Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st Jan 2013 18:55 UTC
Apple Well, this is either incredibly sad or utterly hilarious. Apple will stop selling the Mac Pro in Europe on 1 March... Because it doesn't comply with "new" European regulations that will come into effect that day. I say "new" between quotation marks because said regulation was announced four years ago. The regulation deals with increased protection requirements concerning electrical ports and fan guards. "The new requirements necessitate fan guards and some increased protection on the ports on the electrical system," explained Apple, "Because Mac Pro is not compliant with the regulations, we do want to meet that regulation and therefore not offer Mac Pro beyond 1 March." So, a standards body is faster at updating its standards than Apple is at updating its Mac Pro. It illustrates just how much Apple cares about pro users. The last significant update to the Mac Pro occurred in 2010, but Tim Cook did promise an update to the product later in 2013.
Thread beginning with comment 551122
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Blaming the wrong party
by tails92 on Fri 1st Feb 2013 11:23 UTC in reply to "Blaming the wrong party"
tails92
Member since:
2007-10-07

There's some truth in what you say. Many times innovation and the launch of new products to the market are slowed down because of unnecessary regulations. I mean in the EU some things that are not required at all by US and Japan regulations are mandatory.. and the US and Japan regulations are considered to be of a high standard, but hey, more business for European certification authorities!

This is especially bad for small companies which are trying to enter the market; more regulations != better results, but in Europe regulations = good, regardless if they are useless or not. No problem for the big guys, a royal PITA for the small guy who is just trying to make a living with his company, and who has to bear huge costs just to bring a product to the market.

It is sad to see you voted down to -11. I voted you up.

The classic example are cars. In Europe they are over-regulated to the point that you cannot do any meaningful modification to the vehicle, as if the state built the car and gave you it as a gift (yeah.. really?). In the US and in Australia, regulations are very permissive when it comes to tuning and modifications, yet I don't see cars burning down.

Such a shame that people don't think before voting down.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Blaming the wrong party
by M.Onty on Fri 1st Feb 2013 12:09 in reply to "RE: Blaming the wrong party"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

I agree. Look at this;

"The new requirements necessitate fan guards ..."

Consider how many people have seriously harmed themselves on computer fans in the past decade. Consider whether the sum total of those people, if greater than nil, wouldn't also be the sort of people who could accidentally decapitate themselves with a walnut, and possibly have in the intervening years. Now consider the amount of money the EU has spent on paying salaries, expenses, test equipment and long lunches in order to come up with this particular jewel and ones like it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Blaming the wrong party
by BushLin on Fri 1st Feb 2013 12:16 in reply to "RE: Blaming the wrong party"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

Please cite some examples of these regulations of which you speak.

I'm not aware of any useless restrictions on vehicle modification, it's a fairly big industry in the UK. Only restriction I can think of are higher premiums from insurance companies who (probably rightly) assume you're going to drive like an idiot with performance upgrades on a small hatchback.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Blaming the wrong party
by JAlexoid on Fri 1st Feb 2013 15:46 in reply to "RE: Blaming the wrong party"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

regardless if they are useless or not.

Sure... One might say that food industry regulations are not required, because if you get sick when eating at a restaurant you can just "vote with your feet".(You shouldn't care that you can actually die if poisoned)


The classic example are cars.

Yes, the classic example will be you driving in front of me while I'm on a bicycle and spewing a mixture of exhaust and uncumbusted gasoline, just because you made some modifications. There are requirements for CO2 emissions that you have to pass, and if you don't pass it with your modifications then tough luck. The environment is not your private property.

Such a shame that people don't think before voting down.

Yet some people see the ignorance in his post. The regulation is very old now and has a lot of small adjustments for new equipment for safety and efficiency.

You are just agreeing because you dislike some regulations.

Reply Parent Score: 4

andrewclunn Member since:
2012-11-05

Meh, ethnocentric Europeans with their USA hate are easy to get going. No different from the nationalists we have here really. Can't and won't see the draw backs to their way of doing things. It's a tribalism pride thing. Though my original comment was wrong about the 'why' of Apple doing this, as I later pointed out, so I understand it getting voted down for that reason, but based on the comments, it's clear that it wasn't voted down because of that.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Blaming the wrong party
by ndrw on Fri 1st Feb 2013 21:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Blaming the wrong party"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

I've voted you up on the basis that you made a good point about regulations inhibiting entrepreneurship, so there was something factual in your comment. But, frankly speaking, the rest of it was incorrect, hateful and generally rubbish. Somehow it doesn't stop you from calling others (Europeans) "nationalists" just because they didn't like your rant. Go back to AOL or wherever you came from.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The classic example are cars. In Europe they are over-regulated to the point that you cannot do any meaningful modification to the vehicle, as if the state built the car and gave you it as a gift (yeah.. really?)


No, not really.

Reply Parent Score: 2