Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.telecom.mobile > #45505 > unrolled thread

EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025

Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom.mobile

Contents

  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 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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#45527

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>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 can?t 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. 

It might improve the residual value though. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45528

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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 can?t 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. 
> 
> It might improve the residual value though. 
> 

Unlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the cost
of a house battery. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45529

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:47:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 can?t 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. 
>> 
>> It might improve the residual value though. 
>> 
>Unlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the cost
>of a house battery. 

Would it not allow an aftermarket for generic batteries instead of
being bound by the OEM? I was offered a second hand Zoe at a very low
price at one stage but when I realised the battery arrangements (lease
from Renault) and the very low range of such a model I dismissed the
idea very quickly. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45530

In uk.telecom.mobile Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:47:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> >> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 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 can?t 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. 
> >> 
> >> It might improve the residual value though. 
> >> 
> >Unlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the cost
> >of a house battery. 
> 
> Would it not allow an aftermarket for generic batteries instead of
> being bound by the OEM? I was offered a second hand Zoe at a very low
> price at one stage but when I realised the battery arrangements (lease
> from Renault) and the very low range of such a model I dismissed the
> idea very quickly. 

EV batteries weigh about 200kg.  Consumers aren't going to be changing them
because they don't have the lifting gear (hydraulic lifts and scissor
tables).  If you have gear unscrewing them from the bottom of the vehicle is
not complicated, although could be dangerous without safety precautions.  In
no world are consumers going to be changing them like they change wiper
blades.

Batteries are designed to fit the car so you need to swap in an OEM battery
- just like engines it may theoretically be possible to swap something else,
but it's a lot of work (mechanically, electrically and software).  There is
no standard 1.6 engine that'll fit in every car, and batteries are similarly
bespoke.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45531

On 05 Jan 2025 20:19:22 +0000 (GMT), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>In uk.telecom.mobile Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:47:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> >> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> 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 can?t 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. 
>> >> 
>> >> It might improve the residual value though. 
>> >> 
>> >Unlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the cost
>> >of a house battery. 
>> 
>> Would it not allow an aftermarket for generic batteries instead of
>> being bound by the OEM? I was offered a second hand Zoe at a very low
>> price at one stage but when I realised the battery arrangements (lease
>> from Renault) and the very low range of such a model I dismissed the
>> idea very quickly. 
>
>EV batteries weigh about 200kg.  Consumers aren't going to be changing them
>because they don't have the lifting gear (hydraulic lifts and scissor
>tables).  If you have gear unscrewing them from the bottom of the vehicle is
>not complicated, although could be dangerous without safety precautions.  In
>no world are consumers going to be changing them like they change wiper
>blades.
>
>Batteries are designed to fit the car so you need to swap in an OEM battery
>- just like engines it may theoretically be possible to swap something else,
>but it's a lot of work (mechanically, electrically and software).  There is
>no standard 1.6 engine that'll fit in every car, and batteries are similarly
>bespoke.
>
That puts paid to the idea of having a standard battery for all the
cars and swapping them from underneath at the filling station using a
mechanical arm as was suggested at one time :-) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45532

On 2025-01-05 20:44:40 +0000, Scott said:
> On 05 Jan 2025 20:19:22 +0000 (GMT), Theo
> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> In uk.telecom.mobile Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:47:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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 can?t 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It might improve the residual value though.
>>>> 
>>>> Unlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the 
>>>> cost of a house battery.
>>> 
>>> Would it not allow an aftermarket for generic batteries instead of
>>> being bound by the OEM? I was offered a second hand Zoe at a very low
>>> price at one stage but when I realised the battery arrangements (lease
>>> from Renault) and the very low range of such a model I dismissed the
>>> idea very quickly.
>> 
>> EV batteries weigh about 200kg.  Consumers aren't going to be changing them
>> because they don't have the lifting gear (hydraulic lifts and scissor
>> tables).  If you have gear unscrewing them from the bottom of the vehicle is
>> not complicated, although could be dangerous without safety precautions.  In
>> no world are consumers going to be changing them like they change wiper
>> blades.
>> 
>> Batteries are designed to fit the car so you need to swap in an OEM battery
>> - just like engines it may theoretically be possible to swap something else,
>> but it's a lot of work (mechanically, electrically and software).  There is
>> no standard 1.6 engine that'll fit in every car, and batteries are similarly
>> bespoke.
> 
> That puts paid to the idea of having a standard battery for all the
> cars and swapping them from underneath at the filling station using a
> mechanical arm as was suggested at one time :-)

There are already some battery pack swapping robot places for EV cars 
and it can be done in five minutes or less, although it depends on the 
car model, etc. and reportedly is expensive. Most of these places are 
currently in China, but there are a few in other places (California has 
a few Nio swap stations).

At one point there was the idea of having multiple smaller battery 
packs that could be easily user swappable in the same simple "plug 'n' 
play" way as many electric tools. It was also suggest the small battery 
packs could be swapped at places like supermarkets and petrol stations 
(deposit a flat battery, take a full one, and the flat battery is 
recharged for another user). This idea hasn't been taken up by any 
manufacturer yet.

