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 | 14 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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-25 19:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vn4bql$3d77d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146521 |
On 2025-01-25 18:44, Isaac Montara wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote: > >>> Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed. >> >> Why? >> >>> >>> That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap. >> >> Why? >> >>> >>> Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died. >>> >>> Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation. >> >> I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote. > > Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that Apple > can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation. Apple didn't "make the cable different from all other cables"... ...because Apple was LEADING THE INDUSTRY. But you're still not addressing my point (which you've now snipped. Shocking!). The EU mandate for USB-C charging ports has just taken effect... ...and we are already seeing a device which pushes the limits of that mandate. As long as you imagine that no one could ever make a device any thinner... ...then no problem. But that's not the way reality works. The US had a mandate about automobile headlights. And until it was finally repealed, it held back US cars from getting the better headlights that were available in other jurisdictions. Government mandates about technology almost NEVER work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-26 17:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vn6o4l$a5u2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146521 |
On 2025-01-25 18:44, Isaac Montara wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote: > >>> Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed. >> >> Why? >> >>> >>> That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap. >> >> Why? >> >>> >>> Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died. >>> >>> Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation. >> >> I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote. > > Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that Apple > can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation. At the time Apple did it, there was no standard. Apple invented a device and invented the necessary connection standards to suite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-27 12:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8u8k6lx5s2.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #146525 |
On 2025-01-27 02:39, Alan wrote: > On 2025-01-25 18:44, Isaac Montara wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote: >> >>>> Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed. >>> >>> Why? >>> >>>> >>>> That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap. >>> >>> Why? >>> >>>> >>>> Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died. >>>> >>>> Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation. >>> >>> I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote. >> >> Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that Apple >> can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation. > > At the time Apple did it, there was no standard. > > Apple invented a device and invented the necessary connection standards > to suite. Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. None did. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-27 10:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vn8je3$11ltm$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146527 |
On 2025-01-27 03:57, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-01-27 02:39, Alan wrote: >> On 2025-01-25 18:44, Isaac Montara wrote: >>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote: >>> >>>>> Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed. >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap. >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died. >>>>> >>>>> Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation. >>>> >>>> I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote. >>> >>> Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that >>> Apple >>> can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation. >> >> At the time Apple did it, there was no standard. >> >> Apple invented a device and invented the necessary connection >> standards to suite. > > Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. None > did. You're being too literal about "standard". Both the original dock connector and the subsequent Lightning connector were standards in that they had published interfaces that third parties could use to build compatible products. So actually, many manufacturers followed those standards to make products for a huge market.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-28 10:25 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <vn8tl2$18bsa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146527 |
On 2025-01-27 11:57:28 +0000, Carlos E.R. said: > On 2025-01-27 02:39, Alan wrote: >> On 2025-01-25 18:44, Isaac Montara wrote: >>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote: >>> >>>>> Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed. >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap. >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died. >>>>> >>>>> Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation. >>>> >>>> I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote. >>> >>> Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that Apple >>> can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation. >> >> At the time Apple did it, there was no standard. >> >> Apple invented a device and invented the necessary connection standards >> to suite. > > Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. None did. It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc. Manufacturers who didn't follow those rules couldn't actually call it by that name. It just didn't become a "standard" in the sense of being a feature installed on every device made - mainly due to the licensing cost manufacturers had to pay Apple. Unlike, for example, the Windows PC where there was no real set of standards, so it was pretty much a free for all with manufacturers using all sorts of differing parts. It's one of the causes of the nightmare for the Windows OS functionality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter <confused@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-27 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vn8ubp$18iiv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146529 |
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >> Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. None did. > > It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple > defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc. What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-27 13:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vn8vej$18nk5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146530 |
On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote: > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > >>> Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. None did. >> >> It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple >> defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc. > > What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable? Wrong question? What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning? The answer is: "Many, many, many".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-28 01:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eill6lxe74.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #146531 |
On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote: > On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote: >> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >> >>>> Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. >>>> None did. >>> >>> It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple >>> defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc. >> >> What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable? > > Wrong question? > > What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning? > > The answer is: "Many, many, many". Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware. Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds that my bank used as a gift. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-27 16:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vn994l$1bgs4$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146532 |
