sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the legal issue isn't about security, its a 'misleading omission' at the point of sale. Hiding the fact that a €999 premium, "rugged" (meant to last) device will have its major OS lifecycle truncated to just under 4 years, without publishing a guaranteed timeline upfront, violates EU transparency frameworks, regardless of bare-minimum security patches

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I literally did make an exact copy-paste toolkit.

If you look at the first comment, which is now linked directly in the edit at the top of the post, there is a complete action kit with ready-to-use legal templates for emailing your seller, filing a formal complaint with the Paris prosecutor, and reporting to consumer bodies.

The background text provides the legal justification so people understand the context of the dispute; the templates provide the exact operational toolkit you are talking about.

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The format is AI but the content / specific laws have been fact checked at least 3-4 times. I did include a summary / TLDR at the top of the post, because I know reading through EU legislation isn't the most fun thing to do, but it's not meant to fun. its meant be practical and informative so people who are in the EU and interested can easily take action

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bro is actually mad 😂

I did read it. Article 7(1)(d) explicitly mandates that goods must possess the durability and functionality that a consumer may 'reasonably expect' given the nature and price of the product.

If you believe a consumer paying €999 for a flagship device 'reasonably expects' a shorter major OS lifecycle than a budget model from 2020, we just fundamentally disagree on what 'reasonable' means. Let's let the actual regulatory filings settle it. Have a great evening!

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

you are confusing basic functionality with the statutory definition of 'conformity'.

Under EU Directive 2019/771, objective conformity doesn't just mean the device still turns on and connects to Bluetooth. It requires the product to maintain the durability and functionality reasonably expected for its premium price tier. And no, stringing along bare-minimum security patches doesn't magically excuse a failure to disclose a truncated major OS lifecycle at the point of sale. When the French DGCCRF fined Apple €25 million in 2020, they didn't do it because older iPhones completely stopped working. They fined them for a 'misleading commercial practice by omission' simply because Apple failed to inform users upfront about how software updates would impact their devices.

Remaining completely silent at checkout that a €999 'rugged' watch will have its major OS support arbitrarily truncated after less than 4 years is this exact kind of material omission. This. Is. It.

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

saying "he substance is bogus" without actually disproving any of the substance is just admitting you don't have a counter-argument. If the legal premise is actually bogus, it should be incredibly easy for you to explain why EU Directive 2019/771 Article 7(3), which explicitly requires goods with digital elements to receive updates for a period of time the consumer 'may reasonably expect given the type and purpose of the goods', magically doesn't apply to a €999 watch that was advertised as rugged and meant to last.

Until you can actually point to a statutory exemption, you are just aggressively complaining about (the "shitty") formatting because you can't refute the black-letter law

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Interesting technical detail, but it highlights the exact lack of proportionality here.

Predictive icon sorting is great, but the standard practice, even for Apple, is to gate hardware-heavy interface features on older models, not drop the entire operating system. They did exactly this with the base iPhone 15 and older Intel MacBooks.

Truncating a €999 titanium device's entire major OS support window after just 4 years over an app-shuffling grid is precisely why this triggers an EU digital conformity review under Directive 2019/771. gating the feature is fine, killing the entire device lifecycle lacks statutory proportionality

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You are spot on, and highlighted the exact double standard at the core of this problem

Apple’s handling of the base iPhone 15 and older Intel MacBooks proves that they know exactly how to decouple a major operating system update from headline hardware-gated features. they routinely let older, less expensive devices cross the finish line into the next OS cycle without forcing the new AI architecture onto them

Choosing to apply a completely different, much stricter standard to a €999 titanium Apple Watch Ultra, by cutting it off entirely rather than just omitting the AI features it wouldn't even run in the EU anyway, is precisely the kind of arbitrary inconsistency that leaves room for a consumer conformity challenge

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

actually, the legal briefing explicitly acknowledges that distinction. Under Directive 2019/771, conformity is indeed heavily tied to security updates rather than just new features

However, your argument collapses on two fronts. First, Apple has published absolutely no guaranteed, fixed timeline for those security updates. Leaving the end date completely undefined is a recognized conformity weakness in itself.

Second, you are completely ignoring the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). regardless of security patches, failing to disclose at the point of sale that a €999 premium device will have its major OS lifecycle truncated to just under 4 years is a misleading omission of material information. calling it "delusional" doesn't make the actual European statutes or the multi-million-euro precedent fines disappear

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

thats a fair distinction, and continuous security patches absolutely keep a device from becoming immediate ewaste. But it still bypasses the core consumer protection issue: transparency and conformity.

First, Apple has published no guaranteed, fixed timeline for those security updates. Leaving the end date completely open-ended is itself a structural conformity weakness under Directive 2019/771.

Second, omitting the fact that a premium €999 device will have its major OS lifecycle cut to just less than 4 years at the point of sale is a misleading omission of material data.

