8 ms·

This is not going to fly. The EU will force them to equal the playing field.

by sschueller 2y ago

firesteelrain 2y ago
EU doesn’t get to make design decisions
- sschueller 2y ago
  They won't, but the playing field needs to be the same. If I have to jump unreasonable hurdles it's still anti competitive.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rchaud 2y ago
    Even on MacOS, Apple will prompt you to delete applications that were installed outside the app store when you try to run them for the first time. They don't provide any instructions on how to disable this 'feature' , I had to look it up online. Enabling the app requires going several menus deep into System Preferences and setting a security toggle.
- cromka 2y ago
  USB-C on iPhone would like to have a word.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    Apple made the change outside of the regulation. It already had USB C on the iPad. It’s going to end up port less like the Apple Watch one day despite EU regulations. Are we going to force Apple to provide a power port? No that’s stupid
    - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
      Unless we change physics and make wireless charging anywhere nears as efficient as wired charging, I imagine we are going to have a way to charge with a wire for quite some time. There are scenarios where those wireless inefficiencies add up, for example when charging off a battery bank whose “tank” you need to conserve… burning 40% of your capacity as heat is kind of crappy.
    - ath3nd 2y ago
      > Apple made the change outside of the regulation. Apple was forced to make the changes within the regulation.
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        No, the EU accelerated the timeline but Apple was already en route to USB-C. It is also worth noting that Apple had already started transitioning some of its products, like the iPad and MacBook, to USB-C before the regulation was finalized. This suggests that Apple was likely already moving in that direction, perhaps due to the technical advantages of USB-C, such as faster data transfer and charging speeds, and the growing adoption of USB-C across the tech industry. So, while the EU regulation might have accelerated the timeline or made the decision more definitive, it’s possible that Apple was already planning to make the switch eventually. In the end, it seems like a situation where consumer interests and regulatory goals aligned, leading to a positive outcome.
- vasco 2y ago
  From toys to energy products to electronics you can find infinite documents like this https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/c1efd5d1-79c5-49cf-9ec4-3fe22f31ec05/en-14619-2019 https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/c1efd5d1-79c... regulating and defining a bunch of design choices and characteristics that products need to comply with before they can be imported or sold in Europe. Europe makes a lot of design decisions.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      [citation needed]
      - firesteelrain 2y ago
        The US has traditionally attracted more venture capital than the EU, which is often cited as a key driver of innovation, particularly in the tech sector. In 2022, the US received over 60% of global venture capital, while Europe received around 15%. This disparity is partly attributed to regulatory differences, with US markets perceived as more flexible and conducive to high-risk investment. The US startup ecosystem, particularly in Silicon Valley, is seen as more dynamic, with fewer regulatory barriers to entry compared to the EU. This has led to a higher concentration of tech giants in the US, such as Google, Apple, and Amazon. The GDPR is often cited as a regulation that, while protecting consumer privacy, has imposed significant compliance costs on businesses, potentially deterring smaller startups and innovation in the data-driven sectors. Critics argue that such regulations can slow down the development and adoption of new technologies. The EU has stringent product safety, environmental, and labor regulations. While these are intended to protect consumers and workers, they can also increase the time and cost of bringing new products to market. For instance, the EU’s cautious approach to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) contrasts with the US's more permissive regulatory stance, affecting innovation in biotechnology. While the EU invests a significant amount in research and development (R&D), the US typically outspends the EU on both a per capita and absolute basis. This is seen in sectors like pharmaceuticals and technology, where US companies are often more dominant. The US often leads in patent filings, particularly in cutting-edge technologies like AI, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. This is used as an indicator of a more innovation-friendly environment in the US, driven by both higher investment in R&D and a more favorable regulatory framework. The US consistently ranks higher than the EU in the GII, which assesses the innovation capabilities and performance of economies. Factors include institutional environment, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication, where the US often outperforms most EU countries. The US is home to many of the world’s leading research universities, such as MIT, Stanford, and Harvard, which play a crucial role in driving innovation. The EU has fewer institutions in the top tier, which can be linked to differences in funding models and regulatory frameworks that affect academic freedom and industry collaboration. The dominance of US companies in the global tech industry is often attributed to a more permissive regulatory environment that fosters innovation. For example, the rapid growth of companies like Uber and Airbnb is partly due to a regulatory framework that allowed these platforms to scale quickly in the US before facing stricter regulations in the EU. The US often brings new drugs to market faster than the EU, partly due to differences in regulatory approval processes. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is sometimes seen as more flexible and faster in approving new treatments compared to the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

