All car companies do. Their data also got leaked (German Source in more detail).

Even Tesla showed that they are able to gain control over customers cars remotely (article is from 2022). They are able to add or remove features at their own will. In this particular case it was a sign of good will by enabling this feature. But it can also go into the opposite direction (e.g. they disable features).

I cannot imagine that gaining control over someones car is a good thing in the future, considering Musks power and political influence. Next things are that cars of people who dare to citizise him or his politics are spied into or being altered immoveable. And soon other bootlicker manufacturers will be following the same path, in fear of economical disadvantages.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m all in favor of the EU Directive that states that all such devices must have the same charging port from now on. I think that this should have been introduced way earlier.

I also realize that this law doesn’t apply to Apple exclusively, but you don’t find the Lightning port on any other non-Apple devices. If the Lightning port didn’t exist at all, Apple devices probably would have been equipped with USB C ports instead.

But one thing that affects all kind of devices is that they will be outdated at least software-wise mostly deliberately, no matter what charging port they are euqipped with. This even happens with Android-based phones, as there is a wide range of phones that can’t be fixed with alternative software (ie. Graphene, LinageOS and similar).

In my opinon it should be law that manufacturors should allow for end-of-service-devices to be opened up and upgraded with an alternative OS/ software, to extend liftime and to avoid being discarded. This affects mobile phones as well as smart lightbulbs, headphones, or vacuum robots and many more. This indeed has nothing to do with the EU Directive for charging ports, but it could have been another step towards keeping devices longer in the life cycle and thus avoiding landfill.

Too many devices are being bricked by manufacturers deliberatly, and there are barely any ways to repair such devices, because manufacturers do not let it happen.

I really hope so.

I wonder what happens to all those devices that are brand new, but can’t be sold any longer due to having the lightning port. My guess is that these devices will be shreddered and land up in a landfill - better for the environment than having to use a different cable (/s).

This EU Directive only applies to devices sold as brand new. Frome here on devices sold as new have to be equipped with a USB C charging port.

You still can buy a refurbished device equipped with a lightning charging port from a second hand market seller.

Nothing changes for most people. If you own a device that still has a lightning port, you probaly also have a lightning cable for it. The three most common types (USB C / Lightnin / Micro USB) will still be around for a couple of years.

From the enviromental point of view it would be best to keep any device until it is not usable any longer.

I’d rather would like to see that Apple is being forced into revealing the software code for end-of-life devices than having to switch to a new charging port. That would have a more severe impact, as devices often still work well hardware-wise, but are outdated software-wise. Even Apples glued-in batteries can be changed (albeit it is very complicated), in order to prolong a devices lifespan. If outdated Apple devices could be revived with a FOSS software solution to be still compatible for a longer time, it would be way better for the environment - given, protecting the environment was the goal all along.

The one (the boxy one, pre 1995) where the driver sits on the front axle has an outstanding design. Too bad they don’t make this design anymore due to crash safety reasons. The one (ca. 1995 onwards) where the driver sits behind the front axle looks boring, like any other generic family van.

I don’t know how the procedere would be executed, but I imagine that police could have the phone present during an interrogation and try to nlock it there (possibly by making you to look at the phone to unlock it, if the phone has been set up to unlock this way). Once unlocked, it would be sufficient to have a peek into the camera roll or messages, until the phone locks again. I don’t know about the law, but I can imagine that if a police officer had a look into your phone, even briefly, it may be held against the one who is being interrogated.

Once rebooted, you need to enter your PIN to unlock the phone (and the SIM as well). Before that it is not possible to unlock the phone with biometric credentials (face ID or fingerprint).

As far as I’m aware, police can force you to hand over your biometric credentials (they can hold the phone to your face to unlock it when you have face ID enabled, or can move your finger to the fingerprint sensor). But they can’t force you to reveal the PIN number.