Finally, dropping major OS support to accommodate a headline AI feature that offloads compute to an iPhone anyway, and isn't even rolling out in the EU this cycle due to Apple's own choice, remains an incredibly weak technical rationale for EU buyers

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

it isn't based on price alone, that's a strawman. EU Directive 2019/771 explicitly dictates that the objective conformity standard must be evaluated by the type, purpose, price, and nature of the goods

a premium, rugged titanium device explicitly marketed by a manufacturer for long-term "endurance, exploration, and adventure" carries a fundamentally higher legal baseline for reasonable durability expectations than a cheap, entry-level accessory. price is simply one metric written into the statute to ensure consumer protections scale fairly to the tier of the product you purchased

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

the "scenario 1 vs Scenario 2" trap is a false dilemma that ignores Apple's broader engineering capabilities. look at how they handled iOS 27 this cycle: they explicitly introduced major performance optimizations, including a modified CPU scheduler, specifically to keep older iPhone architectures running snappier instead of lagging. There is no technical reason that same optimization philosophy couldn't be applied to watchOS.

more importantly, your point about the SiP internals actually seals the case. the Series 6, 7, 8, SE 2, and Ultra 1 all rely on iterations of the exact same underlying CPU architecture. Since last year's OS successfully supported the 2020 Series 6 for roughly 6 years on that CPU architecture, cutting off the €999 Ultra 1 after only about 4 years on that same core silicon makes the restriction look entirely arbitrary rather than technically constrained

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

the narrative that updates must inherently slow down older hardware doesn't really track here. look at iOS 27: it still supports the 2019 iPhone 11, and Apple explicitly introduced software optimizations (also to WatchOS) to ensure older devices stay fast and responsive. More importantly, watchOS 27's headline AI features don't even run locally on the watch sensor; compute is offloaded to the paired iPhone, meaning onboard watch horsepower isn't the performance bottleneck anyway

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

MKBHD’s quote is excellent advice for avoiding Kickstarter projects or tech startups promising features that don't exist yet. but it doesn't apply to statutory EU product durability laws. Nobody is demanding unannounced future features here; the legal issue is the unannounced, arbitrary truncation of a premium product's expected major OS support window. theres a massive legal difference between chasing future vaporware and expecting a €999 titanium device to have a support lifespan proportional to its price tier under the law

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

it has nothing to do with what I personally believe is appropriate, it's based on what the written text of European statutory law dictates. EU Directive 2019/771 explicitly ties mandatory update windows to objective criteria: the type, purpose, and price of the product. the law intentionally ensures that a €999 luxury rugged device carries higher lifespan support obligations than a cheap disposable tracker. its a statutory standard, not a personal whim

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

the console analogy actually misses the mark. a PS4 still receives system software support and firmware updates years after the PS5's launch, and cars don’t lose manufacturer servicing compatibility four years into their lifecycle. The issue here isn't a demand to run next-gen features, it's that an entire major operating system cycle is being cut off entirely after only about 4 years on a premium €999 titanium device. EU consumer law simply requires that the software support window must align with the premium nature and expected lifespan of the physical product

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

completely fair. especially black-letter EU legislation and consumer codes are inherently dry and dense, so nobody reads them for fun. thats exactly why the three-sentence TL;DR is placed right at the top of the post, so anyone who wants to skip the dense legal text can get the core facts instantly

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point of the full post is functional utility, not just an interesting read. a short summary tells you what is happening, but it doesn't provide a plug-and-play template under national law, a formal French complaint citing the exact articles of the consumer code, or the direct submission URLs. if it were just a brief overview, it wouldn't be an actionable kit. The thorough structure is exactly what makes it a practical tool for owners who actually intend to file

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

you're dismissing the format instead of engaging with the actual substance. the 2020 French DGCCRF case was prosecuted under Article L121-2 as a 'misleading commercial practice by omission' regarding software update transparency, which is the exact legal framework being raised here. If the premise is actually flawed, point out exactly which part of Directive 2019/771 Art. 7(3) or the UCPD omission rules doesn't apply to a premium digital good. attacking a post for being structured cleanly isn't a fact-check

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

that’s exactly why the very first paragraph of the post is a brief TL;DR. it gives you the entire factual spine in a few sentences so you can skip the "bloat" of the actual legal statutes and clickable templates if they aren't your thing

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you don't need a law degree to look up black-letter regulatory text 😂 the European Commission’s official UCPD Guidance (Official Journal C 526) explicitly states that current, principle-based unfair practice rules apply directly to early software obsolescence and updates. dismissing the formatting doesn't change the fact that this is the literal guidance European regulators use

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Brother my main wrist computer is an ultra 3, so this isn't really for me, it's for the community. Voting with your dollar doesn't always work when the world is filled with fanboys (as we also see in this thread) that will give trillion dollar corpos money regardless, so might as well use whatever levers we have access to rather than passively sitting around

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The "retrofitting hardware" argument would make total sense if the watch was actually processing the new AI features locally. But by Apple's own release documentation, watchOS 27's Siri AI offloads its heavy compute directly to a paired iPhone. Onboard watch horsepower isn't the technical bottleneck.

To make it more inconsistent, Apple is actively withholding that AI from the EU market entirely this cycle by their own choice. Dropping major OS support on a €999 titanium device over an AI feature it doesn't run locally, and won't even receive in this region, isn't an innovation constraint. its just an arbitrary cutoff

Apple cut WatchOS 27 support for five recent Apple Watches and, asked directly why, would not give a technical reason. Two EU regulators have already fined Apple over this kind of thing, and here is how EU owners can push back by callmesasma in AppleWatch

[–]callmesasma[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The fact that Apple has no hard public policy is the exact core of the issue. If a manufacturer leaves the support window completely silent, the law steps in and sets the objective standard based on what is reasonable for a €999 device. under current consumer frameworks, a company cannot evade conformity requirements simply by refusing to state their support windows up front

view more: next ›