On 2025-01-27 16:39, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote: >> On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote: >>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. >>>>> None did. >>>> >>>> It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple >>>> defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc. >>> >>> What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable? >> >> Wrong question? >> >> What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning? >> >> The answer is: "Many, many, many". > > Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware. Yes. That is LITERALLY what I just said. > > Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds that > my bank used as a gift. The point is that there was not industry-wide standard for smartphone connectivity... ...so Apple designed and used something better than any of the available options.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-28 12:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <b6sm6lxt8f.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #146533 |
On 2025-01-28 01:41, Alan wrote: > On 2025-01-27 16:39, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote: >>> On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote: >>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed it. >>>>>> None did. >>>>> >>>>> It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple >>>>> defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc. >>>> >>>> What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable? >>> >>> Wrong question? >>> >>> What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning? >>> >>> The answer is: "Many, many, many". >> >> Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware. > > Yes. That is LITERALLY what I just said. > >> >> Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds >> that my bank used as a gift. > The point is that there was not industry-wide standard for smartphone > connectivity... > > ...so Apple designed and used something better than any of the available > options. Which was not accepted as industry-wide standard. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-28 12:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vnbf98$1vqkr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146536 |
On 2025-01-28 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-01-28 01:41, Alan wrote: >> On 2025-01-27 16:39, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote: >>>> On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote: >>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed >>>>>>> it. None did. >>>>>> >>>>>> It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple >>>>>> defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc. >>>>> >>>>> What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable? >>>> >>>> Wrong question? >>>> >>>> What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning? >>>> >>>> The answer is: "Many, many, many". >>> >>> Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware. >> >> Yes. That is LITERALLY what I just said. >> >>> >>> Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds >>> that my bank used as a gift. >> The point is that there was not industry-wide standard for smartphone >> connectivity... >> >> ...so Apple designed and used something better than any of the >> available options. > > Which was not accepted as industry-wide standard. And so nothing that isn't "industry-wide" can ever be a standard, is that right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-28 23:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jr1o6lxpvu.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #146537 |
On 2025-01-28 21:39, Alan wrote: > On 2025-01-28 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-01-28 01:41, Alan wrote: >>> On 2025-01-27 16:39, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote: >>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed >>>>>>>> it. None did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple >>>>>>> defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning cable? >>>>> >>>>> Wrong question? >>>>> >>>>> What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning? >>>>> >>>>> The answer is: "Many, many, many". >>>> >>>> Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware. >>> >>> Yes. That is LITERALLY what I just said. >>> >>>> >>>> Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds >>>> that my bank used as a gift. >>> The point is that there was not industry-wide standard for smartphone >>> connectivity... >>> >>> ...so Apple designed and used something better than any of the >>> available options. >> >> Which was not accepted as industry-wide standard. > And so nothing that isn't "industry-wide" can ever be a standard, is > that right? Doubtful. It is a limited use standard, an attempt at a standard, dunno. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-28 14:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vnbm38$20u3j$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146538 |
On 2025-01-28 14:21, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-01-28 21:39, Alan wrote: >> On 2025-01-28 03:38, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-01-28 01:41, Alan wrote: >>>> On 2025-01-27 16:39, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 2025-01-27 22:56, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-01-27 13:38, Peter wrote: >>>>>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Huh, no. It would be a standard if many manufacturers followed >>>>>>>>> it. None did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It still has a set of "standards", in the sense of the rules Apple >>>>>>>> defined as to what it can and cannot do, how it should be made, >>>>>>>> etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What non-Apple device charged by Apple's proprietary Lightning >>>>>>> cable? >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong question? >>>>>> >>>>>> What third party products conformed to Apple's specs for Lightning? >>>>>> >>>>>> The answer is: "Many, many, many". >>>>> >>>>> Only those designed to work with Apple hardware, not generic hardware. >>>> >>>> Yes. That is LITERALLY what I just said. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Me, I have only once seen one such device, a pair of earphone buds >>>>> that my bank used as a gift. >>>> The point is that there was not industry-wide standard for >>>> smartphone connectivity... >>>> >>>> ...so Apple designed and used something better than any of the >>>> available options. >>> >>> Which was not accepted as industry-wide standard. >> And so nothing that isn't "industry-wide" can ever be a standard, is >> that right? > > Doubtful. It is a limited use standard, an attempt at a standard, dunno. > Failure to answer the question; probably because you thought for a moment about how many standards there are that aren't actually used "industry-wide", hey? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-27 07:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vn7cqq$lar2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146521 |
Isaac Montara <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 16:59:40 -0800, Alan wrote: > >>> Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed. >> >> Why? >> >>> >>> That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap. >> >> Why? >> >>> >>> Besides, Apple hasn't innovated a single iPhone thing since Jobs died. >>> >>> Well, Apple removed a few things, if you want to call that innovation. >> >> I notice nothing you say address the substance of what I wrote. > > Apple making the cable different from all other cables just so that Apple > can sell more lightning cables for their own profit, isn't innovation. The lightning port and cable was far better in terms of reliability and usability than the alternatives (i.e. micro-usb) at the time. USB-C learned many lessons from lightning and it was a shame that Apple needed to be forced into aligning with the rest of the industry. They had already embraced USB-C in their macs so sticking with lightning on iphone felt anachronistic.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web