EU to propose common charger for all smartphones, ignores Apple's protest

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 129
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,714member
    tmay said:
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

    No. Very few phones have that capability due to cost factors and that is one of the areas the EU wants to target. 

    iPhones that support wireless charging

    iPhone 8 or 8 PlusiPhone XiPhone Xs or Xs MaxiPhone XRiPhone 11iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro MaxiPhone SE (2nd generation)iPhone 12 or 12 miniiPhone 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max
    All current iPhones sold today. 

    So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.

    Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
    Cost, cost, cost.

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

    There are still way more phones in use that do not support Qi charging than do.

    An obligation to use wireless charging is not going to happen with the current wireless charging options available. 

    So, why isn't the EU going to just outright ban wireless charging if it has such negatives? Because in the scheme of things, all the phones in the world don't use that much energy compared to other energy uses;

    Pop quiz: how much electricity (to the closest 10 kilowatt-hour) does it take to power your iPhone or Android for a year? 1 kWh? 10 kWh? Or 100 kwh? The answer: 1 kWh.

    This is the amount of electricity you'd need to power ten 100-watt incandescent lightbulbs for an hour. Far from anything worth being sheepish over, 1 kwh costs about 12 cents.

    What the EU is worried about is e-waste, so they should be dealing with wireless charging technology today, not waiting for the cheapest phones to gain that feature. The EU is absolutely behind the power curve on this.

    And yeah, wired charging is faster than a Magsafe charger, by about a factor of two, but then again, a lot of people find the it meets there needs.
    Because there are many factors involved here and they are all detailed in the impact assessment which you clearly haven't read.

    I hope you realise why incandescent bulbs were banned in the EU how much more energy would be used (over that of a cable) if the industry was forced to use wireless charging.

    Wireless charging won't cut down on e-waste. They are still chargers and have cables.

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

    That was just an energy equivalent that someone came up with to show how little energy phones use, and it is very little indeed, with or without wireless charging.

    Another equivalent would be the energy to brew five cups of coffee, with wireless charging being the equivalent of seven or eight cups, for a single years worth of phone use. Given the most people drink hot beverages during the day, charging a phone really doesn't rank very hight on comparative energy usage of any consumer lifestyle.

    Apple's already four years into wireless charging this fall, and some of those phones and Qi chargers will be e-waste then, but two years from now, those phones will be six years old, and almost Apple's entire user base will have wireless charging capability. I have no idea on the percentage of the user base that will use Magsafe charging, but it certainly is not zero.

    The EU isn't making proactive decisions at all. They are simply promulgating de facto standards created in the marketplace, exactly the same process that gave the EU Micro USB, and USB Type C. I expect that the EU will end up creating a regulation for wireless charging based on the Qi charger, the same as Apple has, but Apple has gone further with Magsafe, which seems to indicate the magnetically aligned charging will be a requirement of the standard.

    For the record, it is our data consumption that is using the bulk of the energy; all that backend that no consumer really gives a shit about, not the actual energy consumption of the phone.

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

    Also, how much energy is used in a shower? When you take a shower, you use more or less 15L/min of water. So, a shower of 5 minutes will consume 75L of water, which amounts to 9 MJ, or 2.5 kWh. In a nutshell, when you take a hot shower, you consume half a kWh per minute.
    So a year's worth of the energy equivalent of wirelessly charging a phone, consumed in 3 minutes.
    You need to look beyond absolutes. There are hundreds of millions of smartphones. If each one of them wastes energy unnecessarily it adds up to a very significant amount of waste. 
    Sure, and I absolutely agree.

    On the other hand, it's absurd to believe that those billions of phones collectively, are an energy cost that a consumer would ever see as other than a rounding error.

    Easy test. Look at you power bill. Now subtract out the 1.5 KWhr/12 months which is your phones energy consumption.

    It's penny's, right? (well, if you are in the U.S)

    Phone energy consumption is a couple of magnitudes less than a consumers total energy demands, even in third world countries.

    EDIT:

    I thought about this some more, and I'm convinced that myself and others believe that Apple is a leader in energy efficiency. This isn't absolutely true, of course, but there is evidence that Apple affords a huge effort to be environmentally friendly with its products. I and others are reassured, perhaps incorrectly, that Apple is taking care of that.
    Apple definitely markets itself as a leader - recyclable packaging, carbon offsets, etc. yet they move backwards by pushing inefficient technologies. Not unlike advertising an efficient engine in a car and then putting a bunch of accessories on that increase drag and cut the gas milage.

    As individuals, there are a lot of things we can do that don't move the needle much on their own but add up. Part of governments' role is to look at issues like this that are significant on a society-wide basis when they make policies and regulations. Water pollution is a great example - if one person uses tons of fertilizer it won't make a huge difference, but when everyone does the cumulative effect is significant causing algae blooms and other issues in lakes and steams. 
    GeorgeBMacavon b7IreneW
  • Reply 102 of 129
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

    No. Very few phones have that capability due to cost factors and that is one of the areas the EU wants to target. 

    iPhones that support wireless charging

    iPhone 8 or 8 PlusiPhone XiPhone Xs or Xs MaxiPhone XRiPhone 11iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro MaxiPhone SE (2nd generation)iPhone 12 or 12 miniiPhone 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max
    All current iPhones sold today. 

    So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.

    Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
    Cost, cost, cost.

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

    There are still way more phones in use that do not support Qi charging than do.

    An obligation to use wireless charging is not going to happen with the current wireless charging options available. 

    So, why isn't the EU going to just outright ban wireless charging if it has such negatives? Because in the scheme of things, all the phones in the world don't use that much energy compared to other energy uses;

    Pop quiz: how much electricity (to the closest 10 kilowatt-hour) does it take to power your iPhone or Android for a year? 1 kWh? 10 kWh? Or 100 kwh? The answer: 1 kWh.

    This is the amount of electricity you'd need to power ten 100-watt incandescent lightbulbs for an hour. Far from anything worth being sheepish over, 1 kwh costs about 12 cents.

    What the EU is worried about is e-waste, so they should be dealing with wireless charging technology today, not waiting for the cheapest phones to gain that feature. The EU is absolutely behind the power curve on this.

    And yeah, wired charging is faster than a Magsafe charger, by about a factor of two, but then again, a lot of people find the it meets there needs.
    Because there are many factors involved here and they are all detailed in the impact assessment which you clearly haven't read.

    I hope you realise why incandescent bulbs were banned in the EU how much more energy would be used (over that of a cable) if the industry was forced to use wireless charging.

    Wireless charging won't cut down on e-waste. They are still chargers and have cables.

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

    That was just an energy equivalent that someone came up with to show how little energy phones use, and it is very little indeed, with or without wireless charging.

    Another equivalent would be the energy to brew five cups of coffee, with wireless charging being the equivalent of seven or eight cups, for a single years worth of phone use. Given the most people drink hot beverages during the day, charging a phone really doesn't rank very hight on comparative energy usage of any consumer lifestyle.

    Apple's already four years into wireless charging this fall, and some of those phones and Qi chargers will be e-waste then, but two years from now, those phones will be six years old, and almost Apple's entire user base will have wireless charging capability. I have no idea on the percentage of the user base that will use Magsafe charging, but it certainly is not zero.

