21 ms·
iPhone 12 withdrawn from French market for non-compliance with EU regulation
- Uftos 3y agoJust the day when it's no more available on apple.com cause of the iphone 15 announcement, what a coincidence
- justinclift 3y agoYeah. This bit sounds like a catch though: As for those telephones that are already in use, Apple must adopt all necessary corrective measures to bring the telephones into conformity as soon as possible, otherwise, Apple will have to recall the equipment.
- kuchenbecker 3y agoDumb question, but what if there weren't OTA updates?
- justinclift 3y agoThen it'd probably need to be "book an appointment with your nearest Apple store to arrange the update". "Free iPhone 15's" is unlikely the direction Apple would take. ;)
- greyman 3y agoBTW, how is that technically possible, they will force customers to use certain types of case?
- epolanski 3y agoApple Will still have to recall existing ones if they can't fix this remotely.
- SSLy 3y agoTl;dr is that radio is running too powerful.
- Mistletoe 3y agoIs the 12 Mini included?
- pcdoodle 3y agoI'd assume the same baseband firmware but antenna slightly different. I have one too. I think the SAR test is pretty laughable but also would rather have it done than not. I'd really like to know what bands its speaking on when exceeding the values (2G/LTE-x).
- dappermanneke 3y ago[flagged]
- simion314 3y agoThe regulation is EU not only French, I am wondering why only now they discovered the issues , was there an OS update that cause this ?
- hulitu 3y ago> I am wondering why only now they discovered the issues Just normal corrupted politics. Let the issues surface at the right moment.
- mort96 3y agoThe truth is much more boring. Most devices don't get tested by governments, companies use certified labs to test their devices and then get the relevant certificates (CE markings etc) based on the paperwork from those certified labs. The surprising part here is that they decided to test the iPhone 12 at all, not that they haven't done it earlier.
- smoldesu 3y agoWhat is the political incentive to hide these results? Why is now the most damning time to surface the evidence?
- jiofj 3y agoDoes this mean it's now illegal to sell your used iPhone 12?
- orwin 3y agoYes. Remember Dieselgate? BMW had to recall cars. Apple have to recall iPhone12.
- wazoox 3y agoNot yet. They just can't sell them anymore (even used ones). Recall will only occur if Apple doesn't provide any mitigating measures.
- mwint 3y agoI hope Apple provides a giant plastic brick with the name and phone number of a French regulator laser-etched in it.
- gjvc 3y agoThat was VW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
- sylware 3y ago[flagged]
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 3y agoPlease elaborate on what you mean. How is this related to the iPhone 12?
- sylware 3y agoIt is related to the big tech UE regulation still missing out critical parts. For instance meta messaging regulation seems to be server based and not related to small tech client/protocols interop (for instance, IRC bridges, noscript/basic (x)html web, etc).
- bunnyfoofoo 3y agoI wonder how a recall would work, anyone know if this can be fixed by software update?
- londons_explore 3y agoThis can be fixed in software. They'll have to deploy a baseband update that reduces the maximum transmit power. The user-visible effect will probably be a reduction in upload speeds (by about 30% in most cases).
- pjc50 3y agoUpload speed is not a linear function of TX power?
- londons_explore 3y agoVery roughly, yes it is. 1-(4/5.74) = 30.3% It is possible however that this SAR violation only applies to certain bands or that the cell tower already is requesting a lower transmit power. Therefore there is a good chance users don't see much impact.
- yuppiepuppie 3y agoAs someone who bought a 1k+$ phone from Apple i would be pissed if they dropped upload speed by that much. Surely there has to be an SLA that they have to uphold. No?
- londons_explore 3y agoApple might be able to fix this by asking the user if they're using a case, Anyone using a case thicker than ~2mm will probably sufficiently reduce the surface SAR to bring it into compliance. One might imagine a software update that asks if you're using a case. If you choose yes, nothing happens. If you choose no, then peak transmit power is reduced by 1dB (which will reduce upload speeds ~20%, and may reduce range too)
- greenpresident 3y agoIf you’re using an Apple case, you might not even get prompted, as the communicate their identity to the phone already (to show their color on screen).
- teeray 3y agoOr the French model could be sold in giant plastic brick that totally could not be removed by the end user.
- stoobs 3y agoEven simpler fix - If in France, reduce peak transmit power by 10%.
- edandersen 3y agoYou're absorbing the radiation wrong.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoI'd suggest standing under the sun, great way to absorb radiation :).
