Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #146079 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Isaac Montara <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-01-03 00:09 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-01-27 07:32 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Isaac Montara <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> - 2025-01-03 00:09 -0500
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2025-01-03 09:47 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-01-03 10:04 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2025-01-03 10:08 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-01-03 11:33 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 13:12 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-03 19:03 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-03 11:22 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-08 13:46 -0500
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 13:12 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 10:14 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> - 2025-01-03 10:29 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 13:20 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-03 19:07 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-03 11:22 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 16:17 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-05 16:29 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 16:45 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2025-01-05 17:25 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 17:33 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2025-01-05 17:44 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 17:47 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2025-01-05 18:05 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-01-05 20:19 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2025-01-05 20:44 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-01-06 10:15 +1300
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 22:29 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-08 21:02 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-08 12:20 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-08 22:44 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-08 20:37 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2025-01-08 20:44 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-08 22:57 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-09 16:22 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-09 20:46 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-09 20:49 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-09 22:01 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-10 00:36 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-09 17:52 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-10 04:17 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-10 06:43 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-10 00:47 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-10 15:47 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-10 20:29 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-10 21:20 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-10 22:42 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-10 23:13 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-11 03:18 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-11 05:18 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-11 15:27 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-11 17:32 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-13 18:00 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-13 09:15 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-14 11:41 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-14 13:17 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-14 16:16 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-14 20:55 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-14 14:07 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-14 16:11 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-14 20:52 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-14 20:00 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-14 23:11 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-15 07:01 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 11:22 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-15 13:23 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2025-01-14 09:56 -0700
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-13 23:22 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-14 07:46 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-14 13:33 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-14 14:26 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-14 23:05 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-23 04:03 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-22 20:31 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-14 17:54 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-14 23:05 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-15 21:36 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-23 04:14 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-22 20:32 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-23 10:20 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-10 21:15 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-01-10 17:16 -0600
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-11 22:19 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-12 16:38 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-12 21:31 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-01-12 22:36 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-13 07:37 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Siard <xx@xx.invalid> - 2025-01-13 11:32 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-13 18:09 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-13 09:13 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-13 20:35 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-13 23:32 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 21:31 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-01-14 07:18 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-14 07:37 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-13 18:05 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-25 12:13 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Isaac Montara <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> - 2025-01-25 17:39 -0500
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-25 16:59 -0800
Re: EU new labelling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-26 03:22 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Isaac Montara <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> - 2025-01-25 21:44 -0500
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-25 19:57 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-26 17:39 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-27 12:57 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-27 10:31 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-01-28 10:25 +1300
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Peter <confused@nospam.net> - 2025-01-27 21:38 +0000
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-27 13:56 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-28 01:39 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-27 16:41 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-28 12:38 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-28 12:39 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-28 23:21 +0100