    The EU isn't making proactive decisions at all. They are simply promulgating de facto standards created in the marketplace, exactly the same process that gave the EU Micro USB, and USB Type C. I expect that the EU will end up creating a regulation for wireless charging based on the Qi charger, the same as Apple has, but Apple has gone further with Magsafe, which seems to indicate the magnetically aligned charging will be a requirement of the standard.

    For the record, it is our data consumption that is using the bulk of the energy; all that backend that no consumer really gives a shit about, not the actual energy consumption of the phone.

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

    Also, how much energy is used in a shower? When you take a shower, you use more or less 15L/min of water. So, a shower of 5 minutes will consume 75L of water, which amounts to 9 MJ, or 2.5 kWh. In a nutshell, when you take a hot shower, you consume half a kWh per minute.
    So a year's worth of the energy equivalent of wirelessly charging a phone, consumed in 3 minutes.




    You are not seeing the forest for the trees and on top of that you are failing to understand what the EU is aiming for.

    Step 1: read the impact assessment.

    Step 2 (optional) : re-read your initial post here and my response. You were misinterpretting the whole thing.

    Since then you have scuttled from one claim to another which has nothing to do with what is actually being considered.

    Apple is striving for energy efficiency? Do you know exactly how much effort has been put into EU energy efficiency programmes for decades now?

    When David Pogue wrote a blog post detailing some of the everyday things that surprised him on a visit to Europe, most people here were perplexed. They just thought all developed nations had things like escalators that stopped running or slowed down when no one was actually standing on them.

    I'm sure the US is still leagues behind in energy efficiency. Apple cannot change that. 
    The MOU is entirely about e-waste. As I noted, the energy usage of a phone is a rounding error for the consumer.

    Apple can meet the commitment with a a USB Type C EPS, sold separately, a USB Type C cable, also sold separately, and an adaptor to Lighting, included with the cable.  

    Third party products would accomplish the same, and given that Apple is shipping iPhones sans charger, this seems like the most logical solution.

    Apple shifting to a USB Type C connector for the iPhone, increases customer convenience, true, but doesn't really make much difference in e-waste, given the adaptors weight  around 2g. That's about 2000 Kg of potential e-waste per million devices. Again, a couple orders of magnitude less of a problem than the EPS and cable.


    Any MoU will arise from what is presented in the Impact Assessment.

    Why not read it?

    There is far more to it than e-waste.

    Here is the EU paper abstract (my bold):

    "The aim of this study is to provide input for the Commission impact assessment accompanying a new initiative to limit fragmentation of charging solutions for mobile phones and similar devices, while not hampering future technological evolution. The study was carried out by Ipsos and Trinomics, with support from Fraunhofer FOKUS (on behalf of a consortium led by Economisti Associati). It is based on research and analysis undertaken between January and November 2019. It employed a mixed-method approach, combining two main tasks: first, defining the problem (including a market and technology analysis), and second, an assessment of the likely impacts of a set of policy options for a possible new initiative. The sources of evidence include primary data (collected via a series of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, a survey of a representative panel of consumers, and the Commission’s Public Consultation) as well as secondary data (including statistics, market data, and literature on a wide range of relevant issues). Where possible, key impacts were estimated quantitatively based on a tailor-made dynamic model of the stock of chargers. Other impacts were assessed qualitatively. The focus of the study was on chargers for mobile phones, and specifically on technical options to work towards a “common” charger and their likely social, environmental and economic impacts. Other issues (including the available policy and regulatory instruments, the possibility to extend the scope to other portable electronic devices, and the issue of decoupling - i.e. the unbundling of charger from phone sales) were also considered"

    I have been perusing the document, and now we are two years beyond that. 

    It should further be noted that the effects of all options are subject to a certain degree of residual uncertainty regarding the extent to which they are “future-proof”. This is inevitable, since the natural reluctance of economic operators to divulge information about their future commercial and technological plans and strategies makes it impossible to accurately predict the future evolution of the relevant markets in the absence of EU intervention. The following key question marks are worth keeping in mind:

      Use of proprietary connectors: In the absence of any clear indications to the contrary, the baseline used for the study assumes that proprietary connectors will continue to be used on the same scale as today until 2028 (the end of the period modelled). Nonetheless, it is possible (though it appears unlikely at the present time) that individual manufacturers phase out existing proprietary connectors (i.e. Lightning) and/or introduce new ones. If we assumed the latter (i.e. further fragmentation), then the impacts of option 1 in particular could be far more significant.

      Transition between current, and emergence of future, generations of USB technology: This study assumes that any new rules would come into effect in 2023. An earlier entry into force would be likely to lead to more significant (positive as well as negative) impacts, as it could speed up the ongoing transition to the new USB technologies (i.e. USB PD and Type-C). In addition, it is worth noting that USB Type-C is now a relatively mature technology. While there are currently no concrete indications of a possible successor (a hypothetical “USB Type-D”), it appears quite possible that a new generation of USB connectors will begin to appear sometime in the next decade. If this occurs relatively soon (i.e. in the first half of the 2020s), it would reduce the benefits of option 1.

      Wireless charging: Wireless charging is a very incipient technology. At present, its energy efficiency and charging speed cannot match those of wired solutions, and there are no indications that wireless charging is likely to ecome the dominant solution, or even make wired charging obsolete, in the foreseeable future. However, if any breakthroughs in wireless charging technology were to change these basic parameters, this could undermine the rationale for the initiative as framed by this study, by significantly reducing the relevance of wired charging solutions in general.


    135

    Impact Assessment Study on Common Chargers of Portable Devices


    Magsafe didn't exist when this study was published, and even though it is less efficient, and slower charging than wired solutions, at least as of today, it may actually be the path for Apple to deprecate wired connection entirely. It really depends on the uptake by consumers, and technical improvements.

    Either way, this is a path that the EU should allow Apple to continue, as the technological benefits that accrue from that, have widespread potential in other product categories.

    This is not about Apple. It is about the industry as a whole.

    The EU has been pushing for energy efficiency for decades and there have been hundreds of initiatives to reduce energy consumption on the one hand and push for cleaner energy on the other. Both directly and indirectly.

    The idea of 'decoupling' (phones from chargers in the box) was even on the table in 2019. Long before Apple decided (and for largely economical reasons) to ship phones without chargers.

    This kind of project cannot be realised in months. It literally takes years because these are industry changes, not changes within an individual company. The consultation phase alone took a year to take shape.

    Your beef about a 12 year time frame was simply incorrect. Implying that wireless charging would somehow reduce charging units and cables was also incorrect. As was the claim that the EU was only interested in e-waste.

    The issue is very complex and the EU is following the correct course of action and for the right reasons.

    If Apple were to move to completely wireless charging today, it would be a failure in user land. A huge step back.

    Wireless charging will only be able to take centre stage when it can outdo wired charging. And even then, when it can be implemented affordably for both consumers and industry.

    Other companies are almost ready to bring such innovations to market (for example, wireless laser charging capable of continuously and intelligently keeping multiple devices optimally powered simultaneously). Magsafe doesn't bring anything to market that meets the goals of what the EU is seeking to resolve. 

    That's very true that Europe has long been ahead of the U.S. in energy efficiencies.
    The most noticeable was them driving the little compact cars while we went for 20 foot long chrome plated, V8 snarling beasts.