- worthless-trash 3y agoI think the parent comment was poking fun at apple telling consumers they were holding the phones wrong, back when the case was part of the antenna and calls would drop.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoAhhh, another instance of Poe's law.
- fasteo 3y ago>>> Poe's law is an adage of internet culture saying that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views You are welcome [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago<3
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lmarcos 3y agoWhy only the french market then? Shouldn't they withdraw from all EU markets?
- seszett 3y agoThey should, but it's up to each country to enforce EU regulation. The other countries radio regulation agencies have either not made the same measures, not measured the iPhone emissions at all, or have not yet decided what they were going to do.
- xnorswap 3y agoIndividual countries within the EU have their own regulators who make their own enforcement decisions. The EU isn't a super-state and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity. On a technical level, each country ratifies and applies their own laws in their own ways. Given this, other countries could act on this too, but it's the French regulator who has chosen to do so.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago> The EU isn't a super-state and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity Yes-and-no: the EU Commission serves as the "executive branch" (Americanisms...) of the EU, and while the EU isn't a true federal superstate union yet, but there's enough similarities that the EU Commission probably does 80% of the work it would be doing if the EU were. While the majority of EU directives are enforced by member states, the EU can enforce itself via several routes (e.g. there is now an EU public prosecution, and the EU parliament can vote to apply sanctions on its own members for non-compliance (e.g. Hungary).
- tpm 3y ago> there is now an EU public prosecution That only prosecutes the misuse of EU funds (and perhaps the EU VAT border regime?) and even then only with cooperation with local prosecutors. In addition, the EU prosecutors are from the participating member states - several EU members are not yet participating. > EU Commission probably does 80% of the work it would be doing if the EU were. It's very far from that; notably health-and-safety enforcement is largely in the jurisdiction of members states.
- fh9302 3y agoApple has denied those findings. > Apple said it had provided ANFR with multiple Apple and independent third-party lab results proving its compliance with all applicable SAR regulations and standards in the world. https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-disputes-french-findings-says-iphone-12-complies-with-radiation-standards-2023-09-13/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-disputes-french-fin...
- baz00 3y agoThis doesn't surprise me. It's not unusual to find completely different results from "accredited" labs despite the test methodologies being the same.
- mort96 3y agoAnd that shouldn't necessarily be surprising or taken as an indication of foul play. Really small incidental differences in test setup or equipment can mean different labs doing the same test get different results. I do find this difference to be surprisingly large, it's not like the threshold is 4W/kg and Apple claims they measured 3.9 and France claims they measured 4.1... But what do I know.
- bee_rider 3y agoHow are these labs accredited? Sounds like France has a problem with some labs or possibly an accreditation organization I guess.
- wirrbel 3y agoIf the labs use a round robin method for validation of their testing methods the quality of their measurements should be high, shouldn’t they? In other words, who is validating apple’s labs?
- OnACoffeeBreak 3y agoI have taken products through this sort of testing in a previous life. There are many hard-to-replicate factors that influence test results. For example, in my direct experience (not with phones, but networking gear), the way the product is placed in the test fixture and the way cables are dressed has an impact on emissions and measurements. In one scenario, as a product engineer supporting equipment through a certification lab, I had the mandate to pass with a 3 dB margin from the company I worked for, but, after days of testing and failing, it was decided that the equipment under test could pass with cables routed in a special way (which was not uncommon for normal customer use) and with quasi-peak detection (i.e. averaging the emission peaks) that ended up below the regulatory (FCC for example) passing below the regulatory mask/level by a fraction of a dB. I have always wondered whether a different test lab, without support from product engineers, would pass the same test. I think the answer in "no". Edit: Quasi-peaking was not a dirty trick that was pulled to pass certification. It was an acceptable method of measuring emission power suggested by the lab technicians.
- scyzoryk_xyz 3y agoPerhaps like with cars, this will simply cause a migration of these devices as they become 2nd and 3rd hand, into 2nd and 3rd world countries.
- davidblowie 3y agoWait so the phones cause cancer people were right?
- jiofj 3y agoThe WHO said so: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.... (Not that I trust the WHO, but just saying)
- jdietrich 3y agoThe WHO said that it's a possibility. Group 2B classification is extremely precautionary and includes a lot of scary-sounding chemicals, but also a lot of quite ordinary things like aloe vera and kimchi. Many licensed medicines and permitted food additives are classified in Group 2B - while there's a possibility that they may be carcinogenic, there isn't enough evidence to justify withdrawing those products from the market.
- boxed 3y agoIt's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero.