Part of the problem is the cvar manufacturers all having their own 
designs for the battery packs and how they are fitted. There would need 
to be a standardisation before easy battery swapping became a real 
possibility.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45533

On 2025-01-05 21:44, Scott wrote:
> On 05 Jan 2025 20:19:22 +0000 (GMT), Theo
> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> In uk.telecom.mobile Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:47:44 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:33:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 can?t 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might improve the residual value though.
>>>>>
>>>> Unlikely. Batteries are around £2500 per 10kWhr retail judging by the cost
>>>> of a house battery.
>>>
>>> Would it not allow an aftermarket for generic batteries instead of
>>> being bound by the OEM? I was offered a second hand Zoe at a very low
>>> price at one stage but when I realised the battery arrangements (lease
>>> from Renault) and the very low range of such a model I dismissed the
>>> idea very quickly.
>>
>> EV batteries weigh about 200kg.  Consumers aren't going to be changing them
>> because they don't have the lifting gear (hydraulic lifts and scissor
>> tables).  If you have gear unscrewing them from the bottom of the vehicle is
>> not complicated, although could be dangerous without safety precautions.  In
>> no world are consumers going to be changing them like they change wiper
>> blades.
>>
>> Batteries are designed to fit the car so you need to swap in an OEM battery
>> - just like engines it may theoretically be possible to swap something else,
>> but it's a lot of work (mechanically, electrically and software).  There is
>> no standard 1.6 engine that'll fit in every car, and batteries are similarly
>> bespoke.
>>
> That puts paid to the idea of having a standard battery for all the
> cars and swapping them from underneath at the filling station using a
> mechanical arm as was suggested at one time :-)

No, because those cars and their batteries were designed for this method.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45535

On 2025-01-03 06:09, Isaac Montara 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

I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:

Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025

??

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45536

On 2025-01-08 12:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-01-03 06:09, Isaac Montara 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
> 
> I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:
> 
> Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025
> 
> ??
> 
Bad typing. The OP's right hand was one key to the right of the correct 
key for a few letters.

"Re: EI mew ;abeling ..."
"Re: EU new labeling ..."

"I" is one to the right of "U", etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45539

On 2025-01-08 21:20, Alan wrote:
> On 2025-01-08 12:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2025-01-03 06:09, Isaac Montara 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
>>
>> I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:
>>
>> Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025
>>
>> ??
>>
> Bad typing. The OP's right hand was one key to the right of the correct 
> key for a few letters.
> 
> "Re: EI mew ;abeling ..."
> "Re: EU new labeling ..."
> 
> "I" is one to the right of "U", etc.

Ah, ok. My keyboard is different, the ";" is to the right of the "m".

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45537

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:

When I saw "Isaac Montara" the needle on my
new-arlen-nym-o-meter started wobbling

> Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025

I read it as "EU new labelling regulations"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45538

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 20:37:36 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:
>
>When I saw "Isaac Montara" the needle on my
>new-arlen-nym-o-meter started wobbling
>
>> Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025
>
>I read it as "EU new labelling regulations"

It did not take me long to work this out either. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45540

On 2025-01-08 21:44, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 20:37:36 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> I still can not figure out what the Subject of this thread means:
>>
>> When I saw "Isaac Montara" the needle on my
>> new-arlen-nym-o-meter started wobbling
>>
>>> Re: EI mew ;abeling regulations June 20th 2025
>>
>> I read it as "EU new labelling regulations"
> 
> It did not take me long to work this out either.

I also have this suspicion, but I need more posts to make sure. Wait, 
there are more posts, going back to July. [...] Yeah, score increased.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45577

On 2025-01-02 21:09, Isaac Montara 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

And the mandate for USB C for charging is already about to impact future 
innovations:

'Oppo’s next foldable is about as thin as USB-C allows'

<https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/20/24347690/oppo-find-n5-oneplus-open-2-thinnest-usb-c-ipx9>

'Oppo’s upcoming Find N5 foldable phone is barely thicker than its own 
USB-C port when unfurled, according to photos released by the company.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45578

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:13:17 -0800, Alan wrote:

> And the mandate for USB C for charging is already about to impact future 
> innovations:

Thank your lucky stars that the lightning cable is no longer allowed.

That kind of non-standard "innovation" belongs in the garbage heap.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45579

On 2025-01-25 14:39, Isaac Montara wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:13:17 -0800, Alan wrote:
> 
>> And the mandate for USB C for charging is already about to impact 
>> future innovations:
> 
> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45580 — Re: EU new labelling regulations June 20th 2025

On 2025-01-26 01:59, Alan wrote:
> On 2025-01-25 14:39, Isaac Montara wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:13:17 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>
>>> And the mandate for USB C for charging is already about to impact 
>>> future innovations:
>>
>> 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.

Notice that Isaac Montara is Arlen, so that is not strange.


Aside that, I wouldn't care less about this particular impact on 
innovation :-)

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45581

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. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45582

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]

#45583

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]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom.mobile

csiph-web