    But, apparently it went deeper than just autos.
  • Reply 103 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,824member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

    No. Very few phones have that capability due to cost factors and that is one of the areas the EU wants to target. 

    iPhones that support wireless charging

    iPhone 8 or 8 PlusiPhone XiPhone Xs or Xs MaxiPhone XRiPhone 11iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro MaxiPhone SE (2nd generation)iPhone 12 or 12 miniiPhone 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max
    All current iPhones sold today. 

    So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.

    Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
    Cost, cost, cost.

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

    There are still way more phones in use that do not support Qi charging than do.

    An obligation to use wireless charging is not going to happen with the current wireless charging options available. 

    So, why isn't the EU going to just outright ban wireless charging if it has such negatives? Because in the scheme of things, all the phones in the world don't use that much energy compared to other energy uses;

    Pop quiz: how much electricity (to the closest 10 kilowatt-hour) does it take to power your iPhone or Android for a year? 1 kWh? 10 kWh? Or 100 kwh? The answer: 1 kWh.

    This is the amount of electricity you'd need to power ten 100-watt incandescent lightbulbs for an hour. Far from anything worth being sheepish over, 1 kwh costs about 12 cents.

    What the EU is worried about is e-waste, so they should be dealing with wireless charging technology today, not waiting for the cheapest phones to gain that feature. The EU is absolutely behind the power curve on this.

    And yeah, wired charging is faster than a Magsafe charger, by about a factor of two, but then again, a lot of people find the it meets there needs.
    Because there are many factors involved here and they are all detailed in the impact assessment which you clearly haven't read.

    I hope you realise why incandescent bulbs were banned in the EU how much more energy would be used (over that of a cable) if the industry was forced to use wireless charging.

    Wireless charging won't cut down on e-waste. They are still chargers and have cables.

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

    That was just an energy equivalent that someone came up with to show how little energy phones use, and it is very little indeed, with or without wireless charging.

    Another equivalent would be the energy to brew five cups of coffee, with wireless charging being the equivalent of seven or eight cups, for a single years worth of phone use. Given the most people drink hot beverages during the day, charging a phone really doesn't rank very hight on comparative energy usage of any consumer lifestyle.

    Apple's already four years into wireless charging this fall, and some of those phones and Qi chargers will be e-waste then, but two years from now, those phones will be six years old, and almost Apple's entire user base will have wireless charging capability. I have no idea on the percentage of the user base that will use Magsafe charging, but it certainly is not zero.

    The EU isn't making proactive decisions at all. They are simply promulgating de facto standards created in the marketplace, exactly the same process that gave the EU Micro USB, and USB Type C. I expect that the EU will end up creating a regulation for wireless charging based on the Qi charger, the same as Apple has, but Apple has gone further with Magsafe, which seems to indicate the magnetically aligned charging will be a requirement of the standard.

    For the record, it is our data consumption that is using the bulk of the energy; all that backend that no consumer really gives a shit about, not the actual energy consumption of the phone.

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

    Also, how much energy is used in a shower? When you take a shower, you use more or less 15L/min of water. So, a shower of 5 minutes will consume 75L of water, which amounts to 9 MJ, or 2.5 kWh. In a nutshell, when you take a hot shower, you consume half a kWh per minute.
    So a year's worth of the energy equivalent of wirelessly charging a phone, consumed in 3 minutes.




    You are not seeing the forest for the trees and on top of that you are failing to understand what the EU is aiming for.

    Step 1: read the impact assessment.

    Step 2 (optional) : re-read your initial post here and my response. You were misinterpretting the whole thing.

    Since then you have scuttled from one claim to another which has nothing to do with what is actually being considered.

    Apple is striving for energy efficiency? Do you know exactly how much effort has been put into EU energy efficiency programmes for decades now?

    When David Pogue wrote a blog post detailing some of the everyday things that surprised him on a visit to Europe, most people here were perplexed. They just thought all developed nations had things like escalators that stopped running or slowed down when no one was actually standing on them.

    I'm sure the US is still leagues behind in energy efficiency. Apple cannot change that. 
    The MOU is entirely about e-waste. As I noted, the energy usage of a phone is a rounding error for the consumer.

    Apple can meet the commitment with a a USB Type C EPS, sold separately, a USB Type C cable, also sold separately, and an adaptor to Lighting, included with the cable.  

    Third party products would accomplish the same, and given that Apple is shipping iPhones sans charger, this seems like the most logical solution.

    Apple shifting to a USB Type C connector for the iPhone, increases customer convenience, true, but doesn't really make much difference in e-waste, given the adaptors weight  around 2g. That's about 2000 Kg of potential e-waste per million devices. Again, a couple orders of magnitude less of a problem than the EPS and cable.


    Any MoU will arise from what is presented in the Impact Assessment.

    Why not read it?

    There is far more to it than e-waste.

    Here is the EU paper abstract (my bold):

    "The aim of this study is to provide input for the Commission impact assessment accompanying a new initiative to limit fragmentation of charging solutions for mobile phones and similar devices, while not hampering future technological evolution. The study was carried out by Ipsos and Trinomics, with support from Fraunhofer FOKUS (on behalf of a consortium led by Economisti Associati). It is based on research and analysis undertaken between January and November 2019. It employed a mixed-method approach, combining two main tasks: first, defining the problem (including a market and technology analysis), and second, an assessment of the likely impacts of a set of policy options for a possible new initiative. The sources of evidence include primary data (collected via a series of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, a survey of a representative panel of consumers, and the Commission’s Public Consultation) as well as secondary data (including statistics, market data, and literature on a wide range of relevant issues). Where possible, key impacts were estimated quantitatively based on a tailor-made dynamic model of the stock of chargers. Other impacts were assessed qualitatively. The focus of the study was on chargers for mobile phones, and specifically on technical options to work towards a “common” charger and their likely social, environmental and economic impacts. Other issues (including the available policy and regulatory instruments, the possibility to extend the scope to other portable electronic devices, and the issue of decoupling - i.e. the unbundling of charger from phone sales) were also considered"

    I have been perusing the document, and now we are two years beyond that. 

    It should further be noted that the effects of all options are subject to a certain degree of residual uncertainty regarding the extent to which they are “future-proof”. This is inevitable, since the natural reluctance of economic operators to divulge information about their future commercial and technological plans and strategies makes it impossible to accurately predict the future evolution of the relevant markets in the absence of EU intervention. The following key question marks are worth keeping in mind:

      Use of proprietary connectors: In the absence of any clear indications to the contrary, the baseline used for the study assumes that proprietary connectors will continue to be used on the same scale as today until 2028 (the end of the period modelled). Nonetheless, it is possible (though it appears unlikely at the present time) that individual manufacturers phase out existing proprietary connectors (i.e. Lightning) and/or introduce new ones. If we assumed the latter (i.e. further fragmentation), then the impacts of option 1 in particular could be far more significant.

      Transition between current, and emergence of future, generations of USB technology: This study assumes that any new rules would come into effect in 2023. An earlier entry into force would be likely to lead to more significant (positive as well as negative) impacts, as it could speed up the ongoing transition to the new USB technologies (i.e. USB PD and Type-C). In addition, it is worth noting that USB Type-C is now a relatively mature technology. While there are currently no concrete indications of a possible successor (a hypothetical “USB Type-D”), it appears quite possible that a new generation of USB connectors will begin to appear sometime in the next decade. If this occurs relatively soon (i.e. in the first half of the 2020s), it would reduce the benefits of option 1.