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-28 14:35 -0800
Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-27 07:32 +0000
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Isaac Montara <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 00:09 -0500 |
| Subject | EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025 |
| Message-ID | <vl7rdn$3p1os$1@dont-email.me> |
Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en 1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches & protection from dust & water 2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand at least 800 charge and discharge cycles while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity 3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations for producers to make critical spare parts available within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after the end of sales of the product model on the EU market 4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods (at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on the market of the last unit of a product model) 5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers to any software or firmware needed for the replacement
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 09:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bgcfnj9dp6vurc8h7lmerj9kvlqt2lhluk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #146079 |
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote: >Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en > >1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches > & protection from dust & water > >2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand > at least 800 charge and discharge cycles > while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity > >3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations > for producers to make critical spare parts available > within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after > the end of sales of the product model on the EU market > >4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods > (at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on > the market of the last unit of a product model) > >5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers > to any software or firmware needed for the replacement Will these regulations apply in the UK?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 10:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl8cmm$3rnpf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146084 |
On 2025-01-03 09:47, Scott wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara > <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >> https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en >> >> 1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches >> & protection from dust & water >> >> 2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand >> at least 800 charge and discharge cycles >> while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity >> >> 3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations >> for producers to make critical spare parts available >> within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after >> the end of sales of the product model on the EU market >> >> 4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods >> (at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on >> the market of the last unit of a product model) >> >> 5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers >> to any software or firmware needed for the replacement > > Will these regulations apply in the UK? As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as possible of every product the same world-wide. -- Fake news kills! I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 10:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjdfnjt5cuk398paemhmu27bjqt9nqv24f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #146085 |
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:04:03 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-01-03 09:47, Scott wrote: >> >> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara >> <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote: >>> >>> Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >>> https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en >>> >>> 1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches >>> & protection from dust & water >>> >>> 2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand >>> at least 800 charge and discharge cycles >>> while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity >>> >>> 3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations >>> for producers to make critical spare parts available >>> within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after >>> the end of sales of the product model on the EU market >>> >>> 4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods >>> (at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on >>> the market of the last unit of a product model) >>> >>> 5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers >>> to any software or firmware needed for the replacement >> >> Will these regulations apply in the UK? > >As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become >a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the >manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every >different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as >possible of every product the same world-wide. Evidently it is not quite as simple as that. In another thread it is explained that Apple have withdrawn phones with lightning connectors from the EU market and continue to sell them in the UK. I take your point going forward about the de facto standard, but my question was whether the new regs would apply de jure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl8hvc$3sled$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146086 |
On 2025-01-03 10:08, Scott wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:04:03 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> On 2025-01-03 09:47, Scott wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara >>> <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >>>> https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en >>>> >>>> 1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches >>>> & protection from dust & water >>>> >>>> 2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand >>>> at least 800 charge and discharge cycles >>>> while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity >>>> >>>> 3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations >>>> for producers to make critical spare parts available >>>> within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after >>>> the end of sales of the product model on the EU market >>>> >>>> 4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods >>>> (at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on >>>> the market of the last unit of a product model) >>>> >>>> 5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers >>>> to any software or firmware needed for the replacement >>> >>> Will these regulations apply in the UK? >> >> As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become >> a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the >> manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every >> different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as >> possible of every product the same world-wide. > > Evidently it is not quite as simple as that. In another thread it is > explained that Apple have withdrawn phones with lightning connectors > from the EU market and continue to sell them in the UK. I haven't seen that other thread, but they may well be offloading old stock pending newer models. Eventually market forces can be expected to prevail. > I take your > point going forward about the de facto standard, but my question was > whether the new regs would apply de jure. Well obviously not as stated in the OP, because since Brexit we're no longer bound by that legal system, otherwise Apple would not be selling phones with lightning connectors here as claimed above. HMG would have to bring in legislation of its own mirroring that of the EU, and I would have thought if they were doing so we would have seen something about it by now. Mind, I've lost access to the BBC News RSS feeds, including the Technology news feed, because the supplier of the translation script - that enabled me to create on my PCs a web page summarising them - has discontinued the service, so, as I've not had time to write my own, I've not been keeping so well up to date for about three or four months now. -- Fake news kills! I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 13:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl8nn4$3tmpj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146091 |
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: > On 2025-01-03 10:08, Scott wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:04:03 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2025-01-03 09:47, Scott wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara >>>> <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >>>>> https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en >>>>> >>>>> 1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches >>>>> & protection from dust & water >>>>> >>>>> 2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand >>>>> at least 800 charge and discharge cycles >>>>> while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity >>>>> >>>>> 3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations >>>>> for producers to make critical spare parts available >>>>> within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after >>>>> the end of sales of the product model on the EU market >>>>> >>>>> 4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods >>>>> (at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on >>>>> the market of the last unit of a product model) >>>>> >>>>> 5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers >>>>> to any software or firmware needed for the replacement >>>> >>>> Will these regulations apply in the UK? >>> >>> As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become >>> a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the >>> manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every >>> different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as >>> possible of every product the same world-wide. >> >> Evidently it is not quite as simple as that. In another thread it is >> explained that Apple have withdrawn phones with lightning connectors >> from the EU market and continue to sell them in the UK. > > I haven't seen that other thread, but they may well be offloading old > stock pending newer models. Eventually market forces can be expected to > prevail. Apple have removed the iphone 14 and SE from sale in the EU and Northern Ireland due to the regulations coming into effect on 30th December. Both models are still available in the rest of the UK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 19:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl9c9d$2s9m$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #146093 |
>>>>> Will these regulations apply in the UK? >>>> >>>> As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become >>>> a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the >>>> manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every >>>> different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as >>>> possible of every product the same world-wide. >>> >>> Evidently it is not quite as simple as that. In another thread it is >>> explained that Apple have withdrawn phones with lightning connectors >>> from the EU market and continue to sell them in the UK. >> >> I haven't seen that other thread, but they may well be offloading old >> stock pending newer models. Eventually market forces can be expected to >> prevail. > > Apple have removed the iphone 14 and SE from sale in the EU and Northern > Ireland due to the regulations coming into effect on 30th December. > > Both models are still available in the rest of the UK. While Android phones typically *double* the EU minimum standards... Bear in mind that Apple is cognizant that their use of cheap batteries in the iPhone means they'll have to label those same phones as very clearly NOT meeting the upcoming 2025 EU battery charge-cycle lifetime standards. Apple has always cheaped out on batteries and hardware (such as RAM). Now Apple's addiction to cheap components returns to bite them back. Not only has Apple always been cheap on batteries, but on RAM also. Which means only the latest iPhones can run the memory intensive AI apps. In other words, even the very few iPhones that "can" be sold in the EU after June of this year still *barely* squeak by due to cheap components. It's just more evidence of the obvious maxim: *Apple hates you*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 11:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vl9dcu$169o$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146117 |
On 2025-01-03 11:03, Andrew wrote: >>>>>> Will these regulations apply in the UK? >>>>> >>>>> As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will >>>>> become >>>>> a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the >>>>> manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every >>>>> different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as >>>>> possible of every product the same world-wide. >>>> >>>> Evidently it is not quite as simple as that. In another thread it is >>>> explained that Apple have withdrawn phones with lightning connectors >>>> from the EU market and continue to sell them in the UK. >>> >>> I haven't seen that other thread, but they may well be offloading old >>> stock pending newer models. Eventually market forces can be expected >>> to prevail. >> >> Apple have removed the iphone 14 and SE from sale in the EU and Northern >> Ireland due to the regulations coming into effect on 30th December. >> Both models are still available in the rest of the UK. Let's play, "Count the unsupported assertions"! > > While Android phones typically *double* the EU minimum standards... Unsupported assertion! > Bear in mind that Apple is cognizant that their use of cheap batteries in > the iPhone means they'll have to label those same phones as very clearly > NOT meeting the upcoming 2025 EU battery charge-cycle lifetime standards. Unsupported assertion! > > Apple has always cheaped out on batteries and hardware (such as RAM). Two unsupported assertions! > Now Apple's addiction to cheap components returns to bite them back. > > Not only has Apple always been cheap on batteries, but on RAM also. > Which means only the latest iPhones can run the memory intensive AI apps. Another unsupported assertion! > > In other words, even the very few iPhones that "can" be sold in the EU > after June of this year still *barely* squeak by due to cheap components. Another! > > It's just more evidence of the obvious maxim: *Apple hates you* Unsupported assertion and obvious bullshit on top of it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-08 13:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ishtnjd21co3m7uk3mtg5bganjmau5efh9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #146121 |
