[HN Gopher] EU Passes Law to Switch iPhone to USB-C by End of 2024
___________________________________________________________________
EU Passes Law to Switch iPhone to USB-C by End of 2024
Author : popol12
Score : 566 points
Date : 2022-10-04 10:46 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| exabrial wrote:
| Apple is just going to remove all ports.
|
| Keep complaining and they're going to remove screens next to be
| super super duper innovative.
| timbit42 wrote:
| The EU did this to help the environment. Wireless charging is
| less efficient than charging cable and wastes electricity, so
| we may see the EU ban wireless charging.
| mwint wrote:
| Apple should ban the EU, that'd straighten this mess out
| pretty quick.
| jbotz wrote:
| No matter what you think about regulating this kind of thing in
| general, in this case I think it's not a big deal and definitely
| a positive. No matter whether it's a lightning, usb c, or other
| kind of connector, these connectors break fairly often and thus
| should be easily swap-able modules by design in the first place.
| Manufacturers like Apple who think they have a better connector
| will be incentivized to make the connectors as modular as
| possible so that having different models for different markets
| will add little to the cost. Everybody wins.
| seydor wrote:
| spiffytech wrote:
| I'm eager to watch how Apple spins this as a voluntary decision
| in their product announcement. To see the specific wording they
| pick for how the timing is a coincidence and they really just
| care about their customers' best interests.
| mwint wrote:
| I'm kind of hoping they ship an EU Edition phone that is a
| normal phone, but with a dongle welded into the lightning port.
|
| The dongle should have the phone numbers of those who passed
| this law etched into it.
|
| Just let me keep my Lightning port as an American.
| redox99 wrote:
| I think they'll just go full wireless.
| boxed wrote:
| I think Apple knows they need to switch, but now the EU will
| take all the bad press and their hands are clean. Such a huge
| PR win for Apple!
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| This is an awesome move in my opinion. While it's pretty much
| defactor making it universal and legally required will be with
| the cutter and waste that is created by often requiring a special
| charger or a different charge for a device.
| TradingPlaces wrote:
| How about all the waste when over a billion iPhone users throw
| out Lightning accessories?
| thefz wrote:
| How about not stubbornly staying with lightning when Apple
| had the option to switch to usb-c? They did that with
| malicious compliance to upsell their damn adapter.
| throw827474737 wrote:
| Insignificant vs forever..
| tapoxi wrote:
| That'll only happen once, compared to the impact of eternally
| having two separate charging ecosystems.
| yummybear wrote:
| And again when USB-D comes along
| TradingPlaces wrote:
| USB-C will be a decade old when this goes into effect
| Drakim wrote:
| If we stay trapped in a local maximum we can never ever
| improve our situation because any improvement will
| realistically come at some cost.
|
| Can't replace old diesel trucks with green fuel trucks
| because the act of replacing them causes some pollution.
| jen20 wrote:
| USB-C is not even a local maxima, of course.
| Drakim wrote:
| At this point of time anything that isn't a sharp spike
| downwards is welcome.
| TradingPlaces wrote:
| The point of this is supposedly to reduce e-waste and it
| will create e-waste. EU in a nutshell.
| krzyk wrote:
| With each release of iphones this creates a waste (they
| ship lightning cables with those phones/accessories) -
| now they can drop it because Apple users will use
| standard like the rest of the world.
| Drakim wrote:
| It will create e-waste in the short term, and reduce
| e-waste in the long term. Did you disagree with my
| explanation or simply not understand it?
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| Apple will do what they did with micro usb chargers. Bring
| out an dongle.
| Y-bar wrote:
| The law disallows dongles as a "solution".
| peteradio wrote:
| What language in the law disallows dongles?
| Y-bar wrote:
| The law itself. It is amending Directive 2014/53 which
| allowed dongles. The part which allowed dongles is made
| away by this new directive.
|
| It's entire raison d'etre of the law is to mandate that
| devices themselves and their charger share a common
| standard. So an example e.g. Annex 2a clarifies that:
|
| > The requirements in points 2 and 3 below shall apply to
| the following categories or classes of radio equipment
| [mobile phones, tablets, cameras, headsets, mice, etc,
| ...]
|
| > [They shall] be equipped with the USB Type-C
| receptacle, as described in the standard EN IEC
| 62680-1-3:2021 'Universal serial bus interfaces for data
| and power - Part 1-3: Common components - USB Type-C(r)
| Cable and Connector Specification', which should remain
| accessible and operational at all times;
| Y-bar wrote:
| Yes, a big _finally_! I love my Apple device (personal iPhone
| 12 mini, work iPhone 8, Apple TV 4K with new remote, iPad Air,
| ...) but the lightning connection should obviously have been
| retired a few years ago.
| oneplane wrote:
| > should obviously have been
|
| Except that it isn't obvious. You're essentially at the end
| of an extremely long and complicated supply chain for a
| multi-million device pipeline. You have no idea what a
| change, any change, involves. And because you don't know this
| (assuming you're not a supply chain engineer of design for
| manufacture specialist) you cannot state that it is obvious
| either.
|
| What is obvious is that some people would have _liked_ it
| sooner, and what is also obvious is that the manufacturer
| (Apple) has been moving in that direction for years (on other
| lower-volume lower-risk devices).
| Y-bar wrote:
| I'm obviously talking from a customer and consumer
| perspective, but can you provide any kind of explanation
| why implementing USB-C is problematic in the iPhone when it
| already is in the iPad and desktop and laptop Macs and
| Apple displays?
|
| Tim Cook made himself a legendary leader in logistics and
| manufacturing before taking on the CEO role for being able
| to do just what you say he would have problem doing.
| oneplane wrote:
| I would imagine that it has more to do with the existing
| ecosystem, the swap between trident and the custom USB-C
| controller they use in the other devices and mechanical
| changes in the form factor internal to the phone.
|
| If you nuke lightning from iPhones, you have the same
| problem as with the 30-pin connectors: entire cars
| suddenly don't work with your phone anymore, many years
| worth of produced lightning devices no longer connect and
| everything from charging and data exchange to debugging
| and alternate output modes will no longer work. This is
| not a technical problem to solve, since they already
| wrote tools and created workflows for doing that on the
| less risky product lines (Macs, iPads etc.) where the
| impact of a bad port implementation is much lower. But
| phones are still carried around all day (in pockets no
| less), charged/plugged a lot etc. which while seemingly
| slightly different makes for additional risk when
| implementing.
|
| Considering that seemingly insignificant changes (like
| that dumb antenna shorting problem when holding the phone
| in the iPhone 4 due to a small case change) can lead to
| huge and very expensive problems (like replacing all
| panels on the first white iPhones due to the paint not
| sticking well enough). If you have 70 million iPads and
| 1% has the issue, that's not great but also not too bad.
| If you have 200+ million iPhones and 1% has an issue,
| that's pretty bad, and you also get a lot more flak
| because people are very emotional about their phones, as
| well as phones they don't have and would never buy but
| still complain about.
|
| Back to the supply chain and logistics, all fixtures,
| machining workflows, testing and component sourcing would
| have to change, which isn't too bad on its own, but
| because there are still many many years of supported
| phones out there, you have to keep the old method around
| as well. This problem doesn't exactly go away, regardless
| of how long you stall, but if you work on a method to
| make that less of a problem (i.e. make sure the next
| revision of test harnesses and repair fixtures account
| for it when they get cycled), while also growing your
| ecosystem (other devices with USB-C within your brand)
| you can build up knowledge and specialism in your
| workforce (i.e. the people that make the manuals for the
| people that work in the store can lean from inevitable
| mistakes they will make in the initial USB-C versions of
| iPads). That means that when you do finally make the
| seemingly tiny change (which for charging really is just
| a bunch of B.S. since it's not about the port on the
| device but the plug you stick in the charger) and get
| those internal USB-C models they probably have had for
| years up in the design for manufacture and retail phase,
| the risk is much lower.
|
| It is however, just as likely that they will go full
| iPhone X again and make a portless phone instead. Going
| portless has the same ecosystem risk (mostly marketing
| risk) since they would be breaking compatibility with
| lighting anyway, but because there won't be a new port,
| there isn't going to be a change in material thickness,
| ingress points in general or new chips to add to the
| design. So perhaps that would be half the risk of another
| connector migration.
| michaelt wrote:
| Yes, USB-C charging demands a supply chain of such
| incredible complexity that it has only been mastered by
| every other manufacturer of phones, tablets and laptops;
| and by apple themselves on the ipad and macbook.
|
| And Apple has been cruelly blindsided, as the EU has only
| been pushing this issue since 2009, giving Apple a mere 13
| years to prepare.
|
| It just wasn't reasonable to expect them to conquer the
| massive challenge of USB charging in the iPhone 4, 4s, 5,
| 5c, 5s, 6, 6 plus, 6s, 6s plus, 7, 7 plus, 8, 8 plus, x,
| xr, xs, xs max, 11, 11 pro, 11 pro max, 12, 12 mini, 12
| pro, 12 pro max, 13, 13 min, 13 pro, 13 pro max,13, 14
| plus, 14 pro, or 14 pro max.
| oneplane wrote:
| You seem to be shoehorned into believing that everything
| is just a technical problem and needs to be solved with a
| technical solution. You also seem to forget that so many
| of those USB-C implementations are so bad a lot of phones
| were better off on micro-B. It has also been reported on
| extensively, especially by your example of "other
| manufacturers". -
| https://www.androidauthority.com/state-of-usb-c-870996/
| - https://www.pcworld.com/article/424287/beware-bad-usb-
| c-cables-google-engineer-warnswhile-naming-names.html
| - https://pocketnow.com/usb-c-compatibility-problems/
| - https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/fix-usb-c-
| problems-in-windows-f4e0e529-74f5-cdae-3194-43743f30eed2
| - https://hackaday.com/2021/03/22/cursed-usb-c-when-plug-
| orientation-matters/ (this one is for the USB2
| compatibility pins which are orientation-specific)
|
| Discussed here on HN: -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30911598 -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29445458 -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23435805 -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21533862 -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15473777 -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24650718 -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12824366 -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11021665
|
| So far, companies like HP, Dell, Microsoft, Xiaomi,
| Motorola, Google, OnePlus, Sony, Nintendo etc. have all
| made products with really bad implementations in cables,
| chargers, and devices like handhelds (gaming, phones
| etc.) and larger (laptops, TVs).
|
| Also, suggesting someone was blindsided is just a dumb
| flame bait and you know it. If you can't properly discuss
| this, why are you even here?
| [deleted]
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Not really. I will have to replace my AirPods, iPad and
| touchpad and iPhone for this to be the case.
|
| I assume it will take ten years or so.
|
| Really I would just love a small usbc female to lighting male.
| Would solve all my cable problems basically.
| thefz wrote:
| _ahem_ de facto, it 's latin.
| warinukraine wrote:
| Haha yeah English speaking people also write "per say"
| instead of "per se", like per say makes any sense.
|
| Now defactor I'd never seen before.
| bartread wrote:
| To be honest I have pretty mixed feelings about this. The
| Lightning port is extremely robust, and I already have quite a
| few Lightning cables from several generations of iPhone, so to
| some extent this seems like it's just going to generate quite a
| bit of e-waste.
| _ZeD_ wrote:
| FUCK YEAH!!!
| IYasha wrote:
| What about photo and video industry? It is SO maddening to have
| proprietary incompatible overpriced plugs, cables and adapters
| everywhere!
| heckelson wrote:
| i believe the article mentions video and photo gadgets too, but
| I only skimmed it briefly
| emaro wrote:
| I agree with the overall tone in the comments here: yay in
| general, but what a shame _a law_ needs to specify _a specific
| port_ for ~iPhones~ devices.
|
| I _really_ like USB-C. It 's sooo convenient to charge my
| notebook, my headphones, my phone, my everything with the same
| cable. However what bothers me since someone pointed it out to
| me: for phones, which are used all day in all kind of situations,
| lightning has a big andvantage over USB-C. It's has no parts
| inside the port and therefore is harder to break. Maybe we get
| something like this with USB-D, but hopefully it will take a long
| time until then. Meanwhile I'll enjoy my Fairphone, which has a
| _replacable_ USB-C port.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Wireless charging is always secondary option after or before
| the physical port wears out.
| jorvi wrote:
| [deleted]
| emaro wrote:
| At the time I wrote my comment, I read/skimmed to the greater
| part of the comments and the pattern was pretty clear. Maybe
| now there are more voices who beleive _the market (tm)_ would
| 've done it's part.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Honestly yeah, the standardisation part is fantastic but I
| absolutely hate that the industry at large settled on USB-C
| ports that are so pathetically easy to break it's hilarious.
| Micro-USB and Mini-USB were both far more robust.
|
| And also the part where there are a billion specs for the same
| cable so you never know what you're dealing with. I wouldn't be
| surprised if some of the bluetooth team came up with the
| standards...
| rektide wrote:
| I personally have owned 5 phones with worn out USB micro-b
| ports, where to charge them I'd have to lay a book on the
| cable or position the phone at an odd angle.
|
| I have never seen anyone do this with a USB-c port. I have
| never heard anyone complain their USB-C port wore out.
|
| USB-C was designed for far greater durability & reliability &
| IMO it clearly & obviously shows.
| eropple wrote:
| This is the first claim I've ever heard that Mini-B is "far
| more robust" than USB-C. Mini-B is legendarily breakable,
| both from a pin standpoint (really low lifetime insertions)
| and from a physical one (the port profile put a ton of strain
| on the device side). Micro-B was created to resolve those
| problems, and did a decent job through the latching teeth on
| the back, but has fewer pins available for advanced
| connectivity and no room to add them in a backwards-
| compatible way. Even for small devices, the additional pins
| are beneficial for standardized high-rate charging via USB-
| PD.
|
| Both Micro-B and USB-C are similarly rated for robustness.
| schmuelio wrote:
| > Micro-USB and Mini-USB were both far more robust.
|
| Micro-USB and USB-C both have the same minimum durability
| ratings, you may just be buying non-compliant cables (or
| you're encountering selection bias or something):
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware#Durability
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| >the newer Micro-USB[4] and USB-C receptacles are both
| designed for a minimum rated lifetime of 10,000 cycles of
| insertion and removal.
|
| Micro-USB is an abomination from a durability perspective,
| and in no way does this reflect reality for the majority of
| Micro-USB plugs and sockets I've found in the wild.
| eropple wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that rated lifetime is for _correct_
| insertion, yeah. USB-C has a thicker cross-section and
| the rounded ends definitely help with correct insertion
| to reduce the likelihood of whomping on the socket when
| you plug it in.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Could be that I'm somehow an outlier, I suppose time will
| tell since they'll be around for a while and in literally
| everything.
| nottorp wrote:
| Well i really like magsafe :)
| jayd16 wrote:
| They're not incompatible. They make bootleg magsafe USB-C
| cables.
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| Beware, there is a lot of actual safety equipment that goes
| into a MagSafe connector that probably isn't in the knock-
| offs. Moving 5 A of current can cause a spark and start a
| fire right in your lap.
|
| - http://www.righto.com/2013/06/teardown-and-exploration-
| of-ma...
|
| - http://www.righto.com/2016/03/counterfeit-macbook-
| charger-te...
| ploxiln wrote:
| You don't have to use a counterfeit charger with your
| after-market usb-c to magsafe-2 cable. I use it with a
| newer real apple charger with usb-c (... since this is an
| older magsafe-2 macbook, not a new magsafe-3 one, and I
| don't want to buy any more magsafe-2 non-detachable-cable
| chargers). The only downside is that it's a bit dumb and
| always tells the laptop it has 60W, so you need to use >=
| 60W usb-c charger, and your laptop will only use 60W of
| it.
|
| That first link describing how magsafe 1/2 work is what
| convinced me it should be fine :)
| nottorp wrote:
| Who uses it with a counterfeit charger? I use it with my
| Apple charger. The cable itself can be dangerous.
| nottorp wrote:
| I have a "bootleg" magsafe usb-c cable for my 2018 "worst
| model in history" mbpro with emoji keyboard.
|
| When I bought it i did the research and random magnetic
| cables on amazon were reviewed along the lines of "this
| burned my laptop". I ended up getting an (expensive-ish)
| one from my local apple dealer.
|
| I'd rather have Apple do it thank you.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| Very much agree. The port design of lightning is superior, too
| bad that now a law mandates Apple to sell the inferior
| solution. But that's what you get when laws eliminate
| competition.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Superior how exactly? It's not clear that its properties plus
| royalty costs outweigh the alternative royalty free standard.
| pwpw wrote:
| Bell Labs allowed others to produce transistor based hearing
| aids royalty free. Volvo allowed others to use a 3-point
| harness system royalty free. Apple created Lightning to solve
| a problem and wanted royalties on all products using it.
| Naturally, the market moved to another solution.
|
| While Lightning may be a good piece of technology, I think
| Apple is largely to blame for its demise. Standardization is
| good for consumers. Apple had control over its fate. I don't
| blame them for wanting to collect royalties, but they were
| the only major manufacturer on the market not playing ball
| with a standardized port. Yet even their other products use
| USB-C, and the MacBook was actually an early adopter.
|
| Accordingly, I don't think this law eliminates competition.
| It brings simplification to consumers for a simple, boring
| port that can now be shared with many of their other goods
| and a single cable.
| culturestate wrote:
| _> they were the only major manufacturer on the market not
| playing ball with a standardized port_
|
| I _genuinely_ believe that there's only one real reason
| Apple resisted moving away from Lightning:
|
| They saw the writing on the wall from the EU over the last
| few years, and - remembering the way people _lost their
| minds_ over the switch from 40-pin to Lightning ("it's a
| money grab! they want me to replace all of my
| accessories!") - chose to wait so they'd have someone to
| deflect blame to.
|
| Licensing revenue from Lightning MFi is a drop in the
| bucket. I'm not a manufacturing operations expert, but I
| have to imagine that the simplification of supply chains
| alone will nearly offset that loss over time.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| Except if Apple voluntarily made iPhones that charged
| over USB-C, most people would rejoice, because most
| people already have loads of USB-C chargers for all of
| their other electronic devices.
| a-user-you-like wrote:
| USB-C, so good you're forced to use it!
| bdcravens wrote:
| Apple thinks it's good enough for iPads.
| blitzar wrote:
| Apple thinks it's _a groundbreaking innovation_ for
| iPads.
| anoonmoose wrote:
| Between my wife and I, we have two cell phones, three
| laptops, and a pair of wireless headphones. Only one of
| those devices doesn't use USB-C- her iPhone. I don't
| believe the other five devices have USB-C because they
| were forced to.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Great anecdote! My wife and I have a number of cell
| phones, tablets, headphones, and computers. The computers
| have USB-C, and so does one of the tablets. One headphone
| has micro-USB, and everything else is lightning. We have
| plenty of charging solutions for lightning (mostly USB-A
| bricks with lightning connectors), so moving to USB-C
| will mean we'll have to buy a 5-10 new bricks and cables.
| Not looking forward to it!
| anoonmoose wrote:
| My anecdote was only supposed to show that USB-C has not
| so far needed mandates for it to be adopted.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Perhaps, but the vast majority of devices in our house do
| not use USB-C. They are either still on micro-USB, or
| they're on lightning. I realize people's experiences
| differ on this, but for many people USB-C devices are not
| common. These people do not have charging infrastructures
| in their homes for USB-C devices, and transitioning means
| throwing away a lot of cables and such.
| NegativeK wrote:
| > Great anecdote!
|
| This is unnecessarily snide.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > moving to USB-C will mean we'll have to buy a 5-10 new
| bricks and cables
|
| Why? Your computers and one of your tablets already have
| USB-C chargers, so you could just use those for your
| phones. Further, USB-A to USB-C cables exist, so you
| could reuse your existing USB-A bricks, too.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I can't unplug my computer to charge my phone because I
| use my computer in clamshell mode, which sadly only works
| when its plugged in. I do sometimes charge through my
| computer, but I find this is pretty slow. I figured that
| USB-A to USB-C cables exist, and we might decide to buy
| some of these. But if the change is happening, it might
| be foolish to purchase cables that have one foot in the
| grave already. The upside would be that we could still
| charge our micro USB devices from the same bricks.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > But if the change is happening, it might be foolish to
| purchase cables that have one foot in the grave already.
|
| I don't see USB-A going anywhere in the next decade or
| so, especially now that they're popping up in wall
| outlets and power strips alongside traditional wall plugs
| (at least here in the US; YMMV elsewhere). Hell, I was at
| a casino last weekend and pretty much every slot machine
| has a USB-A port specifically for charging phones
| (unfortunately, the casino's gift shop was sold out of
| USB-C and Lightning, but had lots of micro-B on hand - go
| figure lol).
| gnicholas wrote:
| Yeah I was traveling recently and realized that all the
| hotel/airport/airplane receptacles are USB-A. Wonder how
| long that will last?
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Lightning vs USB-C is like VHS vs Betamax or HD-DVD vs
| Bluray, only Apple has sufficient market power it can
| abuse to avoid the inevitable convergence towards a
| common standard. It's exactly the correct thing to do for
| a regulator to step in and fix this.
| nkingsy wrote:
| I've bought and worn out SO many lightning cables.
|
| Never before have I dealt with such a poor connector. All my
| usb c is working fine. All my lightning cables work about
| half the time, need to be jostled. I know if I buy all new
| ones AGAIN it will sort out the problem.
|
| I don't understand this take and replies.
|
| Also, lightning doesn't power external devices. Love that I
| can run a midi keyboard off my new iPad. The same on my
| iPhone requires a powered usb hub.
| ddalex wrote:
| if it's so superior, why doesn't apple use the lightning
| connector on Macbooks and iPads and uses USB-C on those ?
|
| I mean, it's stupid that if I buy an Iphone and an Macbook
| today, there is no cable in either box that can connect those
| two
| ZiiS wrote:
| Apple has been using the law to stop other phones coming with
| lightning ports. If they had left it open the market may well
| have chosen it.
| IsNotNull wrote:
| Apple disagree. They moved away from Lightning on iPads and
| Macbooks already.
| amluto wrote:
| Superior how?
|
| Lightning ports have springs that wear out inside. They have
| issues with arcing, which damages the plug (look at a
| charging cable that has been in use for a bunch of cycles.
| One pin on each side will be burnt.).
|
| But hey, the plug part is pretty, so it must be better
| asgeir wrote:
| USB-C has the springs in the plug while the receptacle is only
| fixed contacts. Lightning on the other hand has the springs
| inside the receptacle.
|
| This means that for USB-C you replace the cable when the
| springs wear out, but for Lightning you need to replace the
| port.
|
| Cleaning lint out of a USB-C receptacle with a toothpick is
| safe, but sticking anything into a Lightning port could damage
| the springs.
| cal85 wrote:
| Interesting about the springs, I didn't know that. In
| practice though, the opposite to everything you say seems to
| be true based on using many (many) of both connectors over
| the years. I've had a couple of disasters with USB-C ports
| breaking (on the device, not the cable), while I've never had
| anything go permanently wrong with Lightning sockets. Your
| point that it has delicate springs inside it sounds
| concerning but seems to be totally theoretical - you can see
| customer service staff in Apple stores frequently just whip
| out a SIM key or paperclip and waggle it about in a
| customer's iPhone to clean it with total abandon. And I've
| always done this with mine, treating it very rough with metal
| paperclips, I've never worried about hurting the springs. And
| it has never, ever gone wrong for me. The evidence seems to
| be that Lightning is just much more resilient.
|
| You say that cleaning out a USB-C port is safe, but I know
| it's not, because of that little snap-off wafer inside, which
| has broken on me twice before. It's not safe, I promise.
| Don't do it unless you have a good warranty!
| asgeir wrote:
| To be clear. I think that both connectors have their own
| problems.
|
| Just because I've not had the center nub break in any of my
| USB-C devices that doesn't mean it's not a problem for
| someone else.
|
| Similarly, I've had the springs in a Lightning port give
| out so that no cable worked and the port needed replacing.
|
| I still think that having the springs in the cable
| connector is a more durable design but the USB-C center nub
| is probably too thin.
|
| (edit) Here is the chief FireWire architect talking about
| the same design rationale for the FW400 connector
| http://www.johasteener.com/what-is-
| firewire.html#Why_the_4-p...
| emaro wrote:
| Thank you for the clarification. I didn't know that.
|
| In my experience, cleaning the lightning port with the end of
| a paperclip was never an issue (dust from my pocket liked the
| spot; always helped when charging got unreliable).
| klausa wrote:
| On the flipside, this means the thin logic board that
| connects to the pins is in the host device, not in the cable.
|
| Which means if you break it off, you need to replace the
| whole port, which might be difficult or expensive; instead of
| the (relatively) cheap cable.
|
| I _love_ USB-C as a concept, but this alone makes, in my
| opinion, Lightning the superior physical connector.
|
| And yes, I have had to replace / throw away entire devices
| because of a USB-C port breaking like this.
|
| Sure, I should be less of a clumsy oaf around my electronics,
| but I also don't think "not bricking the entire device when
| extra force is applied to the port" is unreasonable design
| goal for a physical connector as universal as USB-C is.
| Lendal wrote:
| Anecdotal evidence: I have had to replace a device because
| of a failed USB-C port, but I have never had to replace a
| device because of a failed Lightning port. I know, it's one
| data point, but there it is.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Was it on a Macbook? I think there could be some
| confounding factors if not -- there exist bottom of the
| barrel laptop manufacturers who'll somehow figure out a
| shitty way to implement a USB-C port. There doesn't exist
| a bottom of the barrel iPhone manufacturer. Apple does a
| good job of making sure all their components are mid-tier
| at least, I think. Maybe we could compare to third party
| lightning ports but they tend to be pretty rare.
| meatmanek wrote:
| The 2016 and 2017 MBPs had garbage USB-C ports which wore
| out their detents after like 10 insertions. The charge
| cable (or worse, data cable for an external hard drive)
| would fall out or lose connectivity with the slightest
| shift in position.
| yoz-y wrote:
| > Cleaning lint out of a USB-C receptacle with a toothpick is
| safe, but sticking anything into a Lightning port could
| damage the springs.
|
| Safe-ish because you can break off the inner plastic part. On
| USB-A this was a pretty common failure for me. On USB-C not
| yet
| pradn wrote:
| I've tripped over an old iPhone, catching the cable and
| deforming the charging port. That made charging the phone
| difficult until I got a new one. Now I only use the MagSafe
| charger to prevent another such mishap. One more "moving part"
| that I don't have to worry about.
| notright wrote:
| csmpltn wrote:
| > "what a shame a law needs to specify a specific port for
| ~iPhones~ devices."
|
| The only shame here is that companies consistently chose lock-
| in over open standards, even when it's clearly detrimental to
| the user's experience and the environment.
|
| If the "adults in the room" can't figure it out (out of greed),
| it's fair game for governments to step in and make a choice for
| everybody. That's what a government should do: create clarity
| and accountability where there is none.
|
| This idea that we need dedicated connectors for every little
| piece of hardware we own is simply not sustainable.
| barsonme wrote:
| > even when it's clearly detrimental to the user's experience
|
| This is _entirely_ subjective. Personally, I've never been
| bothered by the different port type. I've also never really
| known it to be a problem for friends and family.
|
| That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer USB-C for the iPhone.
| Just that for me it's not been "clearly detrimental."
| csmpltn wrote:
| > "This is entirely subjective."
|
| What's positive about having to buy different cables,
| chargers and converters every year for your phones,
| cameras, laptops and whatnot? Maybe you're just used to it,
| but if you truly think about what it means and the
| implications of doing this at-scale, I seriously doubt
| there's any benefit to it.
| barsonme wrote:
| I haven't ever bought a lightening cable. Every device
| that uses one (iPhone, Magic Mouse, whatever) has come
| with one. And lightening cables don't require unique
| chargers or converters.
|
| I don't think it's some great positive, but I also don't
| think it is "clearly detrimental" to the user experience,
| either.
| smoldesu wrote:
| This is not. Apple has the opportunity to standardize all
| of their devices under one serial/power connector - they
| have neglected to do this for over a decade, and it overtly
| effects the user experience. Case closed, apologist
| anecdata will not be considered.
| barsonme wrote:
| I'm not sure what to make of your reply. You don't offer
| any evidence that it's _not_ subjective. And I don't even
| know what you mean by
|
| > Case closed, apologist anecdata will not be considered.
|
| Not sure this is your call to make?
| smoldesu wrote:
| > You don't offer any evidence that it's not subjective.
|
| Let me break it down for you, case-by-case:
|
| > Apple has the opportunity to standardize all of their
| devices under one serial/power connector
|
| This is objectively true. Apple helped design the USB-C
| standard to replace the ports on their own devices, and
| demonstrated this intent on the Macbook and later, the
| iPad.
|
| > they have neglected to do this for over a decade
|
| This is also true. While USB-C isn't a decade old, USB
| 3.0 is, and Apple has refused to update Lightning cables
| to reflect the newer standards in serial transfer
| technology.
|
| > it overtly effects the user experience.
|
| This is, undeniably and objectively, true. USB 2.0 is
| extremely slow - to the point that most users resort to
| slow wireless transfers to avoid an _even slower_ wired
| one. Apple can fix this. They don 't even need to get rid
| of USB-C to do this, but by switching to USB-C they will
| no longer have a choice. They had their opportunity to
| play fair, now they have to play by the rules instead.
| I'm closing the case because the EU has done so as well.
| Apple is negligent here, regardless of how Apple, their
| customers or other bystanders feel.
| tasuki wrote:
| > It's sooo convenient to charge my notebook, my headphones, my
| phone, my everything with the same cable.
|
| This really works for you? When I try charging my laptop with
| my phone cable/charger, it not only doesn't charge, but the
| laptop requires a hard reset to start turn on again. When I try
| charging my phone with my laptop cable/charger, it just doesn't
| charge. So while it's great in theory that everything is USB-C,
| it doesn't solve that much for me...
| vel0city wrote:
| It does for me. When I travel, I only travel with my laptop's
| USB-C power supply. That charges my phone, my laptop, my
| Switch, my wife's phone, her headphones, and her e-reader.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| When I travel, I bring one 30W USB-C charging brick and a 2m
| USB-C cable, in addition to a Dell battery bank that has a
| short integrated USB-C cable. These charge my phone, laptop,
| iPad mini, and Nintendo Switch. At home I have a dedicated
| 45W charger for my laptop, but the 30W charger is much
| smaller and works just fine.
|
| Unfortunately, I still need to bring a 6" microUSB cable as
| well, because my Logitech mouse, bicycle headlamp, and pocket
| flashlight (that uses 14500 lithium batteries) still don't
| have USB-C ports. I plan on upgrading all of them to USB-C
| when I can, but these rarely need to be charged so it's not
| as big a deal for me.
| the_other wrote:
| And just like that, 100s of 3rd party devices become obsolete and
| worthless.
| timbit42 wrote:
| No, they will still work.
| 0x0 wrote:
| What happens when "USB-D" is designed? Will it be illegal to
| upgrade to in Europe?
|
| Also I wonder if this will push Apple to go wireless-only.
| temprose wrote:
| The connector can still remain the same while the internal
| changes. USB-C is just the connector head. Look at USB4 that
| still uses the USB-C head.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4
| ralfd wrote:
| Yes, but are we now stuck with the USB-C connector head? Is a
| smaller form factor now impossbile?
| frogpelt wrote:
| Can Apple comply with this by simply including an adapter in the
| box?
| blue_light_man wrote:
| So looks like EU knows USB-C is the best port for the citizens.
| Following the logic, EU should also know what the best charger,
| screen, CPU, GPU, drivers etc for the phone is since EU is
| represented by the people.
|
| Clearly, there should be also no reason why EU should not know
| what is the best way to source these items and manufacture it as
| well since EU is represented by the people.
|
| So why stop at the USB-C regulation?
|
| Why can't EU manufacturer the phone as well? How do I sign a
| petition for this?
| Xophmeister wrote:
| I didn't search _that_ hard, but I can't find the text of the EU
| directive; everything I did find does seem to mention USB-C
| explicitly. What is the procedure/convention for superseding this
| directive when something supersedes USB-C?
|
| That said, even if the upgrade path is not expressly defined, I
| think on balance this is still a good thing. In a "best time to
| plant a tree was yesterday; second best time is today" kind of
| way, when it comes to reducing e-waste.
| haunter wrote:
| Yes it explicitly says "USB Type-C"
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2022-0129_...
|
| Hand-held mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones,
| headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers, in
| so far as they are capable of being recharged via wired
| charging, shall:
|
| (a) be equipped with the USB Type-C receptacle, as described in
| the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 'Universal serial bus
| interfaces for data and power - Part 1-3: Common components -
| USB Type-CTM Cable and Connector Specification', which should
| remain accessible and operational at all times;
| bodge5000 wrote:
| > What is the procedure/convention for superseding this
| directive when something supersedes USB-C?
|
| I believe the EU are saying they'll keep up with new standards
| as they come in. The problem I see is, how can a new standard
| come in if nobody is allowed to use it. Its a chicken & egg
| problem, the EU will allow new standards as they're used, but
| nobody is allowed to use new standards until the EU allows it.
| Thats aside from the obvious problem that the EU isnt exactly
| famous for its speed.
|
| The only ways around it I can think of is either if new
| standards become popular in markets foreign to the EU, or if
| some company decides to add both USB-C and USB-D to their
| device, which in a world of needlessly removing the headphone
| jack I cant see happening.
| temprose wrote:
| The connector can still remain the same while the internal
| changes. USB-C is just the connector head. Look at USB4 that
| still uses the USB-C head. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4
|
| It's just like we have new modern electronics, but they are
| all able to plug into the same wall sockets. I don't have to
| remodel my home.
| [deleted]
| ttepasse wrote:
| > What is the procedure/convention for superseding this
| directive when something supersedes USB-C?
|
| From the amended text:
|
| > The Commission shall review the application of this Directive
| in relation to new charging technologies and, report thereon to
| the European Parliament and to the Council by ... [three years
| after the date entry into force of this Directive], and every
| three years thereafter. That report shall be accompanied, if
| appropriate, by a proposal to amend this Directive to introduce
| mandatory unbundling.
|
| If the USB Implementor's Forum want's to change from USB-C or
| USB-PD it can speak with the European Commission. It's an
| organization with telephones and mail and an address and - I
| fear - fax machines. Not some weird angels in the sky.
| JacobiX wrote:
| Hope that they will extend this regulation to not just mobile
| phones, tablets and cameras but also to electric razors, hair
| care appliances, toothbrushes, home appliances, etc ...
| considering that many big EU corporations manufacture those
| products, maybe the likelihood is low ?
| captainmuon wrote:
| Good decision, but bizarrely only after USB-C was established on
| almost every phone, except iPhones.
|
| I hope this has an expiration date, or they have a provision for
| easily updating the law when somebody develops a better standard.
| Otherwise this could mean we would be stuck with USB-C forever.
|
| (As a developer, writing "USB-C" in a law this seems to me like
| hardcoding a magic string in source code. Often, it is better to
| have your data separate from code. Maybe it would make more sense
| if the law would defer to some standards body, that could update
| the technical decision more easily.)
| neilalexander wrote:
| > As a developer, writing "USB-C" in a law this seems to me
| like hardcoding a magic string in source code
|
| Between various generations of Qualcomm Quick Charge and USB PD
| at various wattages for charging alone, and then USB 2.0, 3.0,
| 3.1, 3.2 Gen 1, 3.2 Gen 2, 3.2 Gen 2 2x2, Thunderbolt 2,
| Thunderbolt 3 and Thunderbolt 4 for data, it seems like they
| have plenty of room for future movement/fragmentation.
| tuxone wrote:
| Ok fine, now I can't wait for the EU to ban USB-C crapphones that
| people keep buy and trash every second year.
| nashashmi wrote:
| So basically if tomorrow I create a USB-D spec, this law will
| prevent adoption? What a stupid law! Why did not they instead
| create a law that prohibits non-standard connectors license-only
| connectors? That also creates roadblocks to innovation (of
| proprietary stuff), sure! But it does not kill innovation
| outright.
| nashashmi wrote:
| I'm feeling sulked so strongly right now.
|
| California did something similarly stupid in 1990s. They
| mandated the selling of EVs. Car makers asked the courts to
| limit the law "in case no one wanted them." Then car makers
| tried to prove no one wanted EVs and then tried to convince
| everyone against buying the very EV they were making!
| tommoor wrote:
| This is great in the short term, but does the law covers what
| happens when a superior format is invented in a few years. Are we
| stuck legislated to the old plug?
| coffeeblack wrote:
| No superior format will be invented, because it would be
| illegal to use it anyway. This is how progress is destroyed.
| It's not the first time.
| hu3 wrote:
| If you read the law you'll see that your concern was taken
| into consideration and they planned for innovation. More info
| in this comment:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33080042
| LeetHacks wrote:
| No, the law allows for technological innovation if the usb
| group proposes a new connector, or if the industry wants to
| move to another connector. It will require some lobbying
| though, but the big tech companies are well skilled in that.
| tommoor wrote:
| Seems like a reasonable compromise
| pimterry wrote:
| I'm not sure the mechanism, but it's certainly _intended_ to
| support future standards.
|
| Quoting from the press release
| (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
| room/20220930IP...):
|
| > This future-proof law allows for the development of
| innovative charging solutions in the future
|
| Also says they're already looking at how to support
| interoperability during a future migration to wireless charging
| too.
| sylware wrote:
| EU starts slowy to regulate tech.
|
| I am waiting for the web... critical sites working with
| noscript/basic (x)html browsers, and not requiring those
| grotesquely and massively complex and huge big tech browsers with
| their similar SDK.
|
| They did something for "whatsapp", but it seems it does not
| handle account creation.
| adventured wrote:
| HN: a corporation with a monopoly dictating standards is bad
|
| Also HN: government bureaucrats dictating standards in a
| monopolistic manner is good
|
| Also HN: choice good
|
| Also HN: the government must protect us from choice
|
| Yeah, sure. This is just psychotic nanny state behavior. Millions
| of Europeans cried out in unison: protect me from myself, I can't
| make decisions on my own, I'm not well enough informed to know
| what to do!
| dzikimarian wrote:
| > HN: a corporation with a monopoly dictating standards is bad
|
| Typically on HN it's "Corporation enforcing closed standards is
| bad. Unless it's Apple. They for sure do this for innovation".
|
| I've seen people saying that iMessage is closed for "security",
| where there are literally emails from Apple execs denying that.
| Now tons of people state that USB 2.0 molded into different
| plastic was vastly superior to USB-C.
| drewm1980 wrote:
| I switched to wireless charging pads because USB connectors keep
| failing on me. Now the USB connectors on my wireless charging
| pads are dying!
| Ballas wrote:
| There seems to be more than one common factor here...
| NDizzle wrote:
| Way, way too much government.
|
| I don't understand why people are cheering for this. Why is a
| government body telling companies what kind of power adapter to
| use?!
| endisneigh wrote:
| I'm genuinely interested in what people would think if the EU
| mandated that all new code must be written in a particular
| programming language.
| ab_testing wrote:
| Breaking News: iPhone 2023 gets rid of charging port
| plandis wrote:
| Why is it so hard for Europeans to not buy an iPhone if they
| don't like the charger type?