      Wireless charging: Wireless charging is a very incipient technology. At present, its energy efficiency and charging speed cannot match those of wired solutions, and there are no indications that wireless charging is likely to ecome the dominant solution, or even make wired charging obsolete, in the foreseeable future. However, if any breakthroughs in wireless charging technology were to change these basic parameters, this could undermine the rationale for the initiative as framed by this study, by significantly reducing the relevance of wired charging solutions in general.


    135

    Impact Assessment Study on Common Chargers of Portable Devices


    Magsafe didn't exist when this study was published, and even though it is less efficient, and slower charging than wired solutions, at least as of today, it may actually be the path for Apple to deprecate wired connection entirely. It really depends on the uptake by consumers, and technical improvements.

    Either way, this is a path that the EU should allow Apple to continue, as the technological benefits that accrue from that, have widespread potential in other product categories.

    This is not about Apple. It is about the industry as a whole.

    The EU has been pushing for energy efficiency for decades and there have been hundreds of initiatives to reduce energy consumption on the one hand and push for cleaner energy on the other. Both directly and indirectly.

    The idea of 'decoupling' (phones from chargers in the box) was even on the table in 2019. Long before Apple decided (and for largely economical reasons) to ship phones without chargers.

    This kind of project cannot be realised in months. It literally takes years because these are industry changes, not changes within an individual company. The consultation phase alone took a year to take shape.

    Your beef about a 12 year time frame was simply incorrect. Implying that wireless charging would somehow reduce charging units and cables was also incorrect. As was the claim that the EU was only interested in e-waste.

    The issue is very complex and the EU is following the correct course of action and for the right reasons.

    If Apple were to move to completely wireless charging today, it would be a failure in user land. A huge step back.

    Wireless charging will only be able to take centre stage when it can outdo wired charging. And even then, when it can be implemented affordably for both consumers and industry.

    Other companies are almost ready to bring such innovations to market (for example, wireless laser charging capable of continuously and intelligently keeping multiple devices optimally powered simultaneously). Magsafe doesn't bring anything to market that meets the goals of what the EU is seeking to resolve. 

    That's very true that Europe has long been ahead of the U.S. in energy efficiencies.
    The most noticeable was them driving the little compact cars while we went for 20 foot long chrome plated, V8 snarling beasts.

    But, apparently it went deeper than just autos.
    The U.S. was awash in cheap energy in the 20th century, Europe had coal, but oil was scarce until the ability to drill in the North Sea, and otherwise had to be obtained from the Mediterranean and Middle East. You would know that as you live in Pennsylvania, birthplace of the American Oil Industry.

    Post WWII, Europe couldn't afford large vehicles, though affluent Europeans certainly can today, and travel distances are less than what the U.S. experiences due of its size and geography, and our desire for mobility that allows us to pick up and move elsewhere as we see fit.

    The Oil Crisis created a market for smaller, more fuel efficient cars, and regulation has driven fuel efficiency up since then. Yeah, we could do better.
    edited August 2021
  • Reply 104 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,824member
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

    No. Very few phones have that capability due to cost factors and that is one of the areas the EU wants to target. 

    iPhones that support wireless charging

    iPhone 8 or 8 PlusiPhone XiPhone Xs or Xs MaxiPhone XRiPhone 11iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro MaxiPhone SE (2nd generation)iPhone 12 or 12 miniiPhone 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max
    All current iPhones sold today. 

    So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.

    Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
    Cost, cost, cost.

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

    There are still way more phones in use that do not support Qi charging than do.

    An obligation to use wireless charging is not going to happen with the current wireless charging options available. 

    So, why isn't the EU going to just outright ban wireless charging if it has such negatives? Because in the scheme of things, all the phones in the world don't use that much energy compared to other energy uses;

    Pop quiz: how much electricity (to the closest 10 kilowatt-hour) does it take to power your iPhone or Android for a year? 1 kWh? 10 kWh? Or 100 kwh? The answer: 1 kWh.

    This is the amount of electricity you'd need to power ten 100-watt incandescent lightbulbs for an hour. Far from anything worth being sheepish over, 1 kwh costs about 12 cents.

    What the EU is worried about is e-waste, so they should be dealing with wireless charging technology today, not waiting for the cheapest phones to gain that feature. The EU is absolutely behind the power curve on this.

    And yeah, wired charging is faster than a Magsafe charger, by about a factor of two, but then again, a lot of people find the it meets there needs.
    Because there are many factors involved here and they are all detailed in the impact assessment which you clearly haven't read.

    I hope you realise why incandescent bulbs were banned in the EU how much more energy would be used (over that of a cable) if the industry was forced to use wireless charging.

    Wireless charging won't cut down on e-waste. They are still chargers and have cables.

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

    That was just an energy equivalent that someone came up with to show how little energy phones use, and it is very little indeed, with or without wireless charging.

    Another equivalent would be the energy to brew five cups of coffee, with wireless charging being the equivalent of seven or eight cups, for a single years worth of phone use. Given the most people drink hot beverages during the day, charging a phone really doesn't rank very hight on comparative energy usage of any consumer lifestyle.

    Apple's already four years into wireless charging this fall, and some of those phones and Qi chargers will be e-waste then, but two years from now, those phones will be six years old, and almost Apple's entire user base will have wireless charging capability. I have no idea on the percentage of the user base that will use Magsafe charging, but it certainly is not zero.

    The EU isn't making proactive decisions at all. They are simply promulgating de facto standards created in the marketplace, exactly the same process that gave the EU Micro USB, and USB Type C. I expect that the EU will end up creating a regulation for wireless charging based on the Qi charger, the same as Apple has, but Apple has gone further with Magsafe, which seems to indicate the magnetically aligned charging will be a requirement of the standard.

    For the record, it is our data consumption that is using the bulk of the energy; all that backend that no consumer really gives a shit about, not the actual energy consumption of the phone.

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

    Also, how much energy is used in a shower? When you take a shower, you use more or less 15L/min of water. So, a shower of 5 minutes will consume 75L of water, which amounts to 9 MJ, or 2.5 kWh. In a nutshell, when you take a hot shower, you consume half a kWh per minute.
    So a year's worth of the energy equivalent of wirelessly charging a phone, consumed in 3 minutes.
    You need to look beyond absolutes. There are hundreds of millions of smartphones. If each one of them wastes energy unnecessarily it adds up to a very significant amount of waste. 
    Sure, and I absolutely agree.

    On the other hand, it's absurd to believe that those billions of phones collectively, are an energy cost that a consumer would ever see as other than a rounding error.

    Easy test. Look at you power bill. Now subtract out the 1.5 KWhr/12 months which is your phones energy consumption.

    It's penny's, right? (well, if you are in the U.S)

    Phone energy consumption is a couple of magnitudes less than a consumers total energy demands, even in third world countries.