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:22:06 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >On 2025-01-03 11:03, Andrew wrote: >>>>>>> Will these regulations apply in the UK? >>>>>> >>>>>> As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will >>>>>> become >>>>>> a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the >>>>>> manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every >>>>>> different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as >>>>>> possible of every product the same world-wide. >>>>> >>>>> Evidently it is not quite as simple as that. In another thread it is >>>>> explained that Apple have withdrawn phones with lightning connectors >>>>> from the EU market and continue to sell them in the UK. >>>> >>>> I haven't seen that other thread, but they may well be offloading old >>>> stock pending newer models. Eventually market forces can be expected >>>> to prevail. >>> >>> Apple have removed the iphone 14 and SE from sale in the EU and Northern >>> Ireland due to the regulations coming into effect on 30th December. >>> Both models are still available in the rest of the UK. > >Let's play, "Count the unsupported assertions"! > >> >> While Android phones typically *double* the EU minimum standards... > >Unsupported assertion! > >> Bear in mind that Apple is cognizant that their use of cheap batteries in >> the iPhone means they'll have to label those same phones as very clearly >> NOT meeting the upcoming 2025 EU battery charge-cycle lifetime standards. > >Unsupported assertion! > >> >> Apple has always cheaped out on batteries and hardware (such as RAM). > >Two unsupported assertions! > >> Now Apple's addiction to cheap components returns to bite them back. >> >> Not only has Apple always been cheap on batteries, but on RAM also. >> Which means only the latest iPhones can run the memory intensive AI apps. > >Another unsupported assertion! > >> >> In other words, even the very few iPhones that "can" be sold in the EU >> after June of this year still *barely* squeak by due to cheap components. > >Another! > >> >> It's just more evidence of the obvious maxim: *Apple hates you* > >Unsupported assertion and obvious bullshit on top of it! It's easy to make things up. While less notable when it attacks a corporation or its product, it's more noticeable and more important when it attacks a person, a race, a religion, a national group, a political grou, and liars do that all the time to promote their own interests.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 13:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl8nn6$3tmpj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146086 |
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:04:03 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> On 2025-01-03 09:47, Scott wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara >>> <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >>>> https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en >>>> >>>> 1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches >>>> & protection from dust & water >>>> >>>> 2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand >>>> at least 800 charge and discharge cycles >>>> while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity >>>> >>>> 3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations >>>> for producers to make critical spare parts available >>>> within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after >>>> the end of sales of the product model on the EU market >>>> >>>> 4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods >>>> (at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on >>>> the market of the last unit of a product model) >>>> >>>> 5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers >>>> to any software or firmware needed for the replacement >>> >>> Will these regulations apply in the UK? >> >> As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become >> a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the >> manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every >> different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as >> possible of every product the same world-wide. > > Evidently it is not quite as simple as that. In another thread it is > explained that Apple have withdrawn phones with lightning connectors > from the EU market and continue to sell them in the UK. I take your > point going forward about the de facto standard, but my question was > whether the new regs would apply de jure. Nope. That was the main argument for brexit. We in the UK are no longer bound by the EU regulations. The result, as shown with the lightning port, is that we're now dependent on the business decisions of Apple et al. Obviously, they have to comply with EU regs and some will trickle down to the UK market, but not all, as deemed by Apple. UK gov may choose to do something about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 10:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl8da2$3rrfg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146085 |
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: > On 2025-01-03 09:47, Scott wrote: >> >> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara >> <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote: >>> >>> Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >>> https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en >>> >>> 1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches >>> & protection from dust & water >>> >>> 2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand >>> at least 800 charge and discharge cycles >>> while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity >>> >>> 3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations >>> for producers to make critical spare parts available >>> within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after >>> the end of sales of the product model on the EU market >>> >>> 4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods >>> (at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on >>> the market of the last unit of a product model) >>> >>> 5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers >>> to any software or firmware needed for the replacement >> >> Will these regulations apply in the UK? > > As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become > a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the > manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every > different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as > possible of every product the same world-wide. > Well yes and no. The rules requiring Apple to allow third party App stores do not apply to GB and you can’t access them in GB. (I’m being very careful to exclude NI as I’m not sure how it works out for them). I pass no comment on the rights and wrongs of such App stores, just pointing out that the EU and GB markets are not entirely coincident. Take the rule for battery life. If your phone battery breaches the 800 cycle 80% rule in the EU you might have rights to get the battery replaced free of charge, and you might not have those rights in GB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 10:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl8e6c$3rpk2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146087 |