|
| This will slow any innovation in charging cables until enough
| powerful companies need something new. Small innovators are SOL
| since they won't have the influence to get the EU to allow it.
| IsNotNull wrote:
| This will allow me to use my Apple iPad charger or my Apple
| MacBook charger to charge my Apple iPhone. Not being able to do
| that currently is not innovative, it's annoying.
| necovek wrote:
| I personally already have a number of USB-C cables that had their
| connectors detach at one point or another. They are mostly
| braided, rather thick, 100W-rated PD cables, but they generally
| suck and are quick to break (I keep a couple at my desk, a couple
| in my car, a couple stored away for travel, and a couple bedside
| -- it's great they can charge both my laptop and my phone).
|
| Connectors in my devices also look a bit fragile.
|
| I am all for sharing connectors and standardization in this space
| (and I check if a device has an USB-C port before I consider it),
| but I surely hope this does not stop improvements to the charging
| port which are highly needed!
| jeffbee wrote:
| USB-C cables and ports are more fragile than Lightning cables
| and ports, unfortunately. USB-C is sort of the complement of
| Lightning: instead of a sturdy paddle on the cable end, it has
| a delicate paddle inside the port. It is very easy to break
| this paddle off. That happened almost immediately to my Nexus
| 5x, one of the first USB-C implementations. You can also easily
| break off the pins when you need to clean pocket lint out of
| the port, an extremely common problem for mobile phones.
|
| Physically, Lightning is a much more robust solution.
| zaphod420 wrote:
| So many problems and this is what politicians spend their time
| on. SMH.
| cabirum wrote:
| Any guarantees a new, incompatible USB standard does not get
| introduced soon after? (Or even before end of 2024)
|
| The one true universal charging port is a round DC plug. USB
| power delivery should only be used to power external devices.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| This is painfully stupid. Nothing could illustrate why Europe
| lags behind in technology better than this.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Is this just mandating the physical plug? USB-C has a near
| infinite number of power delivery and/or data modes. Not to
| mention thunderbolt, display port, etc which are totally
| different protocols running on the same physical cable as USB-C.
|
| How will this legislation be maintained? Are Europeans going to
| be stuck to USB-C in 30 years, when the rest of the world has
| phones that charge wirelessly in 10 seconds and last for weeks?
| gumby wrote:
| It mandates Type C plug and receptacle and the use of PD. PD
| 3.0 doesn't require so many modes, and since there isn't much
| choice in chipsets things should work OK as long as the brick
| provides adequate power.
|
| Read the directive for yourself:
| https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheproc...
|
| I do wish there were type C USB condoms that passed PD only but
| they are hard to build.
|
| EU previously required USB mini A, and permit wireless (which
| isn't completely standardized) so I wouldn't worry about the
| "30 years" problem, though it's a good problem to have: IEC
| 60320 is over 50 years old:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_60320
| dahfizz wrote:
| Very informative, thanks!
| nucatus wrote:
| The core of the law is to have the same standard across the
| entire consumer products. Which basically it is already, only
| Apple having the power to ask you more money for unnecessary
| accessories whilst contributing to more e-waste, even if they
| talk against it - hypocricy detected.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| kalleboo wrote:
| The EU tried very hard, for very many years to signal to the
| industry "do this yourself so you don't have to legislate it, we
| don't want to legislate it, you don't want us to legislate it"
| but Apple (and only Apple) just refused to listen, so here we
| are.
|
| For micro-USB, they got the industry together in a "memorandum of
| understanding" to get them to self-implement it without
| regulation, and it worked great - everyone adopted micro-USB, and
| then could switch to USB-C, without thinking about legislation
| with the understanding that the industry would use common
| standards.
|
| The whole rest of the industry adopted the common standard and
| are looking at Apple "hey if they can do it why can't we?". If
| the EU doesn't crack down on Apple now, we're going to end up
| back again with a Samsung charger, a Sony charger etc.
| kortilla wrote:
| >The EU tried very hard, for very many years to signal to the
| industry "do this yourself so you don't have to legislate it,
| we don't want to legislate it, you don't want us to legislate
| it" but Apple (and only Apple) just refused to listen, so here
| we are.
|
| This doesn't make the approach any less interventionist.
| "Either do what we want or we'll pass an official regulation
| for you to do what we want" isn't much of a choice.
|
| Tell me, if Apple truly believes their lightning connector is
| better, what was the better play here? Intentionally make a
| worse product (from their perspective) or keep making the
| better user experience for as long as possible?
| yellowapple wrote:
| > if Apple truly believes their lightning connector is
| better, what was the better play here?
|
| The better play would've been to open up the Lightning
| connector specification such that other vendors could
| standardize on it, and then _all_ users of _all_ phones would
| have been better off.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| > This doesn't make the approach any less interventionist.
| "Either do what we want or we'll pass an official regulation
| for you to do what we want" isn't much of a choice.
|
| The jobs of governing bodies is not to give "choice", they
| are here to make sure people and companies do what they
| should do, and take action when they don't and it becomes a
| problem. The UE wanted a universal connector, for a variety
| of reason, they never wanted to give "choice". However, they
| also understand that they are not engineers and inventors,
| and the industry has plenty of these people, so they said
| "get together and make the best universal connector". And the
| industry did, first with micro-USB, which was better than
| most of what was there at the time, then with USB-C, and the
| EU was happy. Except that one company was a problem, so the
| EU went back to the industry and said "I said I wanted a
| universal connector, why isn't the connector universal?",
| Apple said "Because blah blah blah (fuck you)", and the EU
| said "OK, we didn't want to do that but it looks like USB-C
| is good enough for everyone else, so if you want to continue
| to sell your gadgets in the EU, use USB-C".
| TheCoreh wrote:
| I don't think Apple believes Lighting is superior. They were
| heavily involved in the design of USB-C, and that was _after_
| Lightning was already in use. They certainly applied
| learnings from Lightning into it.
|
| I believe the most likely reason they stuck with it this long
| is contracts with accessory makers. After they switched from
| 30 pin, there were probably concerns from third parties that
| they would soon switch again, so to ensure everyone was on
| board with the transition they probably signed agreements to
| keep it for a while.
|
| Notice how it's been exactly 10 years since they launched
| Lightning and now we are getting rumors of next year's iPhone
| moving to USB-C, before this legislation comes into effect.
|
| Bluetooth Audio and wireless CarPlay are now commonplace, so
| this is no longer an issue going forward, but wired
| accessories were a big market in 2012.
| MayeulC wrote:
| It wouldn't suprise me if they had 10 yars contracts, as it
| was originally touted as "the connector for the next
| decade"
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2022/02/28/lightning-launched-as-a-
| moder...
| kalleboo wrote:
| My argument was against all the people saying "but this way
| we're going to be stuck with USB-C until the end of time!".
| The EU was happy with the market going from micro-USB to
| USB-C at it's own pace. They didn't want to legislate "use
| microUSB forever" and they didn't have to.
|
| The EU's preferred way would let the industry continue to
| innovate freely as long as the market converged on common,
| open standards. But 30% of the market (=Apple) using a
| proprietary non-licensable plug was too far away from the
| idea of market experimentation.
| sneak wrote:
| > _but Apple (and only Apple) just refused to listen, so here
| we are._
|
| Did consumers find this so onerous that they stopped buying
| iPhones?
| [deleted]
| the_jesus_villa wrote:
| Maybe this is a feature. When your phone is low on battery,
| you ask for a charger, and when presented with a normal,
| plebian charger you get to say "oh, sorry, I need an _iphone_
| charger ".
|
| If people want to get a practical, compatible phone, they
| don't get an iphone. iphone only exists as a signal. So while
| the EU is making a good decision for making iphone's more
| pratical, they are also misunderstanding what an iphone _is_
| imo.
| permo-w wrote:
| this is an excellent explanation for why this kind of public
| regulation is necessary. of course they didn't stop buying
| them. and this is exactly why regulating businesses by
| consumer behaviour is so _so_ unwise
|
| multiple standards may well be easily avoidable, inconvenient
| and bad for the environment, but people aren't going to
| change their behaviour, solely because they like Apple's UX
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| USB-C is inferior to lightning in every way, except for
| compatibility (which very few people care about) and the
| environmental impact (which is tiny).
|
| The EU really fucked this up bad.
|
| Luckily, I suspect that Apple will continue selling their
| highest-end phones with the superior lightning connector as an
| option.
| klysm wrote:
| The real problem is apple is big enough for this to be required
| in the first place.
| dfee wrote:
| The discussion is about EU forcing Apple to play ball. The
| discussion should be about how the EU just mandated a monopoly
| for the USB-IF. For Apple detractors, this is a hollow victory.
| cassepipe wrote:
| A really good thing for the planet would be to force
| manufacturers to only produce repairable phones with purely open
| source components. Sure it's not good for business neither for
| innovation but who cares? The climate is a mess and we have
| produced enough phones already. You have a computer in your
| picket that take photo and you can communicate with anybody. What
| else could you possibly need in the future ? I'll tell you what,
| a climate that is not trying to kill you.
| bamboozled wrote:
| I needed a new iPhone desperately as my old one was screwed. I
| was really disappointed to find the new iPhone lacking USB-C. So
| glad about this.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Where was this law 20 years ago when every device had a different
| proprietary connector?
| akmarinov wrote:
| Currently Apple sells new iPhone 12s, a 3 year old "design".
|
| Starting 2024, they'll have to only sell phones with USB-C in the
| EU.
|
| Assuming the iPhone 15 has USB-C, where does that leave the
| previous generations that they keep selling for new?
|
| Do they:
|
| 1. Stop selling anything but the 15 in the EU?
|
| 2. Make a change to all new iPhones, even 13, 14, SE to:
| 2.1 Take out the port completely and leave it portless, with
| Magsafe for charging 2.2 Change the 13, 14 and SE
| designs to USB-C just for the EU?
|
| What costs them the least money and makes them the most?
| xattt wrote:
| Tesla appears to have no problem selling EVs with standard
| plugs in places where it's mandatory.
|
| (1) https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/14/tesla-model-3-in-
| europe...
|
| I think Apple will find a way to say that the iPhone 12 was
| made before the law was enacted and therefore shouldn't apply
| to this particular model.
|
| I also think the iPhone 15 will be the one to have with USB-C.
| At the same time, they haven't had too many problems to keep
| multiple SKUs of the same model - ie CDMA iPhone 4, mmWave only
| 5G phones in the US, eSIM only versions of later models.
| Heliosmaster wrote:
| From the text of the Proposal:
|
| > With respect to charging by means other than wired charging,
| divergent solutions may be developed in the future, which may
| have negative impacts on interoperability, consumer convenience
| and the environment. Whilst it is premature to impose specific
| requirements on such solutions at this stage, the Commission
| should be able to take action towards harmonising them in the
| future, if fragmentation on the internal market is observed.
|
| So they left the door open to regulate also Magsafe etc.
| donatj wrote:
| This is supposed to "prevent e-waste", but I can't imagine how.
| Like I've switched between iOS and Android, and I didn't just
| throw all my lightning cables out.
|
| Now with them being made _actually useless_ rather than _not what
| I 'm using right now_, it's going to create so much e-waste when
| every iPhone user switches cables.
|
| Seems like it's doing the exact opposite of what it's intended.
| pimterry wrote:
| It also mandates that manufacturers must make "do you want a
| charger" optional in purchases of electronic devices, which is
| where waste reduction comes in. That only works because the
| chargers are all interoperable, and hopefully leads to a world
| where far fewer device chargers & cables are produced and
| distributed unnecessarily.
| donatj wrote:
| If it were about chargers, you'd only need to dictate the
| plug on the charger, not the plug on the phone.
| timbit42 wrote:
| It creates some more e-waste now but will reduce e-waste by a
| lot in the future.
| hcurtiss wrote:
| Isn't the reason we're comfortable with mandating USB-C the fact
| that it's been implemented successfully in so many devices
| already? How's that supposed to work next time around? Will
| politicians or bureaucrats pick the next standard in a vacuum of
| real-world implementation/testing? I'm skeptical they'll do that
| well.
| alfor wrote:
| Think about how wonderful are the cookies laws!
|
| That really improved the web and the reduce tracking!
| Hippocrates wrote:
| USB-C is inferior from the hardware/form standpoint. It's a
| larger, more fragile and flimsy connector (than lightning) which
| is very un-apple. It can be crimped shut if rolled on by a chair.
| Additionally the charging standards are a total mess, with PD and
| QC requiring compatible chargers and cables, which are often
| unlabeled.
|
| I'm all for a great charging standard but USB-C ain't it.
| izacus wrote:
| Apple itself is using the USB-C connector on their Apple
| MacBooks and Apple iPads. Somehow it's "Apple" there?!
|
| (Seriously, why am I constantly seeing these utterly ridiculous
| comments in Apple topics? Do you not think for half a second
| before writing something utterly misguided?)
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Well maybe it's because you're also misguided. You missed the
| part where they use USB-C where appropriate. Think for just a
| second about how people use different devices, and you'll
| understand. Or if I have to explain: iPads are mostly used by
| responsible adults (such as parents). iPhones are used by a
| wide range of people who might be charging them while driving
| on the road, while sitting in a chair, in a public transit
| terminal, etc. iPhones need a much more rugged connector. So
| I suggest that you "think for half a second before writing".
| simplyinfinity wrote:
| Is this why Apple use USB-C on some of their iPads?
| seanw444 wrote:
| That's a fantastic point actually. I wonder why they choose
| to use USB-C at all for any device, when Lightning is
| objectively better from a physical engineering standpoint.
| philjohn wrote:
| But worse from a data transfer standpoint - still USB 2.0
| speeds.
|
| The cynic in me would think it's to force people to pay for
| iCloud storage instead of having to plug their phone into
| their computer for several hours to backup locally.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Apple has never managed to make a lightning device that can
| output 4k video or transfers data faster than USB 2.0. They
| are either incapable of improving the lightning connectors
| or couldn't be bothered.
| runarberg wrote:
| Then have the cord part removable and replaceable from the
| brick (which is already the case with most phone chargers). If
| the connector gets damaged, buying a replacement would be easy
| and cheap.
|
| E.g. I hate it when the 3.5mm audio jack cord of expensive
| headphones is soldered stuck to the headphones. When it breaks,
| and it will, I have to replace the entire headphones (or do a
| lousy soldering job) rather then just the cord. Computer
| chargers are the same.
| Covzire wrote:
| Apple better keep Lightning for Non-EU markets, it's is a
| vastly superior connector in every way. The most fragile part
| is at the cheap cable end instead of inside the device. There's
| no upside here for those of us with a half dozen lightning
| cables around the house and cars.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Superior except the speed is USB2 and no one else uses it.
| seanw444 wrote:
| It's certainly better than micro-USB, but agreed: Lightning is
| the superior design.
|
| Who puts the weak point of the connector inside the more
| expensive of the two objects? That was a terrible design
| decision. Maybe Apple's patents prevented USB from doing a
| similar design, so they had to come up with one that was
| objectively slightly worse?
| gorbypark wrote:
| I thought it was the other way around? All the springs and
| movey bits are in the male usb c connector. With Lightning,
| those bits are in the phone. I'll agree Lightning has the
| nicer "feel", that's for sure.
| kalleboo wrote:
| Lightning has the springs in the port, if the springs wear
| out you have to replace the device. USB-C has the springs in
| the cable, the cheap part to replace.
|
| Then USB-C went and added that "tongue" in the port to break.
|
| Neither standard is very good...
| uni_rule wrote:
| If they really cared about charger durability they wouldn't
| have removed the supports from the cable joints until their
| first party cables regularly frayed apart at the cable ends.
| harvie wrote:
| Well. Somebody said they will just ship adaptors with the
| iPhones...
| skinnymuch wrote:
| Wouldn't that count as a dongle? Those aren't allowed.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Then iPhone users will be stuck with Lightning's USB2 speeds.
| omegacharlie wrote:
| What is preventing Apple (could be considered the subtle target
| of the legislation) from weaseling out and attempting compliance
| by using adapters for USB-C?
| wdb wrote:
| Nice, it is pretty stupid I need Lightning cable for my iPhone,
| an USB-C cable for my iPad and MacBook and electric tooth brush.
| One less able that I can be lost
| TheYumasi wrote:
| As an EU citizen, I am really happy with this decision.
|
| I am an iPhone user, but having an iPhone is not ubiquitous here,
| almost all of my friends/special other, use an Android phone with
| USB-C. Most of their laptops, Mac or not, use or allow USB-C for
| charging. This as been the case for a few years now, yet, if I go
| somewhere for more than a full day and forget my lighting cable,
| my phone will become a useless paperweight while every non-iPhone
| user is fine in the meantime because of the wide adoption of
| USB-C. It is also ironic how Apple markets heavily on how you can
| take great RAW photos or videos but somehow you have to use
| lightning USB2 speeds to transfer them. Lightning is barely
| smaller than USB-C, and clearly my iPhone thickness will not
| change if it switches to USB-C.
|
| As for the e-waste generated by "having to throw all of those
| lightning cables", how is it not e-waste that someone buying an
| iPhone will have yet another lightning cable that will only be
| used to charge it. If we want to really be more environmentally
| friendly, wouldn't it make more sense to have no cable at all
| with the devices we buy, force the sellers to clearly tell the
| consumers about it and offer the cable on the side only if
| needed? With that cable being usb-c, the consumer don't have to
| think about the cable type, for non-tech savvy people, that would
| be "the regular charging cable" and that's it. I would also add
| that all lightning cables won't suddenly go to the landfill in
| 2024. Many people will keep their iPhones/AirPods for a while
| after that date. Many would probably donate their old lightning
| cables to whoever needs them. In the meantime, we all already
| have an ever growing landfill in our homes called the cable
| drawer, and it is also an issue that needs to be addressed.
| cm2187 wrote:
| tbh it's kind of ridiculous that I need a different dongle for
| my ipad and my iphone. I know that Apples makes money selling
| dongles, but that's a crap UX.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _e-waste_
|
| The irony of, e.g., Brazil, passing laws that Apple can't leave
| the cable and charger out of the box.
|
| Meanwhile, who with a current phone uses a cable to charge any
| more? Even before MagSafe the wireless is far more convenient,
| now with MagSafe and a zillion brands of stands that do phone +
| watch + AirPods all wireless, not to mention even MagSafe for
| cars that charge and don't drop the phone on bad roads, cables
| are redundant. And while they won't all do the same top speed,
| in general the coasters charge both Android and iPhone happily.
|
| But, speaking of docks, that's the real issue -- lightning
| works beautifully when docking a phone into a stereo or alarm
| clock or etc, USB-C not so much. Basically, on lightning if the
| tab breaks you get a new cheap cable, on USB-C if the tab
| breaks, you need a new dock.
| kelnos wrote:
| _Raises hand_. I don 't have an iPhone, but I find wireless
| charging to just be kinda annoying. The only place I use it
| is in my car, which has a built-in charging pad, with good
| mechanical design that keeps the phone from moving around
| (and possibly losing the wireless charging "connection").
| Otherwise, everywhere else, I'm always wired when I charge,
| and I kinda don't care about wireless charging.
|
| > _But, speaking of docks, that 's the real issue --
| lightning works beautifully when docking a phone into a
| stereo or alarm clock or etc, USB-C not so much._
|
| I mean, there are still docks out there that have the old
| 30-pin Apple iPod/iPhone/iPad connector (not many; I think I
| saw one in an old hotel last year, but that's it). If USB-C
| is the primary connector used, then that's what dock
| manufacturers will use. And, bonus, manufacturers that
| actually support more than one connector can eventually drop
| Lightning as an option, and save on costs.
|
| > _Basically, on lightning if the tab breaks you get a new
| cheap cable, on USB-C if the tab breaks, you need a new
| dock._
|
| Er, what? If the tab in a dock breaks, you need to get a new
| dock with either connector. The Lighting connector tab is
| just as breakable (if not more so, as it's thinner) than a
| USB-C plug, and if the one in your dock breaks, you're just
| as out of luck.
| philihp wrote:
| > who with a current phone uses a cable to charge any more?
|
| I think you may be living in a bubble.
| codexb wrote:
| There's nothing wise or moral about this decision.
|
| Mandating a technology standard, purely for personal preference
| and convenience reasons -- not for reasons related to safety,
| or pollution, or security -- especially for things that change
| as fast as phones, is one of the most short-sighted and naive
| things any government could do.
|
| There's a long history of Apple using proprietary connectors to
| achieve performance specifications above what the currently
| available standardized connectors could provide. Hell, in all
| likelihood, Apple is likely to ditch a charging connection
| altogether in favor of wireless charging in the near future.
| The EU is mandating technological stagnation. They will always
| be behind the market.
| henvic wrote:
| > The EU is mandating technological stagnation. They will
| always be behind the market.
|
| Well said!
| franczesko wrote:
| EU is doing pretty much what Apple does all the time -
| forcing standards.
| henvic wrote:
| Apple gives you the option to adopt or not. EU thugs, not.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Apple hasn't changed the 'fast-changing' lightning connector
| since 2012, and USB-A lasted from 1996 to, well, present.
| USB-C came out in 2014 and is likely going to outlive us
| both. Connectors simply don't change that fast, and I'm not
| sure why people think they do.
|
| I think even the EU can regulate on that kind of schedule.
| [deleted]
| Moru wrote:
| The only reason connectors would change fast is to sell
| another cable and charger every time you buy a phone.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Or to make them slimmer, lighter, improve performance or
| improve the user experience.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think with the size of USB-C and Lightning, we are
| pretty close to the point (if not there already) where
| structural limitations are not going to let us go much
| (if any) smaller. No one wants a connector that will
| break after 10 uses.
|
| USB-C, electrically, has enough headroom that performance
| should not be an issue for a very, very, very long time.
| Already you can push more data over a USB-C cable than a
| phone can meaningfully handle.
| rtkwe wrote:
| The only thing that really comes to mind is we could go
| to fiber core for crazy data speeds but those are so
| delicate I don't think the improvement would be worth the
| hassle unless we have a big improvement there.
| [deleted]
| pySSK wrote:
| iPhones don't even ship with a charger anymore and they
| definitely did not lower their prices when the decision
| to leave them out. It's a win-win for them - they can
| claim to be more environmentally conscious etc. while
| reducing their BOM cost.
|
| Apple and other phone companies don't depend on selling
| cables and chargers. If they did, they would have been
| doing a much better job and they'd be more like Anker and
| Griffin.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| Not a fan of metric screw threads? Mandates were needed in
| some countries to change from imperial to metric because the
| market can't make such a non-incremental move on its own even
| if it's good for everyone.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > There's a long history of Apple using proprietary
| connectors to achieve performance specifications above what
| the currently available standardized connectors could
| provide.
|
| Lightning was good when it came out (compared to the various
| micro-USB options), but it's not held up. Even Apple knows
| this and they've moved away from it on their iPads.
| [deleted]
| DiabloD3 wrote:
| Lightning was a design put forth by a company that wasn't
| Apple during the USB IF's design stage of USB-C. It was
| rejected because the pins were on the outside, not the
| inside, and would allow easy damage of both the cable and
| the connector. It was rejected purely on completely sane
| technical and mechanical reasons.
|
| Apple shipped it anyways, and all Lightning cables have
| failed or will fail for exactly the reasons it was
| rejected. Apple chose the cable _because_ of how easily it
| fails.
|
| Lightning was never good, and Apple has a long history of
| fucking customers, period.
| ephimetheus wrote:
| I've never had a single lightning cable fail ever since
| they switched to them.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > Lightning was a design put forth by a company that
| wasn't Apple during the USB IF's design stage of USB-C.
|
| Do you have some references for this? I had never heard
| of Lightning having been developed anywhere but at Apple
| and specifically for their iDevice line and a check on
| Wikipedia's Lightning connector page has no references to
| anything that can substantiate this claim. Either a great
| example of historical erasure, or you're making this up.
|
| TL;DR: Source?
| virusduck wrote:
| What world are you living in?
| thebruce87m wrote:
| What on earth. Some people have an irrational hate for
| Apple that borders on a mental illness.
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| In the same regard it will be now hard to move from USB-C
| to something better due to regulation.
| mmastrac wrote:
| As others in this thread have mentioned, the "unofficial"
| regulation that drove most non-apple phones to micro-USB,
| and then to USB-C did not prevent progress.
|
| The laws are not going to mandate USB-C of a certain
| revision, etc. The laws simply mandate cooperation in a
| market that has been mostly cooperative, save for a
| single participant.
| sieabahlpark wrote:
| [deleted]
| wongarsu wrote:
| It gets kind of lost in the summary, but only devices _that
| are rechargeable via a wired cable_ have to be chargable via
| USB-C. So going fully wireless is perfectly legal. It 's also
| perfectly legal to offer other charging ports in addition to
| USB-C, though that's less likely to happen in phones.
|
| And while this regulation puts some limitations on innovation
| in connectors, Thunderbolt shows that there is lots of room
| to innovate within the USB-C format (in a way that's
| compatible to normal USB).
| datavirtue wrote:
| Permitting wireless charging without a USB-C option
| basically topedos the legislation. This whole affair is
| going to end up as an embarrassing meme.
| 9dev wrote:
| Well i dunno, it worked tremendously well for USB 2,
| don't you think? Might be my age, but I distinctly
| remember having heaps of different charging cables. Gone,
| thanks to EU legislation.
|
| Why would it be different this time?
| RankingMember wrote:
| I too remember the bad old days of a different charger
| for every phone, and for no real reason in most cases
| (other than profit-motive).
| jhoechtl wrote:
| It was about the charger and they settled on USB as the
| outlet.
|
| Now the EU is settling on the socket on the devices,
| that's dofferent.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The decision passed today also talks about harmonizing
| wireless charging in the future, to make sure it's
| compatible across brands and device types. Presumably
| that would happen once the technology has matured a bit
| more.
| Vespasian wrote:
| And with this outlook, industry should/will get ahead of
| the legislators and gravitate towards a standard of their
| own.
|
| The current legislation was introduced because 1
| manufacturer chose to not follow the standard and mostly
| for profit reasons.
| kelnos wrote:
| How so? Wireless charging is still slower and inferior
| (in the usability sense) than wired charging, and I don't
| see that changing any time soon.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Wireless magsafe is like half the speed of wired (peak 18w,
| nominal 11w vs 20w)
| thedrbrian wrote:
| wireless charging efficiency isn't too great either
|
| https://debugger.medium.com/wireless-charging-is-a-
| disaster-...
| cynix wrote:
| Fast charging is bad for the battery. I'd actually be
| happier if the wireless MagSafe charger was slower, say
| around 5-8W. I have all the time in the world while
| asleep, why would I care if it finished charging in 1
| hour vs 3 hours?
| enkrs wrote:
| I'm not in a hurry, I can charge slowly during the night.
|
| Remember when people said they'd never use an phone that
| needs to be charged every 2 days? Now we all charge our
| phones every day. Habbits change with technology.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Personally fast charging changed everything. Plug phone
| at random occasion (few minutes before leaving home or
| during short ride) and never have to think of overnight
| charging. I've mounted magsafe thing on my car dashboard
| and it was somewhat of disappointment. Sure it's
| convenient but slower charge was def noticeable.
|
| But the whole point is being able to depend on a cable
| that just about everyone has. All of your gear has USB-C.
| Apple just being cocky.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _There 's a long history of Apple using proprietary
| connectors to achieve performance specifications above..._
|
| Oh please, Apple has barely improved Lightning since its
| introduction a decade ago (2012!). Yes, back then, it was
| better than what was available, but the industry has moved
| on, and Apple has stagnated.
|
| > _Hell, in all likelihood, Apple is likely to ditch a
| charging connection altogether in favor of wireless charging
| in the near future._
|
| Unlikely. For one thing, wireless charging is still much
| slower than what you can get with a cable, and for another,
| users will not tolerate needing to lug around a charging pad
| (with its own cable), or hope that someone nearby has one.
| Yes, I know similar things about tolerance were said about
| the removal of headphone jacks, but I don't think this is
| quite the same situation.
|
| > _The EU is mandating technological stagnation. They will
| always be behind the market._
|
| I haven't read the text of the law, but I would hope that
| it's flexible enough to allow for embracing improvements to
| technology.
|
| But even if that process is slow, I don't think that's a bad
| thing. Fast-changing technology generally does not really
| help users (it _can_ , but I think more often it does not).
| Yes, benefits can be realized over time, but these sorts of
| changes create confusion and waste if not done well. I really
| don't care if Apple wants to put a new connector on iPhones,
| but it takes them 3 years instead of 1 year to do it because
| of legal/regulatory issues.
|
| > _Mandating a technology standard, purely for personal
| preference and convenience reasons -- not for reasons related
| to safety, or pollution, or security
|
| Pollution _is* a concern here, though I agree that's probably
| not the primary reason this law was drafted. I'm with you on
| the general discomfort around regulations targeted toward
| preference/convenience. But I think it's a little unfair to
| call it "personal preference". Lighting is inferior to USB-C
| in almost every way (the only advantage Lightning has is that
| it's _slightly_ smaller, but not to a degree that really
| matters). Apple continues to use Lightning out of
| stubbornness and NIH syndrome, and that hurts consumers
| overall.
|
| But consider all the places that have two cables. I've seen
| dual-cable setups in Lyft/Uber vehicles, and at friendly
| coffee shops and stuff like that (hell, I still see a few
| places that additionally have micro-USB cables). What a huge
| waste of material! And yeah, you can buy single cables that
| have multiple "heads" on them, but I very rarely see those in
| the wild. If there was actually a good technical reason why
| we have this split, then sure,
|
| > _especially for things that change as fast as phones
|
| I don't think that's really true anymore. Most smartphones
| are basically the same as they were 5 years ago.
| Incrementally better camera hardware, incrementally better
| display technology, more RAM, faster processors, more
| storage. But I see very little change year to year. Maybe
| there will be some big new changes coming soon, but I don't
| see any evidence of that.
|
| > _is one of the most short-sighted and naive things any
| government could do.*
|
| Heh, I think you underestimate government capacity for short-
| sightedness. This particular thing seems pretty middling and
| mediocre to me on that scale.
| 2III7 wrote:
| > Unlikely. For one thing, wireless charging is still much
| slower than what you can get with a cable, and for another,
| users will not tolerate needing to lug around a charging
| pad (with its own cable), or hope that someone nearby has
| one. Yes, I know similar things about tolerance were said
| about the removal of headphone jacks, but I don't think
| this is quite the same situation.
|
| But users do accept carrying charging pads. Smartwatches,
| electric toothbrushes and shaving apparatus have charging
| pads/cables and no one complains about carrying those when
| going on a trip.
|
| For the average consumer, the iPhone really doesn't need a
| port of any kind anymore. What it needs is all day battery
| life. As Apple doesn't really care about "pro" smartphone
| users who use external devices like DAC-s or IR cameras
| they will ditch the port at some point. If they cared about
| "pro" smartphone users, they would've come out with a USB-C
| iPhone in 2018 or 2019.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _no one complains about carrying those when going on a
| trip._
|
| I kinda think "going on a trip" is a minority subset of
| the times when people bring charging gear with them.
| Regardless, I personally would find it a huge annoyance
| to have to carry a charging pad. Right now I just bring
| my laptop charger, and use it for both my laptop and
| (Android) phone. I don't want to bring a charging pad in
| addition.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > Oh please, Apple has barely improved Lightning since its
| introduction a decade ago (2012!). Yes, back then, it was
| better than what was available, but the industry has moved
| on, and Apple has stagnated.
|
| You mean: in 20 years Apple has had only two connectors,
| and they worked and work extremely well. Meanwhile the
| industry "that moved on" invented 6 different incompatible
| connectors, didn't even specify a charging standard until
| 2010s (IIRC) and is now busy inventing USB 4 Gen 1x15
| revision 16
| kelnos wrote:
| That's a bit of an unfair argument, since you're mixing
| various things together that are not connectors (USB 4...
| etc.).
|
| Bottom line is that the industry has actually been
| converging on USB-C for some time now. And again, I think
| it's unfair to compare an industry with tens (hundreds?)
| of players having trouble agreeing on something, when
| we're talking about Apple -- a single entity --
| obstinately refusing to drop their obsolete, outdated
| "uniqueness" in this case.
|
| I get why Apple chose to do Lighting instead of microUSB
| back in 2012 (I have lost track of the high number of
| microUSB connectors I have broken), but the funny thing
| is that Lightning didn't really offer any technical
| benefits beyond the more sturdy form factor at the time.
| Lighting was USB2 (and more or less still is), and
| microUSB carried USB2 signals just fine. They went their
| own way there for pretty dubious reasons. Well, ok, one
| obvious reason: they wanted to restrict who could build
| an iPhone/iPad accessory, because using the Lightning
| connector required licensing it from Apple.
|
| So basically Lightning exists for one physical sturdiness
| reason (which, alone, probably would not be justification
| to do something new), and one anti-competitive reason.
|
| Apple should have just stuck with microUSB, and then
| switched to USB-C once that made sense. But no, that
| would have reduced their iron grip on what people are
| allowed to do with their phones.
| valzam wrote:
| All the USB data specs are irrelevant for this
| legislation. All it says is: Use a USB-C connector and
| support the USB PD charging standard. In fact many
| cheaper android phones use USB2 since the port is purely
| for charging.
| kristiandupont wrote:
| >purely for personal preference and convenience reasons
|
| Those are not the reasons.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| >Hell, in all likelihood, Apple is likely to ditch a charging
| connection altogether in favor of wireless charging in the
| near future.
|
| Lol. Literally not possible.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Why? I can definitely see Apple rolling this out to the Pro
| line first, then the regular iPhones, and then the SE. It
| could be like the home button, which disappeared on the X
| and then rolled through the 11s, and the SE will be the
| last to go.
|
| The benefit will be better water/dust-proofing, and
| slightly more internal room for battery or whatever else. I
| have only just started charging wirelessly, but I find it
| works great for me. I know wired charging is faster, but
| only a handful of times a year do I care about that.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| For one, you can't use the phone during wireless
| charging.
|
| I know, _"akshually, you can use it, you just can't hold
| it in your hand!"_. Anyway, you can't use it normally -
| it must be kept on the mat to charge.
|
| Also, there are a bunch of accessories that require
| physical connection. Search for "iphone pendrive" for
| instance.
|
| Bluetooth headphones still have laughable latency for
| music production, and decent quality full-duplex audio
| isn't there either.
|
| iOS developers will also tell you how reliable wireless
| debugging is. (Hint: it's abysmal)
| rtkwe wrote:
| There's the magsafe wireless charging now though right so
| you could slap that on and hold the phone maybe? I don't
| have an iPhone so I'm not aware how thick those pucks are
| off the top of my head but seems doable.
|
| Those other two use cases of music creation and thumb
| drives are a tiny market on iPhone I could see Apple
| abandoning them entirely.
| gnicholas wrote:
| You're right, that is an important caveat! I've not run
| into an issue, since I mostly charge at night, and rarely
| is my battery in perilous territory (even though it's the
| diminutive 13 Mini). On the few occasions where I was
| using the phone and needed to charge it, I just switched
| to using my computer, which I usually have with me.
|
| And if I were charging at a Starbucks or something, I
| could use the phone while charging, just flat on the
| table.
| Arkhaine_kupo wrote:
| > There's nothing wise
|
| There is, for example the fact that the standard is set by
| comittee means large players have more say but cannot dictate
| the market. This allows innovation that doesn't benefit one
| party.
|
| > purely for personal preference and convenience reasons
|
| Not the reason behind the move
|
| > not for reasons related to safety, or pollution, or
| security
|
| Those are some of the benefits but not all
|
| > especially for things that change as fast as phones
|
| Connectors are standards, plus phones do not change that
| often, they get marginally better but most of them have
| looked largely the same for a decade.
|
| > There's a long history of Apple using proprietary
| connectors to achieve performance specifications above what
| the currently available standardized connectors could provide
|
| Previously there was also a long history of interoperability
| between Apple designs that no longer exists. And before that
| there was a long history of Apple being a tiny company
| constantly on the verge of bankruptcy. Long history is a
| pretty short time nowadays.
|
| > Apple is likely to ditch a charging connection altogether
| in favor of wireless charging in the near future.
|
| I cannot wait to have the slowest charging phone on the
| market as a selling point.
|
| > he EU is mandating technological stagnation.
|
| The EU mandating GDPR has increased security protection on
| data around the globe, and decreased bloatware. A large
| player like europe setting a standard means that companies
| follow that legislation to not have 2 products one for Europe
| and one outside.
| assetlabel wrote:
| Technology is still changing fairly rapidly. Regulation is not.
|
| There will come a time when flashy new tech that everyone is
| drooling over will not be available in the EU due to this law.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| This whole discussion is only a thing because Apple's tech
| isn't changing rapidly enough for regulation, the exact
| opposite of your scenario. Also good luck producing a
| functioning smartphone that's too thin for the USB-C
| connector before the EU can react (the new iPhone 14 has
| exactly 3 times the thickness, so it'll take a while).
|
| The much more realistic reason for a new phone not being
| released here is the new proposal to enforce 5 years of
| replacement parts for all phones among other things.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| Serious question, why is is it a problem to put a tiny cable in
| a landfill? The amount they leach is essentially zero. The EU
| would have done more for the environment by spending $20k
| cleaning up an extra few car batteries. This is so obviously
| pandering and protectionism and it's surprising to me people
| believe the "e-waste" justification.
|
| Seriously, is there an accounting of the environmental damage
| caused by cell phone cables (not power converters)? Everything
| I've seen points to the damage being substantially less
| globally than a single digit number of cars or batteries.
| crote wrote:
| The problem is that it is a lot of tiny cables, and a lot of
| chargers with them.
|
| Additionally, it also protects the consumer by preventing
| companies from locking consumers into buying device-specific
| chargers at greatly inflated prices. It might even become
| common for devices to come _without_ chargers: why have 10
| chargers lying around when all your devices use the same
| charging connector?
| HWR_14 wrote:
| iPhones already come with a USB-C -> Lightning cable. They
| already don't come with chargers.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| But no, this is not true. The iphone charger is already
| USB. I use them with my Android phone all the time, and
| iphone users charge with my pixel charger. Those already
| interoperate.
|
| I understand the e-waste and consumer protection argument
| for the charger (power converter), but why the cable?
| crote wrote:
| This isn't really the case in practice, though.
|
| Up until recently everyone used USB-A on the charger end,
| with a dozen different competing fast charge protocols.
| Chargers had the same connector, but they weren't fully
| interoperable. USB-C is slowly trying to fix this.
|
| I completely agree that the cables aren't a massive deal.
| But on the other hand, if you are already standardizing
| chargers, why not do the cables too? Personally, I see no
| overwhelmingly good reason _not_ to do it.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| Because the connectors still suck and there's a ton of
| room for innovation. Imagine if we were stuck with USB-C
| forever, that would be bad. It's already worse than
| lightning as a connector for cell phones.
|
| The default shouldn't be to place arbitrary restrictions
| unless there's a good reason not to. Governments should
| restrict behavior when the restriction is justified. It
| should be the EU government's responsibility to
| demonstrate that banning lightning cables is good, not
| the other way around.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Going wireless charging only is probably not gonna happen
| anytime soon. Wireless charging is significantly less efficient
| than wired. The difference might not matter much if you are
| using power from the wall*, but if you are charging off a
| battery bank you want as much efficiency as you can--you don't
| want to waste power!