    EDIT:

    I thought about this some more, and I'm convinced that myself and others believe that Apple is a leader in energy efficiency. This isn't absolutely true, of course, but there is evidence that Apple affords a huge effort to be environmentally friendly with its products. I and others are reassured, perhaps incorrectly, that Apple is taking care of that.
    Apple definitely markets itself as a leader - recyclable packaging, carbon offsets, etc. yet they move backwards by pushing inefficient technologies. Not unlike advertising an efficient engine in a car and then putting a bunch of accessories on that increase drag and cut the gas milage.

    As individuals, there are a lot of things we can do that don't move the needle much on their own but add up. Part of governments' role is to look at issues like this that are significant on a society-wide basis when they make policies and regulations. Water pollution is a great example - if one person uses tons of fertilizer it won't make a huge difference, but when everyone does the cumulative effect is significant causing algae blooms and other issues in lakes and steams. 
    Again, not disagreeing, though perhaps your ire should be taken out on Gamers and their Gaming rigs, which are huge energy hogs, vs Apple's Magsafe for iPhones, which is 75% efficient vs wired charging 85%, more or less. 

    Fortunately, my engineering background comes in handy for understanding energy use in detailed ways, so I can make better energy saving decisions. Magsafe doesn't require much decision making; use it or don't, but it isn't going to move the needle in energy usage.
  • Reply 105 of 129
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:

    I would add though that USB-C has the ability to improve data movement and flexibility -- it's why the USB protocol has been so dominant in the PC world.  And, that would bring the iPhone into better compliance with other modern computers.  Increasingly the iPhone is becoming less of a phone and more of a pocket sized computer and going to USB-C would only help that along.
    Wrong again. First off, Lightning uses the USB data protocol. Lightning suppports USB 3.0/3.1gen1 speeds at least (5Gbps) but that's only supported by the ports on some iPad models (Pros with Lightning port, most recent Air). All iPhones use USB 2.0 (480Mbps) still. Not sure there's any actual limitation holding Lightning to USB-C from using 3.1 gen 2 (10Gbps) speeds or if it just hasn't been implemented in the device ports.

    "Wrong again".  USB 3.0 was released 12 years ago -- and you're suggesting it's current technology?
    You're the one that is wrong George.

    Not the first USB name change

    This isn't the first time USB names have shifted. USB 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 were absorbed into USB 2.0. When USB 3.1 showed up, USB 3.0 suddenly became USB 3.1 Gen 1, and the newer standard received the label USB 3.1 Gen 2.

    We now find ourselves in a similar spot with USB 3.2. The newest, fastest version of USB 3.2 offers a max speed of 20Gbps and is called USB 3.2 Gen 2x2. (The 2x2 means it's the second generation and has two 10Gbps lanes to achieve its maximum throughput of 20Gbps.) The older USB 3.1 has a single 10Gbps channel and is called USB 3.2 Gen 2. Then there's USB 3.0, which is now called USB 3.2 Gen 1.

    Know your USB 3.2 versions

    If you're on the lookout for the above USB 3.2 Gen 1 and 2 names when attempting to create the best possible connection between your devices, your work is not done. That's because there are separate marketing terms for each of the three USB 3.2 versions, which the USB-IF encourages vendors to use for their packaging. (Whether vendors follow this suggestion or use the above terms remains to be seen and requires you to know both sets of terms.) The marketing terms you'll see for USB 3.2 devices are: SuperSpeed USB, SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps and SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps.

    Perhaps spelling it all out in chart will help alleviate some confusion and your USB branding headache:

    USB 3.2 VERSIONS

    New nameOld nameOriginal nameSuperSpeed nameMax speed
    USB 3.2 Gen 2x2 N/AUSB 3.2 SuperSpeed USB 20Gbps20Gbps
    USB 3.2 Gen 2USB 3.1 Gen 2USB 3.1SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps10Gbps
    USB 3.2 Gen 1USB 3.1 Gen 1USB 3.0SuperSpeed USB5Gbps

    USB 3.0 is now renamed USB 3.2 Gen1 for marketing reasons, doesn't require the Type C connector, and that is most certainly still a current standard.

    Here's another link with a great chart;

    https://www.extremetech.com/computing/197145-reversible-usb-type-c-finally-on-its-way-alongside-usb-3-1s-10gbit-performance

    For years, USB advanced at a predictable rate — USB2 was faster than USB, USB3 was faster than USB2, and now, USB4 is even on the horizon. In the last few years, the once-simple standard has broadened and become more confusing. There are now multiple types of USB3, including USB 3.0, USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.1 Gen 2, USB 3.2 Gen 1×1, USB 3.2 Gen 2×1, USB 3.2 Gen 1×2, and USB 3.2 Gen 2×2. Then, on top of that, there’s the question of USB-C. How does it fit in?

    D0n’t feel bad if you find this confusing. The USB-IF has done everything it possibly could have to ensure nobody can make sense of which USB standard a device supports, partly by repeatedly changing the name of previous standards as it updates brand guidance. The following table shows the relationship of USB standards to each other::

    The following standards all refer to the exact same product: USB 3.2 Gen 1×1, USB 3.1 Gen 1, USB 3.0. These ports all transfer data at up to 5Gb/s. Similarly, USB 3.2 Gen 2×1 and USB 3.1 Gen 2 also refer to the exact same standard. Hardware that complies with this specification can transfer data at up to 10Gbit/s. I’m not sure if anyone is shipping USB 3.2 Gen 1×2, because it’s an odd hybrid with USB 3.0’s original encoding scheme but USB 3.1 Gen 2’s bandwidth. Finally, there’s USB 3.2 Gen 2×2, which is also it’s own specific standard without reference to previous products.

    USB-C does not automatically mandate the use of any specific USB speed. USB-C is a physical cable standard that can support anything from USB2 to the latest USB 3.2 Gen 2×2 connection speeds, depending on the type of cable you own.



    "Wrong again"
    USB 3.0 is STILL 12 year old technology.
    And it’s still current. I’ll count you among the people who can’t distinguish between something’s age and it’s usefulness (how old are you again?)
      :D

    My new favourite comment.

    You have a pretty weird sense of humor.
    Not especially.  Occasionally petty, but that's not so unusual.
    tmayMplsP
  • Reply 106 of 129
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,714member
    tmay said:
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

    No. Very few phones have that capability due to cost factors and that is one of the areas the EU wants to target. 

    iPhones that support wireless charging

    iPhone 8 or 8 PlusiPhone XiPhone Xs or Xs MaxiPhone XRiPhone 11iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro MaxiPhone SE (2nd generation)iPhone 12 or 12 miniiPhone 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max
    All current iPhones sold today. 

    So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.

    Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
    Cost, cost, cost.

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

    There are still way more phones in use that do not support Qi charging than do.

    An obligation to use wireless charging is not going to happen with the current wireless charging options available. 

    So, why isn't the EU going to just outright ban wireless charging if it has such negatives? Because in the scheme of things, all the phones in the world don't use that much energy compared to other energy uses;

    Pop quiz: how much electricity (to the closest 10 kilowatt-hour) does it take to power your iPhone or Android for a year? 1 kWh? 10 kWh? Or 100 kwh? The answer: 1 kWh.

    This is the amount of electricity you'd need to power ten 100-watt incandescent lightbulbs for an hour. Far from anything worth being sheepish over, 1 kwh costs about 12 cents.

