Looking at a 240W power adapter (https://www.slimq.uk/products/240w-charger-1) the whole thing doesn't seem that much bigger than a regular old laptop charger. Modern GaN chargers are quite compact for the punch they pack.
That's basically the EU's requirement. Mobile phones get all the coverage, but the requirement covers mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones and headsets, handheld videogame consoles, portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards, mice, portable navigation systems, earbuds and laptops; as long as they are rechargeable via a wired cable that delivers up to 100w.
Indeed, on the other hand this should be an opportunity to dispense with a whole load of regulations related to powering small devices, and just replace it all with "USB C".
At the very least they can add an environmental tax on anything that is not coming with a removable battery.
Then we can stop tossing entire phones in the garbage.
I have a Pixel 5. The Pixel 7 isn't even an improvement to me. The fact that my battery is at 15% after the day is done means I am on my last year with the device.
I have a Nexus 6 with basically no battery to speak of but it works great still outside of that.
So for my second suggestion, if a company claims to be focused on climate change reduction, using a non-removable battery will double the tax.
All proceeds go to renewables for whatever state has the best(lowest) carbon footprint not yet at 0.
Let's see how long the "thinness" of the phone matters.
You don't have to toss the phone. You can replace the battery with aftermarket one yourself, pay someone to do it for you or sell the Nexus 6 on second-hand market so that the new owner will deal with it.
There are still legal issues, mainly that the manufacturer does not provide replacement parts and aftermarket ones infringe on manufacturer's intellectual property so you only get ones produced in shady chinese factories and good luck importing them in bugger quantity. What really needs to change are the IP laws so that --when manufacturer fails to provide replacement parts or charges outrageous price-- the IP becomes free-for-all shortly after the product release.
Much bigger problem are blatant anti-repair practices - be it kindle buybacks, sonos "brick your old device to get a discount for new one" or manufacturers pairing parts to the device (looking at you apple) so that the parts refuse to work due to a software-lock. Additional tax or even hard penalization of those practices would make sense. Also it would make sense limiting the reach of DMCA and IP laws to enable users to "break digital locks", modify and distribute modified firmware in order to bypass those arbitrary restrictions imposed by manufacturers.
Mandating standards by laws isn't progress. It holds the future back. This and the EU will be looked back on as a disastrous piece of legislation in the future. It's amazing how nearsighted these governments are being.
Standards are universally created by industry organically, not created by governments.
The EU law explicitly includes a provision that it must be reviewed every few years to keep up with industry progress. It previously mandated Micro USB, and now it mandates USB-C.
It's not a law which says "the industry must use connector X", but a law which says "the industry must standardize on a single connector" - which is exactly what you seem to be asking for.
Besides that, there are plenty of industry standards developed well before the first devices come on the market. PCIe 6 was finished before the first PCIe 5 product even hit the shelves, DDR5 was done two years before the first CPU used it, and I bet someone is working on a USB 5 already.
> Selling devices with both connectors is allowed.
Unless by doing so you harm the competitiveness of the device. Additionally if a device still has USB-C no one's going to design peripherals for a device and artificially limit their market if they don't have to. This makes moving to new standards difficult or impossible.
I have to serve five different charging ports (Magsafe, Lightning, USB C, micro USB, and some proprietary thing for my watch). The watch charger only comes with an USB A cable, so now either I need an extra dongle or two charging bricks.
USB C was introduced in 2014 and really came about in 2016. These companies had six+ years to converge on something reasonable. But they didn't. Be it out of greed or plain laziness.
Standards take time for them to filter through the industry. It only looks good in context of today. Imagine looking back on today from 10 years in the future with us being stuck on the legacy USB-C standard because of a variety of disparate legislation all over the world holding the new standard back.
Or that the standard that could have happened, never does. We can never know what future we could have had if not for actions in the past.
You mean like the EU-FOSSA program, or its recent continuation?
The EU has been funding bug bounty programs since 2014, has organized hackathons, and is explicitly promoting the use of open standards and open source software.
Sure, the funding isn't massive, but it's still a few million a year.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to raise this concern but when tech improves to the point where there's a better option to USB C (or USB C is holding back other advances), are we going to have to wait for legislation to catch up before we can adopt it?
Inductive charging doesn't count. You can get out of the USB-C requirement by having only inductive charging, but as soon as you have a physical connector that supports charging one of them has to be USB-C. (At least in the EU version of the requirement)
> You can get out of the USB-C requirement by having only inductive charging
That's a nice loophole there :)
Anyway, it's not like USB-C isn't good enough and that they can't change the rules if/when a new connector get enough support. And to get enough support, it most likely means that it has to be compatible (in some way) with USB-C. That's a nice feature.
There are a lot more devices covered than just smartphones. Any superior connector can get market penetration in larger devices that have fewer problems with two charging ports (tablets, laptops, keyboards, battery operated loudspeakers, e-book readers, etc.). At that point the commission will either take notice on their own or can be lobbied to switch to the new connector with a sufficiently long transition period.
The real solution is to not legislate a standard, but instead to say:
"A 10% additional tax shall apply to the sale of any portable device. The tax will be reduced to zero if the device uses the most common charging port in the year the device was sold. The tax is reduced to 5% if it uses the 2nd most common port in the year it was sold."
That means any big industry effort to move to a new port will, when it gets more than 50% support, will immediately get everyone else to move over to save money. And people can still use custom/niche ports, but they'll take a hit to their bottom line for the privilege - but it'll be worth it if the utility of the better port is good enough the user is happy to pay a premium for it.
The fact the tax is determined at the end of the year means manufacturers have an incentive to work together on standardization even after devices are in the hands of consumers. For example, Apple could maybe open up lightning to other manufacturers and save a lot of taxes on devices already sold in that year, if they could make lightning the most popular in the year.
Yes and no. This is a short/mid-term directive and as well a power-plug standard. Which is common across the world for decades. We all happily live with that already. Anyway, your basic idea is leading in a good direction and shall cover all important features:
* Replacement parts for 5 (smartphone), 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 (plane) years
* Open specification for replacement parts (manufacturer goes out of business, third parties take over)
* Maintenance manuals. Like Lenovo provides for ThinkPads with explosive diagrams. FOR FREE.
* If software is included, manufacturer must state in packaging how long upgrades and updates will be provided.
* If software is included, it must be user replaceable. Even on an appliance, the manufacturer must provide instructions (e.g. EEPROM, replaceable chip, dongle which shows that software was user modified -> important for safety)
* Repairability
* More stuff...
And every half year this rules will be re-evaluated and will show it with traffic signal colors {green, yellow, red}. Therefore it will adopt constantly and not a fixed final law. The taxes for red signals will pay for this constant re-evaluation. So you can still buy an iPhone but it will show some green parts and a lot of red. And an Android will show similar things. While a ThinkPad will probably show a lot of green but one big fat red for the soldered RAM. It also doesn't state that a largely red product is from an "evil" manufacturer, maybe it is a small business shipping a small batch for a specific customer base. While, when you buy a product which is green in all areas, you probably made a long term investment.
PS: I doesn't necessarily need to rise prices, which politicians often do because it is "easy". Maybe replace the FAT or parts of it.
We wouldn't write every year a new additional law and instead apply one template based generic? And use tests before the high-court will rip it in pieces? And put the changing details in regulations?