|
| *(being less efficient while charging from wall might not
| matter to you as an individual but consider if everybody was
| charging with such an inefficient means... that might add up to
| a lot of waste)
| blue_light_man wrote:
| This is such a short sighted view.
|
| What just happened is, EU, a political organization enforcing
| the use of a technology on a company which operates on free
| market. It's Apples best interest to make technology that the
| consumers want so that they can sell more units of that. A
| political organization like EU has no say in this. EU citizens
| already make this decision for themselves by voting with money
| and choosing to buy/not buy an iPhone.
|
| Today is one of the dark days of EU. In short sight it's a
| victory. But in long sight it's a hinderence to progress by
| enforcing a technology on the market instead of letting the
| free market decide the technology.
| Fiahil wrote:
| > by voting with money
|
| "voting with money" or "voting with your wallet" is a
| complete non-sense. There is no -absolutely no- way for
| anyone in the industry to attribute a lost sale to a
| "missing" feature.
|
| I think this also a symptoms on how Americans view the world
| through means of consumption. Everything HAS TO be consumed
| one way or another.
| nickpp wrote:
| There are countless examples of companies that made a
| product people didn't want and subsequently went out of
| business.
| Fiahil wrote:
| So what ?
| viraptor wrote:
| > There is no -absolutely no- way for anyone in the
| industry to attribute a lost sale to a "missing" feature.
|
| There's a whole idea around it called market research. It
| goes as far as... surveying people post-purchase to find
| out what features became the deciding factors. So yes, it
| is possible, just with very small sampling rate.
| Fiahil wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Finding out how to attribute a sale to specific features
| or marketing is definitively possible and common usage.
|
| Finding out why customers churn and what levers could
| prevent that is also a very common practice.
|
| But finding out why someone _didn't_ buy something in the
| first place because of a _missing_ feature is just plain
| and simply impossible.
|
| If you disagree and can prove that I'm wrong, please send
| me the maths.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Every time somebody says to _" vote with your wallet"_,
| there is an implicit command to shut up and stop
| complaining about the product. The argument goes that the
| only legitimate way to respond to a product you don't like
| is to "vote with your wallet" (not buy it), implying that
| voting against the corporation's practices at the ballot
| box or on a soap box aren't legitimate. "vote with your
| wallet" is a fundamentally anti-democratic utterance that
| attempts to de-legitimize dissenters' participation in
| government and public discussion.
| andmarios wrote:
| Then what about EU enforcing more energy efficient buildings
| and home appliances, electric vehicles and more?
|
| EU is not a political organization, it is a political and
| economical union. If companies are left alone, they will
| never make a decision that does not benefit themselves. This
| is why we need EU, to make the decisions that benefit the
| planet and the people, thus leveling the field, so companies
| can compete within sane limits.
| joenot443 wrote:
| Political organizations like the FCC already control parts of
| what an iPhone is and isn't allowed to do. Apple's never been
| in a position where they can offer exactly what the consumer
| wants without any political regulation, they've always had to
| follow some rules.
|
| I don't think this will go down as an important or sector-
| changing decision. I remember hearing the same thing online
| about the 2009 common external power supply law and if
| anything it feels like the consumer is better off.
|
| As others have said much more eloquently than I could, the
| answer for a happy market probably isn't total unregulated
| capitalism _or_ full government control, but likely somewhere
| in the middle. I've been an iPhone user since the 3GS and I'm
| pleased with this decision.
| krzyk wrote:
| If it is a free market, let me install a different app store
| than the apple one.
| xdennis wrote:
| > This is such a short sighted view.
|
| It's not. The EU tried to do it the easy way, where companies
| would agree amongst themselves. This was finally accomplished
| in 2009[1] by every one except Apple.
|
| [1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/06/10-companies-
| agree-t...
|
| After 13 years, the EU is finally forcing Apple.
|
| > EU citizens already make this decision for themselves by
| voting with money
|
| We're also voting with our votes and most of us agree with
| that the EU is doing here.
| mcphage wrote:
| The interesting thing there is, the connector discussed in
| 2009 was the micro-USB connector. Had the EU forced tech
| companies in 2009 to use a micro-USB connector, would that
| mean they would still be on it now, and not using the (far
| better) USB-C connector?
|
| I think I'm for this decision overall, but otoh I'm really
| glad that the EU didn't force everyone onto micro-USB back
| in 2009. If they EU hadn't done this now, I wonder how I
| would feel about the possibility when 2035 rolls around?
| lordfoom wrote:
| > Had the EU forced tech companies in 2009 to use a
| micro-USB connector, would that mean they would still be
| on it now, and not using the (far better) USB-C
| connector?
|
| They did exactly that, force micro-usb, but in 2010:
| https://www.engadget.com/2010-12-29-european-
| standardization...
|
| And now it's upgrading to usb-c, so they do seem to be
| able to change with technology.
| mcphage wrote:
| > And now it's upgrading to usb-c, so they do seem to be
| able to change with technology.
|
| That definitely makes me feel better about that process
| then, so thanks :-)
| nickpp wrote:
| > We're also voting with our votes and most of us agree
| with that the EU is doing here.
|
| Never voted for crap like this or the GDPR. I voted for
| strong leadership against Russian aggression or not
| becoming energy dependent of an evil regime, but I guess
| mandating trivialities is so much easier.
| xdennis wrote:
| Yes, we don't have a direct democracy (although you can
| vote for parties advocating it), but it's a lot more than
| you get with Apple. You don't get a vote on anything.
| "Voting with your wallet" isn't a vote at all. You can
| just choose to leave, but Apple makes it every difficult.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Respectfully, I would claim it's short-sighted to believe
| that the individual consumer has any real say in what they
| want, need or get with respect to offerings by trillion-
| dollar international conglomerates.
|
| There is no such thing as a free and unregulated market.
| Well, it exists but we call it the law of the jungle.
|
| This is not to say that any regulation is sensible, but this
| kind of standardization to avoid vendor lock-in and waste is
| one of the prime examples of sensible stuff.
| Arrath wrote:
| > Respectfully, I would claim it's short-sighted to believe
| that the individual consumer has any real say in what they
| want, need or get with respect to offerings by trillion-
| dollar international conglomerates.
|
| Whole heartedly agreed. If I, as a consumer, had my say
| then my flagship phone would still have a headphone jack,
| an SD card slot, and a replaceable battery. Yet here we
| are.
| krzyk wrote:
| > and a replaceable battery
|
| And with that EU will help out also, they are already
| working on a legislation for that.
| kyralis wrote:
| "Having a say" is not the same as "Your opinion winning
| out".
| [deleted]
| soulofmischief wrote:
| The market is not free. Apple already enjoys the fruits of
| lobbying and market consolidation. Users are not free.
| sbf501 wrote:
| > on a company which operates on free market.
|
| You probably shouldn't have based your argument on this
| statement, which is generally regarded as a myth. It is a
| myth in the sense that Apple exists in a free market: it is a
| near monopoly but is savvy enough not to wade into the area
| other companies did in the 90's and were penalized.
|
| Second, governments have the right to enforce environmental
| protection acts to protect the health and safety of its
| people. Technology companies are subject to this from day one
| at many levels (e.g., fabs have limits on how much toxic
| waste they can pump into the air).
|
| The EU is leading the way for cracking down on trillion-
| dollar companies who choose to treat you as a product rather
| than a person. I hope the rest of the world follows.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| I'm not arguing that the EU shouldn't be able to pass these
| laws, but which markets does Apple monopolize?
| tinus_hn wrote:
| In the market of mobile phones for consumers who actually
| buy apps. That's why everyone wants Apple to lose that
| monopoly. The problem of course is that exactly that
| monopoly is a large part of the reason why it's the
| market for consumers who actually buy apps.
| chroma wrote:
| How can Apple have a "near monopoly" when Samsung sells 50%
| more phones than them?
| smoldesu wrote:
| Because Samsung doesn't run an app store on iOS.
| chroma wrote:
| And Apple doesn't run an app store on Android. Does that
| mean Android is also a monopoly? Heck, Sony doesn't run
| an app store on the Nintendo Switch. Does that mean
| Nintendo is a monopoly? We could play a similar game with
| streaming services. Yes, you can give money to people in
| different ways and get software that works on different
| systems. That's how it has always been. Nobody is being
| deceived or coerced. Well until now, since the EU is
| coercing everyone to use USB-C.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Apple _should_ be coerced into adopting USB-C on iPhone.
| Their refusal to do so has been an _explicit, repeated
| failure_ on Apple 's behalf. The iPhone is one of the
| only remaining Apple products that does not use USB-C,
| and it's exclusion is _entirely unnecessary_ since USB-C
| 's base-spec was designed by Apple and well-exceeds the
| capabilities of Lightning.
|
| At the end of the day, it's a serial port. People should
| stop acting like Apple is being asked to re-engineer the
| Death Star, and recognize that this is a change so
| rudimentary that people on YouTube do it for a fun
| weekend project. It's the textbook definition of a
| failure, and the EU has every right to hold Apple
| accountable for the insane things they call 'innovation'
| in the US.
| bsder wrote:
| Oh? When did I become able to carry my Apple software,
| purchases, addresses, backups, pictures, etc. over to
| Android? When did I become able to buy a phone that
| functions in the Apple ecosystem that isn't made by
| Apple?
|
| Oh, right, _I can 't_.
|
| A Pixel and a Galaxy are direct competitors. An iPhone
| and a Galaxy are not direct competitors because of lock-
| in effects.
|
| Now, if you are saying that the EU should mandate that I
| be able to switch my purchases between those ecosystems,
| that would change. However, even as much of a fan as I am
| about anti-trust, I believe that would be a bridge too
| far.
|
| Furthermore, from what we have seen in the past 36 months
| with respect to supplier consolidation, I would argue
| that _ANY_ market with less than 5 real competitors
| should get broken up recursively until that gets fixed.
| That should apply to phones, food, toilet paper,
| disinfectants, etc.--everything.
|
| Part of what is allowing all the economic price hikes to
| stick is that even in markets where there is
| "competition", there is some single upstream supplier
| that can't (mostly) or won't (rarely) increase
| production. This prevents any of the "competitors" from
| being able to gain significant market share since they
| can't increase their production since _everybody_ is
| blocked.
|
| A lot of businesses figured this out through Covid. So,
| they raised prices. What are you gonna do? Go to a
| competitor? He can't absorb your order and you'll be at
| the back of his queue. Good luck.
| chroma wrote:
| So because iOS apps can't run on Android phones, Apple is
| a monopoly and should be forced to use USB-C? I'm very
| confused by what you're trying to say. If apps not
| running on other OSes is enough to count as lock-in, then
| every OS creates lock-in. I've bought many Windows apps
| over the years, but they don't run on my linux laptop,
| and vice-versa. Does that mean both linux and windows
| should be regulated as monopolies? I don't think so. What
| you call "lock-in" are just software incompatibilities.
| Or do you think Apple should be forced to write drivers
| for every Android phone out there, and sell and support
| their OS on those platforms?
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Apple make billions every quarter and at this point no
| one can realistically unseat them.
|
| They collect pretty much all the profit in the phone
| market.
|
| They don't technically have a monopoly, but they are in
| an incredibly strong position which is close to being
| guaranteed for the short and medium term.
| enriquec wrote:
| "fine, they don't have a monopoly - which I stated as
| fact - but they are too successful for my liking and I
| get a high off of forcing compliance"
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Being highly profitable isn't illegal, monopolies are.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Sure. But what was the whole reason for making monopolies
| illegal?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act - You
| can read about it here and branch out to other resources
| and articles.
|
| It's not about profit, directly at least. A company
| making twice the profit while selling half the product of
| their competitor is not in any violation of anti-
| monopoly/trust/whatever laws.
| [deleted]
| funklute wrote:
| > A political organization like EU has no say in this.
|
| This is the short-sighted view. The unguided free market very
| often makes "decisions" that are detrimental to society as a
| whole, and it is absolutely necessary for political
| organisations to correct for this.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Society and legislators should only forbid harmful action.
| Not doing something helpful is very different than doing
| something hurtful.
|
| Compelling helpful action leads to all kinds of absurd
| conclusions.
|
| For example, that we should we compel doctors to work more
| hours because anytime they spend at home is to the
| detriment of their patients.
| whakim wrote:
| Obviously not. If doctors can't take care of their
| patients within a normal working day, the answer is to
| have more doctors rather than make the existing ones work
| unsustainably long hours.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I wasn't suggesting that we do so, I was pointing out the
| absurdity of saying that not doing something for social
| benefit is the same as harming Society
| whakim wrote:
| You stated categorically that "society and legislators
| should only forbid harmful action" rather than
| "compelling helpful action" and then chose a particularly
| nonsensical example of "compelling helpful action" to
| prove your point. There are plenty of (much more
| realistic) examples of "compelling helpful action" which
| don't lead to "absurd conclusions."
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Yes, I think it is a categorical truth.
|
| Yes, I chose an extreme and absurd example to
| _illustrate_ the point. I said as much in the post.
|
| I agree that there are many realistic examples of
| compelling action. If you provide some I would probably
| disagree that the government should be doing them.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| It seems to me like the EU considers companies making
| their own proprietary phone charger connectors as
| "harmful". So I'm having trouble understanding what you
| take issue with here.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I'm saying that it isn't harmful and they shouldn't be
| making that law.
|
| Claims that apple chargers are harmful are logically
| bankrupt.
|
| If I like tuna sandwiches, am I harmed if a restaurant
| doesn't have it on the menu? Of course not! They are
| literally doing nothing to me.
|
| I don't have to eat there any more than I have to buy an
| iPhone.
| baq wrote:
| Plenty of folks in this thread disagree with you, not
| only the EU legislative branch. You seem to be missing
| the fact that we have a society here and it demands
| concessions and compromises to be part of one.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| > I'm saying that it isn't harmful and they shouldn't be
| making that law.
|
| It appears the legislators in question disagree with you.
| I guess you're free to contact them and try to convince
| them of your beliefs.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Yes, this is how free democracies work. People can
| disagree, criticize, and convince.
| GoldenMonkey wrote:
| This is a false dichotomy. The government and politicians
| makes and mandates decisions that are detrimental to
| society. Often to their own benefit.
|
| And they have no competition. It would be too political to
| list these. But, I am sure both sides of the political
| spectrum can come up with innumerable examples.
| unity1001 wrote:
| > The government and politicians makes and mandates
| decisions that are detrimental to society.
|
| Thats a RELIGIOUS statement. The government and
| politicans are elected by their people. They take
| decisions that were mandated by their people. If the
| people mandate something, that's that.
|
| In Anglosphere, where FPTP system prevents the people's
| will from being reflected in actual politics may be
| causing such an environment in which what the politicians
| do and what the people want have little to do with each
| other. And it does seem to be so.
|
| But in any country with proportional representation, its
| as it should be: Its the democratic will of the people
| that something happens.
|
| "The people" does not need to have 'competition'. The
| people are, well, the society. Proposing that they need
| 'competition' or their power to be curbed is reactionary.
| xdennis wrote:
| Firstly, with your government, you get a vote. But just
| about competition: the competition is that you can move
| to a different jurisdiction (i.e. country). And there's a
| lot more competition there than there is with phone
| makers or phone OSes.
|
| If a Frenchman doesn't like French laws he can move to
| Germany and haul all his stuff there (and his pension,
| etc). But if you don't like the Apple ecosystem anymore,
| Apple will make it as difficult as possible to move.
|
| The free market isn't the utopia libertarians think it
| is. You don't get to protest inside Apple, you can't
| petition for redress of grievances, if Apple terminates
| your account, you don't get a judge or jury of your Apple
| peers to rule if it was right or wrong.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| > If a Frenchman doesn't like French laws he can move to
| Germany and haul all his stuff there (and his pension,
| etc).
|
| A bit offtopic but this is still something I find very
| lacking in the EU.
|
| For all the good it's brought us, we still have extremely
| different social security in each country and if you've
| lived in many EU countries throughout your life it's a
| complete PITA to reconcile things like pensions. Some
| countries have state pensions, others only voluntary corp
| plans.. I have no idea how this will turn out when I
| retire.
|
| IMO these different systems should at the very least be
| talking together.
| Moru wrote:
| At least between Finland and Sweden it seems to work
| fine. My mother is from Finland and lives in Sweden now.
| She got a phonecall from Finland when it was time for her
| pension. Just confirmed with her and set it up so she
| gets her pension transfered to her account every month.
| She had just about forgotten about it since it was 40+
| years ago she moved to Sweden.
| emj wrote:
| As is stated below countries with similar systems
| cooperate easier, Scandinavia, Germany, Netherlands are
| more or less automatic. This is slowly getting better, EU
| is working on it. Some key words: EESSI with RINA (stands
| for reference implementation..), and more generally
| "single digital gateway eu". The pessimist in me says
| that it will not be done for all countries with in 20
| years, unless we give some countries lots of
| infrastructure for free.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Ah ok I've not seen the benefits of this. I'm from the
| Netherlands but lived in Ireland and Spain. I don't think
| they have these setups.
|
| But I think this needs much more priority than the 'one
| market' benefits for big business they're working on.
| It's really a mess if you move around in the EU now, it's
| not at all like in America.
|
| They should fix the voting too: Right now as an expat I
| can only vote for my home country which has zero bearing
| on the country I live in :/ And changing nationalities
| takes 10+ years.
|
| For other stuff like health I don't mind as much
| (especially as Spain has a much better state health
| system than the Netherlands' privatised crap :) )
| germinalphrase wrote:
| You think Apple is dragging its feet on iPhone USB-C adoption
| because it's in the best interest of _consumers_ to do so?
| poulpy123 wrote:
| Actually the only thing that EU is interesting is for
| standardizing stuff
| Arrath wrote:
| You seem to be placing a lot of doom and gloom onto the
| proscription of a given physical port.
|
| Its not as if the EU mandated flawed encryption, or silicon
| manufactured only within the bloc.
| ddoolin wrote:
| It's a phone charging port. It's not that serious. It's
| better for consumers if we all have the same one for
| everything, if possible. Unless you can tell me why not?
| ruuda wrote:
| Imagine this happened a few years ago, and the EU had
| instead demanded micro-USB. Then we would still be flipping
| plugs twice, and I wouldn't be able to use my laptop
| charger to charge my phone. It's not clear to me that USB-C
| is good enough to be the "final" connector, especially with
| the mess around USB versions, Thunderbolt, Displayport,
| etc. Unlike e.g. power sockets, where I am pretty confident
| that the current design can last another 15 years. (But
| which is not standard across EU countries!)
| crote wrote:
| They did mandate micro-usb, actually.
|
| I believe the exact wording was that the industry was
| required to standardize on a connector, which at the time
| turned out to be micro-usb. Now the industry is shifting
| to usb-c, which is objectively better.
|
| The current law already includes provisions to switch to
| a potential superior connector in the future. If the
| industry comes up with something better, the EU is not
| going to demand they stick with usb-c forever.
| MayeulC wrote:
| I am pretty sure something similar hapenned a few years
| back, and they mandated USB-A on the brick/cable? My
| recollection is fuzzy.
| nosianu wrote:
| > _Imagine_
|
| But it didn't, and it may very well be because those
| people are not as incompetent as betting on making
| something a standard prematurely. They id it only _now_.
|
| Be careful with hypotheticals as basis of an argument.
| blueblisters wrote:
| In this case the counterfactual is a stronger argument
| than you saying "they did it only now" with appeal to
| authority. Unless there's a well reasoned approach to
| this policy, we are practically stuck with the current
| standard until the EU bureaucrats decide everyone needs
| an upgrade.
| ddoolin wrote:
| I don't really see how this is any worse than the current
| "do whatever you want regardless of what everyone else is
| attempting" that manufacturers currently go by.
|
| But as other commenters point out, provisions exist to
| assist with this.
| ISL wrote:
| Pretty good chance that the USB-C plug-design will be
| with us for decades to come. Even if new protocols
| emerge, they're likely to use the same plug.
|
| When it comes to charging and slow transfers of data,
| today's USB-C sockets will probably still work.
|
| The next realm of standardization will probably be in the
| wireless-charging market (where standards are already
| maturing).
| datavirtue wrote:
| A magnetic attachment and break/away connector would be
| welcomed over the current usb-c connector. Now you can't
| have it.
| baq wrote:
| Remind us in 10 years.
| thehappypm wrote:
| To me this is a really good proposal. USB is already the
| winner here. Apple is making life harder for consumers. To
| me the real short-sidedness of this is that wired charging
| might be completely irrelevant by 2024!
| umanwizard wrote:
| USB-C only exists because Apple proved to everyone how nice
| a reversible connector is, and USB caught up years later.
| Lightning has some other advantages like being thinner and
| less difficult to break. If Apple caves and moves to USB-C
| everywhere it's very unlikely that future innovation in
| connectors will happen.
| ddoolin wrote:
| I'm highly certain that a reversible connector would've
| come regardless of what Apple did.
| moogly wrote:
| Fairly sure the USB-IF was already working on that. They
| don't move fast.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| > A political organization like EU has no say in this. EU
| citizens already make this decision for themselves by voting
| with money and choosing to buy/not buy an iPhone.
|
| I think it's important to point out that most EU countries do
| not subscribe to the exact same free-market vision that the
| US does. And the biggest country that did has recently left
| it.
|
| Most of Europe is totally happy with a much more restricted
| free market than the US would ever allow. This is not
| something imposed on us people. It's what the majority wants,
| aka democracy.
| remeq wrote:
| EU is not trying to impose regulation or standardization on
| highly innovative areas of hardware or chipset design or
| software design or anything of that matter. They are imposing
| it for something that has largely been understood and
| comoditized (electric charging of phones via cable and data
| transfer using open communication protocol) where there is
| little room for getting any kind of competitive advantage or
| differentiation or some significant innovation. Speaking
| about hindrance of progress is largely far fetched and not
| based on reality. Things like this are really not blocking
| any meaningful progress but they indeed are largely abused by
| enterprises to push proprietary things to consumer so that it
| can be monetized and consumer locked in the vendor ecosystem.
| doikor wrote:
| > A political organization like EU has no say in this.
|
| EU and most people living within it would disagree with this
| statement.
| zamalek wrote:
| Exactly, which means the political system is doing its job.
| Politics was invented to most efficiently express the
| desires of the people. If the people want more political
| control, then it is the job of politics to do so. If they
| don't, then politics should avoid it.
|
| The only reason this is muddled in America is because the
| people don't agree on to what degree the politics should
| control things.
| enriquec wrote:
| blue_light_man wrote:
| Sure. It also explains why EU is lagging horribly behind
| the US when it comes to technology.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| What does it mean to "lag behind" when it comes to
| technology at a country/continental level?
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Lack of legislation
| mburee wrote:
| Something to do with massive brain drain after/during WW2
| and the Holocaust? At least for the atom bomb and
| spaceflight that seemed to be the case...
| nickpp wrote:
| Brain drain continues today. Innovation happens in the US
| while EU... mandates charging connectors.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| Explain me why is EU lagging on technology because the
| iphone will use USB-C please
| PeterStuer wrote:
| No, that would be the US buying up every EU tech company
| that dares to become successful with free helicopter
| money.
| nickpp wrote:
| Or maybe every EU tech company approaching success will
| voluntarily move to US, since that is where the (free)
| market is and that is where it can become successful.
| danielbln wrote:
| Where is this free market you speak of? Even the gung ho
| market of the US is regulated and by no means free.
|
| This thread really brought out the libertarians in
| droves.
| triceratops wrote:
| Lagging horribly in what way?
| jiscariot wrote:
| What about the EU contributions to the web stack, like
| requiring every website on the internet forcing an accept
| cookies mouse click?
| remus wrote:
| You could flip it round and say that's why the US is
| lagging behind the EU in environmental protection and
| consumer rights.
|
| I suspect the correct answer is somewhere between the two
| approaches.
| umanwizard wrote:
| The amount by which the EU is better than the US in
| environmental protection is basically a rounding error
| relative to what's actually necessary to stop climate
| change. You might as well say they're equal.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Climate change is far from the only environmental problem
| have. Sure, it's the biggest but also the biggest to
| solve.
|
| And the EU has had a consistent push to solve it, unlike
| the US, which for instance during the Trump era pulled
| out of the Paris accord.
| blue_light_man wrote:
| The solution for climate change would come from
| technology. Not random politicians virtue signalling and
| signing useless agreements which doesn't make any
| meaningful difference.
| p_j_w wrote:
| We've known about climate change for decades and global
| CO2 output has only increased. Just assuming technology
| will solve it is foolish.
| [deleted]
| nosianu wrote:
| The continent that provides companies like ASML and
| plenty of machinery in general, and is regularly in the
| news - not just now with the Nobel Price - when it comes
| to bio-tech?
|
| Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, sure, but there is plenty of
| IT inside the machines. You are too concentrated on some
| very hip consumer companies and don't see the vast ocean
| of important businesses in the middle, that don't have
| much or any consumer contact.
|
| Where is your evidence? What a horrible contribution to
| the discussion, both divisive (and without reason, out of
| nowhere), and of the lowest quality.
|
| I actually went through the trouble and looked for the
| evidence missing from your post. If anything we need to
| look at Asia most of all. Also because at least for
| Germany, where through decades long contacts I witnessed
| some of it personally, we (Germany) transferred
| significant know-how to China quite voluntarily, and our
| big companies still insist on continuing to invest there
| even when many smaller businesses have become far more
| cautious. Link: https://www.reuters.com/world/german-
| dependence-china-growin... (German dependence on China
| growing "at tremendous pace" - paywalled)
|
| Here's some, mostly opinion pieces so YMMV (I'm missing
| rigorous data and statistics with explanations of what
| they measured, these article are all too "freeform" for
| my taste):
|
| - https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-
| corporate...
|
| - https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/a
| rid-4...
|
| Somewhat better:
|
| - https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/europes-
| capacity-a...
|
| However, we also have
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03318-w so
| it's not so easy to make definitive statements about
| everything.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Sure. It also explains why EU is lagging horribly
| behind the US when it comes to technology._
|
| Probably because the EU (government(s)) doesn't sink as
| much money in to research as the US government. The
| technology of the US was built on Cold War spending:
|
| * https://steveblank.com/secret-history/
|
| Most of the tech we used in our day to day lives was also
| created with government spending:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State
| mountainriver wrote:
| I think you would have a very hard time proving this
| without leveraging monetary policy. Sure some low level
| components are and companies built on top of that but it
| doesn't mean the tech I'm using is supplied by the US
| government.
|
| Pretty much all the tech I use comes from the private
| sector
| GoldenMonkey wrote:
| And why do I have to click on the stupid popup on cookies
| for every freaking website. Thank you EU...
| triceratops wrote:
| At least now you have a choice. If you don't like the
| popups, there are extensions to kill them.
| crote wrote:
| Thank the website instead. They only have to ask you if
| they want to track you.
|
| Hacker News does not show a cookie popup, for example,
| because they have no intention of tracking you.
| kmlx wrote:
| > and most people living within it
|
| without a referendum on such issues these kinds of
| statements are moot.
|
| i'm also an EU citizen and this thing (along with many
| other EU decisions) are in the same dystopian vein as the
| covid fiasco in europe.
| muro wrote:
| It's not that different than saying what the power plug
| need to look like.
| kmlx wrote:
| we do not have the same power plug in all of the
| countries as every country has it's own requirements,
| sets of rules etc.
|
| in any case, power plug type G is by far the safest and
| best. the EU should probably force everyone to adopt it,
| no? :)
| rcarr wrote:
| Given the state of the world it's never going to happen
| but I honestly think that there should be an attempt at
| standardising plug sockets across the world. It is kind
| of ridiculous that that there are 15 different types of
| socket. What is anyone gaining from this madness?
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| A one-to-one mapping between standard plugs and standard
| wall power makes a lot of sense. But different standards
| of wall power should not share a single plug; that's just
| asking for trouble.
|
| As for global standardization of wall power; maybe in an
| ideal world. But in reality, it would cost a ton (way
| more than merely replacing plugs and outlets) and doesn't
| seem worth it.
| floitsch wrote:
| The European Union looked into unifying Europe's plugs.
| They decided that the cost was not worth it.
|
| I would have been happy to switch to a unified European
| plug. Iirc, the proposal was actually quite decent.
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-6-2005-17
| 31-...
| gabrieledarrigo wrote:
| What was the Covid fiasco? Are you on novax positions?
| paganel wrote:
| Not the OP, but the current high inflation is partially
| caused by Covid-related measures.
|
| The people who were saying early on during the pandemic
| (me included) that we have to put into balance the number
| of covid casualties with the longer term economic
| consequences of imposing harsh and long lockdowns were
| treated as assasins of our collective grandmas, and
| worse. If it matters I'm triple vaccinated.
| jlarocco wrote:
| Phone's already aren't a free market.
|
| Do you, or any consumer, have perfect information about the
| phone market? No. Does your phone comply with FCC and EU
| rules? Yes. Does it contain mercury? No. Are there any taxes
| or tariffs on them? Probably. All of those and more mean we
| don't have a free market.
|
| Corporations exist because we let them, and they play by the
| rules we decide.
| mountainriver wrote:
| Yup this is huge government overreach and the EU increasingly
| looks hostile to tech companies which produce most of the
| value in modern economies.
|
| Don't like the lightning cable? Buy a different phone, it's
| really that simple
| lelanthran wrote:
| > What just happened is, EU, a political organization
| enforcing the use of a technology on a company which operates
| on free market.
|
| Where are you living that your free market isn't regulated
| for the benefit of the consumer?
| smithza wrote:
| > benefit of the consumer
|
| Says who? USB type-XYZ will be even more beneficial to the
| consumer in 5 years and the EU governing body is going to
| what... ? update the books with that? Force all consumer
| electronics companies to switch? Will they be the new
| guiding light for all things tech deciding what is "good"
| for the consumer?
|
| This is a bad take and others who might find it convenient
| for Apple to forced to do this are looking at this too
| short-sightedly.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Says who?
|
| Who cares? Seriously, the OP made a claim that
|
| > What just happened is, EU, a political organization
| enforcing the use of a technology on a company which
| operates on free market.
|
| said claim being almost completely incorrect and devoid
| of fact. The reality is that in Free Markets, there is
| still heavy regulations.
|
| I want to know, just what sort of Free Market you are
| living under that _doesn 't have regulations on consumer
| devices_.
| smithza wrote:
| What is the injury to the consumer they are really
| solving for? To buy a 3rd party USB-C or Lightning cable
| is comparable. They both charge your phone. They both
| allow for USB-A,B,C, MP3 adapters ad-infinitum. Is the
| injury that someone has to carry, wait..., 2 DIFFERENT
| CABLES!
| baq wrote:
| There are only three numbers: 0, 1, n. We want one
| charging cable standard. USB-C is objectively better than
| lighting - if it wasn't, MacBooks would have a lighting
| charging port...
| triceratops wrote:
| Yes. Plus the environmental cost of all those extra
| cables. And the mental overhead of keeping track of extra
| cables, or losing them. The time and effort expended when
| you don't have your cable around and can't use your
| friend's or co-workers.
| MayeulC wrote:
| And accessories. Headsets. Flir cameras. Docking
| stations. Jack adapters, etc.
| smithza wrote:
| To say that "because consumer devices are already
| regulated" is not a defensive position to say that gov't
| "should regulate this new thing." That is merely an
| argument for precedent. In my view the gov't should
| demonstrate that the injury is overwhelming enough to
| necessitate intervention. This is not. It is a mere
| inconvenience to have two connector types. The EU should
| err on the side of conservative intervention so as not to
| cool innovation or even _signal_ the cooling of
| innovation. This does not overcome that burden of proof
| for me.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > USB type-XYZ will be even more beneficial to the
| consumer in 5 years and the EU governing body is going to
| what... ? update the books with that? Force all consumer
| electronics companies to switch?
|
| Sure! Why not?
|
| More practically, it wouldn't be hard to designate a list
| of standardized form factors. The average smartphone also
| has plenty of real estate on its edges to ship multiple
| connectors (especially now that so many phones are
| dropping 3.5mm jacks), so if some fancy-shmancy USB-D or
| USB-J or whatever comes out it wouldn't be the end of the
| world to ship both until the EU updates its legislation
| to allow the fancy-shmancy one as an acceptable single
| port.
|
| As it stands, the EU's decision represents a strict
| improvement from the consumer's perspective. That's worth
| celebrating, even before the longer-term kinks have been
| ironed out.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| Can't speak for the person you are commenting to. But I
| live in the US and there are many industries that are not
| regulated for the benefit of the consumer. Telecom being a
| big one. Companies get away with a lot of anti-competitive
| practices here. Starbucks snuffing out ma and pa stores,
| eating loses just to become the only game in town.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Can't speak for the person you are commenting to. But I
| live in the US and there are many industries that are not
| regulated for the benefit of the consumer. Telecom being
| a big one.
|
| That's a poor example, telecoms are heavily regulated
| _for the consumer_. That 's the reason why different
| operators are able to place consumer's calls to _other_
| operators - that is regulated.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| I think he was being sarcastic
| gbanfalvi wrote:
| > It's Apples best interest to make technology that the
| consumers want so that they can sell more units of that.
|
| It's Apple's best interest to do what makes them money, and
| it often aligns with what customers want.
|
| > A political organization like EU has no say in this.
|
| Standards bodies in the EU have be defining things like this
| for decades.
|
| > EU citizens already make this decision for themselves by
| voting with money and choosing to buy/not buy an iPhone.
|
| As an Apple customer I might be voting with my money, but not
| on the connector specifically -- just on whether the
| product's collective pros outweigh their cons (and whether
| it's better than the competitor's, ofc). If I could vote, I
| would've voted for USB-C a long time ago, but I just get to
| choose between a set of products with varying compromises.
| Don't know why you try to make it seem like a democratic
| choice.
|
| > Today is one of the dark days of EU. In short sight it's a
| victory. But in long sight it's a hinderence to progress by
| enforcing a technology on the market instead of letting the
| free market decide the technology.
|
| If the free market had its say, it'd be choosing profits over
| the environment, consumer safety and worker rights every
| time. Or..? Why hasn't the US, with much laxer regulations
| free-marketed itself to utopia?
| dainiusse wrote:
| Sorry, but can't agree here. Lightning is USB2. The only
| thing Apple uses it for, is thei cable business
| mort96 wrote:
| > It's Apples best interest to make technology that the
| consumers want so that they can sell more units of that.
|
| This is so hilariously wrong. It's in Apple's best interest
| to do whatever makes them the most money. Sometimes that
| happens to coincide with what customers want, but it often
| doesn't, _especially_ in a market with a duopoly with an
| incredibly high affinity for lock-in.
| nickpp wrote:
| > duopoly
|
| Pretty sure I could buy about 10 flagship smartphones from
| different manufacturers right now.
| mort96 wrote:
| All running either Google's Android or Apple's iOS.
| Google and Apple is the duopoly I was talking about.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > It's Apples best interest to make technology that the
| consumers want so that they can sell more units of that.
|
| And in the absence of a competitive advantage, you create a
| captive market. Apple was smart in quietly creating a captive
| market as they built out their ecosystem because they saw
| this eventuality. One of the ways they created it was by
| making the ecosystem both expensive to enter and leave.
| You're heavily invested in proprietary hardware and all of
| your digital assets are locked to the ecosystem and cannot be
| utilized outside it.
|
| The Lightning port was innovative at the time it was
| introduced but it has been eclipsed in most ways by USB-C.
| Now it's just a DRM'd lock-in mechanism.
|
| My partner recently switched to an iPhone. I bought a USB-C
| Charger, and some *certified* Lightning to USB-A cables in
| various lengths from various manufacturers to enabled the
| device to be charged all over the home and in the cars.
| Suddenly after 3 months the iPhone refuses to charge from any
| of the cables or using the USB-C cable that came with the
| phone plugged into the USB-C Charger. The cables work however
| when I use an old iPhone 6 or if I plug the new iPhone into a
| computer using one of the cables. No errors, no warnings,
| just nothing; the iPhone just refuses to charge from them.
|
| Apple says the DRM exists to protect users from dodgy or
| counterfeit cables that might pose a risk to the users.
| Unsurprisingly [this official Apple
| cable](https://i.imgur.com/icsPxJx.jpg) will charge the
| iPhone just fine at full speed.
|
| I for one welcome this regulation though I'm sure Apple will
| find a way to nerf it.
| jhoechtl wrote:
| Out of curiosity: You are from the US, own lots of Aple
| appliances and hold APPL stock? Which one of my bets is
| wrong?
| baq wrote:
| If only Apple appliances all used lighting!
| valzam wrote:
| It's hilarious, if you have an iphone, an apple watch and
| an ipad you need 3! different cables. You can't even get
| around 2 of them with wireless because the apple watch
| doesn't support qi charging, so you need 2 different pads
| for iphone and watch. I will never understand how apple
| let it come to this...
| tunap wrote:
| >But in long sight it's a hinderence to progress by enforcing
| a technology on the market instead of letting the free market
| decide the technology.
|
| No, it's not in any way a hindrance to the market, merely one
| player who desires rent seeking. What it is doing is
| enforcing standards on manufacturers instead of the other way
| around.
| zaik wrote:
| Maybe we can have an internet standard for messaging apps
| next?
| triceratops wrote:
| Yes let's.
| MayeulC wrote:
| The EU is working on it... Unless that's what you meant?