    What the EU is worried about is e-waste, so they should be dealing with wireless charging technology today, not waiting for the cheapest phones to gain that feature. The EU is absolutely behind the power curve on this.

    And yeah, wired charging is faster than a Magsafe charger, by about a factor of two, but then again, a lot of people find the it meets there needs.
    Because there are many factors involved here and they are all detailed in the impact assessment which you clearly haven't read.

    I hope you realise why incandescent bulbs were banned in the EU how much more energy would be used (over that of a cable) if the industry was forced to use wireless charging.

    Wireless charging won't cut down on e-waste. They are still chargers and have cables.

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

    That was just an energy equivalent that someone came up with to show how little energy phones use, and it is very little indeed, with or without wireless charging.

    Another equivalent would be the energy to brew five cups of coffee, with wireless charging being the equivalent of seven or eight cups, for a single years worth of phone use. Given the most people drink hot beverages during the day, charging a phone really doesn't rank very hight on comparative energy usage of any consumer lifestyle.

    Apple's already four years into wireless charging this fall, and some of those phones and Qi chargers will be e-waste then, but two years from now, those phones will be six years old, and almost Apple's entire user base will have wireless charging capability. I have no idea on the percentage of the user base that will use Magsafe charging, but it certainly is not zero.

    The EU isn't making proactive decisions at all. They are simply promulgating de facto standards created in the marketplace, exactly the same process that gave the EU Micro USB, and USB Type C. I expect that the EU will end up creating a regulation for wireless charging based on the Qi charger, the same as Apple has, but Apple has gone further with Magsafe, which seems to indicate the magnetically aligned charging will be a requirement of the standard.

    For the record, it is our data consumption that is using the bulk of the energy; all that backend that no consumer really gives a shit about, not the actual energy consumption of the phone.

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

    Also, how much energy is used in a shower? When you take a shower, you use more or less 15L/min of water. So, a shower of 5 minutes will consume 75L of water, which amounts to 9 MJ, or 2.5 kWh. In a nutshell, when you take a hot shower, you consume half a kWh per minute.
    So a year's worth of the energy equivalent of wirelessly charging a phone, consumed in 3 minutes.
    You need to look beyond absolutes. There are hundreds of millions of smartphones. If each one of them wastes energy unnecessarily it adds up to a very significant amount of waste. 
    Sure, and I absolutely agree.

    On the other hand, it's absurd to believe that those billions of phones collectively, are an energy cost that a consumer would ever see as other than a rounding error.

    Easy test. Look at you power bill. Now subtract out the 1.5 KWhr/12 months which is your phones energy consumption.

    It's penny's, right? (well, if you are in the U.S)

    Phone energy consumption is a couple of magnitudes less than a consumers total energy demands, even in third world countries.

    EDIT:

    I thought about this some more, and I'm convinced that myself and others believe that Apple is a leader in energy efficiency. This isn't absolutely true, of course, but there is evidence that Apple affords a huge effort to be environmentally friendly with its products. I and others are reassured, perhaps incorrectly, that Apple is taking care of that.
    Apple definitely markets itself as a leader - recyclable packaging, carbon offsets, etc. yet they move backwards by pushing inefficient technologies. Not unlike advertising an efficient engine in a car and then putting a bunch of accessories on that increase drag and cut the gas milage.

    As individuals, there are a lot of things we can do that don't move the needle much on their own but add up. Part of governments' role is to look at issues like this that are significant on a society-wide basis when they make policies and regulations. Water pollution is a great example - if one person uses tons of fertilizer it won't make a huge difference, but when everyone does the cumulative effect is significant causing algae blooms and other issues in lakes and steams. 
    Again, not disagreeing, though perhaps your ire should be taken out on Gamers and their Gaming rigs, which are huge energy hogs, vs Apple's Magsafe for iPhones, which is 75% efficient vs wired charging 85%, more or less. 

    Fortunately, my engineering background comes in handy for understanding energy use in detailed ways, so I can make better energy saving decisions. Magsafe doesn't require much decision making; use it or don't, but it isn't going to move the needle in energy usage.
    I think gaming rigs are a waste, too. A lot of 'compensation' going on for bragging rights on how many FPS someone can get on the game of the day, etc, all the while blowing over 800 watts... but this is a thread about charging phones, not outrageous gaming machines.
  • Reply 107 of 129
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,919member
    So what advantages does Lightening offer over USB-C / thunderbolt?
    likewise
    So what advantages does USB-C / thunderbolt offer over Lightening?


    At one point Lightening was clearly superior to USB(-A).  But I suspect that the answers today will show Apple has been dragging its feet and falling behind.  The question is:   "Why?"

    One possible answer is that Lightening gives Apple greater control over the iPhone -- you can only do those things Apple says you can do -- much like its control over Apps.   One can argue that Apple should have no control -- but that comes with collateral damage.
    Lightning predates USB-C so so it wasn’t an attempted lock in, there was just nothing else good at the time.

    How is Apple dragging its feet? They should go MagSafe + optical to eliminate ‘ports’ all together. If the EU made wireless charging mandatory, that would work.
  • Reply 108 of 129
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

    No. Very few phones have that capability due to cost factors and that is one of the areas the EU wants to target. 

    iPhones that support wireless charging

    iPhone 8 or 8 PlusiPhone XiPhone Xs or Xs MaxiPhone XRiPhone 11iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro MaxiPhone SE (2nd generation)iPhone 12 or 12 miniiPhone 12 Pro or 12 Pro Max
    All current iPhones sold today. 

    So, 30% of all phones sold in the EU, from Apple alone, support Qi charging.

    Maybe the EU can sit on its ass for another 10 years, and just wait for the market to decide how to deal with a wireless charging standard, and then they can promulgate some other standard that is already obsolete.
    Cost, cost, cost.

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

    There are still way more phones in use that do not support Qi charging than do.

    An obligation to use wireless charging is not going to happen with the current wireless charging options available. 

    So, why isn't the EU going to just outright ban wireless charging if it has such negatives? Because in the scheme of things, all the phones in the world don't use that much energy compared to other energy uses;

    Pop quiz: how much electricity (to the closest 10 kilowatt-hour) does it take to power your iPhone or Android for a year? 1 kWh? 10 kWh? Or 100 kwh? The answer: 1 kWh.

    This is the amount of electricity you'd need to power ten 100-watt incandescent lightbulbs for an hour. Far from anything worth being sheepish over, 1 kwh costs about 12 cents.

    What the EU is worried about is e-waste, so they should be dealing with wireless charging technology today, not waiting for the cheapest phones to gain that feature. The EU is absolutely behind the power curve on this.

    And yeah, wired charging is faster than a Magsafe charger, by about a factor of two, but then again, a lot of people find the it meets there needs.
    Because there are many factors involved here and they are all detailed in the impact assessment which you clearly haven't read.

    I hope you realise why incandescent bulbs were banned in the EU how much more energy would be used (over that of a cable) if the industry was forced to use wireless charging.

    Wireless charging won't cut down on e-waste. They are still chargers and have cables.

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

    That was just an energy equivalent that someone came up with to show how little energy phones use, and it is very little indeed, with or without wireless charging.

    Another equivalent would be the energy to brew five cups of coffee, with wireless charging being the equivalent of seven or eight cups, for a single years worth of phone use. Given the most people drink hot beverages during the day, charging a phone really doesn't rank very hight on comparative energy usage of any consumer lifestyle.