Aside from that. I still love the first paragraph of the German traffic law:
(1) Participation in road traffic requires constant caution and mutual consideration.
(2) Anyone participating in traffic must behave in such a way that no other person is harmed, endangered or obstructed or inconvenienced more than is unavoidable under the circumstances.
The most important, sane and violated law. I mean? You don't need even one more paragraph. I says "Don't be a mad. Care about others. Be nice to each other.".
I'd rather it were about number of (perhaps some bar for popularity) models sold, not that multiplied by sales numbers. Apple shouldn't get a pass on Lightning just because the iPhone is popular IMO, it's about interoperability/repairability/longevity, not avoiding 'huh this is unusual'.
Apple in India is a luxury brand, increasing prices with additional taxes won't make any significant change in their sales numbers. The main concern here was avoiding more e-waste and allowing more consumer freedom.
Yes although two charge ports doesn't sound impossible and/or especially bad to me. Especially if the port is a brand new standard you'll never be able to borrow a charge cable for from a friend.
Would be interested to know how much multiple charge ports affect price/complexity.
I'm honestly only worried about charging speed on laptops and tablets. Phones charge pretty quickly no matter what you plug them into, at least in my experience (I'm not a phone gamer so ymmv), whereas I've seen more than one laptop lose battery while charging if doing something demanding.
If I carried an adapter I'd probably have my charger with me to be honest and I don't know anyone nice enough to carry adapters for others.
>> I'm honestly only worried about charging speed on laptops and tablets.
What kind of tablet needs more than 240w ? I think that's what Alienware uses as well so I doubt you will ever need more than that. Not to mention that the trend going towards more efficient electronics/chips etc.
A poor take on my part. I admittedly have zero experience with tablets. I just assume due to the form factor and price that high end tablets are essentially a touch screen laptop without the keyboard.
The EU is watching the USB-IF for further improvements. Currently it is limited to 100 Watt and common devices like latops and smartphones. And they're watching wireless-charging already. If Apple or some of the other usual suspects (Microsoft, Amazon, Google) tries to push a proprietary technology the can act hopefully quicker.
I'm still looking for the part where exceptions are listed and there are already some e.g. for small fitness trackers. They are slow but not necessarily stupid. *Nobody prevents any manufacturer to add additional charging ports.*
TLDR
Power plugs across Europe and North America where standardized for decades. And guess what. That stuff works! And YES this new regulations actually implements a new power plug aside from the Europlug, USB Type-C. This is nothing entirely new or crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europlug
I think it is disingenous to compare USB-C to power plugs. USB-C does a million more things than power delivery and there is significantly more room for innovation.
>Nobody prevents any manufacturer to add additional charging ports.
Except for market demands of smaller phones.
My question to you is: would you have wanted micro-USB to be standardized like this?
Micro-USB was standardized like this. And the law included a clause that said it had to be reviewed regularly to keep up with industry progress - which is why it is now switching to USB-C.
True, it wasn't legally required - I should have been more careful with that phrasing - but the signatories had a market share of over 80%. It was well-understood that they would be legally forced to if they did not voluntarily comply - which makes the "voluntary" part a bit moot.
> It was well-understood that they would be legally forced to if they did not voluntarily comply - which makes the "voluntary" part a bit moot.
Except, that is not true at all. Every single manufacturer moved to a new, better plug when it became available and faced no repercussions. That is no longer possible.
USB-C as a connector is fine for many years and backwards compatible improvements are more than possible. Once we outgrown this I’m sure lobby groups will be sitting in Brussels.
What are you even debating here? You said phones get larger every year, they really do not. Although in the past smaller phones have been more common. There is no contradiction.
This also misses the point entirely. The point being, the number of ports decreases the volume available for everything else.
This is also my problem with this legislation. There is legitimate innovation in connector design. Surely people remember micro USB cables, which weren't really that good. I certainly never would have wanted them to become a mandated standard.
While I think USB-C is quite well designed, this legislation makes it extremely hard for a superior standard to arise. The only reason USB-C has any grounds to be a mandated standard is because it already is widely used. For an alternative standard to arise, first you would need to convince multiple nation state governments and/or a multi-nation government to allow the standard to be used, even before it made it to market.
To summarize it mostly from memory, it was a voluntary agreement between 10(ish) phone manufacturers (Apple included) and the EU. It had an expiry date, and it was renewed on a yearly basis 2009-2014.
In 2014 EU figured out this was working fine, and allowed itself up until 2020 to make it obligatory (as opposed to voluntary). They also took this time to figure out categories of products that should be impacted (headphones, cameras, those sorts of things). Then in 2021 they made changes to the directive, setting Type C as the standard.
EU directives are not exactly laws. Instead, it's a way of telling member states what they should be implementing in their own national laws. Member states then have two years to do the actual implementation. So, late 2023 member states will all have slightly different laws, but basically all saying the same (Type C is the only connector allowed, users must have an option to exclude a charger from their purchase). Not quite the same as EU-wide law, but not quite different in practice.
So what will happen after Type C is that the directive is going to be changed, and then there's again going to be a few in-between years. Probably somewhere in between 2 (deadline for member states to implement those changes) and 9 years (how long it took this time around, 2014-2023), because next time around they won't have to spend seven years figuring out details.
This is often repeated, but wrong. The EU issued a Memorandum of Understanding asking phone manufacturers to use micro B. MoU are not laws, they have no force behind them. Micro B was never required or mandated.
It was literally the EU saying "hey guys, please use micro-B on your phone" (with an implicit threat that actual legislation may follow if you don't).
Yeah, but the EU said back then: "You either find a common standard, or we're gonna legislate." Companies didn't want legislation, so most of them complied.
Yeah, that's what makes me so concerned! By the time the EU actually got around to making the laws they intended, the USB standards had completely evolved. This process has taken well over a decade.
It wasn't so bad last time around because manufacturers could upgrade from micro-B to USB-C without issue. Now they cannot legally upgrade.
I know, I intentionally used the term standard, not a law, but also wanted to keep it short.
I went into more details in my other reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33653799). Not being an EU policy expert (nor a citizen) I probably got a thing or two wrong and would appreciate corrections.
As a non-apple person I still think that the lightning connector is far superior to Micro-USB. And I would have been vehemently against a legally mandated Micro-USB port.
USB-C is quite a good standard, but it also incorporated some of the features of lightning, e.g. rotational symmetry, a significant usability enhancement.
The question is: could e.g. apple create a port which is significantly superior to USB-C, the way lightning was superior to Micro-USB?
>> The question is: could e.g. apple create a port which is significantly superior to USB-C, the way lightning was superior to Micro-USB?
I think there is already one: MagSafe/MagSafe2. Is it worth a new pile of chargers/wires along usb-c? I think no. Even apple discontinued it for a while.
Probably yes: but that also means you can't just obsolete people's investments in USB-C. I still remember the era when you could get all sorts of iPod stands and furniture with 30-pin connectors in. Those hung around for years after Apple decided to make them worthless.
Why would that be a problem at all? If a significant advance in charging connectors is made, they can simply amend the law.
These laws don't say you can't make better chargers, they say if you make a mass produced device from the provided categories and it's going to charge by cable you will need to make sure that it has at least one USB-C charging port.
