C across the board? Or does Apple imagine a world in which their ideal "Pro" customer, with their iPad Pro, iPhone Pro, MacBook Pro and AirPods Pro, keeps around a Lightning charger for only their earbuds while literally everything else uses USB-C? IMO, the only clean solution here is to go with USB-C across the board. But I also have no faith that will happen.
- kalleboo 4y ago
  The EU law also requires headphones and headsets recharge over USB-C. The annex says "Hand-held mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers"

ratww 4y ago

> MagSafe/Qi. Which they control, and they still can get fees from Apple doesn't control Qi. I charge my phone with a random $5 charger and it works quite alright.

qalmakka 4y ago
Yep, but Apple controls MagSafe, which extends Qi. In a wireless iPhone, you would use whatever magical shenanigan Apple comes up with to seamlessly pair and communicate with MagSafe accessories, all while they get huge fees from accessory sales and certifications. It's a true and tested approach.