    Apple's already four years into wireless charging this fall, and some of those phones and Qi chargers will be e-waste then, but two years from now, those phones will be six years old, and almost Apple's entire user base will have wireless charging capability. I have no idea on the percentage of the user base that will use Magsafe charging, but it certainly is not zero.

    The EU isn't making proactive decisions at all. They are simply promulgating de facto standards created in the marketplace, exactly the same process that gave the EU Micro USB, and USB Type C. I expect that the EU will end up creating a regulation for wireless charging based on the Qi charger, the same as Apple has, but Apple has gone further with Magsafe, which seems to indicate the magnetically aligned charging will be a requirement of the standard.

    For the record, it is our data consumption that is using the bulk of the energy; all that backend that no consumer really gives a shit about, not the actual energy consumption of the phone.

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

    Also, how much energy is used in a shower? When you take a shower, you use more or less 15L/min of water. So, a shower of 5 minutes will consume 75L of water, which amounts to 9 MJ, or 2.5 kWh. In a nutshell, when you take a hot shower, you consume half a kWh per minute.
    So a year's worth of the energy equivalent of wirelessly charging a phone, consumed in 3 minutes.




    You are not seeing the forest for the trees and on top of that you are failing to understand what the EU is aiming for.

    Step 1: read the impact assessment.

    Step 2 (optional) : re-read your initial post here and my response. You were misinterpretting the whole thing.

    Since then you have scuttled from one claim to another which has nothing to do with what is actually being considered.

    Apple is striving for energy efficiency? Do you know exactly how much effort has been put into EU energy efficiency programmes for decades now?

    When David Pogue wrote a blog post detailing some of the everyday things that surprised him on a visit to Europe, most people here were perplexed. They just thought all developed nations had things like escalators that stopped running or slowed down when no one was actually standing on them.

    I'm sure the US is still leagues behind in energy efficiency. Apple cannot change that. 
    The MOU is entirely about e-waste. As I noted, the energy usage of a phone is a rounding error for the consumer.

    Apple can meet the commitment with a a USB Type C EPS, sold separately, a USB Type C cable, also sold separately, and an adaptor to Lighting, included with the cable.  

    Third party products would accomplish the same, and given that Apple is shipping iPhones sans charger, this seems like the most logical solution.

    Apple shifting to a USB Type C connector for the iPhone, increases customer convenience, true, but doesn't really make much difference in e-waste, given the adaptors weight  around 2g. That's about 2000 Kg of potential e-waste per million devices. Again, a couple orders of magnitude less of a problem than the EPS and cable.


    Any MoU will arise from what is presented in the Impact Assessment.

    Why not read it?

    There is far more to it than e-waste.

    Here is the EU paper abstract (my bold):

    "The aim of this study is to provide input for the Commission impact assessment accompanying a new initiative to limit fragmentation of charging solutions for mobile phones and similar devices, while not hampering future technological evolution. The study was carried out by Ipsos and Trinomics, with support from Fraunhofer FOKUS (on behalf of a consortium led by Economisti Associati). It is based on research and analysis undertaken between January and November 2019. It employed a mixed-method approach, combining two main tasks: first, defining the problem (including a market and technology analysis), and second, an assessment of the likely impacts of a set of policy options for a possible new initiative. The sources of evidence include primary data (collected via a series of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, a survey of a representative panel of consumers, and the Commission’s Public Consultation) as well as secondary data (including statistics, market data, and literature on a wide range of relevant issues). Where possible, key impacts were estimated quantitatively based on a tailor-made dynamic model of the stock of chargers. Other impacts were assessed qualitatively. The focus of the study was on chargers for mobile phones, and specifically on technical options to work towards a “common” charger and their likely social, environmental and economic impacts. Other issues (including the available policy and regulatory instruments, the possibility to extend the scope to other portable electronic devices, and the issue of decoupling - i.e. the unbundling of charger from phone sales) were also considered"

    I have been perusing the document, and now we are two years beyond that. 

    It should further be noted that the effects of all options are subject to a certain degree of residual uncertainty regarding the extent to which they are “future-proof”. This is inevitable, since the natural reluctance of economic operators to divulge information about their future commercial and technological plans and strategies makes it impossible to accurately predict the future evolution of the relevant markets in the absence of EU intervention. The following key question marks are worth keeping in mind:

      Use of proprietary connectors: In the absence of any clear indications to the contrary, the baseline used for the study assumes that proprietary connectors will continue to be used on the same scale as today until 2028 (the end of the period modelled). Nonetheless, it is possible (though it appears unlikely at the present time) that individual manufacturers phase out existing proprietary connectors (i.e. Lightning) and/or introduce new ones. If we assumed the latter (i.e. further fragmentation), then the impacts of option 1 in particular could be far more significant.

      Transition between current, and emergence of future, generations of USB technology: This study assumes that any new rules would come into effect in 2023. An earlier entry into force would be likely to lead to more significant (positive as well as negative) impacts, as it could speed up the ongoing transition to the new USB technologies (i.e. USB PD and Type-C). In addition, it is worth noting that USB Type-C is now a relatively mature technology. While there are currently no concrete indications of a possible successor (a hypothetical “USB Type-D”), it appears quite possible that a new generation of USB connectors will begin to appear sometime in the next decade. If this occurs relatively soon (i.e. in the first half of the 2020s), it would reduce the benefits of option 1.

      Wireless charging: Wireless charging is a very incipient technology. At present, its energy efficiency and charging speed cannot match those of wired solutions, and there are no indications that wireless charging is likely to ecome the dominant solution, or even make wired charging obsolete, in the foreseeable future. However, if any breakthroughs in wireless charging technology were to change these basic parameters, this could undermine the rationale for the initiative as framed by this study, by significantly reducing the relevance of wired charging solutions in general.


    135

    Impact Assessment Study on Common Chargers of Portable Devices


    Magsafe didn't exist when this study was published, and even though it is less efficient, and slower charging than wired solutions, at least as of today, it may actually be the path for Apple to deprecate wired connection entirely. It really depends on the uptake by consumers, and technical improvements.

    Either way, this is a path that the EU should allow Apple to continue, as the technological benefits that accrue from that, have widespread potential in other product categories.

    This is not about Apple. It is about the industry as a whole.

    The EU has been pushing for energy efficiency for decades and there have been hundreds of initiatives to reduce energy consumption on the one hand and push for cleaner energy on the other. Both directly and indirectly.

    The idea of 'decoupling' (phones from chargers in the box) was even on the table in 2019. Long before Apple decided (and for largely economical reasons) to ship phones without chargers.

    This kind of project cannot be realised in months. It literally takes years because these are industry changes, not changes within an individual company. The consultation phase alone took a year to take shape.

    Your beef about a 12 year time frame was simply incorrect. Implying that wireless charging would somehow reduce charging units and cables was also incorrect. As was the claim that the EU was only interested in e-waste.

    The issue is very complex and the EU is following the correct course of action and for the right reasons.

    If Apple were to move to completely wireless charging today, it would be a failure in user land. A huge step back.

    Wireless charging will only be able to take centre stage when it can outdo wired charging. And even then, when it can be implemented affordably for both consumers and industry.