- oblio 3y ago> It's pretty clearly not though. We've had a huge adoption of mobile phones in a very short time, and we've seen no corresponding signal in the cancer rates across the globe. So the effect size is bounded to some extremely low value, probably zero. https://www.efpia.eu/publications/cancer-comparator-report/cancer-cases/ https://www.efpia.eu/publications/cancer-comparator-report/c... > Cancer incidence across Europe has risen by approximately 50% over the past two decades from 2.1 million to 3.1 million cases between 1995 and 2018 in Europe. Hmmm...
- 3y ago
- Varloom 3y agoDamn that's dangerous level of radiation, why this was only discovered recently?
- mindondrugs 3y agoIts 43% higher than the limit. And as Apple is denying the claims id be interested to see what other bodies measure it at.
- hulitu 3y ago> Its 43% higher than the limit. And as Apple is denying the claims id be interested to see what other bodies measure it at. I'm sure Apple did some measurments in an approved laboratory. /s
- boxed 3y agoNo it's not. This is non-ionizing radiation.
- pieter_mj 3y agoYes and where can we verify this?
- jplona 3y agoLinked from the post: https://www.anfr.fr/maitriser/equipements-radioelectriques/le-debit-dabsorption-specifique-das/le-das-cest-quoi https://www.anfr.fr/maitriser/equipements-radioelectriques/l... "These limit values result from the work of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP. In 1998, the ICNIRP ruled in view of the state of available scientific knowledge and only retained the proven effects of exposure to waves, in particular the heating of tissues." The regulation specifies a test that measures frequencies up to only 10GHz, which is far below ionizing radiation frequencies.
- kaba0 3y agoBy knowing high-school physics?
- pantulis 3y agoWhat would Mother Nature think of all this?
- BossingAround 3y agoAbout what? That we formed civilization, instead of being in packs hunting and gathering? Probably nothing, because mother nature is not personified being.
- Narishma 3y agoMother nature doesn't exist. It's a man-made concept that can think anything you want it to.
- bee_rider 3y agoI imagine if there were a Mother Nature it would be proud of us, we’re quite creative and unusual. I’m not sure what it would think about iPhone 12 regulations. I suspect it would consider that a bit of a niche detail.
- danwee 3y agoWe are mother nature and mother nature is us. It's all intertwined. An iPhone is as natural as a banana (earth -> tree -> banana, earth -> human -> iphone). The unnatural would be, by definition, impossible.
- FredPret 3y agoThis is a very important truth to keep in mind and an interesting new thought for most. Either humans are unique and non-animal, or we and all our works are as natural as anthills and bird nests.
- gregoriol 3y agoWhy did it take them so long to check the device? The iPhone 12 has been sold since 2020, so 3 years. They probably can't check every model released, but this is one of the most sold devices. If it was actually dangerous it would have been great to know it as soon as it got released, it's not some obscure product that no one heard of on the French market.
- louison11 3y agoFrench person here. Public institutions in France are notorious for taking their time.
- robertlagrant 3y agoI doubt it works this way. Regulatory bodies check your paperwork. They don't test things themselves.
- sk7 3y agoFrom the article: > The mobile phones were tested by an accredited laboratory, which allows the ANFR to ensure that the SAR values comply with European regulation.
- mort96 3y agoGovernments do test products now and then, yes. But they aren't in the habit of routinely testing new products when they hit the market. I don't know what prompted this particular test, but it wouldn't surprise me if the ANFR just one day decided to test a bunch of models of iPhone (or a bunch of phone models in general) kind of arbitrarily. There was a similar case recently where Sweden's equivalent decided to test a bunch of models of EV chargers and found some lacking. In general, outside of these random tests, "they check the paperwork, not the thing itself" is correct.
- robertlagrant 3y agoSure, but the "accredited" in accredited laboratory is itself a paperwork audit-based process. This is how you get your own paperwork as a manufacturer to give to an auditor to say "Look at our paperwork". It doesn't mean the regulator is somehow testing things itself.
- mwidell 3y agoI love my Apple Watch ultra, because with cellular I can use it as a phone – a very lightweight phone without social media distractions. But I have to say I am a little bit uneasy about having a cellphone strapped to my arm. Someone with physics knowledge please calm me down?
- ecmascript 3y agoI have a Samsung watch without cellular but with bluetooth communications instead. Can someone eloborate what the difference is between celluar connections and other wireless tech like headless phones or watches? Is there any difference except strength etc. Never believed it before, but suddently the thought of wireless technologies being bad gave me a reality check and I realized I have never questioned it.