Besides, this is only in EU(and India now). Sure, there's a Brussels effect but as you can see even with iPhone the companies can have multiple versions of a product. US iPhones don't have physical SIM cards anymore, the other have it. So if it happens that Apple invents significantly better charging port for the iPhone, they can sell those everywhere else in the world and EU can revisit the laws if there's an interest.
> Why would that be a problem at all? If a significant advance in charging connectors is made, they can simply amend the law.
The problem is if the law of 1 country is not amended then you have fragmentation. What does apple do? Change for 1 country and be fined in another? Not release in some countries? Have different devices?
EU is like %5 of the world population. Sure, it's a wealthier %5 but companies have different product lines all the time.
This year the US iPhone doesn't have a physical SIM tray. So if EU acts slow on adopting this amazing new charging port, the Americans and Japanese can have it and EU can wait.
It doesn't make much sense to keep having fragmentation now so that we don't risk a fragmentation in the future.
>If a significant advance in charging connectors is made, they can simply amend the law.
How would the makers of these laws know this? How would you determine the quality of a connector if you do not have benchmarks like manufacturer adoption, market demand, longevity in the field?
What will effectively happen is that the USB implementers forum will become a state(s) sponsored organization with a monopoly on defining charging connectors. They will not have any competition, because any company which might want to compete has to first comvince the government(s) that their standard is superior, without being allowed to roll it out.
About land of freedom, in some states its illegal to collect rainwater that falls on your house. Thats because there is is 'freedom' to sell water rights. (if I have that correct). So freedom is also unfreedom.
That is something of a mindfuck for the rest of the world.
It is like for the web: the minimum interop requirement is the support of noscript/basic (x)html browsers, but it is perfectly ok to run on the side a full javascript GUI which will run in the few vanguard/blackrock massive web engines (aka blink/geeko/webkit detected via the user-agent http header).
I don't think you understand: It has to be USB-C or better. So if USB-D (or a worse name knowing the consortium) comes out, the idea behind the law is that it should also be allowed _instead_ of a USB-C port.
IANAL though, so I am unsure how well they legally described that requirement.
> the idea behind the law is that it should also be allowed _instead_ of a USB-C port
Indian courts are notoriously inefficient. “Better” would take a decade to define through case law. Anyone who can afford that is better served removing physical ports.
In any case, I see no evidence of this in current releases [1].
"Better" is irrelevant to the law, the requirement is a USB standard that's USB-C or newer. Apple is in the USB-IF so they can innovate there together with other vendors.
"Think of the startups" is the standard flavour of "think of the children" on Hacker News.
No, there's no way for a startup selling handheld mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles, portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards, mice, portable navigation systems, earbuds or laptops to invent their own shiny new connector for charging without providing support for USB-C at the same time.
What exactly is lost if a startup is not able to shove their proprietary connector instead of using the standard? A startup selling floor lamps can't sell their own proprietary power plug and outlet either.
I know that historically most chargers are just a way to hide the true total cost of ownership. But the electronics industry is now shifting towards innovating in more areas than just shrinking the digital parts. Consumer electronics are a big part of how new stuff gets funded.
> A startup selling floor lamps can't sell their own proprietary power plug and outlet either.
So it still has to be a wire produced by the USB consortium. And if another group comes up with a superior design, then are we just hurdled by regulations? Seems there should at least be a way for another standard to be chosen.
I can't wait until a new standard is decided upon, which turns out to be inferior, but the law states everyone has to use it until a decision is made to change it again.
This is India, it can take quite a while for legislation to catch up. I recently saw a colleague's customs form for shipping household goods, and the list of itemized goods to declare included Walkmen, digitizers, personal electronic diaries, modems, dictaphones and floppy disks.
I’d argue that listing archaic electronic items on a customs form is the correct way. Law and legal documents should assume a catch-all nature by design to address edge cases and until we can absolutely assure that all Walkman, floppies and similar items are out of public circulation for good, it is wise to list them explicitly on a customs form.
The alternative to this is the usage of “including, but not limited to, phones, mp3 players” which leaves you guessing if something needs to be listed or not.
> How did USB C get adopted by everyone but Apple?
USB-C is by far not adopted by everyone but Apple. There are thousands of devices on Amazon which still use Micro-USB which is as annoying as Apple using Lightning
By the same token, standardized power outlets would be an affront to the free market and an impediment to progress.
One example of progress on power outlets I know of is Denmark: Here the non-grounded plug has been compatible with Schuko outlets as used in most of the rest of Northern Europe, and Schuko connectors will fit in the outlets without ground connection.
Since most appliances come with Schuko plugs, a decision has been made for new installations to use the Schuko outlet, allowing a gradual transition to the Schuko standard.
> By the same token, standardized power outlets would be an affront to the free market and an impediment to progress.
if only it was this simple.
1. usually power outlets are standardised across countries (but there are countries where this is not the case and you'll find different plugs in the same country). two countries that share a border can have two or more completely different outlets/plugs.
2. power outlets are very simple devices. especially compared to usb-c.
3. but the G Plug is known to be one of the best, if not the best electrical plug. even so i think the chance of, for example, Denmark adopting this plug are close to zero.
> 3. but the G Plug is known to be one of the best, if not the best electrical plug.
One massive downside of the type G plug (UK, Ireland, etc.) is its size. Most mobile charging adapters for phones or even laptops are 30-80% bigger, in my anecdotal experience, than the type A equivalent. The plug is well-designed from a safety and robustness perspective, and I appreciate that it's far better than the two-prong "Europlug" (for instance) at firmly attaching to a wall outlet, but it really should have been miniaturized.
The type L, J, and B plugs are far more compact as three-prong plugs go, even if they lack the third-prong shutter activation and fuse.
I don’t understand the fetishism for type G plus so many folks seem to have. The design with the included fuse (and the necessary size for that) is solving a very UK specific problem (ring circuits). In any other case type E/F and N seem strictly superior.
It's common for newer gaming laptops to have both USB-C and proprietary charging capability. When not under load, the 65W or 100W suffices for charging.
Not using an optional part of the standard is not "crippling" USB-C. And yes, I believe there are already Android phones which have only USB 2, or only USB 2 plus Gen 1x1 (5 Gbit/s) USB 3.
I believe that's more an issue with the SoC not supporting USB 3. If the iPhone 15 base models re-use the same SoC as the iPhone 14 Pro (like the base iPhone 14s do), then those SoCs were probably never developed to support USB 3 in the first place.
They've previously used external USB 3 host controllers to support USB 3 host, but not client. I believe the iPad Mini 6, and the iPad Air 4 both do this: https://unitedlex.com/insights/apple-ipad-2020-teardown-anal... . So while the product specs will say USB 3.1 and that is technically true, it'll only be for USB devices, not for a connection to a computer: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ipad-mini-6-is-still-us... . Adding that USB 3 host in an iPhone would be a bit pointless: I doubt anyone is going to hook up a USB drive to their phone.
Funny enough I had this idea because the Raspberry Pi 4 does the same thing: SoC that only supports a USB 2.0 client while using an external USB 3.0 host controller.
I feel like EU and India are missing the obvious here - Apple will just remove the ability to charge via cable, and create even more e-waste and waste energy.
I've always thought that purely from a physical engineering standpoint the lightening port made more sense.