This is not going to fly. The EU will force them to equal the playing field.

firesteelrain 2y ago

EU doesn’t get to make design decisions

sschueller 2y ago
They won't, but the playing field needs to be the same. If I have to jump unreasonable hurdles it's still anti competitive.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rchaud 2y ago
  Even on MacOS, Apple will prompt you to delete applications that were installed outside the app store when you try to run them for the first time. They don't provide any instructions on how to disable this 'feature' , I had to look it up online. Enabling the app requires going several menus deep into System Preferences and setting a security toggle.
cromka 2y ago
USB-C on iPhone would like to have a word.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Apple made the change outside of the regulation. It already had USB C on the iPad. It’s going to end up port less like the Apple Watch one day despite EU regulations. Are we going to force Apple to provide a power port? No that’s stupid
  - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
    Unless we change physics and make wireless charging anywhere nears as efficient as wired charging, I imagine we are going to have a way to charge with a wire for quite some time. There are scenarios where those wireless inefficiencies add up, for example when charging off a battery bank whose “tank” you need to conserve… burning 40% of your capacity as heat is kind of crappy.
  - ath3nd 2y ago
    > Apple made the change outside of the regulation. Apple was forced to make the changes within the regulation.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      No, the EU accelerated the timeline but Apple was already en route to USB-C. It is also worth noting that Apple had already started transitioning some of its products, like the iPad and MacBook, to USB-C before the regulation was finalized. This suggests that Apple was likely already moving in that direction, perhaps due to the technical advantages of USB-C, such as faster data transfer and charging speeds, and the growing adoption of USB-C across the tech industry. So, while the EU regulation might have accelerated the timeline or made the decision more definitive, it’s possible that Apple was already planning to make the switch eventually. In the end, it seems like a situation where consumer interests and regulatory goals aligned, leading to a positive outcome.
vasco 2y ago
From toys to energy products to electronics you can find infinite documents like this https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/c1efd5d1-79c5-49cf-9ec4-3fe22f31ec05/en-14619-2019 https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/c1efd5d1-79c... regulating and defining a bunch of design choices and characteristics that products need to comply with before they can be imported or sold in Europe. Europe makes a lot of design decisions.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    [citation needed]
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      The US has traditionally attracted more venture capital than the EU, which is often cited as a key driver of innovation, particularly in the tech sector. In 2022, the US received over 60% of global venture capital, while Europe received around 15%. This disparity is partly attributed to regulatory differences, with US markets perceived as more flexible and conducive to high-risk investment. The US startup ecosystem, particularly in Silicon Valley, is seen as more dynamic, with fewer regulatory barriers to entry compared to the EU. This has led to a higher concentration of tech giants in the US, such as Google, Apple, and Amazon. The GDPR is often cited as a regulation that, while protecting consumer privacy, has imposed significant compliance costs on businesses, potentially deterring smaller startups and innovation in the data-driven sectors. Critics argue that such regulations can slow down the development and adoption of new technologies. The EU has stringent product safety, environmental, and labor regulations. While these are intended to protect consumers and workers, they can also increase the time and cost of bringing new products to market. For instance, the EU’s cautious approach to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) contrasts with the US's more permissive regulatory stance, affecting innovation in biotechnology. While the EU invests a significant amount in research and development (R&D), the US typically outspends the EU on both a per capita and absolute basis. This is seen in sectors like pharmaceuticals and technology, where US companies are often more dominant. The US often leads in patent filings, particularly in cutting-edge technologies like AI, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. This is used as an indicator of a more innovation-friendly environment in the US, driven by both higher investment in R&D and a more favorable regulatory framework. The US consistently ranks higher than the EU in the GII, which assesses the innovation capabilities and performance of economies. Factors include institutional environment, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication, where the US often outperforms most EU countries. The US is home to many of the world’s leading research universities, such as MIT, Stanford, and Harvard, which play a crucial role in driving innovation. The EU has fewer institutions in the top tier, which can be linked to differences in funding models and regulatory frameworks that affect academic freedom and industry collaboration. The dominance of US companies in the global tech industry is often attributed to a more permissive regulatory environment that fosters innovation. For example, the rapid growth of companies like Uber and Airbnb is partly due to a regulatory framework that allowed these platforms to scale quickly in the US before facing stricter regulations in the EU. The US often brings new drugs to market faster than the EU, partly due to differences in regulatory approval processes. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is sometimes seen as more flexible and faster in approving new treatments compared to the European Medicines Agency (EMA).