- mceachen 3y agoBluetooth is also non-ionizing. The frequency is close frequency to WiFi: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth#Health_concerns https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth#Health_concerns
- wkat4242 3y agoThere's a difference mainly in "strength" (transmit power). The frequencies and modulations used are not all that different. In terms of radio energy, bluetooth is the lowest, then wifi and then cellular.
- dotnet00 3y agoProbably not the kind of physics knowledge you're expecting, but your regular phone probably also tends to be "tied" to your thigh in your pocket or to your hand when in use. If that's fine with you (weight and distraction concerns aside), a watch isn't that different.
- cmsj 3y agoEM radiation striking your body is essentially just going to impart energy into your atoms/molecules. All of the EM radiation emitted by a phone is very very far down in the non-ionising range. That means it can't directly damage the atoms/molecules in your body, it will just be heating those atoms/molecules a bit. Wifi is 2.4GHz, 5GHz or 6GHz Bluetooth is 2.4GHz 3G/4G/5G are in the same kinda range, with the exception of mmWave 5G which is up around 30GHz. Infrared starts around 300GHz, then there's the whole visible light spectrum, and it's only once you get into ultra-violet around 3PHz (yes, Petahertz) that you reach the ionising band, where the radiation imparts enough energy into your constituent atoms/molecules that electrons are broken free. These free electrons will then damage your cells/DNA. So far, there is no evidence that anything in the parts of the spectrum that are licensed for phones/wifi/bluetooth/etc are at all dangerous to humans.
- paulmd 3y agoWorth noting that this is due to the French regulators applying the same SAR absorption standard as the rest of the EU but at a closer distance. Obviously radiation follows the inverse square law so this means you absorb more radiation in France ;) Even despite this reduced allowable emission the iPhone is barely out of compliance, they will need to reduce power less than 10% or simply get another few millimeters farther away.
- cmsj 3y agoThanks, I did wonder how, given the pretty strict physics of... physics, they could be claiming that the iPhone is compliant at 5cm and not at 0cm!
- mort96 3y agoIs this true? The article claims that the European (EU?) regulations are 4W/kg at 0mm and 2W/kg at 5mm distance. Is the article incorrect in this? Do you have a reference to the actual SAR regulations?
- paulmd 3y agoSounds like the article is incorrect. The relevant standard for EU-wide regulations is EN 50566:2013, which allows manufacturers to choose the separation with up to 25mm (most vendors standardized on 15mm because this is the maximum separation allowed under the FCC standard). The french disagree with this standard and specify the limits at 0mm and 5mm separation, which obviously increases absorption. However, they did not increase the absorption limits accordingly. Thus, actually most phones are out of compliance with the new french regulations (ANFR describes it as "a large proportion of phones" as being out of compliance, sounds like de-facto it's almost all). Since the EU is more of an advisory body and allows individual countries to set such limits individually, the EU has issued an application restriction which prohibits their usage in France (presumably until manufacturers patch TX power limits downwards as Apple will most likely do). I guess you can describe that as an "EU limit" since it's an application restriction approved by the EU, but it's not the same limit as applies in the rest of the EU, it's a local application restriction issued at the request of french regulatory bodies applicable only in france. https://www.anses.fr/en/content/exposure-mobile-telephones-carried-close-body https://www.anses.fr/en/content/exposure-mobile-telephones-c... https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ANFR-Data-PDF-SAR-European-and-FCC-.pdf https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ANFR-Data-PDF-SAR-Eur... https://www.anfr.fr/en/anfr/news/all-news/detail-of-the-news/exposure-to-electromagnetic-fields-anfr-strengthens-the-monitoring-of-exposure-to-the-electromagnetic-fields-emitted-by-mobile-phones-and-tablets-sar https://www.anfr.fr/en/anfr/news/all-news/detail-of-the-news... I can get behind removing the ambiguity of manufacturer-chosen testing distances and officially specifying this at 15mm. Or if you think that's unrealistic then 5mm and 0mm also make sense, but if you move the emitter closer you're gonna get a stronger signal and the SAR threshold should be adjusted accordingly. Which the french didn't do, because they're low-key catering to the "phones cause cancer" wackos here for political play. But this isn't just an apple thing and there will be a patch reducing your signal strength for android too, most likely. iphones just get lots of media play.
- Horffupolde 3y agoEuropeans are a resentful bunch.
- sweetrobot2k 3y ago[dead]
- isaacremuant 3y agoWhat was the regulation? Wouldn't spy on protesters at the behest of Macron?