With USB-C the fragile part (male plug) of the connector is in the phone. While the lightening port weakest part is on the cable. From purely a physical standpoint I much prefer a lightening cable.
> With USB-C the fragile part (male plug) of the connector is in the phone. While the lightening port weakest part is on the cable.
AFAIK, the fragile part of the connector is actually the springs (which also weaken with every insertion/removal cycle). With lightning and USB-A, the springs are in the device. With USB-C, the springs are in the cable.
What is the next physical connector standard after USB-C? Is there one on the roadmap that is likely to happen or is USB-C "The End of History" when it comes to connectors?
With this kind of legislation, why would anyone invest in creating a connector they cannot market? This pretty much enforces an "end of history" kind of USB-c connector standard.
I can see things moving more to the wireless realm (Qi for loading, WiFi/Bluetooth/LoRa for data) after this.
EU's legislation is only for battery charged mobile devices and accessories, not laptops or anything beyond tablets. EU also considers every few years different connectors.
Part of EU's decision is to repeatedly evaluate the standards every N or so years; where N <=5 iirc, so if there is a new standard, EU will consider it.
I don't think anyone has any complains about the physical connector, the issue is the specs for USB. USB-C looks to be the end of history though for smart phones, at least for apple. Apple said they will comply, but never confirmed inclusion of USB-C, this is important as there is a clause that allows mobile devices without a port to be compliant.
What does it mean by consider it? If they couldn't reach conclusion in 5 years, will this law be void? I haven't read anywhere this law has an expiration date
> 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 scientific and technological progress or market developments, and to ensure the minimum common interoperability between radio equipment and their charging devices, as well as to improve consumer convenience, to avoid market fragmentation and to reduce environmental waste, 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.
> The Commission shall continuously assess market developments, market fragmentation and technical progress with the view to identify categories or classes of radio equipment capable of being recharged via wired charging for which the inclusion in Part I of Annex Ia would lead to significant consumer convenience and reduction of environmental waste.
> The Commission shall report such assessment to the European Parliament and to the Council, for the first time by [3 years after the date of entry-into-force of this Directive] and every 5 years thereafter, and adopt delegated acts pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 4, first subparagraph, point a) accordingly.
Given that this whole thing was about forcing one bad player, Apple, to do the right thing, why not sunset these laws in five to ten years? That way, future innovators don’t have to first get this requirement repealed. USB-C is not the be-all end-all of charging ports. Note for example the female connector with the fragile plastic piece in the middle. Better alternatives will emerge but now they have to pass through Euro and Indian bureaucrats.
Because legislatures are incredibly short sighted and ignorant when it comes to technology. ("Would you like to accept cookies on this site you chose to visit, if not it won't work and you should probably leave")
Don't blame the legislators for malicious compliance. Don't set cookies (which is the perfectly reasonable thing to do for read-only visitors of many sites) and no consent is required.
And if the user registers for an account then they can be informed as part of the signup because it's a technical necessity to maintain a login, again no banner needed.
I wasn't attempting to be literal. The observed effect "in the wild" though is pretty obvious, and the overall experience of the internet is worse off for it.
There are two pieces of law about two very different things. (IANAL.)
- The ePrivacy Directive from 2002 (!) is (in its opt-in part) about sites storing stuff by whatever mechanism on the user’s computer (not just cookies, despite its nickname of “cookie law”). The explanatory text allows the “storage or GTFO” approach you are referring to. No mention is made of deletion of data, as the directive is purely about client-side storage, and the user can presumably delete that. Any storage technically required for the site to operate (e.g. login cookies) is specifically exempted, it need not even be mentioned.
I would not say this turned out particularly useful, but, well, in 2002 Microsoft was publishing books on .NET thick clients with chapters on interoperability with COM+ distributed transactions and SOAP was the hot new thing not even in Recommendation status yet. Nobody can see the future all that well, large organizations especially.
(I understand a more useful update to that has been stalled by GAFAM lobbying efforts for years now.)
- The General Data Protection Regulation from 2016 (not a typo, there was a generous grace period) is about organizations tracking people through whatever means. The “tracking or GTFO” choice (or its close relative, “tracking, money, or GTFO”, as seen e.g. on French newspaper sites even today) is explicitly illegal, though of course showing ads with no tracking is not in scope. As the tracking data is stored by the organization, the user can demand that it be deleted. Any tracking technically required for the organization to operate (e.g. lists of customers who have used their free trial) is specifically exempted to the extent that the requirement exists (e.g. as long as the free trial is offered).
This one is working out better, although there seem to be tricky international law issues (“directive” vs “regulation”, jurisdiction etc) that mean that enforcement is less efficient that it could have been (e.g. Google and Facebook have mainly been prosecuted via ePD, as the GDPR complaints have to be routed through the Irish authorities, who have jammed their fingers into their ears and gone “lalala can’t hear you”).
very strange reading this since i still buy electrical devices produced in 2022 with micro-usb, custom plugs, or whatever was cheapest when they assembled the device.
The law does not apply to all electronic devices. The law only applies to consumer handhelds. That’s mobile phones, tablets, e-readers, earbuds, digital cameras, headphones and headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers. And at a later date, laptops. It’s hard to think of any popular devices in those categories, aside from Apple’s phones and earbuds, that don’t ship with standard USB chargers.
For high power laptops, the relevant USB-PD versions with sufficient wattage are too recent to have penetrated all product lines. But I haven’t seen a new laptop without usb-c charging in a long time. Even laptops that ship with their own bricks support slower usb-c charging as well (this will still be allowed by the EU law). Maybe you can identify a couple that don’t. I wonder how much market share they have and if they even matter.
My whole point is that this requirement could suffocate innovation on ports by turning it into a mother-may-I regime in perpetuity. You said, but we had the regime before with micro usb yet still innovated to usb-c. My response was that the old requirement didn’t stifle innovation since it was satisfied by an adapter [requiring a minor logical step by the reader:] because you could still invent new ports as long as you bundled a micro USB adapter. Your response was, adapters bad. Do you see how that doesn’t address the argument at all?
Because we already know what happens when a common port is not mandated.
Seriously, before this law was put in place, Europe had been asking companies to agree on a common charging port for more than a decade.
The first Memorandum of Understanding on the subject was signed in 2009. Amusingly Apple did sign it before deciding to simply ignore it. That was followed by a directive in 2014 and an impact assessment in 2018.
Despite these repeated warnings, Apple spent the decade lobbying against a common port while collecting a tidy sum with the Made For Iphone initiative.
The EU didn’t mandate by hubris. It just had to. We need a law because if we don’t have one there will always be companies reverting to proprietary ports. They just can’t resist the easy money.
I reckon it takes the market power of an Apple to hold out on proprietary charging ports. Only reason they held out is 1) keep their accessory licensing revenue stream and 2) introduce friction with Android users (see iMessage). Almost no one else has the kind of market power to do that without pissing users off to their detriment.
Aside from Apple, the voluntary standards process was working. No one else was still resisting USB-C. Can you name some examples?
There are still laptops with various charger types not to mention digital cameras and other electronics that could use usb-c pd but refuse to adopt it. I think the law should be expanded to any kind of electronic device that whose power requirements can be satisfied by the usb-c specifications.
>> Isn’t USB-C at high power kind of expensive per watt?
I don't think it's too expensive if you consider the environment impact not to mention the bad user experience caused by multiple chargers. I also believe at certain point the economies of scale should make it less expensive.
Actually there were some solid arguments against USB-C, most importantly that it's not IP rated and therefore is not allowed to be used in kitchen or bathroom equipment.
It would be so much nicer if we got one standard that covers everything.
How so? I can find IP67 micro-USB and USB-C connectors on digi-key. Is it a matter of USB-C not having the IP rating as part of its spec?
And my latest trimmer is actually using micro-USB, though with an additional plastic plug preventing the use of the charger on another device. But I can charge the trimmer with any other Micro-USB charger.
In its first incarnation the industry proposed micro USB as a charging standard. I think we can agree that's a pretty poor choice, connectors that break easily, only go in one way, and low power. So Apple was right to ignore it.
We would have been stuck with micro USB for eternity if it wasn't for Apple. I realise they may not have objected out of the kindness of their hart, but good thing they did.
> We would have been stuck with micro USB for eternity if it wasn't for Apple
Amending laws takes much less time than eternity. Lawmakers are people, they can process information and make changes when appropriate. You can be sure that the industry will not forget to remind them when a change seems sensible.
true, but what you then loose is “natural selection”.
Why?
Because either a new standard is not allowed. Or it is allowed, but then highly probably just one… and the central planning way. One standard/product is worked on, one is accepted as the successo.
No selection in the wild of the one that survives (depending of what we talk about, the survivor is sometimes the one that is technically better, sometimes it is the one that is cheaper, or faster in bandwith or latency or prettier, or …).
This sometimes work ok for 1-2 successors, but the more times pass by, the more central planing (or lack of free market) fails.
If one is very honest it has to see both sides of it.
Both has their pros and cons (not equally weighted though).
The regulated way has to be done as rarely as possible (very hard to decide when it is a good idea…)
There are no “natural selection” of charging ports. It’s simply not part of what people consider when they buy appliances. Customers are mostly at the whim of manufacturers when it comes to these technical details.
They European Union still does not have a single 230V power plug, decades after being founded. The industry has been asking for it since forever. You, sir, are an optimist.
Ripping every single plug socket and outlet out in 80% of the living spaces in the EU is neither cheap nor popular, so "industry asking for it" will not be enough. Your comparison is a bad one.
The parent suggests that bureaucrats could simply change this unified charging port after a while. By that time there will be just as many USB-C ports as there are 230V outlets.
Most of Europe already has a standard 230V plug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuko). It would probably be easier to get a unified 230V power plug than to change the USB-C port again after a decade.
The life cycle of cell phones is a bit less than for buildings and nearly all of the electrical devices that plug into them - the primary exception being rechargable electronic devices. So changing the charging port standard is WAY different than changing the outlet standard.
“Until 1987, mains voltage in large parts of Europe, including Germany, Austria and Switzerland, was 220(±22)V while the UK used 240(±24)V. Standard ISO IEC 60038:1983 defined the new standard European voltage to be 230(±23)V.”
To piggyback on this excellent response: USB C is very good. There is no foreseeable reason to have to change anything for a long long time.
Implemented with durable materials and good machining practices, USB C can last a lifetime of plug cycles. The standard lends itself to extremely durable design relative even to the tank that is USB A. The C standard is for 10,000 cycles, but this is only technically a minimum. USB A only specifies 1,500 technically, but A connectors have been manufactured that last 20,000. This all alludes to the idea that USB C is just a standard, and it doesn’t indicate exactly how the connector is designed.
The situation with bandwidth is similar. Bandwidth has many other bottlenecks. The speed with which data is written to a flash drive, for example, has nothing to do with the port itself anymore. Similarly to the durability issue, it’s going to be a long long time before the functionality of USB C is associated with more than 80 GB/s.
Why is this “have to pass through bureaucrats” narrative pushed on every single discussion about this topic ?
One one hand getting approval for a specific justifiable situation doesn’t seem like an issue for any company with enough means to design a better universal connector.
On the other hand these “bureaucrats” are presently updating these laws as the previous one became obsolete and the situation isn’t improving organically. Here the bad player is Apple, why are we pointing the finger at the orgs actually making things move and keeping up to date with technology ?
USB-C is not the final form of charger ports. I’d rather the debate on the next evolution happen within industry, and maybe even play out competitively in the market. If a clear victor emerged and there’s another large, abusive hold out like Apple, then just pass a similar time-limited law.
This is way too dismissive of the govs attitude, which is to reevaluate the situation every X years, and way too optimistic toward the industry, which couldn’t converge to anything without getting forced to do it. The “clear victor” only emerged because of the law passed.
For crying out loud, USB-C was created by Apple and look at the situation we’re still in.
It won because the legislative interfered. Apple just couldn't be bothered to play ball while it wasn't outright mandated, which is why we're now in this shitty situation.
And as mkbhd said a while ago, it's extremely unlikely that apple will introduce USB-C now as well. They'll likely pivot to wireless charging exclusively and get rid of all external connectors.
By eventually doing what the EU is doing when there’s a clear hold out. But instead of carving it in stone, letting it expire in 5 to 10 years. i.e. exactly what my original comment said.
Outside wartime, being slow is an advantage. It means citizens can trust rules won’t be changed rapidly, increasing trust in the government. If properly taxes often change citizens wouldn’t know whether they can afford to buy a house, for example, or whether they be able to pay for their kids to go to school.
I think the EU is a great example of politics that’s slow, but not too slow, and not a nightmare. Yes, this took years, and the discussions probably weren’t all good, but the end result is decent, and that’s what counts.
Because manufacturers would immediately resort to proprietary ones to squeeze some more money from customers for cables, chargers, adapters etc. If you look at them more as consumables than part of the product, just like printer cartridges, that makes more sense.
Nobody is preventing future innovators from adding their own port with more features where space and cost would permit that.
I am afraid Apple is more likely to remove wired charging altogether than to introduce USB in iPhone, this may be enough to game the law which explicitly says only "devices which support wired charging" have to comply. I just hope the EU lawyers will notice "wireless" MagSafe only replaces the connection interface (which should be USB-C) while still using a wire.
I fail to see the good in this sort of government overreach. Almost all devices in the market are already using USB C. IPhone market share must be less than 5% in India. You can simply opt to buy the remaining 95% of phones.
Now consider in three years One plus or some other company comes up with a new standard that is way more efficient and better than USB C. But they cannot use it in their phones. They are forced by law to not compete in this area.
So there's no good at all, but tremendous potential to stall future innovation.
While I was pretty sympathetic to the EU law, I am very strongly against this for India.
The reason many of the lowest end phones don't have USB-C is because switching to usb-c would make the phones more expensive to produce. Forcing producers to switch will drive up the cost of low-margin smartphones, hurting many Indians for whom affording any smartphone is an issue.
It is simply insane to make a regulation that drives up the price of the cheapest phones, such that the richest people of India get a slight convenience.
221 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 264 ms ] threadLooking at a 240W power adapter (https://www.slimq.uk/products/240w-charger-1) the whole thing doesn't seem that much bigger than a regular old laptop charger. Modern GaN chargers are quite compact for the punch they pack.
If India is moving to avoid it, I expect movement in that direction in others emerging economies.
And the more of them adopt it, the more the remaining one will be pressured to also do so.
Then we can stop tossing entire phones in the garbage.
I have a Pixel 5. The Pixel 7 isn't even an improvement to me. The fact that my battery is at 15% after the day is done means I am on my last year with the device.
I have a Nexus 6 with basically no battery to speak of but it works great still outside of that.
So for my second suggestion, if a company claims to be focused on climate change reduction, using a non-removable battery will double the tax.
All proceeds go to renewables for whatever state has the best(lowest) carbon footprint not yet at 0.
Let's see how long the "thinness" of the phone matters.
There are still legal issues, mainly that the manufacturer does not provide replacement parts and aftermarket ones infringe on manufacturer's intellectual property so you only get ones produced in shady chinese factories and good luck importing them in bugger quantity. What really needs to change are the IP laws so that --when manufacturer fails to provide replacement parts or charges outrageous price-- the IP becomes free-for-all shortly after the product release.
Much bigger problem are blatant anti-repair practices - be it kindle buybacks, sonos "brick your old device to get a discount for new one" or manufacturers pairing parts to the device (looking at you apple) so that the parts refuse to work due to a software-lock. Additional tax or even hard penalization of those practices would make sense. Also it would make sense limiting the reach of DMCA and IP laws to enable users to "break digital locks", modify and distribute modified firmware in order to bypass those arbitrary restrictions imposed by manufacturers.
Standards are universally created by industry organically, not created by governments.
The only disagreement is in how much of an effect it has.
It's not a law which says "the industry must use connector X", but a law which says "the industry must standardize on a single connector" - which is exactly what you seem to be asking for.
Besides that, there are plenty of industry standards developed well before the first devices come on the market. PCIe 6 was finished before the first PCIe 5 product even hit the shelves, DDR5 was done two years before the first CPU used it, and I bet someone is working on a USB 5 already.
Unless by doing so you harm the competitiveness of the device. Additionally if a device still has USB-C no one's going to design peripherals for a device and artificially limit their market if they don't have to. This makes moving to new standards difficult or impossible.
I have to serve five different charging ports (Magsafe, Lightning, USB C, micro USB, and some proprietary thing for my watch). The watch charger only comes with an USB A cable, so now either I need an extra dongle or two charging bricks.
USB C was introduced in 2014 and really came about in 2016. These companies had six+ years to converge on something reasonable. But they didn't. Be it out of greed or plain laziness.
So yes, this law is an improvement.
Or that the standard that could have happened, never does. We can never know what future we could have had if not for actions in the past.
The EU has been funding bug bounty programs since 2014, has organized hackathons, and is explicitly promoting the use of open standards and open source software.
Sure, the funding isn't massive, but it's still a few million a year.
In which case I wholeheartedly approve.
That's a nice loophole there :)
Anyway, it's not like USB-C isn't good enough and that they can't change the rules if/when a new connector get enough support. And to get enough support, it most likely means that it has to be compatible (in some way) with USB-C. That's a nice feature.
Maybe, but will it be so small to make two ports cumbersome? Doubtful imo
"A 10% additional tax shall apply to the sale of any portable device. The tax will be reduced to zero if the device uses the most common charging port in the year the device was sold. The tax is reduced to 5% if it uses the 2nd most common port in the year it was sold."
That means any big industry effort to move to a new port will, when it gets more than 50% support, will immediately get everyone else to move over to save money. And people can still use custom/niche ports, but they'll take a hit to their bottom line for the privilege - but it'll be worth it if the utility of the better port is good enough the user is happy to pay a premium for it.
The fact the tax is determined at the end of the year means manufacturers have an incentive to work together on standardization even after devices are in the hands of consumers. For example, Apple could maybe open up lightning to other manufacturers and save a lot of taxes on devices already sold in that year, if they could make lightning the most popular in the year.
PS: I doesn't necessarily need to rise prices, which politicians often do because it is "easy". Maybe replace the FAT or parts of it.
Aside from that. I still love the first paragraph of the German traffic law:
The most important, sane and violated law. I mean? You don't need even one more paragraph. I says "Don't be a mad. Care about others. Be nice to each other.".Even USB-C has licensing fees - although they are insignificant for most companies.
Would be interested to know how much multiple charge ports affect price/complexity.
>Especially if the port is a brand new standard you'll never be able to borrow a charge cable for from a friend.
The solution to that are adapters.
If I carried an adapter I'd probably have my charger with me to be honest and I don't know anyone nice enough to carry adapters for others.
What kind of tablet needs more than 240w ? I think that's what Alienware uses as well so I doubt you will ever need more than that. Not to mention that the trend going towards more efficient electronics/chips etc.
How often do you forget your charger, but somehow have an adapter?
What if I buy a water bottle, but I forget to fill it with water?
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_...
I'm still looking for the part where exceptions are listed and there are already some e.g. for small fitness trackers. They are slow but not necessarily stupid. *Nobody prevents any manufacturer to add additional charging ports.*
TLDR Power plugs across Europe and North America where standardized for decades. And guess what. That stuff works! And YES this new regulations actually implements a new power plug aside from the Europlug, USB Type-C. This is nothing entirely new or crazy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europlug
>Nobody prevents any manufacturer to add additional charging ports.
Except for market demands of smaller phones.
My question to you is: would you have wanted micro-USB to be standardized like this?
This is a law. It's completely different.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply
Except, that is not true at all. Every single manufacturer moved to a new, better plug when it became available and faced no repercussions. That is no longer possible.
How many Micro-USB Iphones have been sold in the EU?
Not really. And the choice between battery life and a second charging port nobody cares about, because it isn't "the one" is rather obvious.
This also misses the point entirely. The point being, the number of ports decreases the volume available for everything else.
So thats why iPhones ate getting bigger?
> The application of the laws to new charging technologies should be regularly reviewed.
While I think USB-C is quite well designed, this legislation makes it extremely hard for a superior standard to arise. The only reason USB-C has any grounds to be a mandated standard is because it already is widely used. For an alternative standard to arise, first you would need to convince multiple nation state governments and/or a multi-nation government to allow the standard to be used, even before it made it to market.
That's why every Android and gadget out there used it, as opposed to 50 other connectors before that on feature phones.
Apple found a loophole around it by shipping a dongle with iPhones. With the update to the standard that loophole was closed.
If so, is the law removed, or is everyone breaking that law these days(As I don't see any phones being sold with micro-usb) but noone cares ?
To summarize it mostly from memory, it was a voluntary agreement between 10(ish) phone manufacturers (Apple included) and the EU. It had an expiry date, and it was renewed on a yearly basis 2009-2014.
In 2014 EU figured out this was working fine, and allowed itself up until 2020 to make it obligatory (as opposed to voluntary). They also took this time to figure out categories of products that should be impacted (headphones, cameras, those sorts of things). Then in 2021 they made changes to the directive, setting Type C as the standard.
EU directives are not exactly laws. Instead, it's a way of telling member states what they should be implementing in their own national laws. Member states then have two years to do the actual implementation. So, late 2023 member states will all have slightly different laws, but basically all saying the same (Type C is the only connector allowed, users must have an option to exclude a charger from their purchase). Not quite the same as EU-wide law, but not quite different in practice.
So what will happen after Type C is that the directive is going to be changed, and then there's again going to be a few in-between years. Probably somewhere in between 2 (deadline for member states to implement those changes) and 9 years (how long it took this time around, 2014-2023), because next time around they won't have to spend seven years figuring out details.
It was literally the EU saying "hey guys, please use micro-B on your phone" (with an implicit threat that actual legislation may follow if you don't).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply
It wasn't so bad last time around because manufacturers could upgrade from micro-B to USB-C without issue. Now they cannot legally upgrade.
I went into more details in my other reply (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33653799). Not being an EU policy expert (nor a citizen) I probably got a thing or two wrong and would appreciate corrections.
USB-C is quite a good standard, but it also incorporated some of the features of lightning, e.g. rotational symmetry, a significant usability enhancement.
The question is: could e.g. apple create a port which is significantly superior to USB-C, the way lightning was superior to Micro-USB?
I think there is already one: MagSafe/MagSafe2. Is it worth a new pile of chargers/wires along usb-c? I think no. Even apple discontinued it for a while.
These laws don't say you can't make better chargers, they say if you make a mass produced device from the provided categories and it's going to charge by cable you will need to make sure that it has at least one USB-C charging port.
Besides, this is only in EU(and India now). Sure, there's a Brussels effect but as you can see even with iPhone the companies can have multiple versions of a product. US iPhones don't have physical SIM cards anymore, the other have it. So if it happens that Apple invents significantly better charging port for the iPhone, they can sell those everywhere else in the world and EU can revisit the laws if there's an interest.
The problem is if the law of 1 country is not amended then you have fragmentation. What does apple do? Change for 1 country and be fined in another? Not release in some countries? Have different devices?
This year the US iPhone doesn't have a physical SIM tray. So if EU acts slow on adopting this amazing new charging port, the Americans and Japanese can have it and EU can wait.
It doesn't make much sense to keep having fragmentation now so that we don't risk a fragmentation in the future.
The Planet is a big place, the idea that could even produce one product for the entire world would be crazy for most of human history.
How would the makers of these laws know this? How would you determine the quality of a connector if you do not have benchmarks like manufacturer adoption, market demand, longevity in the field?
What will effectively happen is that the USB implementers forum will become a state(s) sponsored organization with a monopoly on defining charging connectors. They will not have any competition, because any company which might want to compete has to first comvince the government(s) that their standard is superior, without being allowed to roll it out.
That is something of a mindfuck for the rest of the world.
Also, I'm not sure what the Indian law says, but at least the EU version actually requires review of current technologies every 5 years.
The goal of the law is to ensure standardization of connectors is happening, not to enforce USB-C forever.
If "no laws" would be the solution, Apple would have switched to USB-C already. Unfortunately they didn't, proving the law was necessary.
Nobody is going to put two ports on a phome. Required minimum is the legislated maximum for physical interfaces.
IANAL though, so I am unsure how well they legally described that requirement.
Indian courts are notoriously inefficient. “Better” would take a decade to define through case law. Anyone who can afford that is better served removing physical ports.
In any case, I see no evidence of this in current releases [1].
[1] https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1876583
What's the definition of "better". If Lightning is worse, then based on which criteria?
Based on "It’s not USB".
No, there's no way for a startup selling handheld mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles, portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards, mice, portable navigation systems, earbuds or laptops to invent their own shiny new connector for charging without providing support for USB-C at the same time.
What exactly is lost if a startup is not able to shove their proprietary connector instead of using the standard? A startup selling floor lamps can't sell their own proprietary power plug and outlet either.
I know that historically most chargers are just a way to hide the true total cost of ownership. But the electronics industry is now shifting towards innovating in more areas than just shrinking the digital parts. Consumer electronics are a big part of how new stuff gets funded.
> A startup selling floor lamps can't sell their own proprietary power plug and outlet either.
Nobody forbids them from doing that.
Just? Apple was probably the first company to go full in on USB-C with Macbook Pro in 2016, 6 years ago
I prefer a free market of multiple options.
The alternative to this is the usage of “including, but not limited to, phones, mp3 players” which leaves you guessing if something needs to be listed or not.
As I understand it USB is always backwards compatible so it wouldn't be a problem.
USB-C is by far not adopted by everyone but Apple. There are thousands of devices on Amazon which still use Micro-USB which is as annoying as Apple using Lightning
One example of progress on power outlets I know of is Denmark: Here the non-grounded plug has been compatible with Schuko outlets as used in most of the rest of Northern Europe, and Schuko connectors will fit in the outlets without ground connection.
Since most appliances come with Schuko plugs, a decision has been made for new installations to use the Schuko outlet, allowing a gradual transition to the Schuko standard.
if only it was this simple.
1. usually power outlets are standardised across countries (but there are countries where this is not the case and you'll find different plugs in the same country). two countries that share a border can have two or more completely different outlets/plugs.
2. power outlets are very simple devices. especially compared to usb-c.
3. but the G Plug is known to be one of the best, if not the best electrical plug. even so i think the chance of, for example, Denmark adopting this plug are close to zero.
so it's all very grey.
One massive downside of the type G plug (UK, Ireland, etc.) is its size. Most mobile charging adapters for phones or even laptops are 30-80% bigger, in my anecdotal experience, than the type A equivalent. The plug is well-designed from a safety and robustness perspective, and I appreciate that it's far better than the two-prong "Europlug" (for instance) at firmly attaching to a wall outlet, but it really should have been miniaturized.
The type L, J, and B plugs are far more compact as three-prong plugs go, even if they lack the third-prong shutter activation and fuse.
Chargers for 240W will appear eventually, standard was approved few months ago.
https://www.xda-developers.com/iphone-15-models-different-us...
I'm more surprised Apple didn't just remove the connector from the cheaper models, claiming inductive charging and bluetooth are all anyone needs.
Though some research now seems to suggest it supports DisplayLink over USB.
They've previously used external USB 3 host controllers to support USB 3 host, but not client. I believe the iPad Mini 6, and the iPad Air 4 both do this: https://unitedlex.com/insights/apple-ipad-2020-teardown-anal... . So while the product specs will say USB 3.1 and that is technically true, it'll only be for USB devices, not for a connection to a computer: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/ipad-mini-6-is-still-us... . Adding that USB 3 host in an iPhone would be a bit pointless: I doubt anyone is going to hook up a USB drive to their phone.
Funny enough I had this idea because the Raspberry Pi 4 does the same thing: SoC that only supports a USB 2.0 client while using an external USB 3.0 host controller.
what exactly are they monitoring?
With USB-C the fragile part (male plug) of the connector is in the phone. While the lightening port weakest part is on the cable. From purely a physical standpoint I much prefer a lightening cable.
AFAIK, the fragile part of the connector is actually the springs (which also weaken with every insertion/removal cycle). With lightning and USB-A, the springs are in the device. With USB-C, the springs are in the cable.
I can see things moving more to the wireless realm (Qi for loading, WiFi/Bluetooth/LoRa for data) after this.
Would a new proprietary charging connector sold and controlled by a single private entity be a good thing for consumers or the market ?
Having that company be forced to go discuss with the regulators first if they want to push to market looks like a decent safeguard to me.
I don't think anyone has any complains about the physical connector, the issue is the specs for USB. USB-C looks to be the end of history though for smart phones, at least for apple. Apple said they will comply, but never confirmed inclusion of USB-C, this is important as there is a clause that allows mobile devices without a port to be compliant.
The obvious answer to such legislation is none (i.e. wireless only).
And if the user registers for an account then they can be informed as part of the signup because it's a technical necessity to maintain a login, again no banner needed.
For storing more than that and especially for handing user data off to greedy advertisement leeches you must ask for user consent.
When asking user for consent, opting out must be as easy as opting in. If the user opted out, the site must continue to provide functionality.
Literally not what the law says.
- The ePrivacy Directive from 2002 (!) is (in its opt-in part) about sites storing stuff by whatever mechanism on the user’s computer (not just cookies, despite its nickname of “cookie law”). The explanatory text allows the “storage or GTFO” approach you are referring to. No mention is made of deletion of data, as the directive is purely about client-side storage, and the user can presumably delete that. Any storage technically required for the site to operate (e.g. login cookies) is specifically exempted, it need not even be mentioned.
I would not say this turned out particularly useful, but, well, in 2002 Microsoft was publishing books on .NET thick clients with chapters on interoperability with COM+ distributed transactions and SOAP was the hot new thing not even in Recommendation status yet. Nobody can see the future all that well, large organizations especially.
(I understand a more useful update to that has been stalled by GAFAM lobbying efforts for years now.)
- The General Data Protection Regulation from 2016 (not a typo, there was a generous grace period) is about organizations tracking people through whatever means. The “tracking or GTFO” choice (or its close relative, “tracking, money, or GTFO”, as seen e.g. on French newspaper sites even today) is explicitly illegal, though of course showing ads with no tracking is not in scope. As the tracking data is stored by the organization, the user can demand that it be deleted. Any tracking technically required for the organization to operate (e.g. lists of customers who have used their free trial) is specifically exempted to the extent that the requirement exists (e.g. as long as the free trial is offered).
This one is working out better, although there seem to be tricky international law issues (“directive” vs “regulation”, jurisdiction etc) that mean that enforcement is less efficient that it could have been (e.g. Google and Facebook have mainly been prosecuted via ePD, as the GDPR complaints have to be routed through the Irish authorities, who have jammed their fingers into their ears and gone “lalala can’t hear you”).
very strange reading this since i still buy electrical devices produced in 2022 with micro-usb, custom plugs, or whatever was cheapest when they assembled the device.
Seriously, before this law was put in place, Europe had been asking companies to agree on a common charging port for more than a decade.
The first Memorandum of Understanding on the subject was signed in 2009. Amusingly Apple did sign it before deciding to simply ignore it. That was followed by a directive in 2014 and an impact assessment in 2018.
Despite these repeated warnings, Apple spent the decade lobbying against a common port while collecting a tidy sum with the Made For Iphone initiative.
The EU didn’t mandate by hubris. It just had to. We need a law because if we don’t have one there will always be companies reverting to proprietary ports. They just can’t resist the easy money.
Aside from Apple, the voluntary standards process was working. No one else was still resisting USB-C. Can you name some examples?
USB-C is not royalty-free, either.
I don't think it's too expensive if you consider the environment impact not to mention the bad user experience caused by multiple chargers. I also believe at certain point the economies of scale should make it less expensive.
It would be so much nicer if we got one standard that covers everything.
And my latest trimmer is actually using micro-USB, though with an additional plastic plug preventing the use of the charger on another device. But I can charge the trimmer with any other Micro-USB charger.
We would have been stuck with micro USB for eternity if it wasn't for Apple. I realise they may not have objected out of the kindness of their hart, but good thing they did.
Amending laws takes much less time than eternity. Lawmakers are people, they can process information and make changes when appropriate. You can be sure that the industry will not forget to remind them when a change seems sensible.
Why?
Because either a new standard is not allowed. Or it is allowed, but then highly probably just one… and the central planning way. One standard/product is worked on, one is accepted as the successo.
No selection in the wild of the one that survives (depending of what we talk about, the survivor is sometimes the one that is technically better, sometimes it is the one that is cheaper, or faster in bandwith or latency or prettier, or …).
This sometimes work ok for 1-2 successors, but the more times pass by, the more central planing (or lack of free market) fails.
If one is very honest it has to see both sides of it.
Both has their pros and cons (not equally weighted though).
The regulated way has to be done as rarely as possible (very hard to decide when it is a good idea…)
Most of Europe already has a standard 230V plug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuko). It would probably be easier to get a unified 230V power plug than to change the USB-C port again after a decade.
“Until 1987, mains voltage in large parts of Europe, including Germany, Austria and Switzerland, was 220(±22)V while the UK used 240(±24)V. Standard ISO IEC 60038:1983 defined the new standard European voltage to be 230(±23)V.”
Implemented with durable materials and good machining practices, USB C can last a lifetime of plug cycles. The standard lends itself to extremely durable design relative even to the tank that is USB A. The C standard is for 10,000 cycles, but this is only technically a minimum. USB A only specifies 1,500 technically, but A connectors have been manufactured that last 20,000. This all alludes to the idea that USB C is just a standard, and it doesn’t indicate exactly how the connector is designed.
The situation with bandwidth is similar. Bandwidth has many other bottlenecks. The speed with which data is written to a flash drive, for example, has nothing to do with the port itself anymore. Similarly to the durability issue, it’s going to be a long long time before the functionality of USB C is associated with more than 80 GB/s.
One one hand getting approval for a specific justifiable situation doesn’t seem like an issue for any company with enough means to design a better universal connector.
On the other hand these “bureaucrats” are presently updating these laws as the previous one became obsolete and the situation isn’t improving organically. Here the bad player is Apple, why are we pointing the finger at the orgs actually making things move and keeping up to date with technology ?
Up until now the real nightmare has been every company coming up with their own crappy connector and sticking with it for decades.
For crying out loud, USB-C was created by Apple and look at the situation we’re still in.
And as mkbhd said a while ago, it's extremely unlikely that apple will introduce USB-C now as well. They'll likely pivot to wireless charging exclusively and get rid of all external connectors.
A lot of news outlets took that as confirmation, but it was never explicitly stated.
We’ll see in 2024 if Apple chooses to remove the connector altogether or switch to usb-c. My money is on the removal.
I think the EU is a great example of politics that’s slow, but not too slow, and not a nightmare. Yes, this took years, and the discussions probably weren’t all good, but the end result is decent, and that’s what counts.
Other examples are RoHS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...), the GDPR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...), and roaming regulations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_roaming_regulat...)
Because manufacturers would immediately resort to proprietary ones to squeeze some more money from customers for cables, chargers, adapters etc. If you look at them more as consumables than part of the product, just like printer cartridges, that makes more sense. Nobody is preventing future innovators from adding their own port with more features where space and cost would permit that.
If we adopt this tech en masse, we'll need to build some more power plants.
https://debugger.medium.com/wireless-charging-is-a-disaster-...
Now consider in three years One plus or some other company comes up with a new standard that is way more efficient and better than USB C. But they cannot use it in their phones. They are forced by law to not compete in this area.
So there's no good at all, but tremendous potential to stall future innovation.
The reason many of the lowest end phones don't have USB-C is because switching to usb-c would make the phones more expensive to produce. Forcing producers to switch will drive up the cost of low-margin smartphones, hurting many Indians for whom affording any smartphone is an issue.
It is simply insane to make a regulation that drives up the price of the cheapest phones, such that the richest people of India get a slight convenience.
How much more expensive?