On 03/01/2025 10:14, Tweed wrote: > Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: >> On 2025-01-03 09:47, Scott wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:09:11 -0500, Isaac Montara >>> <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Anyone know how existing & new Google, Samsung & Apple phones are faring? >>>> https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/product-list/smartphones-and-tablets_en >>>> >>>> 1. Resistance to accidental drops or scratches >>>> & protection from dust & water >>>> >>>> 2. Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand >>>> at least 800 charge and discharge cycles >>>> while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity >>>> >>>> 3. Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations >>>> for producers to make critical spare parts available >>>> within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after >>>> the end of sales of the product model on the EU market >>>> >>>> 4. Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods >>>> (at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on >>>> the market of the last unit of a product model) >>>> >>>> 5. Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers >>>> to any software or firmware needed for the replacement >>> >>> Will these regulations apply in the UK? >> >> As you have had explained to you at least twice before, they will become >> a de facto standard, because it won't be worth the cost to the >> manufacturers to produce a substantially different model for every >> different market; on the contrary they will try and keep as much as >> possible of every product the same world-wide. >> > > Well yes and no. The rules requiring Apple to allow third party App stores > do not apply to GB and you can’t access them in GB. (I’m being very careful > to exclude NI as I’m not sure how it works out for them). I pass no comment > on the rights and wrongs of such App stores, just pointing out that the EU > and GB markets are not entirely coincident. > > Take the rule for battery life. If your phone battery breaches the 800 > cycle 80% rule in the EU you might have rights to get the battery replaced > free of charge, and you might not have those rights in GB. > All of that is related to usage, not the design/construction of the phone hardware. Apple may well continue to sell some existing production in the UK but as already said it is unlikely they will make special UK versions of new hardware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 13:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl8o6k$3tpg9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146088 |
MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote: > Apple may well continue to sell some existing production > in the UK but as already said it is unlikely they will make special UK > versions of new hardware. Definitely true. The UK (or more likely GB) won't get specific models, but, as we're already seeing, will still get any models which do not comply with the EU regs .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl9cib$2sr9$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #146095 |
Chris wrote on Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:20:20 -0000 (UTC) :
>> Apple may well continue to sell some existing production
>> in the UK but as already said it is unlikely they will make special UK
>> versions of new hardware.
>
> Definitely true. The UK (or more likely GB) won't get specific models, but,
> as we're already seeing, will still get any models which do not comply with
> the EU regs .
Bear in mind that no iPhone older than the iPhone 15 meets the bare minimum
battery lifetime charge cycle EU standard, while Android phones double it.
The reason?
Apple has always been addicted to putting cheap components in their iPhone.
Putting that well known fact in context, it's further evidence that...
*Apple hates you*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 11:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vl9ddg$169o$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146118 |
On 2025-01-03 11:07, Andrew wrote: > Chris wrote on Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:20:20 -0000 (UTC) : > >>> Apple may well continue to sell some existing production in the UK >>> but as already said it is unlikely they will make special UK versions >>> of new hardware. >> >> Definitely true. The UK (or more likely GB) won't get specific models, >> but, >> as we're already seeing, will still get any models which do not comply >> with >> the EU regs . > > Bear in mind that no iPhone older than the iPhone 15 meets the bare minimum > battery lifetime charge cycle EU standard, while Android phones double it. Prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 16:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsB25EA5A5879F21F3QA2@135.181.20.170> |
| In reply to | #146087 |
On 10:14 3 Jan 2025, Tweed said: > Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: >> >> [snip] > > Well yes and no. The rules requiring Apple to allow third party App > stores do not apply to GB and you can’t access them in GB. (I’m > being very careful to exclude NI as I’m not sure how it works out > for them). I pass no comment on the rights and wrongs of such App > stores, just pointing out that the EU and GB markets are not entirely > coincident. > > Take the rule for battery life. If your phone battery breaches the 800 > cycle 80% rule in the EU you might have rights to get the battery > replaced free of charge, and you might not have those rights in GB. Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 16:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ltvqb0F4et3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146264 |
Pamela wrote: > Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable? Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 16:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlecuq$147il$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146266 |
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: > Pamela wrote: > >> Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable? > > Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ... > https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-law-more-sustainable-circular-and-safe-batteries-enters-force-2023-08-17_en 2027, though I can’t find an exact date. Not just phones either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f4glnjdtjh9uu4s98ju54app5c45qhlmq5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #146270 |
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote: >Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >> Pamela wrote: >> >>> Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable? >> >> Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ... >> > >https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-law-more-sustainable-circular-and-safe-batteries-enters-force-2023-08-17_en > >2027, though I can’t find an exact date. Not just phones either. Electric vehicles?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlefp9$14q19$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146272 |
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 16:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Tweed > <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>> Pamela wrote: >>> >>>> Wasn't there also a requirement for the battery to be user replaceable? >>> >>> Not in effect for a couple of years, I think ... >>> >> >> https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-law-more-sustainable-circular-and-safe-batteries-enters-force-2023-08-17_en >> >> 2027, though I cant find an exact date. Not just phones either. > > Electric vehicles? > I don’t think so. Things like power tools, radios, toothbrushes etc. A user replaceable EV battery could be quite a dangerous affair.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web