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/eu-digital-markets-
| act...
| twen_ty wrote:
| Oh please - Apple had more than a decade to improve on the
| lightning cable - you somehow infer that progress will be
| hindered now because of this ruling? You do realise why
| standards actually exist?
| hedgehog wrote:
| Lightning is a better connector for small devices and it's more
| durable in my experience. USB-C is way better than micro as a
| connector but you end up with the issue of many kinds of cables
| that look similar but are not interchangeable. What speed? PD
| support? Power only? Who knows!
|
| Maybe switching to a less durable connector or no connector is
| fine given that Qi support has gotten pretty good. Most of the
| Lightning cables I've purchased are still in circulation, I'd
| prefer not to replace them.
|
| If the EU really cared about solving a problem they'd ban
| micro, that connector is really fragile and totally superseded
| by type C.
| themitigating wrote:
| They are interchangeable but may not charge as fast or
| transfer data as fast. So they are still useful.
| hedgehog wrote:
| They're not interchangeable, of the C cables I have now
| some will drive my monitor and some won't, and some don't
| even carry data. The type C connector is a big step up vs
| the older micro and A+B connectors, it just doesn't really
| make using USB simpler or easier to figure out.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > Lightning is a better connector for small devices it's more
| durable in my experience
|
| It's less durable in my experience. I can do this all day.
| gruez wrote:
| I don't see how USB-C can be more durable considering
| there's a plastic post on the female side holding the pins.
| That's an obvious failure point.
| wffurr wrote:
| Black 4th pin seems like a somewhat common failure mode:
| https://ioshacker.com/iphone/why-the-fourth-pin-on-your-
| ligh...
| gruez wrote:
| Is there reason to believe it's not an issue on usb-c? On
| usb-c the terminals aren't exposed, so even if it did
| occur you wouldn't notice it.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| The large hole in the lightning female port traps lint, I
| have to clean it out with a toothpick every couple of
| weeks. USB-C's gaps are too small for lint to collect.
| toast0 wrote:
| > USB-C's gaps are too small for lint to collect.
|
| That's not true, as my phone would be happy to attest.
| However, I think I cleaned it in the 12-18 month range,
| when charging stopped working and the cable no longer
| clicked. There's almost certainly lint back in there, but
| not enough to necessitate cleaning.
| klempner wrote:
| There is no such thing as a C to C cable that is "power only"
| or doesn't support PD, unless it is grossly spec incompliant.
|
| The minimal spec C to C cable is USB 2 data and supports
| power delivery with currents up to 3 amps (i.e. 60 W at 20V
| 3A)
|
| This is enough for most phones, and almost all of the
| exceptions use proprietary charging that isn't going to work
| on a C to C cable anyway.
|
| The labeling issue of all these cheap shit cables is a
| serious problem, but it is a nonissue in the phone charging
| context.
| hedgehog wrote:
| I already have three kinds of C to C cables, some that will
| work with my laptop+monitor and some that won't, then some
| power-only ones for random accessories. We can no-true-
| Scotsman all day but so far type C hasn't simplified my
| life and as far as I can tell it won't in the near future.
| iPhones switching for me will just mean throwing out a
| decade of Lightning cables and buying USB-C cables.
| minimaul wrote:
| > "the regular charging cable"
|
| This is the problem I have with this choice. USB-C isn't _one_
| cable. It 's a big variety of poorly-labelled possible cables,
| complying with a ton of different standards.
|
| USB-C can be just USB2.0 capable, 3.1 Gen1, 3.1 Gen2,
| Thunderbolt 3 capable, etc. Some cables can carry 3A. Some 5A.
|
| When your 'universal' charging cable doesn't provide fast
| charging, is it because your charger doesn't provide the right
| voltages/wattage? Is it a broken USB-PD implementation (eg the
| Nintendo Switch)? is it that the cable is underspecced (and a
| lot of USB-C cables on the market don't actually meet the
| spec)?
|
| I think the intention is good but USB-C carries so much
| complexity that I don't think this helps consumers as much as
| everyone is making out.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| USB-A had a similar problem (but on a much smaller scale).
| There also was heterogeneity in build quality. But over time
| features and quality converged. I think we should expect
| something similar here.
| minimaul wrote:
| I didn't have to keep separate sets of visually identical
| cables for USB-A to do different things - that's already a
| reality with USB-C -> USB-C cables.
|
| I can tell at a glance if a USB-A cable supports USB3.0 for
| instance.
|
| I can't tell that for a USB-C -> USB-C cable.
| m00dy wrote:
| As a Turk living in EU, I second the comment above.
| speleding wrote:
| The main problem I have with USB-C is that it is not a
| particularly good standard for power delivery. For one, USB-C
| is not "IP rated" for use in the kitchen or the bathroom, so
| you still need separate chargers there. Also the USB-C
| connector supports fast data delivery, which makes it a lot
| more expensive than a connector that focusses on power only.
|
| A standard that would do just power delivery <100W and works in
| damp environments, so it could cheap and universal, would have
| been so much better.
| crote wrote:
| Agree on the IP rating, that is definitely not ideal -
| although excusable in practice.
|
| Regarding cost: the fast data is optional. Charging-only
| usb-c receptables are available for $0.025 / each. To be
| fair, a micro-b can be found for $0.015 so it _is_ more
| expensive, but it 's not exactly going to bankrupt anyone.
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| > A standard that would do just power delivery <100W and
| works in damp environments, so it could cheap and universal,
| would have been so much better.
|
| Don't you just have a RCD/GFCI on your outlet / breaker for
| this purpose?
| kmlx wrote:
| > I am an iPhone user, but having an iPhone is not ubiquitous
| here, almost all of my friends/special other, use an Android
| phone with USB-C.
|
| yes, this is an interesting statement. and it's true.
|
| basically in the countries that form the European Union Android
| has a higher market share than iOS. in some big countries like
| Germany, Spain, France and Italy Android has between 60% to 70%
| of the market.
|
| but what's more interesting is this: in the UK, Canada,
| Australia and the US the iPhone has more market share (and in
| NZ it's very close).
|
| anecdotally, in the UK pretty much everyone in big cities have
| iPhones. i very rarely see an Android device.
|
| i do wonder why. it could have to do with cheaper prices for
| Android and a general lower penetration of technology in those
| countries, but i think this seems too facile.
| f1shy wrote:
| I have a feeling the iPhone market penetration, in the named
| countries (Central EU vs Common Wealth) has a strong
| correlation with other aspects of the daily life in said
| markets (for example Facebook use, MSN Messanger --ok, some
| 10 years ago-- use of cash in daily purchase) At least that
| is my feeling, which of course can be completely biased. I
| would find really interesting a study in that.
| rozularen wrote:
| Not only that Android is cheaper but also the mean income in
| countries where Android is prevalent is lower than those
| where iOS is, with exceptions like Germany, France (I'd need
| to see market share data from these exceptions)
| sangnoir wrote:
| iOS popularity correlates more with the use of English as a
| first language than mean income: Germany and France are
| _huge_ "exceptions" for income.
|
| In all likelihood, iPhone popularity is cultural (i.e.
| popular in the Anglosphere), which has an incestuous
| media/advertising landscape where Apple is seen as
| cool/hip.
| jwr wrote:
| USB-C is just a connector.
|
| If we follow this logic, the EU should also mandate which
| aspects of USB-C PD are required to be supported and enforce
| that. Otherwise we'll end up with a slew of devices without
| even the required 5.1k resistors, which can't charge from PD-
| compliant adapters, but can be charged using a USB-A to USB-C
| cable.
|
| As an EU citizen, while I do agree that regulation is often
| required (it did wonders for our roaming charges!), I do not
| like this development.
| [deleted]
| markus92 wrote:
| USB-PD is mandated in this directive! The EU press release
| specifically states any device will be able to charge at the
| same speed if cable/charger support it. See
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
| room/20220930IP...
| crote wrote:
| They do mandate USB PD, actually!
|
| The law [0] reads:
|
| > In so far as they are capable of being recharged by means
| of wired charging at voltages higher than 5 Volts, currents
| higher than 3 Amperes or powers higher than 15 Watts, the
| categories or classes of radio equipment referred to in point
| 1 of this Part shall:
|
| > 3.1. incorporate the USB Power Delivery, as described in
| the standard EN IEC 62680-1-2:2021 "Universal serial bus
| interfaces for data and power - Part 1-2: Common components -
| USB Power Delivery specification";
|
| > 3.2. ensure that any additional charging protocol allows
| for the full functionality of the USB Power Delivery referred
| to in point 3.1., irrespective of the charging device used.
|
| As to devices supplying less than 15 Watts: the 5.1k
| resistors are already mandatory in the USB-C connector spec.
|
| [0]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-
| 0338... , page 35
| jwr wrote:
| I stand corrected! In that case, I am much more happy about
| this.
| arcticbull wrote:
| I'd argue this is actually great. It's extremely unlikely
| that type-C connectors would charge from anything other than
| the in-built charging standard (if for no other reason than
| physical compatibility) but all the extra pins make it
| extremely flexible. The Lightning pins can just be routed out
| of the USB-C connector in a compliant way via alt-mode.
| sva_ wrote:
| Now do Laptops.
| danielbln wrote:
| They did, coming into effect in 2026.
| jupp0r wrote:
| If this had passed earlier, we'd be stuck with micro USB for
| ever.
|
| I want USB-C instead of lightning as much as anyone on my phone
| but I wonder what this will mean for innovation in the future.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Read the other comments for the answer.
| blue_light_man wrote:
| Perfect example of why Brexit makes sense.
|
| A bunch of politicians thinking they know what is best for
| consumers across dozens of countries better than the companies
| operating in the free market.
| acallaghan wrote:
| > A bunch of politicians
|
| *elected* politicians is the key. The member states voted them
| in, they have a democratic mandate. No one running these
| companies have anywhere near the same level of responsibility
| to people as someone that's actually elected.
|
| This is just another regulation on that free market, decided
| for by democratically elected people and not by the companies
| choosing not to be regulated.
| harywilke wrote:
| https://www.androidauthority.com/state-of-usb-c-870996/ "Editor's
| note: This is an updated version of an article published in 2018,
| 2019, and 2020." USB-C is a mess. It's not getting better over
| time. If i buy a cable, will it work? Usually, sometimes, maybe.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Why not enforcing split sales? Charger apart from phone?
|
| Pretty much like they should have done with computers and OSes in
| 2009.
|
| Mind you, split sale = two items at checkout and the oppotunity
| to buy separately.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| Why can't apple just include a lightning:usbc (m:f) dongle in the
| box?
| imchillyb wrote:
| This year Apple removed another long standing port from their
| devices. This time around it was the sim tray.
|
| Apple is going completely portless with their devices.
|
| By the time this law is in effect there will be no external ports
| on Apples devices.
|
| Anyone want to take bets on whether Apple introduces its own
| wireless charging standard at that time or the following year?
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > This time around it was the sim tray.
|
| Only in the US, I believe. My UK iPhone 14 certainly has a SIM
| tray with a physical SIM in it - lucky, really, because my
| provider doesn't support eSIMs.
|
| [edit: just checked and it seems my provider is the only big
| one that doesn't support them.]
| nottorp wrote:
| > just checked and it seems my provider is the only big one
| that doesn't support them
|
| And how about the small ones? I see eSim as limiting choice.
|
| First the provider must support it. Second they have to
| support it and be compatible with my phone.
|
| Third, how do you switch providers with an eSim? Do you need
| to contact servers for both the provider you're leaving and
| the one you're switching to? What if one of them is not
| reachable?
|
| How likely is it that the provider you're turning off can put
| in some innocent administrative hurdles?
|
| Physical sims seem to give me a lot more choice since no one
| has any say in what I plug into the phone.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > And how about the small ones? I see eSim as limiting
| choice.
|
| I think most of the UK's small providers are just virtual
| providers (MVNOs)backed onto one of the big ones - eSIM
| support would presumably just be an option they select.
|
| > Third, how do you switch providers with an eSim?
|
| Haven't checked but I suspect it's exactly the same as
| porting your number with a physical SIM which, in the UK,
| is basically either a webform or phoning up to get a code
| from customer service.
|
| > How likely is it that the provider you're turning off can
| put in some innocent administrative hurdles?
|
| In the UK, zero, because they are explicitly prohibited
| from putting up any kind of obstruction to people wanting
| to move providers.
| nottorp wrote:
| Oh, I wasn't clear. I was thinking of the scenario where
| you regularly use multiple SIMs.
|
| Not of when you port your number.
|
| > I think most of the UK's small providers are just
| virtual providers (MVNOs)backed onto one of the big ones
| - eSIM support would presumably just be an option they
| select.
|
| And are they big enough for Apple to talk to them? :)
| theshrike79 wrote:
| This will also affect Android manufacturers, the ones with the
| Super Special Speedy Charging, that only works on their specific
| charger.
|
| The law forces them to support the USB-PD standard, which they
| don't at the moment.
| bb123 wrote:
| What happens when we want to move on from USBC? Do we need a
| stamp of approval from the EU to do it? No thanks.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| 1 year to invent the new tech.
|
| 10 years to lobby the EU to update the law.
| temprose wrote:
| The connector can still remain the same while the internal
| changes. USB-C is just the connector head. Look at USB4 that
| still uses the USB-C head.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB4
|
| It's just like we have new modern electronics, but they are all
| able to plug into the same wall sockets. I don't have to
| remodel my home.
| jmull wrote:
| That doesn't really answer the question, though.
|
| Is the USB-C connector going to be the best connector for
| everything on into the future?
|
| What about mag-safe-like connectors? Wireless? Something you
| and I can't even think of right now?
|
| Introducing such a connector won't be an engineering
| challenge so much as a political one. The barriers and cost
| will be much higher, and quite possibly insurmountable from a
| practical perspective.
| amelius wrote:
| You can say the same thing about wall sockets. At some
| point you have to make a choice.
|
| And you can always add another type of plug next to the
| existing one. <- this answers your question
| jen20 wrote:
| The EU has not done this with wall sockets though. And
| the idea of just installing two is particularly
| beclowning.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| What is going to happen to devices like diving computers/Apple
| Watch Ultra that require a charger that is magnetic to ensure
| they are waterproof?
| timbit42 wrote:
| This question is answered in other comments.
| billpg wrote:
| Around five years or so ago, I had lots of gadgets, all using
| Micro-USB. Life was good, I had purchased a job lot of cables and
| made sure every location on my house, car and desk at work had
| more than enough cables so any gadget would be ready to be
| charged up.
|
| Then I bought a new phone. I had a USB-C port. Suddenly, I
| couldn't charge it up just anywhere. If that phone had a Micro-
| USB version, I'd have chosen that one in a heartbeat.
|
| Yes, USB-C is nice. Better than Micro-USB. So good that it
| compensates for the hassle? No.
| causi wrote:
| Well, better in most ways. It's worse in a couple of minor
| ones. It's larger, so particularly tiny devices still come with
| microUSB charge ports. It also gets smooshed flat if you happen
| to step on it, which is a problem I had my first few months
| with a type-C phone.
| skohan wrote:
| I would argue it _is_ good enough it compensates for the
| hassle.
|
| I think USB-C is one of the first "good enough" connectors we
| have had for the arbitrary use-case. It's reversible. It's
| suitable for high-power and high-bandwidth use-cases. It's
| robust. micro-USB works ok for charging small devices, but
| would it really make sense to replace USB-A with it for
| plugging peripherals into your PC for example?
| billpg wrote:
| Fair point, but my lived experience of USB-C is that several
| of my Micro-USB cables dotted around now have little
| converter heads added. My tablets and battery packs (and
| other gizmos) still need the Micro-USB port so I can't just
| replace the cables.
|
| Yes, being able to plug in the connector both ways around is
| nice, but it wasn't that inconvenient not to be able to do
| that, especially when put against the inconvenience of
| needing these extra heads.
|
| I can certainly imagine someone having similar frustrations
| when Mini-USB gave way to Micro-USB. I can only hope that
| when USB-D connectors come around, there's more than only
| small incremental improvements to get me on board.
| skohan wrote:
| But again, this is if you think of USB-C as a replacement
| for Mini-USB and Micro-USB. USB-A remained an uncontested
| standard for roughly 30 years, and is now gradually being
| replaced by USB-C.
|
| If USB-C has the same longevity, and can also replace
| small-form-factor connectors, that's a pretty big win
| right? It's not too bad to put up with a connector change
| 2-4 times in your life.
| PaulWaldman wrote:
| I wonder what the EU thinks of Tesla's charging port? Will all
| electric cars in the EU eventually be regulated into using J1772
| ports without an adapter?
| tehbeard wrote:
| I'm pretty sure if I remember a technology connections video
| right, that EU Tesla's already ship with either the standard
| port or an adapter, none of the US supercharger plug mess.
| wincy wrote:
| Do they charge as fast? Is there a trade off for the standard
| port being used in the EU?
| ShockedUnicorn wrote:
| Tesla's plug support max 250kw charging, while CCS2, the
| standard in EU supports 350kw max.
|
| The trade off for the CCS2 plug is mainly that it is a bit
| bigger than other plugs, but it's really nice to have a
| standard across almost all of Europe.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Most Teslas in the EU use the standard ports. I believe the
| Tesla charging network also uses these. Imported Teslas
| probably need some kind of adapter to work.
| kalleboo wrote:
| Tesla superchargers in the EU all use the standard CCS2 ports.
| Tesla model 3 cars in Europe have the standard CCS2 port
| instead of the Tesla port, the older models ship with adapters.
|
| For car charging, the industry appears to be self-regulation
| well enough.
| sebazzz wrote:
| EU doesn't use J1772 but CCS Combo 2 instead (for DC fast
| charging and AC). Vehicles without DC charging usually have a
| Mennekes connector. Tesla has an adapter to allow charging via
| CCS. Almost all cars in Europe use CCS, except for a few older
| Asian cars which may use CHAdeMO. Modern Tesla vehicles also
| use standard CCS.
|
| Besides, this EU regulation is for small portable electronics.
| Last time I checked I didn't carry my car in my back pocket.
|
| Legislation to require CCS on charging points has been active
| in the EU since 2014, 8 years ago.
| owisd wrote:
| Everyone upset about losing lightning. Apple will 'malicious
| compliance' this and keep the lightning port and just add a USB-C
| port that does charging and nothing else.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| It will be damn ugly. Non starter.
| saurik wrote:
| I am much more expecting them to do something like remove the
| port entirely and move to wireless charging only; or, for
| maximum humor value, make the lightning port incapable of
| charging the phone in Europe only, such that it isn't a
| charging port there and thereby isn't subject to the
| regulations (forcing only the people in Europe to use wireless
| charging).
| seanw444 wrote:
| Now _that_ would be funny.
| gempir wrote:
| As far as I understand the ruling they have to have a USB C
| port on their device that allows charging.
|
| Removing the port entirely is not an option.
| jen20 wrote:
| Can you quote the part that you believe enforces that?
| alberth wrote:
| iPhone 16 (2025)?
|
| Am I understanding this correctly that the first required iPhone
| to be updated would be the iPhone 16 (2025), given that next
| years iPhone will most likely be released before this effective
| date.
| teekert wrote:
| But can they still drop the port altogether? I bet they will,
| going full MagSafe.
| mdrzn wrote:
| LET'S GO EU!
|
| These headlines make me proud. Let's reach a global standard for
| charging stuff.
|
| I wish everything that had to be charged sometimes had a USB-C
| plug. But also I hope that the USB standard gets less messy in
| the future.
| Krkrmfnfmmd wrote:
| tomonl wrote:
| Luckily this law is not just for phones!
|
| > Regardless of their manufacturer, all new mobile phones,
| tablets, digital cameras, headphones and headsets, handheld
| videogame consoles and portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards,
| mice, portable navigation systems, earbuds and laptops that are
| rechargeable via a wired cable, operating with a power delivery
| of up to 100 Watts, will have to be equipped with a USB Type-C
| port.
| bombcar wrote:
| Introducing the iPhone 15 EU edition, now with 101 watt
| charging via lightning.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| There is no reason for USB to improve any further, because now
| it has to be used by law.
|
| Amazing that people still don't get it.
| Kuinox wrote:
| Wait you think they somehow tried to compete with apple ?
|
| That's not how USB works.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| If there is no better connector, why should the committee
| put any effort into developing anything better?
|
| Tech history, and human history in general, is littered
| with examples. Especially in the old Warsaw Pact states.
| orwin wrote:
| "Tech history" is littered with example, like micro-usb?
| Or like MRIs?
| oplaadpunt wrote:
| Regulation has always been a part of government, to
| increase the efficiency of the open market. But in
| regards to your first point:
|
| > why should the committee put any effort into developing
| anything better?
|
| The EU is absolutely not in the business of developing
| any connector whatsoever. They wanted _a_ standard (for
| eco/market reasons), and asked the industry to create
| one. This became USB and the USB Forum. Now they make it
| mandatory to follow that standard. In the act they
| passed, the power to set the specific standard is
| deferred to the European Commission, to make it easier to
| update it if necessary. These are called delegated acts
| [0]. If a new physical connector is ever necessary, the
| USB forum will write the standard, ask the EU if they can
| update the reference, which is easy since it's only a
| matter of pushing paperwork. _Not_ hardcoding a feature
| like this, and following what industry wants is an
| explicit goal of the legislative process. It has worked
| extremely well in these sorts of circumstances. The only
| risk I could see is a technical innovation for
| connectors, which the USB Forum refuses to implement for
| some reason. This could happen, but I don't see it as
| being any different then current industry practices.
|
| [0]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...
| [deleted]
| necovek wrote:
| I am hoping for my next car to be chargeable through a USB-C
| port too! /s
|
| I love the fact that there is a standardized port, and I can
| get devices of any type to charge with a single powerful
| charger. But connector and cables are wonky at best if you want
| to have a single _cable_ for everything too (look up prices,
| thickness and lengths of USB-C PD 100W, alt-DP 1.4 capable, USB
| 3+ speeds cables, and then watch them break in a few months of
| "regular" use like in a car charger).
|
| But I want a better, more robust standard than USB-C! Can that
| happen with the law in place? I don't know, but that scares me.
| pwpw wrote:
| > I am hoping for my next car to be chargeable through a
| USB-C port too! /s
|
| I'm aware of your sarcasm, but it did bother me that my Tesla
| used a proprietary port that made it more difficult to use
| other charging locations, such as the charger next to my
| apartment. Electric vehicle charging ports need
| standardization as well.
|
| Perhaps having these laws standardizing ports will set the
| groundwork for a more robust standard in the future. I don't
| think there's ever going to be a perfect solution since there
| are so many differing opinions, but I do believe this is a
| good start.
| acadapter wrote:
| What if a device doesn't need all the extra pins in the USB-C
| connector? What if it only uses VBUS/D+/D-/GND?
| ChrisRR wrote:
| Presumably the same as when a device doesn't need all of the
| lightning pins
| danhor wrote:
| There are cheaper USB-C connectors available with fewer pins
| for that purpose
| moolcool wrote:
| Nothing happens-- most connecters on most devices have unused
| pins.
| counttheforks wrote:
| Then you don't wire them up
| kypro wrote:
| I like USB-C and would even be in favour of the iPhone using
| USB-C, but I really dislike the idea that EU regulators would
| know what's better for consumers than consumer electronics
| companies and the consumers themselves.
|
| I do kind of get it though. It's probably better for a whole host
| of reasons if electronics all used the same cords, but I guess
| you could make that argument for a lot of things. There would be
| benefits if there was only one mobile operating system or if all
| mobiles used the same interchangeable batteries, for example.
|
| When a standard makes sense companies will generally adopt it
| naturally. The fact so many manufacturers use USB-C today just
| proves that this probably doesn't need to be enforced. I suppose
| it's just strange to me this would even need to be a law or that
| there are people paid to pass laws like this.
| rrwo wrote:
| > I really dislike the idea that EU regulators would know
| what's better for consumers than consumer electronics companies
| and the consumers themselves
|
| This isn't something created by faceless bureaucrats behind
| closed doors.
|
| The "regulators" are the EU Parliament, who are elected by
| residents in the various countries. The issue has been talked
| about for a few years, and was voted on 603 to 13, that's over
| 96% (including abstentions).
| tephra wrote:
| More than a few years, this particular legislation yes but it
| really started in 2009 where they wanted to mandate micro-
| usb.
| kaba0 wrote:
| The very Adam Smith even have said that capitalism only work in
| well-defined markets. I don't see how a more-or-less
| democratically elected entity would have a negative effect on
| competition by upholding some consumer-centric rules.
| fy20 wrote:
| Are you old enough to remember the early 2000s when every phone
| and portable media player had it's own charger, which often
| wasn't even transferable between devices by the same
| manufacturer? It led to lots of old chargers when devices were
| replaced, which were useless for anything else (I remember
| having bags of cables and chargers). And if you wanted a second
| charger for whatever reason (this was before you needed to
| charge your device every 3 hours), you needed to find the
| specific charger for your device. If it was a few years old, it
| might not even be possible to purchase one.
|
| Then almost by magic everyone switched to micro USB. You could
| charge different devices from different manufacturers with the
| same cable. This wasn't some feat of magic, it was because the
| European Commission worked to bring manufacturers to an
| agreement on a common charging standard.
|
| Well, everyone except Apple, who did actually sign the
| agreement. They just decided to bundle a dongle to be
| compliant.
|
| Mini-USB was introduced in 2000, so manufactures had plenty of
| time to choose a common interface themselves, but decided not
| to.
|
| Even amongst Apple's own devices it is a mess. To charge an
| Apple Pencil with an iPad Pro you need not one, but two
| adapters.
| givinguflac wrote:
| | Even amongst Apple's own devices it is a mess. To charge an
| Apple Pencil with an iPad Pro you need not one, but two
| adapters.
|
| I'm curious what you're referring to. I charge my Apple
| Pencil while connected to my iPad, and my iPad chargers via
| usb c. No adapters for me?
| truculent wrote:
| They are referring to the original Apple Pencil which used
| a lightning port at the end.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| Worse, the Pencil 1 didn't have a lightning _port_ , it
| insanely had a lightning _plug_ - it had to be charged
| precariously sticking out of the bottom of the iPad like
| this:
|
| https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0276/6463/files/How-to-
| Cha...
| dubya wrote:
| Not entirely true. It came with a little female-female
| lightning adapter so you could charge it with whatever
| other lightning cable you have. The pencil end of the
| adapter is deeper than the other end, I think so you
| can't plug a lightning cable into each end.
| Fiahil wrote:
| He's referring to the pencil v1, which had to be charged
| via lightning.
| inkyoto wrote:
| > Are you old enough to remember the early 2000s when every
| [...]
|
| One does not have to be that old enough.
|
| Look no further than personal care and small home appliances
| (electric shavers - yes, Braun, I am looking at you; electric
| toothbrushes - and you, too, Philips! As well as household
| and kitchen appliances) the vast majority of which still come
| with incompatible proprietary chargers that are so hard,
| expensive or inconvenient (usually all of the above) to
| procure to replace that the entire gadget oftentimes gets
| disposed of because of the failed charger.
|
| Governments ought to crack down on those ones as well, and
| crack down real, real hard.
| JacobiX wrote:
| It would be nice if those same EU regulations where applied
| to all industries and not some specifically designated
| ones. For example my German Braun Shaver Charger will not
| be impacted by this regulation ...
| enriquec wrote:
| the total idiocy of adopting usb-c for a shaver
| charger... what a waste that would be.
| KerrickStaley wrote:
| Micro-USB is not the same as Mini-USB. Mini-USB was
| introduced in 2000; Micro-USB was introduced in 2007.
| izacus wrote:
| In most cases, yes, people writing these comments are too
| young to remember era before Apple brought shining and light
| to their existence.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Electronics companies decide what's best for them. Competition
| in the smart phone market is done, so consumers no longer have
| a say. These kinds of interoperability standards are great and
| would love to see more of them internationally.
| kypro wrote:
| Consumers still don't have a say. Now instead of companies
| choosing what hardware & features are best for their product,
| and you then choosing products based on your preferences, EU
| regulators are now forcing companies (and therefore you) to
| use whatever they think is best.
|
| I think in the case of USB-C it's not too bad just because
| USB-C is widely agreed to be a good connector that's already
| widely adopted, but there have been plenty of bad connectors
| in the past which in theory the EU could now be deciding
| consumer electronics companies are forced to use.
|
| This also assumes USB-C is always the best option which I
| doubt. I'm sure there are products which given the
| application, size or price point might suite a different
| cable better. Technology also moves on and connectors change
| for a reason. Now we're going to be stuck with outdated
| hardware until EU regulators update laws. At which companies
| and you as the consumer will be forced to adopt that new
| connector regardless of your preferences.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Standardizing shit that _doesn 't need_ to be different, in
| order to let markets function _better_ , is one of the
| oldest functions of the state as we know it, and a
| precursor to the development of capitalism.
|
| Seeing the benefit to doing that kind of thing (which
| required developments in thought & practice in political
| economy) and being able to effectively enforce such decrees
| (which required various other developments in theory and
| technology, plus the right circumstances) on a large area
| is even seen as one of the hallmarks of the development of
| the nation-state, and a major stepping stone to our modern
| global economic system and the modern state.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Where are all the market players that sell phones with iOS
| with USB-C? I might have voted on them. Or, perhaps one
| that allows side-loading and has a removable battery and a
| fingerprint sensor?
|
| Oh, capitalism makes all these choices possible for me, how
| wonderful!
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| The idea this somehow limits consumer choice is nonsense.
| It opens up choice because now I don't have to pay insane
| markups for proprietary items.
|
| Printer ink, razor blades, and so on are other examples
| besides connector cables where companies' `innovations'
| tend to make things worse for the consumer. Even if the new
| cable is technically slightly better, the other factors of
| price, availability, and lack of inter-operability
| ultimately make things worse for the consumer.
|
| Also, you'd likely have more luck getting elected officials
| to change EU policies than you would have with mega company
| board members changing profit-maximizing strategies.
| schmuelio wrote:
| > EU regulators are now forcing companies (and therefore
| you) to use whatever they think is best.
|
| All those shady un-elected EU regulators...
|
| Oh wait, which ones do you not elect again? Was it
| government officials or company managers?
| aembleton wrote:
| Commissioners
| riffraff wrote:
| The EU consulted with phone producers before standardizing
| on micro-USB, then again before standardizing on USB-C, and
| it will do again when something better comes up.
|
| They have explicitly called out not regulating wireless
| charging for this reason.
|
| Yours is a valid concern, but it's not grounded in reality.
| Krkrmfnfmmd wrote:
| Who exactly did they consult with?
| ZGDUwpqEWpUZ wrote:
| 2009: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/
| en/IP_09_...
|
| > The following companies have signed the MoU: Apple, LG,
| Motorola, NEC, Nokia, Qualcomm, Research in Motion (RIM),
| Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Texas Instruments.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| That's when they moved to Micro-USB. This is the next
| step. But yeah, I'd imagine the same companies voiced
| their opinions this time around, along with others.
| riffraff wrote:
| With the "14 biggest phone producers in the world", back
| when the original proposal for micro USB came up. I mean,
| who would you consult with?
| magicalhippo wrote:
| I can't find the exact names right now, but from the
| Impact Assessment report[1] they did stakeholder surveys,
| which included 121 stakeholders of which 23% were private
| companies. In addition to that they did targeted
| interviews with 7 manufacturers associations and 17
| manufacturers.
|
| [1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD%3A20... (Annex 2)
| amelius wrote:
| > They have explicitly called out not regulating wireless
| charging for this reason.
|
| Doesn't wireless charging present even more problems,
| given the meager efficiency compared to using wires?
| riffraff wrote:
| I think the point is that there's no clear consensus on a
| "winner" right now. USB-C (back then micro-USB) had vast
| backing, had been in use for a while in many places and
| was "good enough" for everyone (except Apple-only-on-
| iphones). It's unclear what is the equivalent for
| wireless right now.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > I really dislike the idea that EU regulators would know
| what's better for consumers than consumer electronics companies
| and the consumers themselves.
|
| It's not that, it's that companies know what's good for them
| and consumers are a secondary consideration, if that.
|
| Consider EU mobile phone roaming regulation: it's an unalloyed
| good. We've gone from expensive and inconvenient roaming
| charges and roaming add-ons to free roaming at almost no
| increase in prices. There was initially some increase in very
| low priced plans yet I have a 2.65 euro a month 1GB data only
| plan (with full roaming) which is a blindingly good deal.
| have_faith wrote:
| > I really dislike the idea that EU regulators would know
| what's better for consumers than consumer electronics companies
| and the consumers themselves
|
| What proportion of phone consumers have an informed opinion on
| charging technology? Why would the electronics companies work
| in a way that benefits everyone/the environment instead of
| themselves.
|
| > I guess you could make that argument for a lot of things
|
| We do, we have standards for a ridiculous amount of things no
| one ever thinks about.
|
| > There would be benefits if there was only one mobile
| operating system or if all mobiles used the same
| interchangeable batterie
|
| Standardising the operating system would create a monopoly and
| have no obvious society wide benefits. Whereas cables can be
| made by anyone competent. It would be more prudent to mandate
| user replacable batteries before thinking about if such a
| specific battery standard could feasibly work. Something you
| can probably make a good argument for.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Whereas cables can be made by anyone competent.
|
| Like the myriad businesses already making lightning cables?
| saurik wrote:
| That point maybe sounds smart, but doesn't actually make
| any sense to have added, as I can respond with "yes!!" and
| it doesn't contradict anything about the argument you are
| ostensibly trying to undermine. That (importantly) said,
| the new statement isn't even a true thing to be trying to
| note anyway in this context: unlike USB-C, which is an
| industry standard, Apple owns lightning and so if one were
| to imagine forcing the world to standardize on it it would
| actually CREATE a monopoly.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I misinterpreted the comment I responded to and had the
| reasoning backwards.
| Xelynega wrote:
| I think it was pretty obvious from context clues that they
| were talking about USB since it's standardized. If
| lightning were standardized then other companies would be
| able to produce the cables. I don't see what your point is.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I misunderstood the line of reasoning for the person I
| responded to. I originally interpreted it as
| standardization allows others to make the cables.
| danielfoster wrote:
| I agree. What happens if companies want to make something
| better or technology improves? The way the legislation is
| written, will help consumers in the short-term but could stifle
| innovation in the long-term. Imagine if the EU had mandated DC
| power ports or CD-ROM drives two decades ago.
|
| It took this long for the EU to pass common standard
| legislation after talking about it for years. I can't imagine
| they will be any faster in updating it if USB-C becomes
| outdated.
| kaba0 wrote:
| How fast can charging ports evolve even in theory, given that
| they have to be somewhat backwards compatible to begin with?
| I think the law can keep up with all these iterations of
| lightning cables apple invented during its free reign over
| their port.
| danielfoster wrote:
| Companies are now disincentived to innovate because there
| is no guarantee money spent developing a new standard will
| result in something allowed to be sold.
|
| No one can predict new technology. Ideally the law should
| have an end date or require regular renewal.
| AndroidKitKat wrote:
| I read the law and perhaps I misunderstood it, but I'm curious if
| there is a grey area with regards to pogo pin like connectors,
| seen as the MagSafe connectors on Apple's MacBooks or the ones on
| the back of modern iPads / the ones on the side of my old Galaxy
| Nexus.
|
| Do those count as wired or wireless charging? To me, that's the
| only tricky part. My bet is that it would count as "wired" (and
| thus be illegal in the EU).
|
| My knee-jerk reaction to the law in general is "but why...", but
| after reading more and the comments in this thread, I think this
| is a major win.
| ianbooker wrote:
| For the younger: EU regulation is the sole reason why most
| devices charge by USB nowadays. In the age before the smartphone,
| every company would ship their own charging bricks with fixed
| cables and connectors. I still have a drawer full of that
| stuff...
| thom_ wrote:
| barrucadu wrote:
| Sure, if Apple don't want to be part of the EU market they can
| just stop selling to the EU.
|
| Is that supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? Are you saying
| the EU market needs Apple more than Apple needs the EU market?
| thom_ wrote:
| IsNotNull wrote:
| Apple already make iPads and Macbooks with USB-C and have done
| for years. They're already moving away from Lightning.
| salzig wrote:
| Ok, I really like to have one connector for everything, and USB-C
| is quite dominant.
|
| But at least for me, USB-C feels way more sensitive/fragile
| compared to Lightning.
|
| While Plugging-in the USB-C Cable into my steam-deck i'm a bit
| afraid to break the port. Ramming in a Lightning Cable to any
| matching device doesn't give me that feel.
|
| Besides the obvious benefit of a single connector, do you really
| think USB-C is a good connector for phones/portables?
| rkagerer wrote:
| _...its requirements will start to apply to new devices after 24
| months_
|
| I can't help but feel like USB-C may be superceded by something
| better by then.
| jedberg wrote:
| What happens when a better standard comes around? Will we be
| stuck with USB-C for the foreseeable future until they EU changes
| their laws again?
|
| I am glad that Apple will finally come around, even if by force,
| but I worry how much this could stifle innovation.
| 10g1k wrote:
| How to make anything worse: add bureaucrats.
| MisterTea wrote:
| I don't like the current basket case of a standard we call USB.
| I'd like to see it replaced one day because we can do better.
| Making it law is absurd.
| cyborgx7 wrote:
| Self-regulation only works if government regulation is a serious
| threat in case self-regulation fails. In this case, self-
| regulation failed, so government regulation stepped in to force
| industry to do what is right.
|
| All the handwringing about stifling innovation is on its face
| ridiculous as mandates to use micro-usb didn't stop android
| phones from adopting the new and better standard as soon as it
| was viable.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _All the handwringing about stifling innovation is on its face
| ridiculous as mandates to use micro-usb didn 't stop android
| phones from adopting the new and better standard as soon as it
| was viable._
|
| I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Android phones were
| able to quickly move to micro USB because they weren't
| restricted from doing so by a government regulation.
|
| If there was a government mandate requiring phones to have
| whatever connector came before micro USB, wouldn't that have
| prevented the Android phones from changing connectors/choosing
| the new innovation?
|
| Or was there a location where micro USB was required by law
| before, and since I don't live there, I wasn't affected by it?
|
| Edit: Strike that last sentence, since I see in other responses
| that there was, indeed, a location where micro USB was
| mandated. So my new question is: How does a company change to a
| new/better connector, if it's required by law to use an old
| connector?
|
| Edit edit: Looks like other responses show there was no
| mandate, that's just something that people on HN assume. It was
| a recommendation, not a law, like it is now.
| dogleash wrote:
| > If there was a government mandate requiring phones to have
| whatever connector came before micro USB, wouldn't that have
| prevented the Android phones from changing
| connectors/choosing the new innovation?
|
| Dunno, we have a test case tho: how'd the Micro-B to USB-C
| transition go in EU markets?
| schmuelio wrote:
| Happened a while ago, you have to go out of your way to
| find (new) android phones with Micro-B.
| westurner wrote:
| stingraycharles wrote:
| It's going just fine, from my perspective. Unfortunately I
| now have three different types of cables (micro-B, USB-C
| and lightning), and it makes it extra challenging that
| USB-C is sometimes double ended, sometimes B-to-C. On the
| other hand, it's very nice I can charge my new Framework
| laptop and iPad using the same cable cable and charger.
|
| But it's going quite quickly, and most of the apple devices
| I bought recently already have USB-C in one way or another,
| and the actual problem for me is replacing power banks and
| chargers so that they support USB-C as well. Most of them
| assume USB-C == "high power slot", when I just need a few
| of them for smaller stuff (AirPods and Apple Watch both
| came with USB-C cables).
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Micro usb was mandatory in europe for phones years ago.
| nulld3v wrote:
| Are you talking about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commo
| n_external_power_supply? This wasn't a mandate, it was just
| a recommendation.
| tephra wrote:
| No it was never mandatory only voluntary. There was a
| threat to make it mandatory but most mobile phone suppliers
| signed a letter of intent on implementing a common standard
| (apple included).
| [deleted]
| dahfizz wrote:
| This is incorrect. It was a voluntary standard signed on by
| a non-binding MoU. All Manufacturers were free to "break"
| the agreement when moving to USB-C. Now they are stuck on
| USB-C until a new law is written.
| hjkl0 wrote:
| > So my new question is: How does a company change to a
| new/better connector, if it's required by law to use an old
| connector?
|
| It would be like a nation state deciding to change its
| standard electric socket, like a country with US sockets
| switching to EU sockets. Doesn't sound easy.
| BadOakOx wrote:
| > How does a company change to a new/better connector, if
| it's required by law to use an old connector?
|
| EU is pushing for "One charger for all" for a long time. Here
| is an article from 2011 [1], so this is nothing new. I don't
| think they enforced it at the time, but the manufacturers
| (and the EU?) agreed to use Micro USB. Now they are going for
| USB-C, so they definitely are not in the way of innovation. I
| think if there is an agreement between manufacturers to
| support a new standard, it will be adapted.
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/apple/2011/10/4/2469886/apple-
| relea...
| dahfizz wrote:
| This is not correct.
|
| Phone manufacturers signed a non-binding MoU, agreeing to
| use Micro USB. This was completely voluntary. That is why
| they were able to upgrade to USB-C without any issue.
|
| This law is different. It would be illegal to upgrade to a
| better port. And the barrier to creating, testing, and
| having adoption for a new port just became way higher than
| it was before.
| [deleted]
| hbgl wrote:
| The reason why Apple still uses the Lightning port is because
| of regulation in the form of patents which give them a 20-year-
| monopoly on their plug design. Without the previous regulation
| there would be no need for this new regulation.
| neither_color wrote:
| It's not "right" as in morally right; it's just slightly more
| convenient. Mandatory convenience. I personally don't
| understand people's passion for this cause. I'm ok with
| dichotomy and nuance in life. I'm learning that having two
| cables is a huge impediment to some people's lives. So be it.
| scarab92 wrote:
| EU could have mandated adoption of a certain connector for a
| certain period of time, rather than for all time.
|
| That way regulation provides the stick to force
| standardisation, but allows whatever new innovations develop
| later to have a chance at gaining a foothold. If we find
| ourselves in this situation again (with a single holdout) we
| can force the standardisation for a period of time again.
| kalleboo wrote:
| The EU regulation has a stipulation to re-visit the chosen
| standard at set intervals (IIRC 3 years?), it's not "for all
| time"
| jamesrr39 wrote:
| You are correct, every 3 years. From https://www.europarl.e
| uropa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/6988... :
|
| > Reporting: the Commission would be required to report to
| the Parliament and Council on the application of the
| directive regarding new charging technologies every three
| years, starting from three years after the date of entry
| into force of the directive (article 47(2a) RED). By the
| same date, it would also be required to report on the
| impact of the possibility to acquire devices without any
| charging device and cable (article 3a(1) RED).
| n8cpdx wrote:
| This assumes that it is in the government's interest to dictate
| the kind of cable used to charge phones, and that making the
| "wrong" choice is such a bad outcome that industry needs to
| "self-regulate".
|
| Perhaps the EU should step in to force industry to do what is
| right in all cases, not just charging cables:
|
| - ban e2e encryption - pedos and criminals use it
|
| - mandate client-side CSAM scanning on all devices, report
| directly to local police instead of going through untrustworthy
| Apple (they can't even get charging cables right, can we trust
| them to protect your child?)
|
| - require all new devices to be tamper resistant so you can't
| get around EU laws
|
| - require all phones to be the same shape and size so that
| citizens can re-use screen protectors and cases in perpetuity
|
| - ban purple devices - it offends EU bureaucrats, and obviously
| the continued existence of purple phones is evidence of the
| industry's failure to self-regulate. EU bureaucrats know better
| than the market and always have.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| There were no mandates to adopt micro-usb in the EU.
|
| As a sidetone it's astonishing how quickly a lie easily
| disprovable by publicly accessible information, in this case
| the EU's own website, can be spread around by people that
| otherwise seem like credible HN members.
| yokoprime wrote:
| The writing has been on the wall for years and years that
| manufacturers have agree on a standard charging plug. Had
| micro-usb been the direction we were still heading, that
| would have become the mandated standard.
|
| This law is by all intents and purposes a law directed at
| Apple, who is the sole hold-out of the large mobile phone
| manufacturers regarding proprietary charging connectors.
| Fradow wrote:
| Saying there was no mandate is only technically true. The EU
| gave an ultimatum to phone companies to make a compatible
| charger "or else", which led to a "Memorandum of
| Understanding" [1] deciding on Micro-USB.
|
| Apple didn't follow that Memorandum, the EU got pissed, so
| now we reached the "or else" part (it took quite some time
| considering the Memorandum was more than 10 years ago).
|
| [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEM
| O_1...
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| 'Memorandums of Understanding' are not binding within the
| EU, not even between different departments in Brussels.
| They are, at best, strongly worded suggestions.
|
| So this is a significant difference.
|
| As a EU mandate implies that organizations can be
| prosecuted for ignoring it.
| [deleted]
| dahfizz wrote:
| Curious that the "or else" stage doesn't actually enforce
| the micro-B connector of the original MoU.
|
| If that original legislation was binding, we likely never
| would have gotten USB-C in the first place.
| nolok wrote:
| > Apple didn't follow that Memorandum, the EU got pissed
|
| Just to add a step: Samsung got pissed, and told the EU
| either regulate, or we do our own thing too like Apple.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Samsung actually had done their own thing - their early
| tablet lineup also had a 30-pin connector, and of course
| incompatible with Apple's 30-pin connector.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.de/Original-Samsung-USB-
| lDatenkabel-ECC1D...
| q3k wrote:
| > and of course incompatible with Apple's 30-pin
| connector
|
| "Of course" also because Apple's 30-pin connector was
| only approved for purchase and use by certified (read:
| paying) third parties.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Thankfully the Samsung one was black while the Apple ones
| were white, making it obvious which one went to my iPod
| Classic v. my Galaxy Tab 2 :)
|
| But yeah, I absolutely do not miss those 30-pin
| connectors.
| Fradow wrote:
| I wasn't aware of that, thanks!
|
| Replying to sibling: that 30-pin connector predates the
| Memorandum. It's exactly such chargers that the EU wanted
| to regulate at the time. Every company had their own
| incompatible charger.
| hackerman_fi wrote:
| Apple did release a micro USB -> lightning adapter for 19
| EUR, which I believe was to "comply" with the rules
| avidiax wrote:
| The EU should have required that all marketing must
| depict a standard connector phone.
|
| So all their ads in the EU would have to show a stupid
| dongle hanging off the phone, like a vestigial tail.
| jcelerier wrote:
| > There were no mandates to adopt micro-usb in the EU.
|
| ... huh ? https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/
| en/IP_11_...
|
| > Following a mandate from the European Commission, the
| European Standardisation Bodies CEN-CENELEC and ETSI issued
| the harmonised standards to be adhered to by data-enabled
| mobile phones compatible with the new common charger as of
| 2011. The common charger solution is based in the Micro-USB
| connector technology
| kalleboo wrote:
| They mandated the standards bodies to issue standards to
| adopt for those who wanted to, but didn't mandate
| manufacturers to adopt the standards.
|
| Or they would have spent the past 10 years fining Apple for
| violating them.
| blitzar wrote:
| There is no mandate that states that if a party fails to
| abide by a mandate that you are mandated to fine them.
| tshaddox wrote:
| And yet a plausible threat of negative consequences is
| the only thing that could possibly distinguish a mandate
| from a suggestion.
| arrrg wrote:
| The regulation is the negative consequence.
|
| This is how self regulation can work. And in this case it
| nearly worked, Apple pretty much being the lone holdout.
| triceratops wrote:
| When an order has no consequences for non-compliance it
| is, by definition, not an order.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Thank goodness, micro-usb kinda sucked, especially compared
| to USB-C (which seems quite good).
|
| It is sort of weird that they decided to mandate USB-C rather
| than creating an ongoing group to keep track of charging and
| update the rules accordingly (like in the US, where many of
| our laws create an agency to regulate something rather than
| having congress pass a new, slightly different law every
| couple years)
| yellowapple wrote:
| The problem with the US approach is that now we have a
| bunch of agencies effectively inventing laws without
| anywhere near the same degree of oversight or public
| accountability. Sometimes that's a feature rather than a
| bug, but not always.
| crote wrote:
| They did.
|
| The law states that the European Commission shall monitor
| market development, market fragmentation, and technological
| progress, and report on it every few years.
| tempest-tost wrote:
| Am I missing something here?
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.engadget.com/amp/2010-12-29.
| ..
| amarshall wrote:
| Non-AMP link: https://www.engadget.com/2010-12-29-european-
| standardization...
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| It looks like you shared an AMP link. AMP is controversial
| because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web [0].
|
| Fully-cached AMP pages like the one you shared are
| especially problematic.
|
| Maybe check out the canonical page instead:
|
| https://www.engadget.com/2010-12-29-european-
| standardization...
|
| [0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z
| [deleted]
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| There were non-binding agreements. i.e. the EU hoped that
| the major players would standardize on one connecter, but
| this did not have the force of law behind it.
| w4rh4wk5 wrote:
| Clicking that link in Firefox prompts me to download a
| font. LOL
| fao_ wrote:
| On Chrome under linux, it actually does nothing other
| than download the font! lmao
| dahfizz wrote:
| The EU created a technical standard (which basically just
| says, "use USB Micro-B"). Phone manufacturers _voluntarily_
| signed a Memorandum of Understanding, stating that they all
| agreed to abide by the standard.
|
| None of it was binding or involuntary. Which is why Apple
| never released a micro-B phone and all other manufacturers
| were able to upgrade to USB-C.
| slavoingilizov wrote:
| Well... I agree with the spirit of the effort, but not the
| letter of it.
|
| >>> From spring 2026, the obligation will extend to laptops
|
| So this would force Apple to replace MagSafe with USB-C? How is
| that not killing innovation?
|
| Standardisation should be a goal, but I just feel this
| particular effort is too specific and brings very little value
| to consumers. Why don't we standardise payment protocols
| instead? Or biometric identity verification? Or ID cards even
| (that the UK is allergic to)? I just feel the spirit of these
| efforts can be applied so much more successfully elsewhere.
| ldoughty wrote:
| My MacBook currently has 4 USB-C ports that I can pick to
| charge from.
|
| My last Macbook had 5? different ports on it, two of which
| were older USB standards.
|
| Nothing stops apple from ALSO having a proprietary connector,
| as long as USB-C is still an option to charge.
|
| > Why don't we standardise payment protocols instead? Or
| biometric identity verification? Or ID cards even (that the
| UK is allergic to)?
|
| None of these result in hundreds of thousands of tons of
| plastic and copper or other metals being put in a landfill or
| dumped in the sea because they were only useful for 3-5
| models of a single businesses devices.
|
| Apple is still free to make this e-waste, but now their
| devices must support charging on USB-C, which they are free
| to NOT make their own chargers for, as long as it's standard-
| compliant and supported
| orwin wrote:
| All taht is already standardized btw. The countries do have
| some leeway in their implementation though, that's whay the
| EU driving license was quite quickly adopted in some
| countries, and very slowly in others (mine...).
| yokoprime wrote:
| My MacBook can charge with USB-C and MagSafe. If iphones had
| both a USB-C and a lightning connectors, this law would
| probably not have been pushed through.
| ben_w wrote:
| > So this would force Apple to replace MagSafe with USB-C?
| How is that not killing innovation?
|
| Depends how the law is written.
|
| "Must have at least one USB C port for charging"? Then
| current laptops with magsafe are already compliant.
|
| "Must _only_ have ... "? Then I would agree it goes too far.
| closewith wrote:
| > Why don't we standardise payment protocols instead?
|
| Like SEPA and PSD2?
|
| > Or biometric identity verification?
|
| Such as AFIS or maybe EU 2019/1157?
|
| > Or ID cards even (that the UK is allergic to)?
|
| EU 2019/1157 again?
|
| It's not like EU standardisation of chargers is an outlier.
| yoz-y wrote:
| How would it force apple to replace magsafe? All modern apple
| laptops can already charge from USB-C. Magsafe is just
| another option.
| lgrebe wrote:
| Because law makers actively experience the pain of having
| different chargers in their day to day lives.
| mateuszf wrote:
| > How is that not killing innovation?
|
| It's not such a great innovation if it makes users life
| harder.
| code_duck wrote:
| Is Apple currently using MagSafe? Both of the recent MacBooks
| in my household, from 2020 and 2021, have standard USB-C
| connections.
| gorbypark wrote:
| Yes, they brought it back. You can still charge via USB-C,
| though.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| It's also worth noting that the MagSafe cable has USB-C
| on the other end, so it fits fairly nicely into a world
| where all your adaptors are USB-C. The old MagSafe cables
| were permanently attached to the adaptor.
| mtoner23 wrote:
| Macbooks support magsafe and USBc charging, i imagine thats
| sufficient to meet the requirement
| tjoff wrote:
| Surely apple will still have usb-c on its laptop. And you
| would be able to charge through either magsafe or usb-c.
|
| Just as you can with MS Surface.
| hackmiester wrote:
| And just as you can with the current MacBook lineup.
| jollybean wrote:
| ? how did self regulation fail ? There's nothing wrong with the
| way iPhone charges. This is an unnecessary intervention. There
| are plenty of bigger, more relevant fish to fry.
| krisoft wrote:
| > There's nothing wrong with the way iPhone charges.
|
| Well. I'm lugging around one cable which charges all my
| devices from bike lamps to powerbanks. And there is a totally
| different cable I'm also lugging around to charge my iphone.
| Why is that necessary?
|
| Also my iphone charging cable frays all time, while my
| "everything else charging cable" does not.
| jollybean wrote:
| "Why is that necessary?"
|
| Why is any product feature necessary or not?
|
| If you want to buy something with a USB-C then buy that. If
| you want Apple to change then let them know.
|
| "Get the government to make a company make a choice I want"
| is really naive and glib.
|
| There is no systematic issue here - if this were household
| wiring, there would be, but this is not that.
|
| Every product has different configurations, different
| requirements. In particular, with smart phones, the extra
| thickness of the USBC actually makes it harder to design
| around - the issues has side effects.
|
| Governments should be regulating where there is a material
| necessity or safety concern, not otherwise.
|
| In particular - your 'bike lamps and power lamps' have
| totally different product requirements.
|
| The government could conceivably help an Engineering body
| to promote a narrower set of clean standards, but this is
| too much.
| Kerrick wrote:
| > Why is that necessary?
|
| Because you chose to buy a phone that uses Lightning,
| rather than choosing to buy a phone that uses USB-C.
| smithza wrote:
| Agreed. This is the better way to argue that we vote with
| our dollars. If iPhone had a monopoly (which they
| absolutely don't) intervention is welcome. There is no
| reason anyone is forced to use a Lightning cable and
| still enjoy the fair marketplace.
| 8note wrote:
| Where do I get to vote for an iPhone with a USB-C port
| with my wallet?
|
| I'm trying to vote for a device that runs iOS and uses a
| standard usb cable. Please specify the ballot box.
|
| As far as I know, the marketplace offers no choice, so I
| need to use alternative voting to make it available
| snakeboy wrote:
| I doubt the charging port is the most important factor in
| choosing a phone for most people.
|
| Similar to how I voted for Biden even though I don't
| agree with 100% of his policies. It doesn't mean I don't
| disagree with him often - it's just that I only get one
| vote, so I have to prioritize. It's perfectly consistent
| for me to complain and make my opinion known when his
| administration does things I disagree with.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Relevant, probably. Bigger. Probably not. Apple is huge.
| danaris wrote:
| Just because _Apple_ is huge doesn 't mean _any issue that
| involves Apple in any way_ is huge.
| Krkrmfnfmmd wrote:
| Government mandates on how you can charge your phone won't
| stifle innovation?
| emptyfile wrote:
| Was that a question? Of course not. In fact the parent
| comment even provides an example.
| axlee wrote:
| I don't know, did government mandating electricity plugs
| standards stifle innovation?
| ralph84 wrote:
| There are multiple different plug types used within the EU.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| They are slightly different but inter-compatible when
| using only 2-plug (without ground IIRC). Which means
| basically all non-energy-intense appliances including ie
| TVs. Heck, even Switzerland is compatible with them all.
|
| Notable exception of course are British, but they are not
| part of EU as we all know too well.
|
| It makes life _so_ much easier. I can 't understand why
| anybody would ever oppose this, either vested interest or
| butthurt ego?
| crote wrote:
| To a large extent, the 3-plug version with ground is also
| compatible.
|
| The CEE 7/7 plug works both in the Schuko Type F socket
| and the French Type E socket. The former covers 30ish
| countries, the latter covers 5.
|
| The only countries which do not use either E or F are:
|
| - Denmark, which is the only country to use Type K. It
| (relatively) recently allowed installing E or F sockets
| too, so K will probably die out over time.
|
| - Italy, which is the only country to use Type L. It is
| rapidly switching to L+F hybrids, as most devices sold
| these days are equipped with CEE 7/7
|
| - Ireland, which uses the British plug. As far as I am
| aware, no intention to change. Doing so would probably
| start a civil war.
|
| And outside the EU there are the UK and Switzerland.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Ireland, Malta and Cyprus are still in the EU, with
| British standard plugs.
|
| The EU considered this years ago, and decided the switch
| wasn't worth the cost.
| jen20 wrote:
| Not all are compatible. There are at least two different
| diameters of pin, not to mention several variations on
| three pins. I hit this myself this week.
|
| The type G plug is the best design available, by a very
| long way. If anything, that should be adopted by the EU
| and indeed the rest of the world.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| curious, what makes G type better?
| jen20 wrote:
| A non-exhaustive list:
|
| - fused in the plug
|
| - longer earth pin opens the live terminals to prevent
| accidental or inadvertent insertion into the live or
| neutral parts of the socket
|
| - sockets are usually switched which avoids sparks when
| plugging in
| ragebol wrote:
| Fair point. Those different plugs are standardized though
| so adapters & travel plugs can be made. I wondered why
| this has not yet been standardized EU-wide, but of course
| the cost of doing so would be huge, since those plugs &
| outlets are built into millions of buildings. Whereas
| phones and electronics change much faster and can thus
| more easily be transitioned, I suppose.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > the cost of doing so would be huge, since those plugs &
| outlets are built into millions of buildings
|
| You could always grandfather in old construction and only
| enforce the standard for new construction or renovations.
| jupp0r wrote:
| Yes, have you ever visited the United States? Their AC wall
| plugs are extremely bad. They wiggle out all the time and
| expose hot connectors before falling out. You can literally
| shock yourself by partially unplugging a wall connector and
| putting your finger on exposed connectors.
| electroly wrote:
| The result of the same sort of regulation in the UK is
| the opposite; they have excellent plugs and sockets. It
| doesn't seem that regulated standardization inherently
| stifles innovation, but you do run the risk of
| standardizing on the wrong thing.
| jupp0r wrote:
| I think the problem with something like USB-C is that
| technology is still evolving (while AC power distribution
| is pretty much settled). Just imagine solid state
| batteries allowing multi kW charging. USB-C isn't
| physically able to do this afaik.
| garmanarnar wrote:
| Correct! In fact it can even help innovation.
| pimterry wrote:
| Yes, it won't. As parent points out, the EU previously
| mandated micro-usb support
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply)
| which worked fairly well, and hasn't stifled the innovation
| that's resulted in USB-C.
| nulld3v wrote:
| > the EU previously mandated micro-usb support
|
| No they didn't, compliance is voluntary, just read the
| linked wiki page.
|
| I agree with the point that it won't stifle Innovation
| though. The swift passing of the USB-C mandate has proven
| to me that the EU can move quickly, so if a new connector
| comes along they will be able to switch the law reasonably
| quickly.
| AlphaSite wrote:
| This isn't swift I don't think, we've been hearing about
| this for years now.
| nulld3v wrote:
| This mandate was conceived in 2018: https://ec.europa.eu/
| docsroom/documents/46756/attachments/2/...
|
| I think 4 years is a reasonable time frame. Especially
| considering they weren't sitting around doing nothing for
| 4 years, most of it was research and surveys
| httptoolkit wrote:
| Technically voluntary, but every major phone manufacturer
| (including Apple) committed to it and followed it
| (although in Apple's case, with a dongle).
| dahfizz wrote:
| But, crucially, they were able to effortlessly move to a
| better connector when one came along. They were not
| legally forced to stick with Micro-B. Now they are
| legally stuck with USB-C indefinitely.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| If you've followed the EU for a few decades, you'd know
| they occasionally move quickly, but not often, and the
| movement is rarely in the best direction.
| nulld3v wrote:
| The multiple previous recommendations on mobile phone
| charging ports passed relatively quickly too.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Maybe some non Europeans are unaware, but the EU handles
| several other areas than phone connectors.
| 8note wrote:
| The topic at hand is phone connectors -- we have data
| about how the EU handles them, so why bother using
| estimates from some other thing?
| [deleted]
| imoverclocked wrote:
| > Although compliance is voluntary, a majority of the
| world's largest mobile phone manufacturers agreed to make
| their applicable mobile phones compatible with Europe's
| common external power supply specification (EN 62684:2010).
|
| Is compliance voluntary for this new ruling?
| Mindwipe wrote:
| TBF, it was "voluntary" for the old spec too. Everyone
| agreed to it in writing because otherwise they were told
| legislation would be swiftly passed.
|
| That's not really voluntary.
| dahfizz wrote:
| According to your link, compliance was voluntary. Its in
| the second sentence.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| USB C was designed to be the "last" physical connector, the
| whole point was standardisation. Now that the market has
| failed to deliver this, government steps in. In this case
| it's supporting an innovation. More "innovation" in
| connectors is what we're trying to avoid.
| ben_w wrote:
| What exactly is genuinely innovative about the iPhone
| connector at this point? It's 10 years old, and the only
| selling point I can see it having over USB (even when it was
| new) was the rotational symmetry (which is now also possible
| with USB C, which is what's being mandated).
| wigster wrote:
| it has the unique ability to snap off at the tip and block
| the port. ;-)
|
| most annoying.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Both Lightening and USB-C have similar failure mode where
| a tab can break. It's not common but trouble when it
| does. Neither one is clearly more durable than the other
| though both are definitely more durable than Micro-USB.
| ArchOversight wrote:
| With lightning, the paddle is on the cable and can easily
| be replaced. With USB-C the paddle is on the device and
| is difficult if not impossible to replace.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The point is that the _next_ connector innovation will have
| to be ratified by the European Parliament.
| DannyBee wrote:
| Two things: Just to be pedantic for a second - this is
| actually tautological, because innovation is defined in
| terms of making changes to established things.
|
| So by the EU establishing a thing, any changes you make
| to it are ... by definition ... innovation :)
|
| Once they establish a new standard, the thing that they
| established is no longer innovative, it is the new
| baseline for the next innovation.
|
| At least, as innovation is actually defined (the
| colloquial usage is very messy, as you can see in this
| thread, making it very easy for people to talk past each
| other).
|
| But let's be practical for a second - what exactly are
| you looking for? What is this next _physical connector
| innovation_ you are worrying you need that won 't exist
| now?
|
| I ask because almost all desire in phone connectors has
| been the same since the beginning of phone connectors. It
| is not new. The change in connectors was not driven by
| change in desire, only around capability. people want
| them to be reasonably sized, easy to put in/take out, not
| easily fall out, not break ever, charge the phone fast,
| and send data from the phone to a thing fast
| (audio/video/etc are a subset of this).
|
| That's it. That's always been it. For a long time,
| tradeoffs had to be made, and you could not achieve all
| desires at once. That hasn't been true for a decade. At
| this point, all desires are fulfilled.
|
| Over fulfilled in fact - the capability of the connectors
| have well outstripped the need of phones.
|
| There isn't anything left to do. It's done. Unless new
| customer desires come along, and they haven't for
| decades, there isn't innovation left to be had. The
| closest you come to difference is "should i make it be
| held by a magnet or by itself", which, while some are
| vocal about it, is a very minor preference (again, at
| least by data).
|
| It's also easy to claim things like "well you don't know
| what will come along", but as i said, what comes along is
| driven by customer desire. What is the unfulfilled
| customer desire that physical phone connectors can
| innovate to achieve at this point?
| neither_color wrote:
| _Over fulfilled in fact - the capability of the
| connectors have well outstripped the need of phones.
| There isn 't anything left to do. It's done. Unless new
| customer desires come along, and they haven't for
| decades, there isn't innovation left to be had_
|
| Both the connector and port are too large and the tip of
| the cable protrudes too far. I have an assortment of 90
| degree elbows for my growing USB device collection and
| the myriad of different features each cable has or
| doesn't have(Hdmi 4k120fps, Quest Link, Thunderbolt, etc)
| to keep my inputs flush and organized. When connecting to
| a laptop you're stuck with either dangling dongles or
| unsightly protrusions.
|
| As someone who actually owns over a dozen or so USB-C
| devices they're nowhere near as interchangeable as
| promised and quite frankly they suck and are hardly done
| improving. The last time UsB ports tried to differentiate
| themselves was when they started painting them blue but
| nowadays you have no idea what a given port can and cant
| do(e.g PD) unless it's explicitly written somewhere.
|
| How is that less confusing than "this is an
| iphone/airpods/apple keyboard cable and this is an
| everything else cable" to a consumer? The fact that all
| new improvements will have to go through some totally
| unbiased and impartial incorruptible committee is
| terrifying.
| oplaadpunt wrote:
| No, it doesn't. The technical details are passed as a so
| called 'delegated act', which defers the power to set the
| details of acts to the European Commission.[1] They can
| update this when necessary, and will do so if the USB
| forum updates to a newer version. I detest all the people
| who are confidently wrong about these things, it detracts
| from the interesting steps the EU has taken here.
|
| [1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...
| alain94040 wrote:
| Assuming you are correct, it still means that any startup
| that has an idea for an innovation in the phone cable
| space will first need to worry about how to convince the
| European Commission to approve it. That's quite a road
| block for a startup.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| Easy solution: add your new innovative charging port _in
| addition_ to USB-C.
| barsonme wrote:
| So the choices are (a) convince the EU Commission to
| adopt another charging port, or (b) manufacture devices
| with multiple charging ports?
| ben_w wrote:
| (b) describes wireless charging, so... yes?
| moogly wrote:
| > any startup that has an idea for an innovation in the
| phone cable space
|
| That's a lot of money for a startup to burn on something
| inconsequential instead of using off-the-shelf stuff for
| the least important area where you can innovate.
|
| Also, I haven't put a charging cable into my phone
| since... 2012 or something like that when the Nexus 4
| came out. Ever since I tried wireless charging, going
| back to regularly using a charging cable feels like going
| back to the stone age.
| xienze wrote:
| I'm not so sure that will be the case. The particular
| issue with this one is the insistence of using a
| proprietary connector when a perfectly acceptable
| standardized connector exists. How quick we are to forget
| that the reason basically every phone (except one!) no
| longer uses its own proprietary connector is because of
| similar legislation.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Or you ship both connectors.
| fsflover wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33080933
| jollybean wrote:
| The iphone uses the 'thinnest' connector of all, which I
| find nice.
|
| All phones use 'thinner' and better chargers than they did
| 10 years ago.
|
| It's unbelievable how people are default supporting this
| completely unnecessary intervention.
|
| This is exactly the kind of bad regulation we worry about,
| because it might have immediate populist appeal, it's
| ultimately not really a win.
|
| There are so many other things that need regulation aka app
| store rules, pay pal taking your money.
|
| There's nary any real advantage in 'single charger' and
| it'll make evolution that much harder.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| All Apple users I know are joyous because of this,
| simplification of life long term. Nobody enjoys carrying
| lightning cable for their phones and USB for _everything_
| else
|
| Maybe if Apple would make their lightning an open free
| standard, this would be now adopted, but since Apple
| is... well Apple their arrogance met the laws of place
| not governed by corporations (that much)
| jollybean wrote:
| "The government will force companies to make a product
| decision that I happen to like"
|
| This is an extremely bad reason to support this
| legislation.
|
| The government could legislate any number of product
| changes, they don't do that, because that's not their
| role.
|
| Apple has always been a leader in these areas, and this
| kind of thing will definitely stifle from making the
| decisions they need to, in addition to the fact their are
| all sorts of unintended design consequences on these
| forced choices.
|
| There are really only 2 kinds of charges floating around
| these days, and several mechanisms for handling both,
| it's not even a 1/10 on the problems we face.
|
| This is really bad populism, the EU is running up the
| wrong tree here.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _The government could legislate any number of product
| changes, they don 't do that, because that's not their
| role._
|
| In many cases they do, because it is their role. They
| have done so now with charging cables. You can whine
| about it until you turn blue but the objective fact
| remains that the EU has now made regulation of charging
| cables part of their role.
|
| Roles of governments aren't set in stone, they can in
| response to changing cultural and social norms, corporate
| practices, economic conditions, etc. The EU is not
| obliged to neatly confine itself according to your
| demands.
| barrucadu wrote:
| > The government could legislate any number of product
| changes, they don't do that, because that's not their
| role.
|
| Why isn't it? Is there a certain "size" an issue needs to
| be before it becomes government-appropriate? How do you
| determine that size?
| blitzar wrote:
| > What exactly is genuinely innovative about the iPhone
| connector at this point
|
| The way they fray near the connector. It is truly inovative
| how _one of_ the worlds most inovative companies has been
| unable to figure out how to wrap plastic around a wire.
| thiht wrote:
| What happens if a constructor wants to push for full wireless
| charging?
|
| I didn't read the texts, but wouldn't something like mandating
| companies to release a version of their products with USB-C
| better instead of only allowing USB-C? Say for example Apple
| wants to release iPhone 20 with Lightning, or full wireless, then
| force them to also release iPhone 20 with USB-C and leave the
| choice to consumers? Is this allowed by the texts?
| haunter wrote:
| The text literally say ""in so far as they are capable of being
| recharged via wired charging"
|
| So pretty much nothing, a manufacturer can go straight to
| wireless charging.
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| No mention of sex toys, even though globally I believe that
| market is already larger than the smartwatch market. Are they
| covered but not mentioned in the article, or have they been left
| out?
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Another fucking adaptor.
| klworks wrote:
| kreeben wrote:
| This "Europe is morally superior to USA" vs "the USA is
| technically superior to Europe" dispute needs to stop. It's
| making this forum suck. Can't we do better?
| sfaruque wrote:
| Thinking out loud if Apple would resort to making 2 versions of
| their iPhones? And then exclusively selling the USB-C version in
| the EU, and everywhere else giving the customers a choice.
| idkwhoiam wrote:
| Just a regular day in the EU. Can the EU pass law for all cars to
| use the same tyre dimensions? A set of EU approved haircuts would
| also be very welcome! /s
| nudgeee wrote:
| Closer to mandating common EV charging connectors, which has
| already happened in the EU (CCS Type 2).
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Lightning is showing its age with how slow it is.
|
| USB 4 on iPhones, and ideally Thunderbolt on the Pro iPhones that
| shoot large videos, would be amazing.
| muaytimbo wrote:
| I wonder what product decisions the EU will make for Apple next.
| Maybe Tim Cook should just hire them. Imagine that first
| conversation:
|
| [Apple Employee]: What other great product ideas do you have for
| Apple? [Legislator]: BRING BACK MY HEADPHONE JACK YOU FREE MARKET
| BULLY!
| Decabytes wrote:
| I wonder if Apple will just make them iPhones in 2024 portless
| and only chargeable via wireless to combat this
| ajdude wrote:
| I honestly hope they go this route, and as a side effect give
| us waterproof iPhones.
| zephrx1111 wrote:
| Scared mao, thought EU is regulating the size of my dick.
| guilhas wrote:
| Lawl, 2024 Android phones adopt USB-D.5
| Vosporos wrote:
| wooooooo finally some good news!!
| pain2022 wrote:
| Forced usb-c charger for laptops is concerning.
|
| 1) it is additional attack vector, what if maid in my hotel
| enhanced my charging brick with rubber ducky?
|
| 2) mag safe is very convenient
| _visgean wrote:
| 1. if you are worried about these type of attacks than charger
| is least of your worries... You should probably turn off
| thunderbolt support completely...
|
| 2. I think mag safe chargers will be allowed to continue. Note
| that even now you can charge the macbooks with magsafe with
| usb-c charger..
| trballq wrote:
| How exactly is the charger the least of the worries if it is
| the one thing that you are forced to use?
|
| I'm sure these will be available in iPhone design soon:
|
| https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/usbharpoon-
| is...
|
| A charger has one job, namely to charge. Stop this "thin
| hardware design" mania and design a proper plug.
| jsmith45 wrote:
| The law does not mandate that USB-C be the only way of charging
| the device. Simply that it supports it as a charging method (if
| it supports any wired charging method at all) and that if the
| device can be charged via cable at voltages greater than 5
| volts, or currents greater than 3 A, that it also support USB
| Power Delivery. Plus there are some labeling requirements, like
| indicating on the box if the device includes a charging brick
| or not, indicating minimum and maximum charging wattages
| supported, etc.
| thefz wrote:
| Why? I use the same Baseus 65-W power brick for two phones and
| two laptops very, very conveniently. And GAN chargers are a
| third of the size of traditional power bricks.
|
| Also, who cares about magsafe? Only Apple laptops have it.
|
| I think the move to USB-C is a smart one, it can even reach
| 100W. Speeds are insane too.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > Also, who cares about magsafe? Only Apple laptops have it.
|
| I wish more laptops had it. My old work HP laptop's USB-C
| port started having some play, so my monitor wouldn't always
| connect properly to it. Bump the desk, and the screen would
| start to flicker. The same monitor / cable works perfectly on
| other PCs.
|
| My new HP work laptop has the USB-C port so tight, that
| whenever I need to unplug the charger, it counts as arm day.
|
| And while I, personally, don't do it all the time, it does
| happen from time to time that I grab my foot in the power
| cable and drag the laptop with it. I usually realize it
| quickly enough to not pull it completely off the desk, but
| it's the kind of fear I never had with my MBP.
| thefz wrote:
| Is MagSafe resistant to wear from connecting and
| disconnecting?
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| It would seem so. The connection is magnetic, so there's
| not a lot of wear. I only have the older macs (2012 /
| 2013), where the connector seems fairly securely attached
| to the case, instead of hanging off the motherboard.
| Don't know how the newer ones are.
|
| I've never heard of anyone complaining about the
| _connector_ wearing out or otherwise working less well
| after a while. What usually happens is that the cable
| frays around the connector, but I 'd say that's not a
| _connector_ problem, but rather thin plastic without
| enough tension relief.
| wincy wrote:
| Gaming laptops draw over 100W. Won't this eliminate an entire
| market of laptops that require specialized plugs that can
| deliver more power? Or else you'll end up with the dreaded
| "dies while it's plugged in" situation.
| thefz wrote:
| USB-C will deliver up to 240W.
| abracadabra_ wrote:
| "...laptops that are rechargeable via a wired cable,
| operating with a power delivery of up to 100 Watts, will
| have to be equipped with a USB Type-C port"
|
| From: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-
| room/20220930IP...
| krzyk wrote:
| Besides the fact that USB-C was updated to support 240W,
| laptop can have e.g. two USB-C ports for charging.
| scrlk wrote:
| USB-C for laptop chargers isn't a fantastic idea IMO. The
| majority of laptop manufacturers solder USB-C ports to the
| motherboard, so when the port inevitably wears out/becomes
| loose, you need to have micro soldering skills to replace it.
| Putting the USB-C port on a daughterboard (or flex cable as
| seen in phones) isn't easy to do if you want to push USB 4
| speeds through the port (40 Gbit/s).
|
| Compare that with the traditional barrel connector which is
| usually an easy repair. Most designs have the barrel
| connector on a cable assembly rather than having the
| connector soldered to the motherboard.
| asasidh wrote:
| Imagine if we had to wait for legislators to get any tech
| innovation. EU is proving that it is going backwards in
| everything with each move.
| Fiahil wrote:
| Fast-Forward to Autumn 2023 or Spring 2024 :
|
| Tim Cook: (40:20) Now let's talk about iPhone. iPhone has forever
| changed the world. Every single day people rely on iPhone, from
| their most demanding tasks to capturing the moments of their
| lives, streaming their favorite TV shows, playing their favorite
| games, staying up to date with the news of the world and
| connecting with friends and loved ones.
|
| Tim Cook: (40:42) This is what drives us to create the best
| iPhone possible. To create an experience unlike any other, with
| legendary ease of use, beautiful and durable designs with water
| resistance and great battery life, with industry leading
| performance and the world's most advanced camera systems, and
| with privacy built in. People love iPhone, and we keep making
| iPhone better, more powerful, more capable, and even more fun to
| use. Today, we are thrilled to introduce our next generation of
| iPhone. Here it is.
|
| Tim Cook: (41:54) [inaudible 00:41:54]
|
| Tim Cook: (41:55) This is iPhone {15,16}. To tell you more,
| here's Kianne.
|
| Cayenne: (42:24) Let's take a closer look at, iPhone {15,16},
| starting with design. It has the sleek, flat edge design that
| people love. It also have a fantastic new charging port,
| featuring the same USB-C connector as our beloved iPad, developed
| in a tremendous effort to {fight against climate change and
| electronic waste,further enhance the connectivity of the iPhone
| {15,16}}.
| WithinReason wrote:
| I thought it was going to have no ports and only wireless
| charging
| joe-collins wrote:
| Notably absent from the list of product categories is
| wireless charging pads.
|
| So, Apple ditches the wired charging port, and continues to
| sell their MagSafe Qi chargers with Lightning.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| I have been seeing comments like this since the news of the
| EU law. Does nobody use CarPlay? Most CarPlay systems are
| wired. I don't see Apple going portless any time soon.
| tomxor wrote:
| Nah, in a move of immense courage they will ditch charging
| all together and start selling single use iPhones. I can see
| the dollars rolling in now.
| Bilal_io wrote:
| Unless I can charge it with my body temperature, I don't want
| anything to do with a device that has no connector.
| oaiey wrote:
| I would be careful with the body temperature statement :)
| yreg wrote:
| I like my Apple Watch.
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _Fast-Forward to Autumn 2023 or Spring 2024_
|
| Since when does Apple introduce new iPhones in the Spring?
| gruez wrote:
| iPhone SEs were released in the spring.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Oh good point! But I don't think any new features have ever
| been released in the Spring -- SEs are a different form-
| factor of existing tech. (I have nothing against them, and
| my next phone may well be an SE, if the Minis are truly
| dead).
| seydor wrote:
| That's like , 75% of the new features of Iphone 15
| amelius wrote:
| nucatus wrote:
| Say no more. You're hired.
| scrlk wrote:
| "...and that's the new iPhone. It's our best iPhone ever, and
| we think you're going to love it! Now, back to Tim"
| atemerev wrote:
| One standard! One socket! One na.. wait oh shi
| roamerz wrote:
| EU knows best. Just look how well making everyone click to accept
| cookies worked out.
|
| And "empower consumers to make more sustainable choices". typical
| gov speak. If I was Apple I'd build in a lightning to usb-c
| adapter to the bottom and add a chin to the phone that resembled
| the older Pixels and engrave on it EU mandated.
| rswail wrote:
| The GDPR is an unalloyed good for consumer protection.
|
| The fact that stupid website designers and even stupider web
| marketers _want_ to collect useless information to the point
| that they have to have complicated cookie acceptance banners is
| _not_ the EU 's fault.
|
| The GDPR forces system designers to actually work out how to
| deal with their customers saying "forget about me" and the
| regulations have the force of law and fines behind them.
|
| It makes it much easier as a designer to say "No you can't
| collect random information and make a profile of the customer
| that we can sell to unrelated companies, because otherwise
| we'll get a huge fine."
| roamerz wrote:
| It actually is the EU's fault as before the law I didn't need
| to click through anything. It's a clear cause and affect.
|
| Also regardless of what websites say in the notices that I
| must click through I still manage privacy settings on my side
| through browser controls.
| blue_light_man wrote:
| What next EU? New law to mandate using space over tabs? How do I
| send my suggestions?
| whiddershins wrote:
| I genuinely believe if Apple thought USB-C was better for the
| phone they would have implemented it.
|
| For one thing, I suspect it is harder to the make the phone as
| thin, or as waterproof, with the bigger connector.
|
| Apple also doesn't have a monopoly, Android has far larger market
| share globally than they do.
|
| I'm confused what is supposed to happen as new connectors are
| developed, will the Eu prevent progress on phone connectors or
| does this law have a sunset?
|
| I'm having trouble seeing a bright side here. If we'd had this
| law before we would all be stuck using mini-usb.
| MikusR wrote:
| To make lightning cables/devices you have to pay apple. To make
| USB-C you don't
| aaomidi wrote:
| I thought this was done?
| izacus wrote:
| Bizarrely enough, this is actually a big boost to consider an
| iPhone for me. Having everything on USB-C is such a convenience
| that it was my no. 1 reason to stay in the other ecosystem.
| allendoerfer wrote:
| It's the number one reason, why I am not upgrading and tell
| everyone who asks me, to not do it either. This law is so good,
| even its anticipation has environmental benefits.
| Krkrmfnfmmd wrote:
| The law will stifle further innovation for cables. Imagine
| still having USB A because the EU said so.
| Avamander wrote:
| It will not, the previous one didn't either.
| pimterry wrote:
| > Imagine still having USB A because the EU said so.
|
| The EU literally did mandate USB-A/plug + micro-USB (see ht
| tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply).
|
| The successful development & widespread use of USB-C
| afterwards, culminating in this updated directive
| standardizing it, is a very neat demonstration that it
| didn't stifle innovation at all.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| That wasn't a law, just a voluntary mandate.
| ralfd wrote:
| Then why does Apple use lightning if the EU mandated
| otherwise?
|
| Surely there must be a difference between the old and the
| new law. And this difference can then still be stifling
| innovation.
| kalleboo wrote:
| There wasn't a mandate - the EU asked the manufactures to
| adopt a standard "or else we'll look at regulating it",
| and that worked great, everyone adopted microUSB and then
| switched to USB-C just fine. Except Apple. And since
| Apple continually refused to get in line, we're now
| getting that "or else". Apple is who got the whole
| industry in this situation.
| enriquec wrote:
| hilarious that the people in favor can't even agree on
| the previous state of things... they just get high on
| "doing something" and forcing compliance - when in
| reality they've done nothing and have no concept of what
| creates innovation and progress
| donatj wrote:
| Are there exceptions to this for things like small devices? For
| instance, my Xiaomi smart watch charges with a USB->magnetic pogo
| pin adapter and that seems apt for the small size.
|
| Way easier than trying to fiddle with a tiny door covering a USB
| port like on some of my headphones.
| etiennebausson wrote:
| Quoting the article:
|
| >> Exemptions will apply for devices that are too small to
| offer a USB-C port, such as smart watches, health trackers, and
| some sports equipment, but the legislation is expected to be
| expanded to other devices over time. Companies will also have
| to ensure that dedicated labels clearly inform consumers about
| the charging characteristics of devices they buy.
| chasd00 wrote:
| A law specifying a technical hardware feature on a consumer
| device not related to safety is ridiculous. Is there no other
| higher priority for the EU to work on?
| Avamander wrote:
| I'm sure the EU isn't _single-threaded_.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Like the law regulating every power cord attached to every AC
| powered device ever?
| jen20 wrote:
| That is nominally related to safety, is not mandated EU wide,
| and if it were would be a great example of a dumb idea unless
| they standardized on the type G plug. I have encountered four
| different connectors just this week in the EU, none of which
| are as safe as the British design.
| slac wrote:
| The regulation around adopting GSM as a standard for mobile
| networks was very positive for Europe. It can be good at times.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Backward and weird.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| > Starting in 2026, USB-C will also become the norm for laptop
| chargers.
|
| Fuck off! Barrel plugs are great.
| sbuk wrote:
| Certainly if the quality of USB-C ports on Thinkpads in
| anything to go by.
| peteradio wrote:
| Have thinkpads 2+ years but don't have any issues. What is
| the problem with the ports?
| sbuk wrote:
| Had 2 Thinkpads through work from new - x280 and P14s.
| Both, within a month, had issues with the cable falling out
| of the socket. Tried several different cables, all fell
| out. The build quality is shitty by-and-large; I currently
| have keyboard keys that squeak and creek on the P series,
| cheap, plasticky and overpriced rubbish.
| yourusername wrote:
| Apple should love it. No way a USB-C port lasts 5 years in daily
| use.
| dzikimarian wrote:
| My oneplus from 2017 would like a word with you.
| jmull wrote:
| hackeraccount wrote:
| Who can imagine that something better then USB-C will ever come
| along though? Apparently not the people passing this law.
| kypro wrote:
| This is what I find most short-sighted about this. I swear
| the typical connectors I use for electronics have changed
| several times over the last decade alone (mini USB, micro
| USB, USB-C). The idea that innovation in this space is done
| seems optimistic to me. So now every few years do we just
| need to hope the EU will update it's laws in a timely manner
| so we can get better connectors for our electronics?
| danielbln wrote:
| You do know that the reason we were using micro-USB for
| everything instead of a hodgepodge of proprietary
| connectors ie because of the same EU body bringing the
| hammer down that is now also mandating USB-C?
| jen20 wrote:
| How many times in one thread does this falsehood need to
| be debunked exactly?
| timbit42 wrote:
| Until people stop posting the falsehood.
| danielbln wrote:
| How is it a falsehood? The EU was threatening to enforce
| micro-usb unless the companies get their shit together.
| They did, so the EU didn't have to, then.
| jen20 wrote:
| A threat is not a mandate. So, it's a falsehood.
| burlesona wrote:
| There's an eternal conflict between "Chaotic but Smart" vs
| "Orderly but Dumb." Historically the tech industry has been very
| much on the side of "Chaotic but Smart."
|
| This is a victory for "Orderly but Dumb."
|
| For the essential read, see:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State
| nudgeee wrote:
| Lightning had a good 10-year run. Let's not forget that it was
| released a full 2 years before USB-C, and one of the first to
| being reversible connectors to the masses.
|
| Also, here is the final report commissioned by the EU: "Impact
| Assessment Study to Assess Unbundling of Chargers (July 2021)"
| [0].
|
| [0] https://op.europa.eu/o/opportal-service/download-
| handler?ide...
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I'd rather it hadn't come to this because I don't believe in
| regulation to this extent. But there honestly hasnt been any
| excuse for a long time for them not to do it. Especially when
| some other iOS products have it, same with the AirPods case. It's
| purely to make more money from cables and you can tell this from
| the lengths they go to that make sure non-legit cables are so
| unreliable and have DRM.
| rmccue wrote:
| AirPods use Lightning cables for charging, not USB-C.
| (Potentially your sentence could be read the other way though
| so not sure if you intended to say that.)
| albertTJames wrote:
| HN / libertarians: Laws are for fools.
|
| Reality: Laws are the only way to civilise mankind.
| auggierose wrote:
| Did the EU just forbid improving on USB-C? Are cables really
| creating such a waste compared with the amount of resources that
| goes into creating the devices themselves?
| _trackno5 wrote:
| Why do people think it is a good thing to have this enforced by
| law is beyond me.
|
| I don't see any win besides a minor convenience. A lightning
| cable weighs almost nothing and it's not a big deal to have one
| around.
|
| As to lightning port limitations, I question whether usb-c will
| give average iPhone users any other advantage other than charging
| their phone. What are people gonna do with it other than charge
| their phones or transfer files?
|
| Feels like there's nothing to celebrate here. Just the EU using
| its influence to exert control over things that don't matter at
| all.
| shawnz wrote:
| Micro-USB was similarly enforced by law (but adapters were
| permitted with that regulation, thus allowing Apple to continue
| using proprietary ports) and that legislation had a clear and
| obvious positive impact for smartphone users. Don't you recall
| the days when every single manufacturer had a terrible
| proprietary connector? I think that enforcement was one of the
| best examples of a regulatory win in the technology sector in
| recent times. This is simply an attempt to strengthen that
| regulation and update it to a modern standard.
| Hamcha wrote:
| > Why do people think it is a good thing to have this enforced
| by law is beyond me.
|
| It's not, we're glad SOMEONE is forcing them to take this
| direction, but it's really sad (and potentially damaging) it
| had to come to this.
|
| > As to lightning port limitations, I question whether usb-c
| will give average iPhone users any other advantage other than
| charging their phone. What are people gonna do with it other
| than charge their phones or transfer files?
|
| Lightning itself is also used for audio (analog audio dongle)
| and video. The one benefit USB-C could bring to the table is
| higher transfer speed since Lightning is stuck on USB2 speeds,
| USB-C doesn't imply USB 3 but they might as well try.
| dubya wrote:
| Better transfer speed would be a benefit to USB-C. It comes
| up using an iPhone as a camera when wifi is congested or just
| not available, e.g. a college campus with device registration
| required. Dongles for phone to HDMI could work without
| needing compression as well.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| That might be a fair point -- no comment.
|
| This shouldn't be legislated. That's absurd.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| Is the USB2 speed a limitation of the Lightning connector, or
| is it that Apple just doesn't care to improve this?
|
| Because if it's the latter, as you say, there's no guarantee
| we'll see improved speeds because of the port change.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| The Lightning connector has 8 pins: 2 for power, 2 for
| ID/control, and 4 for 2 differential lanes of anything.
| Those 2 differential lines are used for all data transfer,
| and, IIRC, are bidirectional. So, in theory, the Lightning
| connector could carry USB 3.0's differential RX/TX lanes no
| problem.
|
| My guess as to why Apple hasn't implemented that is a lack
| of demand. Syncing/backup is expected to be handled on the
| device now, and USB 2.0 gives enough bandwidth for the
| majority of the other cases. And on iPads where more
| bandwidth might be required (eg. external data storage),
| they already have USB-C connectors supporting the higher
| speeds.
| philjohn wrote:
| Except the free tier on iCloud is miniscule so you're
| forced to stump up cash if you actually want to backup.
|
| Plus iCloud is stubbornly not E2EE.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| You need to fork up all of $0.99 a month for 50GB.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| The lightning connector supports USB3 and it is implemented
| on _some_ models of iPad Pro when used with the Lightning
| to USB3 Camera Adapter:
|
| https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/product/MK0W2ZM/A/lightning-
| to...
|
| Apple never made a USB3 to lightning cable.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| I wonder whether you could achieve USB3 transfer speeds
| from a computer to a usb3 iPad Pro with the Camera
| Adapter and a usb A to A cable like this:
|
| https://amzn.eu/d/37zSB6e
| dmitrygr wrote:
| That adapter acts like usb host IIRC. So does your
| computer. Connecting two hosts with a A-to-A cable is not
| going to do anything good (and might cause harm). This is
| why A-to-A cables aren't supposed to exist as per usb
| spec.
| mrunkel wrote:
| Apple wants to do away with all external connectors on that
| phone. My guess is that they won't have any ports once they
| get rid of the lightning connector.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Not so sure about that, they already added USB-C to many
| devices, and there are still plenty of use cases where
| wireless charging is tricky.
|
| I really need a cable to charge my phone while driving,
| for example.
|
| Additionally, charging wirelessly is much slower,
| sometimes you just need to be able to charge quickly.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > I really need a cable to charge my phone while driving,
| for example.
|
| Am I to understand you're having issues with wireless
| charging while driving?
|
| I was having high hopes for this for riding my motorbike
| because plugging everything in and routing cables is
| quite the pain...
| donatj wrote:
| Transfer speed seems like a non-issue. Wi-Fi 6 is faster than
| the the internal SSDs read speed. There's no reason to even
| plug it in for data.
| alain94040 wrote:
| Are you sure? A quick Google shows:
|
| Wifi 6 bandwidth: 9.6 Gbit/s M1 SSD read speed: 6000 MB/s
|
| So the read speed is about 6X faster than the Wifi 6
| bandwidth.
| maxfurman wrote:
| 6000 MB/s is 6 GB/s, no? Am I missing something?
| zdw wrote:
| Comparing a shared RF medium to a fairly guaranteed point
| to point connection is one of those things that in theory
| works great, but in practice, not so much...
| moffkalast wrote:
| Plugging the phone into a laptop seems far easier than
| connecting both to a shared network and then trying to find
| the right IPs to connect to.
|
| Worse case you even have to make an access point which
| isn't a gui operation on most laptops.
| donatj wrote:
| I'm guessing you don't use Apple devices. AirDrop.
| Seamless adhoc direct connection. Easier than plugging in
| a cable.
| moffkalast wrote:
| God forbid you'd ever want to transfer to a non-Apple
| device amirite? Most of the people that I know that use
| iPhones don't have Macs. And those with Macs don't have
| iPhones lol.
| TakeBlaster16 wrote:
| I don't think "seamless" is a common word people use to
| describe it.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/applehelp/comments/un9rjb/airdro
| p_h...
| staringback wrote:
| Wi-Fi 6 is faster than the internal SSDs read speed when
| there is direct line of sight and absolutely no cross
| channel interference*
| donatj wrote:
| AirDrop is dead simple device to device adhoc wifi. If
| you're close enough to plug it in, you're close enough to
| have line of sight.
| woliveirajr wrote:
| Imagine a World where your appliances just work in some sockets
| and not in others. Where the tires of your car can just be
| bought from one supplier because it was limited by the car
| manufacturer. Your toaster just accepts some kind of bread.
| Your pencil can't be sharpned except with one specific
| equipament. Your mechanical pencil can use just one kind of
| pencil lead because it has some specific size.
|
| And now imagine a step further, where all cars, mechanical
| pencils, toasters, wall sockets... everything is disposable
| because some small detail or component has just one supplier.
|
| Imagine how much you'll spend to have things, and how much
| you'll have to throw away when any small thing of it gets
| broken.
| enriquec wrote:
| and literally none of that has happened with no mandates.
| What a dumb argument. Now the government (that creates no
| value) now gets credit for "preventing" fictional "horrors"
| like proprietary bread? statists guna state. seems like some
| of europe just looooves being told what to do like children
| dom96 wrote:
| > What are people gonna do with it other than charge their
| phones or transfer files?
|
| It would at least save me from carrying one power brick + usb
| cable. Steam Deck (USB C), Switch (USB C), MacBook Pro (USB C)
| and iPhone is the only odd one out. This does make a
| significant difference to what I can take with me on holiday.
| norman784 wrote:
| Can you tell me which standard does work with the switch? I
| have a few usb-c cables but only a few can charge it, while I
| can charge my iPad with every cable that I own, it a bit sad
| that ubs-c is a lie, I'd hope that at least a few things were
| not optional with usb-c standard, and also that it didn't
| have too much optional stuff that makes harder and harder to
| buy a cable, it the same with HDMI, that's why display port
| feels superior IMHO, less optional features.
| dtech wrote:
| The Switch USB-C connector is notorious for being non-
| complaint to the spec, making charging it finicky. However
| I did not encounter as much trouble as you, 9 out off 11
| chargers I try work. This problem is unique to the Switch
| however.
| matwood wrote:
| It seems many are confused about what the iPhone Pro comes
| with today - a usb-c to lightning cable. So right now you
| only need to carry a single power brick and 2 cables. So
| after this law you can carry a single cable. A big win...I
| guess.
| Bud wrote:
| That's just you, of course. For hundreds of millions of
| others, this cuts the other way: over a decade's worth of
| Lightning accessories and cables and docks are out there.
|
| Which is why the EU is just being dumb, here. They think they
| are accomplishing some amazing user-friendly enviro-friendly
| feat, but all they are really doing is making a lot of
| Lightning gear out there less useful.
|
| And all this to switch to a port that is substantially
| larger, clunkier, and has no real advantages for iPhone
| users. Which is why Apple hasn't bothered changing up til
| now. That, plus Apple actually values what its customers
| REALLY need and what REALLY ACTUALLY benefits them.
| shawnz wrote:
| How much time has to pass before the one-time cost of
| deprecating lightning is overtaken by the ongoing savings
| of having a single standard? Also consider that lightning
| would surely have eventually been deprecated one day even
| without this initiative.
| Bud wrote:
| shawnz wrote:
| How did lightning ever provide "ongoing savings"? It was
| simply an update of the 30-pin connector, it wasn't
| created to improve reusability or applicability to other
| kinds of devices.
|
| Also, I don't really appreciate the snark. It's just a
| connector.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Ignoring the fact that USB-C to Lightning cables exist, how
| in the world does a little power brick and cable make a
| "significant difference" to what you can take with you?
| hajile wrote:
| I hope this moves them to add USB-4/thunderbolt along with
| adding support for an ipad-style desktop when connected to an
| external monitor.
| moolcool wrote:
| > Why do people think it is a good thing to have this enforced
| by law is beyond me.
|
| Personally, I am happy to see that some governments still care
| about consumer protection.
| acheron wrote:
| Protecting me from using my existing cables? Gee, thanks.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| > using my existing cables
|
| This won't apply retroactively, new iphones after X date
| will have to be shipped with USB-C
| culturestate wrote:
| _> This won 't apply retroactively_
|
| No, but the parent's point is still valid - many people
| own more than one lightning cable and/or lightning-
| enabled accessory (charging docks, stereos, etc) and as
| soon as you own an iPhone with USB-C, they'll immediately
| become either useless or require yet _another_ adapter.
|
| This already happened once when the iPhone switched from
| the iPod connector to Lightning, and people _revolted_
| for this _exact_ reason.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > This already happened once when the iPhone switched
| from the iPod connector to Lightning, and people revolted
| for this exact reason.
|
| That was before USB-C existed (and micro-USB didn't have
| the same sort of accessory ecosystem that the 30-pin
| connector had). In this day and age, those same charging
| docks and stereos and such typically already support
| USB-C (because that's what most modern phones use, and
| it's kind of silly in this day and age to run two
| separate manufacturing lines for two separate SKUs
| instead of simply supporting both connectors in the same
| device), so if anything this would be the _opposite_ of a
| reason to revolt.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Opposite. Allowing to use my existing cables. Geez.
| Bud wrote:
| This doesn't "protect" any consumers from anything.
| pif wrote:
| > the EU using its influence to exert control over things that
| don't matter at all.
|
| If it doesn't matter at all, why is Apple still stubbornly
| refusing to adapt?
| timbit42 wrote:
| Whatever the reason is, it's not for the environment.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| > _I don 't see any win besides a minor convenience._
|
| A minor inconvenience multiplied by the number of smartphones
| (7.33 billion) is not a minor problem.
|
| It's not that it's a problem on the individual level, it's that
| we're roughly doubling the number of cables needed and halving
| their utilization at the same time. Yes I know android is more
| popular, but the issue is the _two_ different cables needed.
|
| https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/how-many-phones-are-in-the-w...
| permo-w wrote:
| >Why do people think it is a good thing to have this enforced
| by law is beyond me
|
| this idea that it is somehow a bad thing to force mega-
| corporations to do things that are good for society. it's so
| widespread and yet - short of actual communism - I have
| literally never seen any evidence of public action against
| mega-corporate interests resulting in damage to society as a
| whole, beyond the inevitable political lobbying and media
| corruption that ensues
|
| is it any surprise that entities whose entire existence has
| been justified by clever storytelling (i.e. marketing) have
| been successful at convincing people that rules for them are a
| bad thing, while rules for you on the street are perfectly fine
| and actually good?
|
| people act like these mega-corps are weak, soft little babies
| that need to be treated with kid gloves. "no, but what if this
| law could do that to them? but what if this law means they make
| 0.1% less profit this year?". I absolutely understand this kind
| of reticence with actual babies, or individual people, or
| small-to-medium-sized businesses, but it makes me angry that
| people are so reluctant to act against these unaccountable
| mega-entities. it is hamstringing society
| pif wrote:
| > Why do people think it is a good thing to have this enforced
| by law is beyond me.
|
| I'm sorry that we need a law to instil some common sense into
| some managers' thick skulls. But I'm happy that EU is showing
| that in, a sane democracy, no huge corporation can force its
| will on the people.
| durnygbur wrote:
| > Why do people think it is a good thing to have this enforced
| by law is beyond me.
|
| Because the only balance the capitalism and free market
| introduce, is high balance on oligarchs' bank accounts.
| fullstop wrote:
| In 10 years, when we've moved from USB-C to something else,
| iPhones in EU could still be stuck on USB-C because they are
| forced by law.
|
| In terms of progression, my phones since 2004 have gone:
|
| proprietary flip phone stuff, 30-pin iPhone, micro usb, usb-c,
| usb-c.
|
| Time will tell if USB-C sticks around, I suppose.
| staringback wrote:
| Wow I Can't Believe My Android Phone Still Uses Micro-USB
| Since That Was Forced By Law!!!
|
| Please think about what you're saying for a moment
| fullstop wrote:
| You've missed my point, which was that USB connectors on
| phones have changed over the years and the EU is locking
| devices into C.
| exikyut wrote:
| In all fairness, why _do_ Android devices not have to use
| Micro-USB now?
|
| If they were mandated to do so by law, what were the
| conditions that have presumably un-bound them now?
|
| Or are they all violating the Micro-USB law but being
| allowed to do so because it's obviously the common-sense
| thing to do?
| fullstop wrote:
| I'm not from the EU, but could they include a Micro <->
| Type C adapter with the phone to skirt the mandate?
| nulld3v wrote:
| > the EU is locking devices into C.
|
| For now. Why wouldn't the EU be able to just change the
| law? This mandate passed relatively quickly. Why can't
| they just repeat this?
| fullstop wrote:
| Clearly something happened (or didn't happen) which
| allowed phone manufacturers to ignore the existing micro
| usb mandate.
|
| When would this mandate be changed? After the rest of the
| world has already moved on to Type D?
| nulld3v wrote:
| > Clearly something happened (or didn't happen) which
| allowed phone manufacturers to ignore the existing micro
| usb mandate.
|
| There was never a Micro-USB mandate, I've been replying
| to a bunch of comments around here that claim that such a
| mandate existed.
|
| You can check for yourself, it was just a recommendation:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_sup
| ply
|
| > When would this mandate be changed? After the rest of
| the world has already moved on to Type D?
|
| The EU has already passed multiple recommendations
| previously about mobile phone port standardization. They
| were all passed in a reasonable amount of time. Moreover,
| this mandate was also passed in a reasonable amount of
| time.
|
| Therefore, I have reason to believe that future mandates
| regarding mobile phone port charging will also be passed
| in a reasonable amount of time.
| Xelynega wrote:
| You missed their point. The EU "locked" devices into
| micro B but somehow they still managed to switch to USB-C
| when it became viable. How could they have switched if
| they were as "locked in" as you think?
| fullstop wrote:
| You're right -- I was unaware that micro usb was mandated
| a decade ago, so it doesn't seem like the mandate was
| doing much in the first place.
| dtech wrote:
| For a while Apple included micro-USB to lightning dongles
| with EU iPhones, but I think they've stopped doing that
| some time ago.
| schmuelio wrote:
| I mean the simple fact that every phone manufacturer bar
| Apple moved to Micro-B indicates that the mandate works,
| and the fact that they then migrated to USB-C indicates
| that it doesn't lock manufacturers in forever.
|
| In addition, Apple is known for making loads of dongles,
| so it wouldn't be remotely weird for them to sell/ship a
| lightning -> USB-C dongle. So the argument about
| mandating e-waste doesn't really hold up either.
|
| So you have:
|
| - It works - It doesn't lock manufacturers in forever -
| It doesn't mandate e-waste
|
| Any other reasons you want to give? So far those are the
| only three I've seen and none of them hold water.
| fullstop wrote:
| As someone else pointed out, the micro-b thing in the EU
| was a recommendation and not a mandate so the terms are a
| bit different here.
|
| I would be happy to have Apple move to Type C, but I do
| question if an actual mandate (and not a recommendation)
| could prevent future USB connector adoption in the EU
| market.
| blululu wrote:
| When the law enforces a standard it is very likely to stick
| around even if better alternatives exist.
| meibo wrote:
| I will definitely switch to iPhone as soon as they come with
| USB-C. It feels like they're just not doing it out of spite - I
| already have 20 USB-C chargers and power banks for all of my
| hardware. If you've been in the Apple ecosystem for years, no,
| it probably won't matter to you and will probably annoy you
| more than what it's worth because you now need separate cables
| to charge your mouse and your phone.
| Bud wrote:
| Out of spite? What about it feeling out of spite to make this
| change for the tens of millions of users who have one or two
| or four sets of AirPods, and several wireless Apple keyboards
| and mice and trackpads, and various other gear, all of which
| uses Lightning?
|
| Some people need to remember that it's not all about them.
|
| And your USB-C chargers and power banks were and are
| perfectly capable of charging Lightning devices.
| kennend3 wrote:
| Perhaps you can outline the many times that Apple dropped
| support for something to move to something new?
|
| Phones no longer have "dock connectors" do they? What about
| anyone who had a dock port?
|
| Having an iPhone and android phones, Lightening is
| ANNOYING. Almost nothing uses it. I can charge my Kindle
| via USB-C, my headphones via USB-C but need an ancient
| lightening to charge my phone?
|
| Lastly, can you outline what devices people have which are
| dependent on Lightning? AirPods? they could have been
| released with USB-C from the start, allowing Apple to move
| away from lightning.
| staticman2 wrote:
| I find this argument really funny since Apple already
| dropped lightning connectors on the newer IPADs in favor of
| USB C and already doesn't support lightning laptops.
|
| I guess you'll have to figure out how to handle the slight
| inconvenience that Apple is putting their IPAD customers
| and laptop customers through.
| meibo wrote:
| How are my USB-C chargers capable of charging lightning
| devices if they are USB-C? Can I buy a dongle for $90?
| pb7 wrote:
| It's a common misconception for the less tech savvy but
| you can just buy a USB-C to Lightning cable for a few
| bucks. In fact, here's a 3-pack for $7:
| https://a.co/d/1WFoRGZ
| Bud wrote:
| The constant dongle arguments are so funny, especially in
| this case.
|
| 1) You buy a USB-C to Lightning cable. Obviously. 2)
| Everyone bitches about Apple supposedly requiring all
| kinds of dongles, but of course, what caused that?
| Apple's insistence on putting only Thunderbolt ports on
| the Mac. Which of course use what connector? USB-C.
|
| People need to figure out what they are bitching about
| before just mouthing words about dongles all the time.
| mikysco wrote:
| The standard charging cable Apple has supplied with new
| iPhones for years now has been USB-C to Lightning.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Apple is part of the USB-IF. They also have pushed USB
| standards to consumers since the iMac. Hell, Apple participates
| of every single industrial forum they can benefit from.
|
| Apple has moved on to USB-C for almost every other product they
| have. They know Lightning is old and insufficient, even for
| their iPad Air.
|
| The only reason why Apple keeps Lightning around is for phones
| and some portable accessories, and the revenue from those, and
| their certifications, is not something they are willing to
| dismiss. Technically speaking, if you want something as simple
| as a cable, you _have_ to go through Apple and their MFI
| program.
|
| So here we are, with Apple holding the keys to every Lightning
| accessory, and also keeping a degree of control of USB-C.
|
| If anything, the EU is trying to keep Apple honest.
| burlesona wrote:
| This is not the reason. The reason is, the last time they
| changed ports (from 30pin to lightning) it created huge
| blowback from consumers who had lots of 30pin accessories
| that were no longer compatible, and even though lightning is
| FAR better people don't like switching.
|
| USB-C is not much different than lightning for charging /
| connecting a phone, so the blowback from consumers will be
| huge when all their accessories are no longer compatible with
| the next phone.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > USB-C is not much different than lightning for charging /
| connecting a phone...
|
| As far as I understand, there are no Lightning cables that
| support anything over 18W. Data transfer tops at 480Mbps,
| or roughly USB 2.0 speeds.
|
| These are specs many other companies have surpassed several
| years ago.
|
| > ... so the blowback from consumers will be huge when all
| their accessories are no longer compatible with the next
| phone.
|
| Apple is the same company that went through 4 different
| charging connectors for their MacBook line, in about 15
| years: MagSafe, MagSafe 2, USB-C, and now MagSafe 3. Their
| iPad line is 12 years old and has gone through 3 different
| connectors: 30-pin, Lightning, and USB-C.
|
| I fail to see how this one would be different.
| matwood wrote:
| There are orders of magnitude more iPhone/Lightning cable
| users in the world than Mac or iPad users.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| How many of those users have _only_ an iPhone?
|
| If the iPhone had an USB-C connector, I could pretty much
| carry a single cable and charger for my laptop, my
| tablet, and my phone. So unless there is zero overlap
| between iPhone users and users of anything else, the
| point is moot.
|
| Even worse, Apple stopped bundling a charger with their
| phones over three years ago. Instead, they ship a
| Lightning to USB-C cable, but they bundle an USB-C
| charger only for a year after the release of the iPhone
| X, effectively forcing their customers to buy USB-C
| hardware anyway.
| matwood wrote:
| Sure, you can now carry 1 less cable. That's a win, but
| it's not some monumental change people try to make it out
| to be. When I travel I will still carry multiple cables
| since I need to usually charge more than one device at a
| time. But now they can be the same cable.
| nulld3v wrote:
| Meanwhile apple switched the connector for both their
| laptop and their iPad. So clearly they aren't afraid of
| blowback.
| pb7 wrote:
| iPhone sales are 10x that of iPad and MacBooks combined.
| nulld3v wrote:
| But it's not like sales of the MacBook cratered after the
| switch to C. There was hardly a blip. So no blowback.
| pb7 wrote:
| You must not have been here for years that people whined
| about the MacBook getting rid of MagSafe and how it only
| had USB-C ports. How quickly we forget. "No blowback" is
| the completely opposite of the truth. Consumers aren't
| going to give a shit what some foreign government
| mandated, they're going to be pissed at Apple that they
| need to buy all new cables.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > Consumers aren't going to give a shit what some foreign
| government mandated, they're going to be pissed at Apple
| that they need to buy all new cables.
|
| For sure, but only if Apple wouldn't provide such cables,
| which they do.
|
| Currently, cables bundled with iPhones are Lightning to
| USB-C. It has been like this for several years.
|
| I suspect that the kind of person who would buy a new
| $1,000+ phone with an USB-C to USB-C cable in the box,
| and bitch and moan about the $30 worth of Lightning
| cables about to end in the trash, is the same who
| vociferously complain on the Internet and then still buy
| the next years version.
| [deleted]
| nulld3v wrote:
| I know there was some blowback online but the reality is
| that it was just a vocal minority, otherwise again, we
| would see the actual sales impact.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| iPhones have come without chargers for a few years now.
|
| Ironically enough, they come with a Lightning to USB-C
| cable. Users would need to buy their own USB-C chargers
| anyway.
|
| And here we are, arguing about _cables_.
| philjohn wrote:
| Except lightning also still operates at USB 2.0 speeds - so
| if you don't want to trust Apple with your data in iCloud
| backups (which as it's not E2EE encrypted is foolhardy,
| plus you have to pay for a higher tier for any phone with
| more than 5GB of personal data) it takes an absolute age.
| misnome wrote:
| > The only reason why Apple keeps Lightning around is for
| phones and some portable accessories, and the revenue from
| those, and their certifications, is not something they are
| willing to dismiss. Technically speaking, if you want
| something as simple as a cable, you have to go through Apple
| and their MFI program.
|
| The other way of viewing this is that by not switching (yet)
| they haven't created instant e-waste out of every cable and
| accessory manufactured in the past decade. USB-C didn't exist
| when they released the lightning cable, and they have clearly
| been migrating every other product over the past several
| years.
|
| Seriously, you don't need to invent a conspiracy for every
| single move Apple makes.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > Seriously, you don't need to invent a conspiracy for
| every single move Apple makes.
|
| How is this a "conspiracy"? It is literally what they are
| doing with the MFI program.
|
| If anything, the e-waste theory is less credible, as Apple
| have changed the iPad and MacBook charging ports three or
| four times in the past 12 years. They have also a long
| history of preventing third parties from fixing their
| products, latest of which is software locking of
| replacement parts.
| schmuelio wrote:
| > The other way of viewing this is that by not switching
| (yet) they haven't created instant e-waste out of every
| cable and accessory manufactured in the past decade.
|
| Well no time like the present since time is linear and
| unless they're going to stick with lightning _forever_ then
| they'll eventually have to create a bunch of e-waste.
| ragazzina wrote:
| Not only this: the more they hold out, the more lightning
| cables they put in circulation.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Seriously, you don't need to invent a conspiracy for
| every single move Apple makes.
|
| On the contrary, over-simplifying the motivations of a
| multi-trillion dollar corporation often leaves _you_ as the
| fool.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I don't see any win besides a minor convenience. A lightning
| cable weighs almost nothing and it's not a big deal to have one
| around.
|
| The standardization is good for a lot of purposes:
|
| - cutting down on the number of cables and especially chargers.
| Seriously, it's amazing to have one single Anker 65W power
| supply and a single cable on vacation and it can charge
| _everything_ - tablet, work phone, laptop, power bank, drones,
| Nintendo Switch. I 'member the dark times where _each_ of
| these devices had their own cable and for some even own
| charger.
|
| - car and in-flight entertainment systems can now be relatively
| secure that USB-C is here to stay and be used for connectivity,
| which means less effort for this kind of appliance
|
| - if a cable gets lost or damaged, spare cables are cheap and
| plentiful, and they will also be available in a few years of
| time
|
| - devices can now be shipped without a charger and cable, which
| reduces package size and weight (and thus shipping efficiency,
| as more packages fit into a single container) and as almost
| everyone has chargers and cables, there is no need to produce
| as many chargers and cables before, which reduces resource
| consumption and eventually waste
|
| - when devices break down, chargers still can live on. Even a
| plain old 5W USB charger is enough to charge an e-cigarette.
|
| - interoperability between devices gets increased. No more
| micro-USB-to-micro-USB or whatever rare cables to interface,
| say, a DSLR camera with a phone to transfer photos, a plain
| USB-C cable is sufficient.
|
| > Feels like there's nothing to celebrate here. Just the EU
| using its influence to exert control over things that don't
| matter at all.
|
| Well... Apple refused for _years_ to implement USB-C on the
| iPhone on their own, while the rest of the market converged
| first on micro-USB and nowadays on USB-C. The regulation was
| only established to force the hands of the largest player,
| which didn 't like USB-C because it would destroy its lucrative
| MFi licensing - basically, rent seeking by preventing
| competition with a closed solution instead of an open standard.
|
| If there is one thing that drives EU legislation ideas, it is
| the convergence towards open and common, market-wide standards.
| This reduces the barriers to entry for small players and leads
| to more innovation as a result. Additionally, since the 500M
| citizens of the EU are a market bloc that no manufacturer can
| afford to ignore and for most things except automotive it isn't
| worth to set up different supply chains, our legislation can
| improve the lives of everyone on this planet - just take the
| RoHS directive, which led to lead solder being phased out
| worldwide and less lead ending up in the environment.
| matwood wrote:
| > - cutting down on the number of cables and especially
| chargers. Seriously, it's amazing to have one single Anker
| 65W power supply and a single cable on vacation and it can
| charge everything - tablet, work phone, laptop, power bank,
| drones, Nintendo Switch. I 'member the dark times where each
| of these devices had their own cable and for some even own
| charger.
|
| I have this now, except with 1 extra cable (which happens to
| charge my iPhone and AirPods).
|
| > - if a cable gets lost or damaged, spare cables are cheap
| and plentiful, and they will also be available in a few years
| of time
|
| Walk into any store or gas station today and you'll find all
| sorts of cable solutions for lightning. I was looking for a
| cable on vacation last year and had a _harder_ time finding a
| usb-c to usb-c power cable. Everywhere had lightning though.
|
| > - when devices break down, chargers still can live on.
|
| Again, all my chargers have been usb-c for awhile.
|
| Apple was clearly headed towards usb-c anyway, so I doubt
| this law changes much in their plans. But, a lot of the
| benefits were already there. Apple will need to include a
| lightning to usb-c dongle for a period of time as accessories
| shift over.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Apple was clearly headed towards usb-c anyway, so I doubt
| this law changes much in their plans.
|
| Highly doubt it. In any case, the aim of the EU was to
| create a _standard_ or at least force the industry into
| coming up with one - and had Apple been allowed to keep
| their proprietary connector, the competition would be
| completely correct in claiming "why should we keep using
| the standard while Apple can get away with MFi licensing
| income?".
|
| So, in order to actually keep the standard a standard,
| Apple now has to be openly forced. I doubt this regulation
| would have been done if Apple had signalled to be moving
| away from Lightning.
| matwood wrote:
| > Highly doubt it.
|
| C'mon. Apple went all in on usb-c before anyone else. It
| hurt them with the laptop line and they reversed some.
| They have moved the iPad, include usb-c -> puck for the
| watch, and usb-c to lightning for the iPhone. They _are_
| transitioning.
| rrwo wrote:
| > If there is one thing that drives EU legislation ideas, it
| is the convergence towards open and common, market-wide
| standards. This reduces the barriers to entry for small
| players and leads to more innovation as a result.
|
| Too many people don't understand that trade agreements are
| about common standards and accountability.
|
| There is a lot of noise about EU regulations made by people
| who are stuck in 18th century mindsets about trade and who
| fancy themselves as "free traders".
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Too many people don't understand that trade agreements
| are about common standards and accountability.
|
| Unfortunately, trade agreements can also end up being
| abused to enable price dumping. Yes, consumers may enjoy
| lower prices for goods, but if the cost is domestic
| industry being completely devastated or human rights being
| violated at large scale (e.g. children being enslaved in
| questionably legal mining operations or factories), is it
| worth it?
|
| Most trade agreements at the time have almost no "equal
| standards" clause for manufacturing. Stuff like toxic
| materials (e.g. RoHS) is regulated, but lower work
| standards - minimum wages, child labor prevention, slavery
| prevention, fire codes (e.g. the horrible fires that
| regularly happen in Bangladesh [1]), disposal of waste, CO2
| emissions - are not.
|
| The result of that non-regulation is that nations like
| China, India or Vietnam flood European and US markets with
| goods that are only cheap (compared to domestic products)
| because the environment and the workers get exploited. We
| outsource our dirty industry.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_garment_factor
| y_fir...
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| and especially chargers
|
| Eh? The iPhone charges over a USB-Lightning cable. There are
| USB-C and USB-A versions of the cable available. The charger
| was never the issue. In fact Apple stopped including (USB)
| chargers with the iPhone a while back.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| I was talking about all the device markets that have
| switched over to USB-C. It's not just iPhones.
|
| And for what it's worth, even the iPhone could benefit from
| not having to include an USB-A-to-Lightning cable any more.
| pb7 wrote:
| >If there is one thing that drives EU legislation ideas, it
| is the convergence towards open and common, market-wide
| standards. This reduces the barriers to entry for small
| players and leads to more innovation as a result.
|
| Can you provide some examples of innovation that the EU has
| made in this industry in the last 20 years?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| For sure:
|
| - mobile phone and data roaming, the most notable user-
| facing innovation
|
| - the single market _itself_ with all the associated side
| legislation (GDPR, VAT OSS) that allows every tiny small
| business to serve the entire EU
|
| - Schengen free-movement zone
|
| - Euro currency
|
| - SEPA instead of national schemes (ties in into the single
| market aspect as well) with everything from card payments
| over wire transfers to direct debit covered. Strong
| authentication required for opening bank accounts. No more
| paper cheques. (Directly compare all of this to the hot
| mess that the US is)
|
| - EPD PS2 that forces banks to provide APIs to third
| parties, e.g. budget planners
|
| - unified drone legislation that allows me without tons of
| paperwork and individual permits to fly my drone everywhere
| reasonable in Europe
| pb7 wrote:
| I meant innovation in consumer electronics or even just
| software services as a result of legislation, not
| legislation itself. Payments and bank APIs count. Thanks
| for the examples.
| ericmay wrote:
| I think if you're going to accuse Apple of rent seeking here
| you also pretty much have to accuse anyone who develops their
| own standard or plugin or similar of rent seeking as well.
|
| When will the EU ban HDMI connections to monitors or force
| Apple to remove them from MacBooks? Why are dSLR cameras
| allowed to continue to use micro USB and SD cards when they
| could just use USB-C so we don't have to buy dongles and
| adapters?
|
| The argument that Apple only provides one physical port (they
| also provide Magsafe and allow other wireless charging
| options) isn't sufficient with respect to your discussion
| point about market-wide standards. This really looks to me
| like the EU is just saying "we don't like lightning chargers
| and since nobody is going to defend it except Apple we'll ban
| it" while they also let plenty of other "standards" run amok
| in the market.
|
| FWIW I much prefer USB-C and I want my next iPhone to include
| it (along with any other devices), but I really struggle with
| the logic of the decision to force it here.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > When will the EU ban HDMI connections to monitors or
| force Apple to remove them from MacBooks?
|
| HDMI is a somewhat-open-ish, widespread standard and for
| what it's worth Apple MacBook models haven't carried HDMI
| ports for ages now.
|
| > Why are dSLR cameras allowed to continue to use micro USB
| and SD cards when they could just use USB-C so we don't
| have to buy dongles and adapters?
|
| Again, the market seems to converge towards USB-C already
| (almost all the models on [1] and other buying guides have
| USB-C), and for memory cards towards SD cards and CFexpress
| (on the pro segment). Both of these are somewhat-open-ish
| again.
|
| The EU usually only steps in when the free market is either
| stuck somewhere along the road and needs a push towards a
| specific standard (=> USB-C), profit incentives need to be
| overruled (=> RoHS / leaded solder) or the free market
| suffers from oligopolies that need to be broken up for
| actual competition or the creation of an actual single
| market (=> EU-wide mobile roaming).
|
| > The argument that Apple only provides one physical port
| (they also provide Magsafe and allow other wireless
| charging options) isn't sufficient with respect to your
| discussion point about market-wide standards.
|
| Apple can provide a MagSafe port on MacBooks or a Lightning
| port on iDevices if they want. All Apple has to do is to
| support the _mandated_ USB-C port as well!
|
| [1] https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/the-
| best-mi...
| ericmay wrote:
| > HDMI is a somewhat-open-ish, widespread standard and
| for what it's worth Apple MacBook models haven't carried
| HDMI ports for ages now.
|
| These ones do as they were re-implemented per customer
| demand: https://www.apple.com/macbook-
| pro-14-and-16/specs/
| Krisando wrote:
| > Why are dSLR cameras allowed to continue to use micro USB
|
| Because DSLRs are dead. If you look at the new mirrorless
| cameras, they're either doing USB-C charging, or take
| batteries charged from a device that uses USB-C.
| ericmay wrote:
| Why aren't TV's mandated to use USB-C? Why do I still
| need to connect via HDMI? Why does my TV remote still use
| double-A batteries instead of USB-C charging?
|
| The cameras are just a random example.
|
| As soon as you look at the EU's decision (which is one I
| like the effects of) you can see that this was just a
| very arbitrary ruling.
| counttheforks wrote:
| Because apple refuses to play ball otherwise. Capitalism has
| failed and is now producing tonnes of unnecessary e-waste.
| gizmo wrote:
| A 4 year old iPhone still works perfectly, but a $200 Android
| will find its way to a landfill way sooner. As a rule of
| thumb, appliances that last are better for the environment
| than cheap products. Apple is good at make devices that last.
|
| Nowadays all laptops can charge over usb-c (including Apple
| laptops, mind you!). Did anybody have to force Apple to do
| this? No, because charging technology improved so much that
| what used to be a big brick is now a pocketable GAN charger.
| Even the new magsafe laptops still support usb-c charging.
| And iPhones support wireless qi charging as well as Apple's
| proprietary magnet based wireless charging solution. Thanks
| to cheaper chips all devices can now negotiate how much power
| they need from the power brick. That's a big win, and this
| just wasn't possible a decade ago.
|
| We're in the final stretch of a 20 year trend towards
| universal chargers, and this EU mandate is totally
| unnecessary.
| counttheforks wrote:
| > A 4 year old iPhone still works perfectly, but a $200
| Android will find its way to a landfill way sooner
|
| Not really, though. I'm using one and it's just fine.
| Nonsense aside...
|
| > Nowadays all laptops can charge over usb-c (including
| Apple laptops, mind you!). Did anybody have to force Apple
| to do this? No
|
| Yes. That's what the EU has been doing by talking about
| forcing the standardization. Dollars to donuts that apple
| would still be on their proprietary connector if not for
| that.
|
| > this EU mandate is totally unnecessary
|
| Disagree. Just look at the iPhones apple is still
| manufacturing, which they'll now be forced to change.
| ksidudwbw wrote:
| Android uses RAM as planned obselesence when they stop
| giving security updates to your old OS. The updated OS
| always uses more RAM and slows the phone down because of
| swapping to disk
| NoGravitas wrote:
| I don't know that any stock Android swaps to disk. They
| swap to zram, generally.
|
| That said, the thing that seems to make old Android
| devices obsolete is Google Play Services. It takes up
| significantly more RAM over time, and it keeps getting
| updated even when your OS isn't. A degoogled older
| Android device stays about as useful as it ever was.
| orwin wrote:
| Remove google from your android and you can keep it
| years. Mine is from 2017.
| riffraff wrote:
| > We're in the final stretch of a 20 year trend towards
| universal chargers, and this EU mandate is totally
| unnecessary.
|
| Did you forget it was the EU that asked phone producers to
| standardize (on USB-micro)?
|
| We'd still have one charger per producer without that,
| since there was no critical mass to adopt one connector or
| the other.
| andrepd wrote:
| Anecdotal, but my friend has been complaining for over a
| year that the updates are making his iPhone too slow. Otoh,
| my 6+ year old Android phone is still going strong (after 1
| battery replacement).
| CDSlice wrote:
| Your friend's iPhone will go a lot faster after he also
| gets his battery replaced. Once the battery degrades too
| much the iPhone slows itself down in order to not crash
| by trying to use more power than the battery can provide.
| rocqua wrote:
| Why has apple bucked this 20 year trend for iPhone
| charging? Much progress has been made, but never at this
| place. For a long time, it has looked like they will, but
| they never did. The EU finally got impatient and decided
| this mandate was needed to get apple to do this.
|
| Note that the threat of a law like this is what caused many
| other manufacturers to standardize. If Apple gets a pass,
| what does that signal to the manufacturers who caved, and
| to everyone else. I would wager it tells them "the eu makes
| empty threats". This was the result of Apple saying "bluff"
| to EU demands, and the EU deciding to follow through.
|
| Apple could have prevented this. The EU sort of had its
| hands bound when it started the process of pushing everyone
| to one charging. That process was largely very valuable,
| for apple specifically it isn't that important. But leaving
| the process incomplete would send the wrong message. Hence
| I think that Apple is at fault for this regrettable law as
| the EU is.
|
| This is a bad law that is the result of a process that was,
| on balance, still very valuable. This law is a small
| element in the minus column, that does not weigh against
| the many elements in the plus column. The process I refer
| to is the EU push to get manufactures to use the same
| charging port.
| ChrisRR wrote:
| >A 4 year old iPhone still works perfectly, but a $200
| Android will find its way to a landfill way sooner. As a
| rule of thumb, appliances that last are better for the
| environment than cheap products. Apple is good at make
| devices that last.
|
| Got any source for that?
| webmobdev wrote:
| > _Why do people think it is a good thing to have this enforced
| by law is beyond me._
|
| It's because consumers have rights too. Standardising something
| actually fosters competition (healthy capitalism), increases
| profit (as standardising something often leads to lower
| manufacturing costs) while reducing costs for consumers (due to
| increased competition). It also reduces waste which is good for
| the environment.
|
| > _I don 't see any win besides a minor convenience._
|
| You will, when you have to buy another USB-C cable for your
| iDevice. I recently had to, for an iPad Air, and I was able to
| buy a good quality replacement USB-C cable (of similar spec)
| from Samsung for Rs. 750 (around $10) rather than paying Apple
| an exorbitant Rs. 2000 (around $20+). (Past experience with
| Apple cables has taught me that the higher price charged by
| Apple is no guarantee of better quality, and other non-Apple
| cables from reputed companies are often cheaper, more durable
| and last longer than Apple's).
| danielheath wrote:
| This I really don't get. It reads as though you're saying
| that non-apple cables are cheaper and better, and also that
| mandating USB-C is valuable because it means you don't have
| to buy cables from apple.
| kioleanu wrote:
| Most certainly there are cables that are much better than
| the ones Apple is selling. I've been an iPhone/iPad user
| for more than 10 years and I no longer use Apple cables
| because they are gone in 6-8 months. This is an issue they
| had from the very beginning and which they utterly ignored.
|
| In contrast, I bought an usb-c cable from one plus 5 years
| ago, which is still in perfect condition. With the iPhones,
| I use cables from some company (forgot the name) that have
| lifetime warranty. I swear I could tow my car with those,
| _for the same price_
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| So... you can buy non-Apple cables for your lightning
| iPhone that work well. So... there's no problem?
| webmobdev wrote:
| Lightening cables have currently seen a price fall as Apple
| introduced USB-C devices. Yes, it's an automatic win for us
| consumers when regulation creates industry standard and
| fosters competition as that gives us the option to buy a
| product from multiple vendor. When something is
| standardised it is better for the whole industry, and
| especially for us consumers as it means we are not forced
| to buy something whose design and manufacturing is dictated
| by a single company. With lightening cables, Apple dictated
| the design and manufacturing terms and thus had an
| influence on its price even for non-Apple branded cables.
| With USB-C as a standard it can no longer do so.
| ramphastidae wrote:
| What exactly is your USB-C cable example meant to illustrate?
| You were successfully able to buy a cheaper cable without any
| laws being passed. Seems like things are working fine as-is.
| webmobdev wrote:
| I benefited only because I bought a USB-C iDevice. Apple
| introduced USB-C support in some of its devices not because
| they wanted to but only because they realised that
| regulation would force them to in the future. Now that the
| regulation is in effect, Apple will be _forced_ to drop
| support for its _proprietary_ lightening cable and switch
| to supporting USB-C standards for all its devices. That 's
| a huge win for consumers and the industry too.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| You can already buy non-Apple branded lightning cables.
|
| Apart from the cable that came in my iPhone 7's box many
| years ago (which still works perfectly and, excluding a
| little dirt, looks like new), all my other lightning cables
| are off-brand ones that cost much less than $20 apiece. More
| like 10.
|
| Some of them (Aukey brand) developed a wonky connection after
| a while, or only work on one side. The others (Amazon Basics)
| still work perfectly, after spending uncountable hours in the
| sun and rain powering my phone on my motorbike's handlebars.
|
| All this without any kind of law (I'm in the EU).
| webmobdev wrote:
| > _You can already buy non-Apple branded lightning cables._
|
| Lightening cables are not a _standard_ and thus Apple
| dictates terms even with non-Apple lightening cables. As
| lightening cables are not an industry standard the prices
| are influenced by Apple and artificially inflated (even for
| non-Apple ones). And they can only be used with Apple
| devices. (Lightening cables have seen a recent price fall
| only after Apple shifted to USB-C for some iDevices, as the
| market fears Apple is already preparing to switch to
| USB-C).
|
| USB-C cables will be even cheaper in the future as they are
| standardised, and since they can be used with multiple
| devices (due to such regulations) you need to buy fewer of
| them too.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I don't particularly follow Apple's products, so I don't
| know when they started selling USB-C devices, and hence
| what "recently" means to you.
|
| What I _can_ say, is that in France on Amazon, USB-C
| cables and Lightning cables had similar prices when I
| last bought mine a few years ago. I usually compare
| Amazon Basics and Ugreen / Aukey brands.
| jen20 wrote:
| > since they can be used with multiple devices (due to
| such regulations) you need to buy fewer of them too.
|
| I've seen this argument a few times "yay now I only have
| to take one cable on holiday". Sure, unless you want to
| charge two devices at once while you're sleeping,
| perhaps... it's an unrelated argument to which connector
| is better.
| jld89 wrote:
| A LOT of less waste maybe ?
|
| It is very inconvenient and a hassle to have 5 different cables
| for 5 different devices. It is a waste of space, materials...
| The economic gains by volume continent wide should not be
| underestimated.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| I will basically immediately throw away about a dozen cables
| and need to buy new ones. I'm unclear on how I'm gaining in
| this.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| You've somehow avoided USB-C cables? That's confusing to me
| since I have an iPhone and other Apple devices. My phone
| uses lighting but my Beats earbuds, My Macbook Pro, and my
| iPad pro use USB-C for charging. Plus plenty of other non-
| Apple devices.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| Not at all. I have like a dozen lightning cables in
| various places (work, many places in my home, my car). I
| have 2-3 USBC cables.
|
| So, now I'll have to replace the one in my car (with, I
| guess, a usbA to usbC cable?), I'll have to replace the
| ones all around my house.
|
| Unless you are suggesting that I should only charge my
| phone in the one room with my Mac?
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Yes, I suppose if you want to charge your phone in a
| dozen locations, and you want a separate cable for every
| location, that will be what you need to do. It doesn't
| seem like a major hardship to me, having lived through a
| few connector changes, like the 30-pin to lightning
| switch, but I suppose it may be more of an issue for
| others.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| It's just back to my point. This change will cause me to
| throw away a significant amount of cables (some over 5
| years old). That's a decent amount of waste.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Really? I consider myself pretty economical, but I throw
| out much more than a few lightning cables worth of waste
| in a given week (probably more on any day even). Would
| they even really be noticeable in your trash can?
| _trackno5 wrote:
| Do you actually have data on that though? I see that kind of
| argument get thrown around but it is never substantiated.
|
| How will usbc lead to less waste?
|
| If you wanna make that argument, wouldn't it be better to
| force companies to opt you out of getting chargers and cables
| unless you explicitly ask for them when you make the
| purchase?
| flavius29663 wrote:
| > If you wanna make that argument, wouldn't it be better to
| force companies to opt you out of getting chargers and
| cables unless you explicitly ask for them when you make the
| purchase?
|
| That is a natural step forward after the cables are
| unified. Even today, 80% of the electronic devices I'm
| buying are coming without a charger and this is all due to
| the fact that the market stabilized to USB charging (mini
| and now USB-C).
|
| I still remember we used to have drawers full of old phone
| chargers...
| distances wrote:
| I still have a small sack of those old chargers. Can't
| put them in the generic waste, nobody would buy them, and
| I've been too lazy to take them to the electronic waste
| recycling.
| piperswe wrote:
| Apple already does that with chargers, new iPhones no
| longer come with charging bricks, just the cables. I'd be
| fine with not including the cables if the phones were
| USB-C, but since they're Lightning the likelihood of a new
| iPhone user already having a cable that will work is very
| low.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| They already do that in Europe, IIRC my iPhone came with
| just a lightning to USB-C cable and no charger.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Yes, that was part of the proposal: https://ec.europa.eu/co
| mmission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_...
|
| > Unbundling the sale of a charger from the sale of the
| electronic device
|
| But without a universal charger that doesn't make sense: if
| I still need a specific charger for a device, I'm going to
| have to buy that with the device anyways.
| permo-w wrote:
| less cables needed = less waste
| cal85 wrote:
| Yes but do cables contribute a significant amount of
| waste in general, worthy of being specifically regulated?
| I actually don't know either way, so it would be nice to
| see some data.
| permo-w wrote:
| you do not need data to know that hundreds of millions of
| people using one less cable will = hugely lessened waste
| logicalmonster wrote:
| This law might have actually encouraged more waste than would
| have otherwise existed.
|
| Cables (generally) don't go bad in a year or two and can last
| for quite a few years. Most long-term iPhone users probably
| have at least a few spare cables throughout their desk,
| house, car that they've bought over time that they'd now have
| no substitutes for and would need to replace.
|
| You might have dictated a situation where people now have to
| throw away a pile of perfectly usable cables/accessories and
| buy a bunch of new ones. While well intentioned, this law
| might have otherwise achieved the opposite of what it set out
| to do.
|
| PS: Whether this law exists or not, I'd have bet on Apple
| working to go fully wireless soon and this might just
| accelerate that effort.
| schmuelio wrote:
| > You might have dictated a situation where people now have
| to throw away a pile of perfectly usable cables/accessories
| and buy a bunch of new ones.
|
| I mean, or Apple could do the one thing they've done
| absolutely tons of recently (so it wouldn't be a surprising
| or unheard of move from them) and sell a dongle for
| lightning -> USB-C?
|
| Now you don't have to do any of what you just said would be
| a guarantee.
| [deleted]
| kypro wrote:
| Less waste after iPhone users all have to throw away their
| cables and buy new ones, presumably?
| rrwo wrote:
| It's not going to affect existing phones.
| danmaz74 wrote:
| Straw-man argument, as the law won't require retroactively
| changing the port on existing iPhones.
| donatj wrote:
| Most iPhone users are going to buy new iPhones though,
| eventually. And when they do the lightning cables they
| already have are going to be useless and they'll have to
| replace every single cable they own.
|
| This literally just created a mountain of e-waste. We
| turned a hypothetical "what about when they switch" into
| a forced reality.
| moomin wrote:
| I mean, I'm an iPhone user and have plenty of USB-C
| cables. And charging cables rarely last that long anyway,
| so I don't think this is going to be a big deal.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Um... What portion of your budget are you going to have
| to spend to buy a couple USB-C cables? Like if you really
| need, I can probably send you one or two because
| otherwise I'd just throw them away.
| triceratops wrote:
| Cables aren't e-waste. Phones are.
| staringback wrote:
| How long do you think the average lightning cable lasts?
| donatj wrote:
| I mean depends. Sure, some people are hard on cables but
| I'm still using the original that came with my 2017 iPad
| I'm writing this on.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| I don't think I've had any decent lightning cable wear
| out. The super thin and cheap ones have, but I haven't
| had any from Apple or Anker wear out yet.
| [deleted]
| Bud wrote:
| It's not a straw man, and you clearly have neither
| learned what a straw man is, nor really looked at this
| entire issue.
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It's OK to make decisions with long-term beneficial impacts
| that may come with short-term negatives. I'd also wager the
| majority of iPhone users have USB-C cables already.
| acheron wrote:
| Why would they? I can guarantee my parents don't. I guess
| I got one last year when I got an Xbox controller to
| connect to the PC, but I don't want to use that one for
| my phone, it stays with the controller.
|
| I guess if I'm going to replace my phone I should do it
| soon while I can still use my existing cables with the
| new one.
| staticman2 wrote:
| You're going to buy an 800 dollar phone to avoid spending
| 20 dollars on wires?
| b3orn wrote:
| They'd have to throw away their phones first for the cables
| to become useless, I'd say the phones are the larger
| e-waste problem.
| IYasha wrote:
| bluGill wrote:
| There is more waste this year, but in 10 years there is
| less waste.
| c22 wrote:
| Assuming USB-C is the last connector humans invent...
| yellowapple wrote:
| For all we know, it very well could be.
|
| ...now, whether that's because it's that good of a
| connector or because we humans wipe ourselves out before
| we get around to inventing something better is another
| question altogether.
| dylan604 wrote:
| In 10 years, we'll be on USB5/6 and who knows what that
| cable will look like
| IsNotNull wrote:
| Not if you already have an Apple iPad or an Apple MacBook
| that's already USB-C.
| norman784 wrote:
| The plug will be universal with usb-c, but not the cable
| specs, I read someone of someone that have a usb-c-jack
| dongle that came with the phone and worked, then when it
| broke he bought a new one but it didn't work, the dongle
| itself was not using a standard, also I read a lot that fast
| charging is kinda property with each manufacturer, so a cable
| that can fast charge one device might not be able to fast
| charge another, and the blame is on USB itself, it's like
| HDMI, everything is optional, so you can't be sure if you
| bought the correct usb-c cable.
|
| At least with lightning you know what you are buying, and
| maybe the overpriced cables that Apple sells will work better
| than the most cheap ones, which brand give you the warranties
| for the cable specs? does belkin and co sell also cables?
| blitzar wrote:
| > Why do people think it is a good thing to have this enforced
| by law is beyond me.
|
| School shootings - why do we have to enforce not commiting
| school shootings with _the stupid law_ , surely everyone can
| get together and agreee murdering a 10 year old for fun is evil
| and just not do it?
| rufusroflpunch wrote:
| Kind of a ridiculous comparison. If you absolutely must
| compare this to school shootings, compare it this way:
|
| Should a national government mandate only one method of
| security that every school must implement, or allow
| states/provinces/districts to experiment with what works for
| them? Even if the national government improves security in
| the short term, there is a strong possibility that the
| bureaucracy of national government's slowness to adapt will
| cause security to be worse in the long term.
| Thaxll wrote:
| Do you know how many USB cable / charger people have on
| average?
| _trackno5 wrote:
| I don't. Can you send me the research data where you learned
| about that?
| onion2k wrote:
| _Why do people think it is a good thing to have this enforced
| by law is beyond me._
|
| Having unified, standard cables and power bricks means more
| reuse, which reduces waste and cost. It means someone switching
| from Android to iPhone or vice versa doesn't need to replicate
| all their cabling. It means users can buy a third party cable
| without paying Apple for a licence or a patent. These are all
| good things.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| Data transfer speed is an important reason. iPhone 14 Pro can
| create huge videos and photos, and transferring them using
| Lightning is too slow.
| mimsee wrote:
| Did the law mandate USB 3 or just the USB-C connector? You
| can still have USB-C connector with USB2 data rates.
| amelius wrote:
| Presumably, the thinking goes that vendors will use the
| opportunity to have a large bandwidth.
| piperswe wrote:
| iPhones don't have USB 3+ because the Lightning connector
| only has one differential pair for data. If iPhones had a
| connector with more pairs (USB-C), I doubt it would cost
| much of anything to add a USB 4 block to the SoC (which
| they already have on many Apple Silicon SoCs) and wire it
| up to the connector. Sure, there's more to it, but it's not
| rocket science.
| _trackno5 wrote:
| Sure, but how many people actually use that?
|
| For dedicated professionals I can see it making sense and
| nothing should prevent Apple from offering new iPhone Pros
| with usbc.
|
| But that's not useful for an average person
| Bud wrote:
| This isn't an important reason. There's no technical reason
| that Lightning could not have been updated to support higher
| speeds, and there's also nothing in this legislation that
| forces USB-C to magically use a high data rate.
| roenxi wrote:
| This legislation would have been stupid at any other time in the
| history of hardware. It will prove to be stupid now as well.
| There is no reason to think the USB-C is the peak of technical
| achievement or even consistently a local optimum design choice.
|
| The EU has enough problems right now, they don't need to try and
| help Apple design iPhones.
| nolok wrote:
| This is not about making the best technical choice, this is
| about ecology and limiting waste, which frankly is a very
| important and urgent issue.
|
| They let the industry regulate itself before regulating, Apple
| didn't play ball, leading to samsung saying either regulation
| or we do our thing too, so, regulation.
|
| I prefer a slightly worse technical solution and a regulation
| that needs to be updated every few years, than every phone
| going back to the waste hell that used to be the cellphone
| charger/cable market.
| roenxi wrote:
| > This is not about making the best technical choice...
|
| Thank goodness for the EU parliament, protecting their
| citizenry from accidentally being exposed to the best
| technical outcome? Wouldn't want that. If people can't
| confidently say that the EU is making the best technical
| choices then the EU shouldn't be legislating technical
| outcomes. And they can't say that, because this isn't going
| to be the best choice - the best choice is flexible and
| context dependent. There are going to be better options than
| USB-C in some use cases. Possibly many use cases as
| technology improves. The legislators can't see the future -
| if they could they'd make better decisions.
|
| I bet this doesn't have any material difference on waste.
| People will still lose and throw charges out at the same rate
| they always have. And manufacturers are going to turn out to
| be less efficient, the market is absolutely cut-throat at
| dealing with manufacturing processes that generate
| unnecessary waste. It won't be better than it is now, and
| they've locked out anyone doing a cheaper and less material-
| intensive charger than USB-C.
| nolok wrote:
| > Thank goodness for the EU parliament, protecting their
| citizenry from accidentally being exposed to the best
| technical outcome? Wouldn't want that.
|
| That is a nice way to completly miss the point and how we
| got there, but you do you.
|
| > I bet this doesn't have any material difference on waste.
|
| I bet it does, you're again missing the point, it's about
| not going back to what we had before, and what we have now
| made a significant different to what we had before.
|
| > the market is absolutely cut-throat at dealing with
| manufacturing processes that generate unnecessary waste.
|
| Ah ah ah ah. Pretty much every phone until very recently
| had a paid of low quality headphones that were instantly
| thrown out or put in a box and forgotten, and it only
| disapeared because jack is going away, so your own exemple
| doesn't work.
|
| > There are going to be better options than USB-C in some
| use cases. Possibly many use cases as technology improves.
| The legislators can't see the future - if they could they'd
| make better decisions.
|
| Yes, so the regulation will need to be kept up to date,
| just like regulations on things like food, pesticides,
| industrial processes, ... Still, parliament recognized the
| inferiority on the technical level of a system driven by
| regulation in this specific case and offered manufacturers
| to handle it themselves without involving them, but they
| couldn't (more specifically, apple refused).
|
| Anyway, each his point of view, these people are elected
| and I personnaly consider this a big issue that I'm glad to
| see resolved by my representatives.
| capableweb wrote:
| Is there something in this regulation that says it can never be
| changed to something else in the future? Why do you assume
| USB-C will remain the standard for all future? Seems likely if
| something else pops up in 2030 that is way better, there is
| nothing to suggest a new regulation couldn't be made.
| roenxi wrote:
| How will they figure out that there is a better standard in
| the future? Certainly not with a study in the EU.
|
| They're going to have to send investigators to more advanced
| foreign countries to figure out what charger to use.
| simion314 wrote:
| The industry (Apple) could have played nice and decided to
| use the best thing and make it standard without being
| forced by a law, but this would not make them money... if
| that would have happen then there would not be a need to
| update the law...
|
| As a EU citizen I benefit each time EU forces big companies
| like banks, telecoms to do the right thing for the citizens
| and be just a tiny bit less greedy. I was not on HN when
| telecoms were regulated to have small roaming charges , or
| when companies were forced to print clear information on
| their product labels, or when banks were forced to have
| some limits on the ATM charges but something tells me
| americans predicted a big collapse in EU and that we will
| have no telecoms and banks anymore. But reality shows that
| for telecoms we have even better prices then US, so for
| some reason regulations did not collapse this giants.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| They just have to consult with manufacturers and offer them
| the opportunity to decide what will become the next
| standard.
| Heliosmaster wrote:
| Why do you think an investigation has to be done on devices
| available to the public? Prototypes exists.
| roenxi wrote:
| Why bother? The competition can't out-compete because
| it'll be illegal. And the most likely outcome of a
| prototyping project is people will say "looks nice" then
| not bother to seriously consider it.
|
| The EU is never going to produce a charger that isn't
| backwards compatible with USB-C. They'd better hope
| nobody comes up with a cheaper alternative that catches
| on in Asia.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| Prototypes came up with Micro-USB and USB-C before either
| were released to the public, which then - in millions of
| tests - realized these are nimble things that break
| easily as compared to the rather robust Lightning
| connector.
|
| Creating something in isolation, with virtually no chance
| of it becoming "allowed" by an hostile state actor is
| nice, expensive, and thus won't happen. If you want to
| figure out if an idea works, lots and lots of field tests
| are what you want.
| riffraff wrote:
| The sellers in other countries will adapt to the EU
| regulation, like every phone producer other than apple has
| already done since 2010 when the EU asked to standardize on
| micro-USB.
|
| And yet, we managed to also adopt USB-C after that.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Because that wasn't legislation. It was literally the EU
| asking phone manufacturers to please use micro-B. This is
| something different.
| riffraff wrote:
| The draft of this regulation is from 2014, it's the same
| thing.
| dahfizz wrote:
| No, it's really not. The EPS was a _voluntary_
| specification[1]. It was a memorandum of understanding
| signed by the manufacturers. Basically, everyone but
| Apple agreed that it was in their own best interest to
| align to micro-B.
|
| This is a _law_ that _mandates_ USB-C.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power
| _supply
| throw827474737 wrote:
| Come on, you are clever, I believe you can figure out the
| answer yourself, if you didn't already...
| hyperman1 wrote:
| There is no reason the EU can't upgrade to a new standard, or
| the USB consortium can't create a backward compatible upgrade.
| My USB 1.0 keyboard from long ago still works, BTW.
|
| Meanwhile, I have a box full of chargers for all kinds of old
| stuff. Replacing them all with 1 standard is great. And USB is
| doing just that, not only for cell phones but for all kinds of
| gadgets. Even if I only require an USB micro and an USB C
| charger, that's a ton of chargers not in my house, and a ton of
| time not hunting around for the right one.
|
| The main problem here is Apple. The EU went to all cellphone
| makers and told them to either agree to a standard voluntarily,
| or the EU would decide from them. This kind of process is quite
| normal for technology decisions in europe, BTW. Most
| manufacturers agreed on an USB variant( might have been micro
| at the time, don't know if C already existed ). Apple refused
| to join the club or come with an other acceptable proposal.
|
| If a kid refuses to play along, the adults have to force the
| situation. The kid might not like the result and whine a bit
| afterwards. What surprises me is that it took so many years
| before this happens.
| roenxi wrote:
| > This kind of process is quite normal for technology
| decisions in europe, BTW.
|
| Europe is technologically backwards. They got destroyed by
| Shenzhen and Silicon Valley because their bureaucrats keep
| rolling in with this sort of idiocy. They feel a need to
| bring this backseat design process because their local
| companies aren't up to the challenge of competing with more-
| nimble American megacorporations.
|
| Their phone company (Nokia) was the market leader until they
| got _wrecked_ by an inability to innovate. This policy will
| make that outcome even more likely for European companies.
|
| Then to add insult to injury, Huawei comes along and showed
| that they could operate at any standard you care to ask them
| to. If you get outcompeted by authoritarians and communists,
| it is worth asking what is wrong with your economic policies.
| MagnumOpus wrote:
| > Their phone company (Nokia) was the market leader until
| they got wrecked by an inability to innovate
|
| Until they got wrecked by ex-Microsoftie North American
| Steve Elop - who drove the company agains the wall so hard
| that many people who looked at it at the time said that it
| couldn't have been accidental...
| roenxi wrote:
| And what do you think the board was thinking when they
| bought Elop in? They were thinking "Oh no, there is no
| way a European CEO will have enough experience in a real
| market to compete with this American juggernaut that is
| crushing us".
|
| They didn't bring Elop in because they thought they
| needed a steady pair of hands. They'd been caught out
| doing what great-grandparent says they do - sticking to
| the herd, playing safe, doing things the standard way and
| not innovating too hard.
| sharemywin wrote:
| Creating a monopoly, then forcing consumers into a
| "monopoly tax" on bundled products isn't really innovation
| it's been around for at least 150 years.
| tapoxi wrote:
| Weren't they wrecked by Elop betting on Windows Phone? The
| MeeGo-powered N9 recieved positive reviews.
| sbuk wrote:
| Elop was the last nail. The reviews for the N9 were good,
| but it was too little, too late. Mind-share was already
| taken by Android and iOS, and Samsung were already eating
| into Nokia's dumb phone dominance. Nokia were dead in the
| water.
| roenxi wrote:
| If only the EU had thought to forestall him by mandating
| that all EU-sold phones were UI-compatible with Symbian
| and used high-quality Swiss keyboards. Or maybe stick to
| the cutting edge and standardise on Blackberry to really
| future-proof the Union. Then all would have been well.
| sharemywin wrote:
| I wonder if forcing a modular design would have creating
| a vibrant accessories market.
| dahfizz wrote:
| For reference on how quickly the EU moves on these things,
| USB-C is over 8 years old. It has been ubiquitous for years
| before this legislation came down. They aren't exactly
| staying on top of new tech.
|
| Also consider: USB-D is going to have a much harder time
| reaching the market penetration it needs to be relevant. It
| creates a chicken and egg problem. No manufacturer will want
| to upgrade if they are required to use USB-C, and the EU will
| never update the legislation if USB-D isn't widely used.
|
| The EU has traded some extra convenience now for severely
| limited innovation later.
| bvoq wrote:
| But i want to keep my magsafe charger for macbooks. USB-C is not
| good for laptops in case you accidentally run into the cable.
| taylorlapeyre wrote:
| What happens when USB-D comes out? Will legislation decide if the
| port is acceptable for consumers?
| wpdev_63 wrote:
| Is really that big of a deal that we have two types of connectors
| for cellphones sold today?
|
| Why does EU think it's so important to have USB-C on iphone that
| they must pass laws dictating apple's business strategy?
|
| It feels the EU is overreaching here, by alot. There are alot of
| other e-waste that's _much_ worst than iphone cables and they
| serve as a solid competitor to the usb-c clusterf%^$ standards
| that 's going on right now.
|
| Can't be passing consumer laws imo to make things slightly more
| convenient for the end user.
| [deleted]
| ur-whale wrote:
| Two large and despicable organizations fighting one another,
| what's not to like?
| josteink wrote:
| If the Apple product-designers committee couldn't come up with
| such a decision, I'm very pleased that the EU instead felt like
| they could do this.
|
| Signed, happy iPhone owner.
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| Can anyone please post a link to the list of MEPs who voted
| against? (or the complete list of vote directions) Thanks!
| haunter wrote:
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2022-10-0...
|
| Against:
|
| ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists ): Ilcic (Croatia),
| Jurzyca (Slovakia), Zahradil (Czechia)
|
| ID (Identity and Democracy ): Haider (Austria), Kofod
| (Denmark), Mayer (Austria), Vilimsky (Austria)
|
| PPE (European People's Party Group): Herbst (Germany)
| looperhacks wrote:
| You can find a PDF [1] on the website of the european
| parliament
|
| [1]
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PV-9-2022-10-0...
| page 16
| unity1001 wrote:
| All these different types of connectors had little to do with
| innovation than they had to do with companies trying to force you
| to buy their own chargers and peripherals. Its a good thing that
| the Eu is forcing them to adopt a standard.
| pier25 wrote:
| Ironic isn't it?
|
| Considering Apple was enforcing USB-C on their MBPs back in 2016
| to try to impose innovation.
| qwertyuiop_ wrote:
| etiennebausson wrote:
| I suppose petty outburst are an explanation for your comment,
| given that this law has been in the works since 2018, and
| anticipated since 2005. I truly have no idea what your links
| have to do with the subject.
| fbn79 wrote:
| I'm European, I understand the good intentions at the root of
| such enforcement. But I believe such mandatory enforcements are
| liberticide, and against consumers in the long run.
| josteink wrote:
| Tell me. How many different kind of chargers and connectors did
| you have before the EU mandated everyone should use micro-usb
| (or something equally standardized)? And how many do you have
| now?
|
| Personally I had 1 charger per device I had, each with their
| own weird connector, and each cable sold at $20+ a pop, and
| definitely more if you wanted a "data-cable". These days I only
| have 2: USB for almost everything, and Lighting for the Apple-
| thingies only.
|
| With a move like this, I can be down to having only 1 type of
| charger and connector. It'll be great!
| neilalexander wrote:
| I have no real preference whatsoever in the Lightning vs
| USB-C battle but it seems strange to me that the EU's
| approach to supposedly reducing e-waste is by condemning 10
| years of Lightning accessories to becoming e-waste. An iPhone
| 4 charger from 2012 will still charge an iPhone 14 today.
| That doesn't seem incredibly wasteful to me.
| josteink wrote:
| > An iPhone 4 charger from 2012 will still charge an iPhone
| 14 today
|
| And it will after this move too. You'll just need to use a
| regular USB-A -> USB-C cable instead of a USB-A ->
| Lightning cable.
| neilalexander wrote:
| That's an awful lot of cables globally to discard.
| fbn79 wrote:
| It was not mandatory. It was just a suggestion with voluntary
| adoption. I have nothing against standardization. I'm against
| the "mandatory" fact.
| Kbelicius wrote:
| It was mandatory in the sense that EU told manufacturers
| that they either agree on the standard or the EU will make
| the choice for them. No way in hell voluntary adoption
| would be of the scale that it was without the EU threat.
| lwheelock wrote:
| I don't understand it. Apple has only changed their connector
| once since 2007. Where I have untold number of USB devices that
| are either A, Mini, Micro, or now C.
| sbuk wrote:
| I imagine that the caterwauling around the change from 32-pin
| to Lightning somewhat plays into their decision not to move
| to USB-C. Obviously the overtly cynical will put it down to
| purely profiteering...
| batiudrami wrote:
| Since 2007 the de facto standard for other devices has only
| changed once too (micro to USB-C). Mini USB has been obsolete
| since 2007 and USB-A is the other end of the connector and
| not really comparable (Apple has actually since changed on
| their devices from type A to type C in that time).
|
| For me Lightning is just another in your list of connectors
| that I wish would go away and standardise to USB-C.
|
| As someone who is travelling right now, with a two port
| charger and two iPhones, an iPad, a laptop, a Switch, an
| Apple Watch and two sets of USB-C headphones between us, one
| connector would actually be a significant quality of life
| improvement (though an even better one would be hotels not
| killing power to the socket when I'm not in the room so I can
| charge my devices while I'm out!)
| jhoelzel wrote:
| "Starting in 2026, USB-C will also become the norm for laptop
| chargers."
|
| I believe it when I see it! My Surfacebook has USB-C Charging but
| its not enough to run the GPU at max. I hate the surface dock
| that I need to use but from my understanding -i do have to use
| it- because of the power requirments.
| francoisprunier wrote:
| The law says it's only for devices whose power consumption is
| under 100W.
|
| source :
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/6988...
| iampivot wrote:
| USB-C can easily deliver 100w continuously if the charger and
| laptop supports it.
| capableweb wrote:
| Seems current USB-C is limited to 100W, future will be
| limited to 240W. Seems most modern mobile GPUs could exceed
| 100W, but are within 240W at least so seems we're relatively
| safe.
|
| But who knows with the new GPUs... Maybe should be a bit more
| headroom?
| neogodless wrote:
| Just some reference numbers off the top of my head.
|
| Mobile GPU max power (using Geforce examples)
|
| 80W GTX 1660 Ti (mainstream/high end before Geforce RTX
| took off)
|
| 115W RTX 2060 (if OEM tunes it that high)
|
| 140W RTX 3070
|
| 175W RTX 3080 Ti
| jhoelzel wrote:
| Exactly! paired with a powerfull cpu you will drain the
| battery while working on full performance.
|
| Also sadly there are multiple reports about this issue
| with microsoft products too. That and coil whine...
| rtkwe wrote:
| Does the law require only USB-C charging or must charge
| by USB-C? The language of "will have to be equipped with
| a USB Type-C charging port" makes it sound like it's only
| required to take USB-C power not that it can't have a
| higher power alternate port.
| jhoelzel wrote:
| while true I only have one and would need two!
|
| If I could connect my SB1 directly to my monitor I totally
| would :/
| bodge5000 wrote:
| I'd certainly much rather type-c than lightning or, god forbid,
| micro usb, but it also has its own issues. Issues that one would
| hope would be solved by the usb-d, and so on. The problem with
| this law is that it makes it much more difficult to start using
| future usb standards.
|
| The EU addressed this by saying that they'll keep up with
| technology as it moves, but one thing that technology is famous
| for, and the EU is infamous for, is the speed at which it moves.
| 5 years is a blink of an eye in politics, and a lifetime in tech.
|
| Thats not to say we'll never see another USB version, I just
| worry this will considerably slow things down.
|
| It seems to me the more future-proof way to do this would be to
| force companies to use an open-standard. We'd still be stuck with
| the dreaded micro-usb, and possibly lightning if apple let
| everyone else use it too, but it solves the proprietary issue
| without locking us in for another ~10 years of just type-c
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Seeing as the U in USB stands for Universal, there are plenty
| of incentives besides politics to /not/ change physical designs
| such as the connections.
|
| USB-C's introduction was (and arguably still is) fairly
| disruptive because it invalidated the universal nature of USB-A
| (and to a lesser extent -B and Micro).
|
| Personally, I hope USB-C will be here to stay for at least the
| better part of a decade going forward. Finding that what was
| once universal won't be universal tomorrow is annoying.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| They could have addressed this by having a built in sunset on
| the law - say, in 5 years. That would get everyone (Apple) on
| the same page in the short term but it would allow for further
| innovation.
| D13Fd wrote:
| Saying they'll keep up doesn't really make sense. The
| regulation will cause innovation to slow or stop in this area.
| So there won't be a whole lot to keep up with.
|
| After all, why invest money in improving your charging
| connector if you are going to be mandated to use USB-C anyway?
| bodge5000 wrote:
| I said in another comment, its a chicken & egg problem. The
| EU will allow new standards as they're used, but nobody will
| use new standards until the EU allows it.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| I'm worried about that little wafer in the usb-c port breaking.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Can Apple under these rules still ID the charger and refuse or
| downgrade the loading process if a 'non-genuine up-to-date model
| version' charger is failed to be detected?
| emkoemko wrote:
| does this mean Apple will finally have fast transfer speeds that
| Android phones have had for at least 5+ years? or will they still
| give you USB2 speeds over USB C?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| I hope they ban the 90% of sold usb-c looking cables that aren't
| actually usb-c compliant.
|
| Someone needs to build a simple device you connect a cable to
| that stress tests it and shows a green or red light.
| moring wrote:
| Did the current cable used by the iPhone have this problem too?
| If not, isn't this changing it to the worse?
|
| edit to clarify: ... because while Apple might still include a
| working cable, but if you grab one of the 10 cables out of your
| cable box, you don't know if it will actually work.
| hbn wrote:
| No, Lightning was great because if you saw a lightning cable,
| you could plug it in and know exactly what it's going to do.
| USB-C has been an absolute fucking mess, half my cables don't
| charge half my devices with USB-C ports, and you have no idea
| from looking what a cable is supposed to do. Everything plugs
| into everything, but it's a completely different story if
| they'll actually interop how you want.
|
| I can't believe people are celebrating the government getting
| involved with the design process of the only tech company
| that actually holds themselves to a standard on design. And
| by forcing them to use a port where the spec is such a mess.
| kalleboo wrote:
| > _No, Lightning was great because if you saw a lightning
| cable, you could plug it in and know exactly what it 's
| going to do_
|
| I have dollar store Lightning cables that only have pins on
| one side and only charge and don't do data.
|
| Also Lightning cables suck because you know that literally
| none of them can even do even 1080p video.
| hbn wrote:
| All I need from a lightning cable is for it to charge
| things, but USB-C doesn't even guarantee that. I bought a
| shower speaker last year that charges through USB-C, and
| for some reason the charging cable that came with my
| Google Pixel won't charge it, but the cable for my
| Nintendo Switch Pro controller does. That's been my
| general experience.
| scrumbledober wrote:
| i have a vape battery that charges by USB-C but only the
| 6" long cable it came with. none of my other cables will
| charge it, and its cable won't charge anything else.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| https://9to5mac.com/2018/08/22/how-to-choose-a-usb-c-
| cable/a...
|
| It would be funny if this ruling strengthened Apple's
| position because no one knows which off-brand cable will
| destroy their device by not limiting current draw.
|
| Without strong regulations on the usb cables themselves, it
| almost seems like putting the cart before the horse.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Apple already supports usb c and dropped lightning on IPADs
| but you are pretending for some reason that Apple's
| position is USB C is unsafe?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| No, I'm saying they are mandating apple add a port where
| the environment of cables that can be plugged in to said
| port is a minefield of confusion :)
| izacus wrote:
| What in the world are you talking about?
|
| Cables aren't the ones limiting current draw, they're
| cables. And the millions upon millions of USB-C devices in
| the world right now have no such issues with USB-C charging
| so where are you pulling these silly ideas from?
|
| You think the rockstar engineers of Apple aren't capable of
| designing a charging circuit with reliability of a 80$
| Chinese manufactured Android phone?
| altairprime wrote:
| > _Cables aren 't the ones limiting current draw_
|
| Incorrect. All USB-PD cables, whether their connectors
| are USB-A, -B, and/or USB-C, are responsible for honestly
| declaring their charging power limit to the charger and
| to the device, and in the USB-PD specifications are
| specifically responsible for limiting current draw to the
| rated capacity of the cable. Per USB PD spec:
|
| > _Sources Shall detect the type of Attached cable and
| limit the Capabilities they offer based on the current
| carrying capability of the cable determined by the Cable
| capabilities determined using the Discover Identity
| Command (see Section 6.4.4.2) sent using SOP'
| Communication (see Section 2.4) to the Cable Plug._
|
| > _The Cable VDO returned as part of the Discover
| Identity Command details the maximum current and voltage
| values that Shall be negotiated for a given cable as part
| of an Explicit Contract._
|
| Cheap, lying, uncertified USB cables that declare their
| ability to support higher charging rates -- for example,
| 100W which is 5A at 20V in USB -- have been known to
| short out and destroy chargers and devices in the process
| of doing so.
|
| This was discussed in a couple hundred comments across
| multiple posts when a Google engineer had to pressure
| Amazon through product reviews to enforce USB-IF
| certification on all USB-C cables several years ago:
|
| 2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10508494
|
| 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11387212
| izacus wrote:
| The cables are declaring their capability, but they're
| not LIMITING anything. That's on the charger and chargee
| side.
|
| >Cheap, lying, uncertified USB cables that declare their
| ability to support higher charging rates -- for example,
| 100W which is 5A at 20V in USB -- have been known to
| short out and destroy chargers and devices in the process
| of doing so.
|
| Yes, HN loves to discuss and gripe about it over and over
| again (quoting the same kind of unconfirmed posts that
| are out of date by years)... it just fails to prove that
| this is still any kind of widespread issue worse than any
| other cable connector issue.
| altairprime wrote:
| Narrow roads aren't limiting driver speed, and yet
| they're used specifically by traffic planners to limit
| driver speed -- with full knowledge that some drivers
| will disregard all limits.
|
| Compliant USB-PD devices honor those cable limits. Non-
| compliant devices do not, but ignoring them does not
| negate their definition as limits.
| dijit wrote:
| Apple's USB-C cable (called: "USB-C Charge Cable") supports
| 97w charging and USB 2.0 data transfer speeds.
|
| Apple only has one other USB-C <-> USB-C cable and that's the
| "Thunderbolt 3 Cable" which supports everything in USB 3.1
| Gen 2
| webmobdev wrote:
| The Apple USB-C charge cable (
| https://www.apple.com/in/shop/product/MM093ZM/A/usb-c-
| charge... ) is supposed to be used with a 20W power adapter
| for iPad. The Thunderbolt USB-C cable is the one that
| supports up to 100W ( https://www.apple.com/in/shop/product
| /MQ4H2ZM/A/thunderbolt-... ).
| dijit wrote:
| The 2m one is "designed" to be used with MacBooks.
|
| The 1m also supports 97W charging. I have the 2m (shipped
| with my MacBook Pro) and the 1m (shipped with my iPad
| Air) and I can confirm they charge my MacBook the same.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| In EU I think this is no issue. All the cheapo usb pd cables I
| have bought off the German Amazon recently have been quite good
| and compliant.
| altairprime wrote:
| Amazon voluntarily requires all USB-C cables sold to be USB-
| IF certified, starting in 2016, after the majority of cables
| for sale were exposed as being noncompliant safety hazards.
|
| There is no EU law requiring any retailers to care, so far as
| I know, as long as the unsafe cables don't have USB-IF logos
| printed on the connectors.
| faller_slive wrote:
| They exist but they cost $15,000.
|
| https://www.totalphase.com/products/advanced-cable-tester-v2...
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| I have no sympathy or love for Apple, but this seems wrong.
|
| Technology comes and goes, standards evolve and fall away as new
| ones arrive.
|
| I don't think the law has any place in deciding who uses what
| connector in this fashion. They can make an e-waste argument all
| they want, but it's nonsense. All it does is stifle future work
| on connectors and devices in general.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Apple has actively participated in the USB-IF almost from its
| inception.
|
| The answer to your conundrum is thus quite simple: Apple must
| now work with the standards it has helped create.
| Deukhoofd wrote:
| The law just makes it so that a single industry standard must
| be followed. Changing this standard is fairly easy, it just
| requires the European Commission to amend it. This means that
| if there's a better connector, USB-IF (being made up out of
| most of the people actually designing the hardware using it)
| can just release a new standard and get it approved.
|
| Edit: It's actually the Commission, not parliament that's
| allowed to change standards.
| lvass wrote:
| Words of Comission spokesperson, 2060: We're fully aware of
| Deukhoofd's words and even though they aren't in the letter
| of law, we're still working hard on approving a better
| connector. Unfortunately as all things in life, there are
| tradeoffs with every single change, so we're planning to come
| up with a new definition of the term "better connector" in
| the next 10 years. Stay tuned in our hard work and don't
| forget to vote on us if you want to see this finished.
| Deukhoofd wrote:
| > even though they aren't in the letter of law.
|
| > With respect to radio equipment capable of being
| recharged via wired charging, the Commission is empowered
| to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 44 to
| amend Part I of Annex Ia in the light of technical progress
| or market developments, and to ensure the minimum common
| interoperability between radio equipment and their charging
| devices, by:
|
| (a) modifying, adding or removing categories or classes of
| radio equipment;
|
| (b) modifying, adding or removing technical specifications,
| including references and descriptions, in relation to the
| charging receptacle(s) and charging communication
| protocol(s), for each category or class of radio equipment
| concerned.'
| logicalmonster wrote:
| > This means that if there's a better connector,
|
| What if there's more than 1 design in progress for a better
| cable and connector with competing tradeoffs? Designing stuff
| means picking the right tradeoffs. For instance, you could
| probably design a phone that is close to indestructible and
| has a battery that lasts for a month if you made it as big as
| a brick, but obviously nobody wants that. For cable
| connectors, there's all kinds of subtle tradeoffs that could
| be taken into account: data transfer speed, electricity
| transfer, size and weight of cable, how easy it is to connect
| and how secure it is when connected, its role in
| waterproofing, stability in heat and challenging
| environments, security, etc. Are you really comfortable with
| some parliamentary committee vote picking between the right
| design tradeoffs?
|
| And what if there's a connector that's slightly better than
| the existing one today, but you know that something that's
| clearly much better is ready in about 1-3 years? Can a
| parliament have the judgement needed to make the right
| engineering decision in the face of loads of political
| pressures?
|
| Their choice has to be right because no market alternative
| would exist. Do you genuinely feel comfortable with this? I
| sure don't.
| ragazzina wrote:
| >For cable connectors, there's all kinds of subtle
| tradeoffs that could be taken into account: data transfer
| speed, electricity transfer, size and weight of cable, how
| easy it is to connect and how secure it is when connected,
| its role in waterproofing, stability in heat and
| challenging environments, security, etc. >Are you really
| comfortable with some parliamentary committee vote picking
| between the right design tradeoffs?
|
| Are you comfortable with the USB-IF picking between the
| right design tradeoffs?
| pembrook wrote:
| > _Changing this standard is fairly easy, it just requires
| the European Commission to amend it._
|
| Is this sentence intended to be sarcastic? I can imagine
| nothing more draconian and backwards than having to lobby a
| political organization for permission to do something
| innovative and outside the norm.
| Deukhoofd wrote:
| > something innovative and outside the norm.
|
| They are explicitly trying to avoid this, where everyone
| has their own "innovative" proprietary charger.
|
| It is fairly easy for an organization such as USB-IF to put
| it forward to the commission when they have a new standard,
| considering it means that the industry has already decided
| on the new standard. If a new cable is improvement enough
| that it warrants a new standard, I don't doubt that the
| industry as a whole will try and make a push for it.
| ciberado wrote:
| I don't see it is a regulation against Apple. It is just a
| question of being coherent with the other hundred of smartphone
| brands that are forced to use a single interface for the
| charger. And I really don't miss at all the times when we
| needed to have 3 different types of them at home.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| In principle I agree with you, but in practice I don't. When
| Apple released lightning we didn't yet have a USB-C, so
| lightning was a good alternative, even though it was
| proprietary. Now things are very different, and USB-C is here
| and is widely used.
|
| It would be one thing if we were stuck on Micro/MiniUSB and the
| EU wanted apple to use a clearly inferior technology, but USB-C
| stacks up very well against lightning, possibly even better.
|
| I don't see this as the EU saying "you must start using USB-C"
| and more "look you can't use your proprietary cords anymore
| that we have very good standards, considering you are the
| biggest phone maker on the planet"
| [deleted]
| pif wrote:
| > All it does is stifle future work on connectors
|
| And that's exactly the point! Stop pretending you are special
| and use the same connector as anybody else.
|
| If you really, really need a new connector:
|
| 1. propose a new standard;
|
| 2. make it retro-compatible with all the existing devices;
|
| 3. leave some slack for the next one who will need some more
| capabilities;
|
| 4. the parliament will declare your standard the new one.
| NextHendrix wrote:
| This gives me some cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, having
| a common connector will reduce waste and be much more convenient
| (eg "Hey have you got an iPhone charger?") and make losing a
| charger a cheaper mistake. On the other hand I'm not sure I like
| the idea of government mandating electrical connectors on
| devices, which could stifle innovation, or be very shortsighted
| in the typical government-rules-on-tech way (eg "banning
| encryption").
|
| I don't know what to think.
| shpx wrote:
| And Lightning is physically a better connector.
| timbit42 wrote:
| A better connector would be round.
| CharlieDigital wrote:
| Imagine if every house in the US has different types of outlet
| shapes and sizes and voltages instead of our standard 120v, 15A
| 20A 3 prong outlets.
|
| (Minus specialized sockets like 240v, 30A, etc.)
|
| It would be ridiculous to have adapters and specialized plugs
| for everything for such a basic purpose.
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| Electricity in the US is such a mess though, it's so easy to
| reach the limit of a 120V/15A circuit.
| messe wrote:
| I wouldn't be too concerned. They did it before to standardise
| on micro USB, in such a way that didn't stop manufacturers from
| moving to USB-C. This is really just an update of that same
| rule.
| skohan wrote:
| How did Apple dodge this with micro-USB?
| throwaway744678 wrote:
| A dongle was available.
| pimterry wrote:
| See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply
| - they included a dongle that allowed micro-USB charging of
| iPhones.
| danhor wrote:
| It was not a law, but an agreement (to stop the EU enacting
| a law) and dongles were sufficient. This is a law and
| dongles aren't sufficient.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| The general principle is wait for the dust to settle and then
| enforce whatever is the industry majority with an agreed mature
| tech.
|
| Btw the same thing happened with the EV charging (SAE J1772).
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| EV connector is different in EU.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| The principle is the same IEC 62196.
| [deleted]
| tgv wrote:
| Thank God nobody ever standardized electrical plugs. I'd hate
| being able to plug my vacuum cleaner and laptop in the same
| outlet.
| dionidium wrote:
| This is a great example in that residential electrical
| systems evolve at a snails pace. There's almost no innovation
| and most houses are full of dangerous legacy systems because
| regulation makes updating difficult and expensive.
|
| Also of note: you aren't required by national or state law to
| use any kind of electrical system in the U.S. The National
| Electric Code is not a binding document. It's up to
| individual municipalities to decide whether they want to
| adopt it (or some other standard, which they're free to do).
| rswail wrote:
| Except electricians and the companies that insure them for
| professional liability, or the companies that insure houses
| against electrical fires use that national code as a
| reference, same for building codes, etc.
|
| It's interesting to read the comments here from people that
| have equipment and stuff in their houses and cars and
| workplaces that are constrained by regulations and laws all
| around them, but are worried about a connector on their
| phone.
|
| A "free" market _needs_ regulation otherwise it develops
| into monopolies. Setting standards is a way to regulate to
| ensure a level playing field for competition.
|
| It's not like the EU has rushed this decision, or that
| anyone is proposing some other standard that wasn't
| considered.
| blue_light_man wrote:
| You don't even know what else could have happened if there
| was no standardization. Maybe the industry must have
| progressed without the need of outlets in the first place.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Yeah, we would definitely use nuclear mini-reactors in our
| vacuum cleaners otherwise, if only it wasn't for the damn
| EU!
|
| These are very well understood areas, there is only so many
| ways you can transport electricity. Also, there is nothing
| stopping innovation "after" the plug. It's like saying that
| HTTP somehow stifles innovation.
| blue_light_man wrote:
| HTTPS is a technology choosen by the free market. Bad
| example.
| wiredfool wrote:
| There are at least 3 different standards for wall plugs in
| the Eu.
| kome wrote:
| true but also false: italian, french and german standards
| (and the rest of smaller european countries) are different
| but compatible. and i'm glad for that.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Unless I'm misunderstanding you, they're all part of the
| same standard, CEE 7, but have different purposes and are
| intentionally incompatible.
| wiredfool wrote:
| No. Include the UK/Ireland plug in that.
| rswail wrote:
| I wonder how long before IE goes with EU standards
| instead of UK ones, now that the UK has exited?
| wiredfool wrote:
| I doubt we're changing the side of the road we drive on,
| but now it's much more expensive to import LHD used cars
| from the UK. I doubt that we're changing power plugs
| because there's hundreds of millions of them out there.
|
| I'm not sure that other EU standards there would be that
| we don't have, being an EU member, except for decent
| cycling and mass transport infra, and that would be
| dramatic improvement.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > I doubt that we're changing power plugs because there's
| hundreds of millions of them out there.
|
| Could be done, with adapters.
| wiredfool wrote:
| Having travelled the EU with Irish/UK plugs on my
| electronics, it's a pain in the ass unless you have
| swapped the plug on several power strips.
|
| Also, basically all of the adapters say not for long term
| use, and they're nowhere near as stout or secure as
| either type of plug alone.
|
| Anyway, the UK plug is the best one out there, except for
| stepping on them. They're worse than legos, and that's
| saying something. (and maybe size, weight, and cost. But
| electrically, they're good)
| guerrilla wrote:
| The UK is not in the EU and use all kinds of weird units
| and other nonsense. If they had stayed in the EU long
| enough, they would have caught up eventually, as will
| Italy.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| And europlug is compatible with all of them for low powered
| devices.
| insickness wrote:
| The question of whether standards are beneficial and whether
| the government should mandate standards are two completely
| separate questions.
| beardyw wrote:
| Well only governments can mandate standards, and if they
| don't it's just wishful thinking isn't it?
| galangalalgol wrote:
| There are plenty of non governmental standards. Some like
| openGL or http are driven by industry consortiums. Others
| like keurig/Nespresso generic pods, x86 chips, or cup
| holder sizes are driven by compatibility with wildly
| successful products.
|
| Edit: usb-c is both the former and the latter. Macbooks
| and ipads had already switched, it seems likely the next
| iphone would have been usb-c anyway, or perhaps portless.
| Krkrmfnfmmd wrote:
| There is no law to force you to standardize your electrical
| plugs.
| skohan wrote:
| I have traveled to parts of the developing world where
| standardization hasn't happened and it's a huge mess
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Yeah, I have bad memories from Italy, too.
| alanfranz wrote:
| About Europe, you mean? The problem is not Italy, it's
| different EU countries abiding different standards.
| skohan wrote:
| Have you seen this outside Italy? Everywhere else in
| Europe I've always seen the Europlug, it's only Italy
| where sometimes you have the weird 3-in-a-line plug, at
| least in Western Europe
| audunw wrote:
| Denmark has the smiley face plug. It works fine if you
| don't need a grounded connection, but still.. they have a
| lot of sockets that don't follow the EU standard.
|
| I think France has the one where the ground pin sticks
| out? That can be a problem depending on which cable you
| have.
|
| And then there's UK of course, though they're not part of
| EU anymore.
| messe wrote:
| We have the UK plugs in Ireland too and we're in the EU.
| I wish it was feasible to switch to the europlug, I
| wouldn't have to carry a handful of adapters around when
| travelling.
| salex89 wrote:
| Traveling much of Europe (humble brag) the only places
| where I have seen some noticeable difference is Britain
| (of course) Italy and Malta. That being said, any
| remotely modern building or establishment expecting
| travelers on Malta or Italy has plugs with at least USB-A
| or the two prong "European" (with the round prongs, don't
| know the standard name).
| fanf2 wrote:
| Italy has unusually messed up mains electricity. It's
| worth taking a look at their entry on this page https://e
| n.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#I...
| ChrisRR wrote:
| Does no-one remember how there were like 50 different phone
| connectors in the early 2000s?
|
| This is why we all (apart from Apple) settled on one standard
| Lutzb wrote:
| This so much. This era was defined by vendor lock-in. Getting
| e.g. a dedicated car phone audio setup was tough decision,
| since you could not just change the phone.
|
| I still have a box of old phones with custom chargers,
| headsets and data cables. The Nokia barrel plug (different
| sizes), the Siemens comb style connector, the Ericsson break
| away type connector, the Motorola two prong, the Bosch
| connector and some really weird LG/NEC/SAGEM plugs.
|
| Good riddance.
| ralfd wrote:
| Yes, exactly: The market could innovate and develop better
| connectors. For example Apples Lightning, which is older (and
| smaller/more robust) than USB-C. Imagine instead the EU
| mandating micro USB and how we would be forced till the end
| of times to have a 50% chance to plugging it in wrong.
|
| Is USB-C the best connector or form factor we could ever do?
| skohan wrote:
| I am similarly of two minds. As an engineer, I can imagine how
| legal mandates for technology choices could stifle innovation
| and make the future of technology worse.
|
| But at the same time, I think there may be a place for
| mandating interface compatibility.
|
| To give some old-school examples, how differently might
| industrialization have gone if rail systems weren't mandated to
| operate under some shared standards? Or where would we be if
| every country had a handful of competing power grids with
| different voltages and outlet types?
|
| So I am not sure the cable which plugs into our phones is the
| correct target for standardization, but in spirit I think it's
| worthwhile to consider how the public good of interoperability
| should be weighed against a handful of corporations' interest
| in building technological moats around themselves and their
| users.
| jmull wrote:
| I can "reassure" you: this is unambiguously a bad idea.
|
| First, market forces already standardized on two main
| standards.
|
| Second, the interop problem is a $10 cable between wall-wart
| and device.
|
| So the problem solved is a small one. I think this idea got
| its momentum from years ago when practically every model of
| phone had a different charger and wall wart.
|
| Meanwhile, think about what you lose.
|
| Is USB-C really the end-game of charging connectors? It has
| existing issues with labeling and capabilities confusion.
| What about mag-safe-style connectors? Does a phone
| necessarily need a charging connector at all and might there
| not be advantages to not having one?
|
| As an aside, ewaste will increase in the short term, of
| course, as people will have to throw out their lighting stuff
| and buy USB-C stuff. (Don't worry, it's not a lot -- small
| problem, remember.)
| skohan wrote:
| But you're assuming this USB-C decision is eternal right?
| Couldn't the problems you raised be solved by having a
| standards organization which could monitor and update the
| status quo over time based on the technologies available?
| jmull wrote:
| Which already exists -- without EU regulatory processes
| to encumber them.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| > First, market forces already standardized on two main
| standards.
|
| So, one standard too many. Especially when one of those
| standards is held hostage by one corporation.
|
| > Is USB-C really the end-game of charging connectors?
|
| It's close enough, we can already see that improvements
| have been incredibly incremental already. Hell, it would
| have been fine to stick to micro-B or even mini-B.
|
| > What about mag-safe-style connectors?
|
| You already have people building those as third-party
| dongles. Clearly it doesn't have to be part of the spec.
|
| > Does a phone necessarily need a charging connector at all
|
| Yes. Wireless charging is inherently far less efficient
| than wired charging.
|
| > and might there not be advantages to not having one?
|
| No. To steal a quote from yourself: this is unambiguously a
| bad idea.
| jmull wrote:
| You sure have the perspective of an EU regulator.
| wincy wrote:
| I hope the US doesn't have to have USB-C iPhones because
| of this.
|
| Just like it's super annoying getting a cookie bar on
| every single website I go to every single time. I just
| roll my eyes every time I see it.
| simion314 wrote:
| Shit, did not know web devs are so bad so you get EU GDPR
| pops in US, the idiots are showing you what dirty thing
| they are doing without having to do it, or maybe the devs
| are smart and wanted you to see all those 100+ partners
| are giving the US citizens the option to opt out, if the
| later great from them to give you the option.
| skohan wrote:
| What disadvantage do you see with USB-C iPhones? I would
| love to share a cable with my laptop, phone, tablet and
| everything else
| kaba0 wrote:
| EU effect -- so you will also get USB-C iphones.
| Kbelicius wrote:
| > First, market forces already standardized on two main
| standards.
|
| EU sat down the manufacturers and told them that if they
| don't come to an agreement the EU will make the choice for
| them. Most of them came to an agreement. So you are right,
| market forces did make manufacturers to standardize on two
| main standards. That force is named EU.
|
| > Is USB-C really the end-game of charging connectors?
|
| No, and EU has no illusions that it is.
|
| > Does a phone necessarily need a charging connector at all
| and might there not be advantages to not having one?
|
| No, and the EU doesn't think that it does.
|
| > As an aside, ewaste will increase in the short term, of
| course, as people will have to throw out their lighting
| stuff and buy USB-C stuff. (Don't worry, it's not a lot --
| small problem, remember.)
|
| This is just stupid fearmongering. People won't have to
| throw their lightning stuff.
| jmull wrote:
| I don't think EU regulation works the way you think it
| does.
|
| > This is just stupid fearmongering.
|
| I guess if you can't make a good point, you can always
| hurl insults.
|
| What do you think people who upgrade their iPhones in
| 2024 will do with their lightning cables which no longer
| connect to anything they have?
| grey-area wrote:
| New iphones come with a cable.
| skohan wrote:
| Even if they throw them out, it's better to pull off the
| bandaid than to go on creating more and more redundant
| cables and e-waste for the next 30 years
| jhasse wrote:
| > What do you think people who upgrade their iPhones in
| 2024 will do with their lightning cables which no longer
| connect to anything they have?
|
| sell
| jmull wrote:
| The EU market for cables with lightning connectors will
| be contracting for some reason at that time.
| rmccue wrote:
| > To give some old-school examples, how differently might
| industrialization have gone if rail systems weren't mandated
| to operate under some shared standards?
|
| I'm not sure that analogy holds particularly well. The UK
| _did_ build rail systems without shared standards, and only
| standardised on gauge in 1846, which was very late in the
| industrial revolution:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Gauge_War - Standards
| for other things like signalling also came late, and broad
| gauge was still in use until 1892. (Notably though, this did
| happen just at the turn of Railway Mania, so affected a lot
| of the new lines.)
|
| Effectively, the UK let (mainly by omission, not
| intentionally) the solutions compete and then selected the
| most broadly used solution to standardise on.
|
| (I'd love to see any scholarly research on this though; I
| haven't seen a huge degree of it. Obviously things are
| different outside of the UK, but given it's where
| (uncoincidentally) both the industrial revolution and
| railways were born, that's the clear case to look at.)
| skohan wrote:
| > Effectively, the UK let (mainly by omission, not
| intentionally) the solutions compete and then selected the
| most broadly used solution to standardise on.
|
| We're down to two connectors here, one of which is only
| used by a single vendor; do you think that hasn't already
| happened?
| rmccue wrote:
| I'm not questioning that at all! I'm only responding to
| the question posed by the parent about railway
| standardisation in the context of industrialisation.
| jen20 wrote:
| What happened is the worse more common standard was
| converged upon, so instead of the west coast main line
| having a comfortable, stable 7' gauge, we ended up with the
| less comfortable standard gauge that requires longer trains
| to seat the same number of people.
| salmo wrote:
| I think that's what weirds me out. In cases like rail, it's
| necessary for interoperability and prevents anti competitive
| practices. There's a clear state interest there.
|
| But swapping a plug doesn't buy us that. This is evidenced by
| the fact that no company is forced to use lightning to
| compete.
|
| Almost everything uses USB-A at the outlet and choose your
| other end. We're starting to see USB-C at the outlet, but
| same thing.
|
| I also don't see the e-waste argument. I haven't had a cable
| outlive a device. My kids go through them every other month.
| No plug fixes that, it's almost always where the cable joins
| the plug. (Except micro-USB, we shall never speak of that
| again).
|
| My other biggest practical problem is that, despite
| appearances, USB-C != USB-C, and the off-the-shelf cables are
| awful, especially for normal humans.
|
| In my dream world, I'd love to see clearly labeled device and
| cord capabilities, and USB-C all the things, and a reigned in
| USB-C spec.
|
| I just think that government is a bad place to do it, and
| don't see a necessary state interest case for their
| intervention.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| > I also don't see the e-waste argument. I haven't had a
| cable outlive a device.
|
| My old Nokia Micro-B cables outlived their bundled devices
| by a factor of... 3x or so? And I only took those out of
| use because I don't have a lot of stuff that still uses
| Micro-B.
|
| Actually, I don't think I've ever managed to break a USB
| cable yet. What on earth are you doing to the things?!
| riffraff wrote:
| Apple cables were notoriously shitty for many years,
| because they didn't build strain relief into them, until
| a couple generations ago, and they would fray with time.
|
| I imagine this is what GP experienced, based on my
| experience with it on iphones and apple laptops.
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| It will end up with the terrible quality fake usb cables and
| chargers we have today, thanks for the usb organisation not
| being stricter. Seems hard to find specific types of USB 3/C
| cables. In some cases they have damaged the connected devices
| which should be considered a failure of the U part.
|
| If anything this will increase the value of official apple
| chargers because at least those will be well designed.
| danhor wrote:
| Even if you're buying from Amazon or AliExpress, there have
| been very few cases over the last few years of them damaging
| your device compared to the first years of USB-C.
|
| They might still have other issues, but nothing that damages
| your device.
| krageon wrote:
| > stifle innovation
|
| We have plenty of free market examples of why "innovation" in
| the connector space almost always spawns lemons and makes
| everything worse in the meantime.
| hackeraccount wrote:
| Do we? By the same token what are examples of where
| innovation in the connector space helped out?
|
| I find laws like this problematic because measuring success
| or failure is super tricky. How do you know about innovation
| that hasn't happened? If in 5 years or 10 years we're using
| USB-C connectors is that great or does it mean there's some
| better idea that isn't being taken to market? I'm sure there
| are subject matter experts who might confidently weigh in on
| that but could they realistically get this law changed? Even
| if those experts agreed there was a better solution would the
| majority of the incumbent players in the space want that
| solution?
|
| Laws like this create a situation where opposition depends
| upon people missing things they've never had and wanting
| things that they can't conceive of.
| riffraff wrote:
| > By the same token what are examples of where innovation
| in the connector space helped out?
|
| Power plugs (per country), audio jacks, gas plugs.
|
| Or do you miss the experience of being able to plug your GM
| car in GM-Approved(tm) gas stations?
| Avamander wrote:
| > Do we?
|
| Yes, EV charging in the states.
| kennend3 wrote:
| > On the other hand I'm not sure I like the idea of government
| mandating electrical connectors on devices, which could stifle
| innovation, or be very shortsighted in the typical government-
| rules-on-tech way
|
| You seem unaware that the government regulate a LOT of things
| and while this has stiffed some innovation, the cost is
| probably worth it.
|
| When was the last time a house burned down due to electrical
| issues? In the past, prior to standards this was rather common.
|
| If you want a general understanding of what things were like
| prior to "regulation".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob-and-tube_wiring
|
| Now ask how you would plug an appliance into this mess...
| clouddrover wrote:
| > _On the other hand I 'm not sure I like the idea of
| government mandating electrical connectors on devices_
|
| Depends on the device.
|
| Standards for EV fast charging are a very good thing. North
| America has two different plugs and protocols for DC fast
| charging (three if you count CHAdeMO) and it's a mess. The EU
| has standardized on CCS Type 2 Combo so any brand of CCS
| charging car can charge on any brand of CCS charging network.
| That's good common sense and it benefits everyone.
|
| Incompatible charging infrastructure doesn't benefit any EV
| owner. It's a drag on the EV market. Closed networks like
| Tesla's and Rivian's are continuing to be part of the problem.
|
| Tesla is (very) slowly changing in North America:
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/28/22596337/tesla-supercharg...
|
| Rivian still hasn't got the memo. Rivian's chargers are at
| least CCS but because they're brand exclusive they don't see
| much use:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbvW0nK38j8
|
| Those chargers could be earning more revenue right now instead
| of sitting idle. All they have to do is unlock the software.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > Closed networks like Tesla's and Rivian's are continuing to
| be part of the problem.
|
| All new Tesla stations in Europe use CCS and most of the
| older stations have been retrofitted with CCS connectors in
| addition to Type 2.
|
| I have an adaptor for my 2017 Model S that allows it to use
| CCS instead of Type 2 and newer cars can be converted so that
| CCS connectors can be used without adaptors. All new EVs in
| Europe already use CCS and Tesla are slowly opening up their
| network to other brands of car.
|
| So how is Tesla part of the problem?
| clouddrover wrote:
| > _All new EVs in Europe already use CCS and Tesla are
| slowly opening up their network to other brands of car._
|
| Yes. You're restating what I have said. Tesla should hurry
| up and open them all.
|
| > _So how is Tesla part of the problem?_
|
| Because Tesla chargers are not open to all brands
| everywhere.
|
| A better question to ask is why is Tesla not the leader in
| multi-brand charging. Other charging networks have
| delivered chargers which support all brands of EV with
| longer cables for more vehicle types and are faster than
| Tesla's chargers to boot.
|
| How can I charge my Volvo truck on Tesla's existing
| chargers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UAttTG03WA
|
| What about my bus:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lNTjJW7HEY
|
| How do I charge my Porsche Taycan on Tesla's chargers at
| 800 volts instead of this 400 volt business:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0F42jY3dD8
|
| How do I charge my BMW without blocking another charger due
| to Tesla's short-sighted charger design:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y33AArvMUQ
|
| Tesla's V4 chargers will apparently have longer cables, but
| Tesla is still no Alpitronic.
| dtech wrote:
| Relevant to this discussion: Tesla only uses CCS in EU
| because it was mandated by law, just like USB-C now will
| be.
| Kbelicius wrote:
| > On the other hand I'm not sure I like the idea of government
| mandating electrical connectors on devices, which could stifle
| innovation, or be very shortsighted in the typical government-
| rules-on-tech way (eg "banning encryption").
|
| How can free sharing of ideas stifle innovation?
| wisnoskij wrote:
| Forcing everyone to change cables creates waste. Apple is teh
| onyl company that might not have already been using USBC by the
| time this went into effect, and now all their customers that
| already had lightning cables and accessories will have to throw
| them out of get adapters. Not to mention that by then we will
| probably already be talking about USB-D or whatever is coming
| next. Maybe the USB counsel can just conglomerate everything
| under the usbc name so that companies can just use whatever
| they want. "Micro usbc, its just micro usb but with a new
| name!". Maybe that is why they have been renaming all their
| skews every 6 months.
|
| I wonder if they will just be able to ship iphones with
| lightning cables and a usbc adapter and a usbc to lightning
| port adapter so the customers can just throw out the adapters
| and use the lightning cables.
| matthew-wegner wrote:
| Plenty of Apple products already use USB-C. Apple products
| aside, I'm sure the average household has USB-C cables by now
|
| Besides, existing phones are obviously going to stay
| Lightning. Cables aren't going to be thrown out any earlier
| than the phones themselves
| Bilal_io wrote:
| At this point, I think even the average household in
| developing countries has USB-C. And that's probably due to
| entry-level android phone makers choosing to go with it.
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| Because they don't have bigger things to worry about right now...
| nolok wrote:
| One, large entities like that have a lot of people working on a
| lot of things, and the people dealing with whatever emergency
| is the current one are not disturbed or slowed down by that in
| the slightest
|
| Two, if you wait until everything is perfect and there are no
| issue to fix the everyday things, then you never do.
|
| Your comment makes no sense.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| akmarinov wrote:
| That's like saying that you have you a mortgage to take care
| of, so you have no time to buy groceries, make food, eat and
| spend time with family.
| shaman1 wrote:
| Being recently in the market for car tires I say that some
| standardisation benefits the consumer and reduces waste. There
| are so many sizes of tires that you have limited choice on
| purchase and resell. Unfortunately there is no incentive for
| companies to standardize because they loose revenue. Apple can
| make a custom port and sell an overpriced cable and adapter for
| it. Maybe it's slightly better but is it that much better to
| worth keeping it?
|
| There should be a work group that takes more of these decisions
| with the aim to reduce waste says the dreamer in my but the
| circumspect thinks otherwise. If Apple invents a revolutionary
| port what happens next? Do they need EU approval?
| karolist wrote:
| Car tire sizes are designed for specific wheel sizes (diameter
| and width), which in turn are manufactured on criteria such as
| arch sizes, break disc and caliper clearance requirements,
| engine power, steering mechanism and suspension setup (for
| offset) and of course looks. Car wheels are interchangeable to
| an extent but you have to maintain same diameter to keep speed
| measurement accurate, so bigger wheel results in thinner tires
| for summer for example, and smaller, cheaper and uglier wheels
| for winter season where you risk curb damage, but then smaller
| wheel - taller tire. We would have to give up the massive car
| choice amounts we have to standardise here so I'd say not a
| great analogy.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| So Apple is going wireless charging only in 2024, did I get that
| right?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-04 23:01 UTC)