576
USB-C confirmed for the iPhone 15 in new leaked images - Macworld (www.macworld.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
215 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We’ve known that the iPhone is switching to USB-C for a while now, but there was always a possibility that Apple would stick with Lightning for one more year. Based on the latest leaked images, however, Apple is all-in on USB-C for the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro models, with USB-C parts for the iPhone 15, iPhone 15 Plus, and iPhone 15 Pro Max all shown in a leaked image by X user fix Apple.

With the switch to USB-C, nearly all of Apple’s devices will have adopted the new standard, with only AirPods, Mac accessories, and the iPhone SE remaining aside from older iPhones and the 9th-gen iPad.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 3 years ago (16 children)

Consumer-based regulation works better.

ie- when people stop spending billions on iphones that don't use standardized hardware.... Then, perhaps Apple will stop being anti-competitive assholes.

Right now, they can get away with being anti-competitive assholes, because everyone keeps buying their products.

Money speaks.

Just watch- apple will indeed release a phone that has a USB-Type C port. Then, disable data transfer to any non-apple certified USB cord, due to "security concerns" or "fire hazards"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 97 points 3 years ago* (8 children)

    It literally does not, as evidenced by the state of chargers in the 2000s and early 2010s, before the EU threatened to regulate if phone companies didn't get their shit together. Back then you'd have a different charger design for virtually every phone, including new models of the same phone. USB only became ubiquitous because the EU told companies to stop fucking around and legislate themselves, or the EU would make formal legislation. Most companies got the memo, but Apple decided to be cunts for long enough that the EU decided they needed to finally step in.

    Consumer-based regulation being the end-all is based off the classical- and neoliberal ideas that humans are rational actors and companies have a greater incentive to compete than to collude. Both of which are lies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (6 children)

    the classical- and neoliberal ideas that humans are rational actors

    Be very careful with this, because this is also the very foundation of democracy. If we start saying humans can't decide for themselves over insignificant phone charger, how could we trust them selecting the people who has much more power than that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    That’s actually the opposite of the foundation of democracy. Democracy spreads the power out through as many people as possible in order to lessen the potential for abuse by any individual actor. Electing representatives who have near unlimited power and no recourse for constituents isn’t democracy, its oligarchy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Democracy spreads the power out through as many people as possible in order to lessen the potential for abuse by any individual actor

    Well, that's not our democracies work. We don't let people vote every law by referendum, that would be spreading power as much as possible.

    In ancient Athens it was common, as was common for judiciary decision to be made by 3-4 hundreds people drawn at random. But that's something almost universally considered stupid now, we have a judge, who we consider an "expert" in law.

    By your definition, we don't live in a democracy, on the contrary, democracy is extinct on this planet

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago*

    There are indeed democracies on the planet that work in a way that both allows the use of representation and maintains the power in the hands of the constituency by allowing easy recall processes and mandates that officials follow the will of their constituency. We just don’t have them in liberal democracy, which was created, in part, to specifically guard against the possibility of majority rule, as mentioned in multiple of the Federalist papers, including but not limited to Federalist 9 and 10.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    how could we trust them selecting the people who has much more power than that

    Who else is there to trust but us humans?

    humans can't decide for themselves over insignificant phone charger

    Individual humans don't have the ability to choose their phone based on their preferred charger. Each purchase is made between one buyer with fairly limited funds and few large corporations with extensive funds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    between one buyer with fairly limited funds and few large corporations with extensive funds

    Which is the same as saying that every vote is transferred between one voter, with very limited knowledge and political awareness and a few politicians with extensive power because politics is what they do their entire life.

    Democracy is, in many practical sense, a market for votes. One which is way less regulated than the one for goods and services

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    There's nothing to be careful about, it's absolutely true. Democracy isn't flawless and is capable of leading to demagogues and reality-denying lunatics coming to power precisely because humans aren't rational actors. But just because democracy isn't perfect doesn't mean it's worse than the other systems we've come up with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    It's not so simple. If my parents stopped buying iPhones, they would need to replace their watches, their TV streaming device, their car chargers, and all their apps. You can't expect normal people to collectively switch from an ecosystem designed around lock-in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    How is it not so simple, when all that still falls under them being anti-competitive assholes?

    Consumer based regulation only works when consumers care enough to have a sense of dignity about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    replace their watches,

    Never really got the craze around smart watches.

    their TV streaming device

    if your streaming device requires you to have a certain type of phone to use, you should replace it regardless. Roku/AndroidTV/etc... They don't care WHAT type of device you try to stream media from. Have an IPhone? Sure. Android? No problem. Blackberry? That might not work.

    their car chargers

    Wait until you realize any 5$ charging cord from the corner store can charge your phone, and connect it to your car!

    all their apps

    Most of those work just fine on android. Just swapped my Dad's phone from apple to android a few months ago, and was able to find all of his apps without any issues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent