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 That way, future innovators don’t have to first get this requirement repealed.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 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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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")
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] realgeniushere|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WastingMyTime89|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] makeitdouble|3 years ago|reply
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 ?
[+] [-] kmlx|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Havoc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squarefoot|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] victorvosk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andybak|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pretext-1|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jacknews|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wongarsu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arghwhat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themitigating|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DarthNebo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iinnPP|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] philliphaydon|3 years ago|reply
https://www.xda-developers.com/iphone-15-models-different-us...
[+] [-] ThatPlayer|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cesarb|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wongarsu|3 years ago|reply
I'm more surprised Apple didn't just remove the connector from the cheaper models, claiming inductive charging and bluetooth are all anyone needs.
[+] [-] DarthNebo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crote|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nullcipher|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HumanReadable|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] valarauko|3 years ago|reply
How much more expensive?
[+] [-] rozenmd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foepys|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sebzim4500|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] weberer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anony999|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perryizgr8|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] AdamN|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PartiallyTyped|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] DocTomoe|3 years ago|reply
I can see things moving more to the wireless realm (Qi for loading, WiFi/Bluetooth/LoRa for data) after this.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|3 years ago|reply
The obvious answer to such legislation is none (i.e. wireless only).
[+] [-] qwerty456127|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anony999|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmlx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubyist5eva|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foxyv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anshumankmr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] izacus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeroenhd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anony999|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] causi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spontanious|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] cesarb|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] etiennebausson|3 years ago|reply
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.