    Other companies are almost ready to bring such innovations to market (for example, wireless laser charging capable of continuously and intelligently keeping multiple devices optimally powered simultaneously). Magsafe doesn't bring anything to market that meets the goals of what the EU is seeking to resolve. 

    That's very true that Europe has long been ahead of the U.S. in energy efficiencies.
    The most noticeable was them driving the little compact cars while we went for 20 foot long chrome plated, V8 snarling beasts.

    But, apparently it went deeper than just autos.
    The U.S. was awash in cheap energy in the 20th century, Europe had coal, but oil was scarce until the ability to drill in the North Sea, and otherwise had to be obtained from the Mediterranean and Middle East. You would know that as you live in Pennsylvania, birthplace of the American Oil Industry.

    Post WWII, Europe couldn't afford large vehicles, though affluent Europeans certainly can today, and travel distances are less than what the U.S. experiences due of its size and geography, and our desire for mobility that allows us to pick up and move elsewhere as we see fit.

    The Oil Crisis created a market for smaller, more fuel efficient cars, and regulation has driven fuel efficiency up since then. Yeah, we could do better.

    We found out in 1973 how "awash in oil" we were:   ours came from the same spigot that Europe's came from.  It's why we started driving small cars just like them -- it gave birth to the Honda's and Toyota's in this country -- and Ford's Pinto was powered by a European engine.  Springsteen even sang of it:  How he preferred a big pink Cadillac to a little Honda.
  • Reply 109 of 129
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    mcdave said:
    So what advantages does Lightening offer over USB-C / thunderbolt?
    likewise
    So what advantages does USB-C / thunderbolt offer over Lightening?


    At one point Lightening was clearly superior to USB(-A).  But I suspect that the answers today will show Apple has been dragging its feet and falling behind.  The question is:   "Why?"

    One possible answer is that Lightening gives Apple greater control over the iPhone -- you can only do those things Apple says you can do -- much like its control over Apps.   One can argue that Apple should have no control -- but that comes with collateral damage.
    Lightning predates USB-C so so it wasn’t an attempted lock in, there was just nothing else good at the time.

    How is Apple dragging its feet? They should go MagSafe + optical to eliminate ‘ports’ all together. If the EU made wireless charging mandatory, that would work.

    I agree with both (well maybe not that specific solution -- but that technology has moved on and there is better out there).

    I suspect that Apple knows that and realizes that.  I also suspect that they have a plan.  We just don't know what that plan is -- yet.
  • Reply 110 of 129
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,521member
    Next, all cars sold in the EU must have the same wheels. I was somewhat against Brexit (as an ex-pat, so no longer affected either way) but this sort of thing doesn't make it seem so hard to understand the desire to be free of the occasional collective idiocy that is Brussels.

    Someone should show the members that the same charger can easily have a few different cables for just a few €s and I seriously doubt the power usage alters all that much between them.  I travel with an 8 port HICITY charger equipped with a range of cables for my Magic Mouse, iPad, iPhone, PC Mouse, and so on so they may all be charged at the same time.
    edited August 2021
  • Reply 111 of 129
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    MacPro said:
    Next, all cars sold in the EU must have the same wheels. I was somewhat against Brexit (as an ex-pat, so no longer affected either way) but this sort of thing doesn't make it seem so hard to understand the desire to be free of the occasional collective idiocy that is Brussels.
    What is idiotic about thinking that devices in a common category should standardise on a commodity cabling for charging purposes?  it means that I can have less cables in my household because they're useful for multiple devices.  And when I change my device, huzzah, all my old cables work too.

    Are memories so short that they can't recall the cable hellhole of the 90s and early 00s where every OEM had a different charging connector, when dongles like these were actual products:


  • Reply 112 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,824member
    crowley said:
    MacPro said:
    Next, all cars sold in the EU must have the same wheels. I was somewhat against Brexit (as an ex-pat, so no longer affected either way) but this sort of thing doesn't make it seem so hard to understand the desire to be free of the occasional collective idiocy that is Brussels.
    What is idiotic about thinking that devices in a common category should standardise on a commodity cabling for charging purposes?  it means that I can have less cables in my household because they're useful for multiple devices.  And when I change my device, huzzah, all my old cables work too.

    Are memories so short that they can't recall the cable hellhole of the 90s and early 00s where every OEM had a different charging connector, when dongles like these were actual products:


    Except there is no hellhole today with phones.

    There's the current MicroUSB standard, which allows an adaptor at the device, which is how Lightning is allowed, and USB Type C, which has become the de facto standard.

    That Apple doesn't want to migrate to USB Type C for the iPhone is the issue. Given the size of the existing Lightning user base, there doesn't appear to be much benefit from moving to USB Type C, if the goal is reducing e-waste.
    edited August 2021 ronn
  • Reply 113 of 129
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    tmay said:
    crowley said:
    MacPro said:
    Next, all cars sold in the EU must have the same wheels. I was somewhat against Brexit (as an ex-pat, so no longer affected either way) but this sort of thing doesn't make it seem so hard to understand the desire to be free of the occasional collective idiocy that is Brussels.
    What is idiotic about thinking that devices in a common category should standardise on a commodity cabling for charging purposes?  it means that I can have less cables in my household because they're useful for multiple devices.  And when I change my device, huzzah, all my old cables work too.

    Are memories so short that they can't recall the cable hellhole of the 90s and early 00s where every OEM had a different charging connector, when dongles like these were actual products:


    Except there is no hellhole today with phones.

    There's the current MicroUSB standard, which allows an adaptor at the device, which is how Lightning is allowed, and USB Type C, which has become the de facto standard.

    That Apple doesn't want to migrate to USB Type C for the iPhone is the issue. Given the size of the existing Lightning user base, there doesn't appear to be much benefit from moving to USB Type C, if the goal is reducing e-waste.
    The reason why there is no hellhole is not insignificantly due to pressure from the EU!  There’s some circular intellectual self abuse going on here: the EU are idiots for pushing for standardisation because of the progress in standardisation that has resulted from the EU pushing it.

    And while every other manufacturer has made these moves Apple have been the hold out, because they’re in some way special. No, that doesn’t fly any more, the EU have been generous in allowing the industry to sort itself out without direct regulatory action; and Apple have dragged their feet. Enough of that.
    muthuk_vanalingamavon b7
  • Reply 114 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,824member
    crowley said:
    tmay said:
    crowley said:
    MacPro said:
    Next, all cars sold in the EU must have the same wheels. I was somewhat against Brexit (as an ex-pat, so no longer affected either way) but this sort of thing doesn't make it seem so hard to understand the desire to be free of the occasional collective idiocy that is Brussels.
    What is idiotic about thinking that devices in a common category should standardise on a commodity cabling for charging purposes?  it means that I can have less cables in my household because they're useful for multiple devices.  And when I change my device, huzzah, all my old cables work too.

    Are memories so short that they can't recall the cable hellhole of the 90s and early 00s where every OEM had a different charging connector, when dongles like these were actual products:


    Except there is no hellhole today with phones.

    There's the current MicroUSB standard, which allows an adaptor at the device, which is how Lightning is allowed, and USB Type C, which has become the de facto standard.

    That Apple doesn't want to migrate to USB Type C for the iPhone is the issue. Given the size of the existing Lightning user base, there doesn't appear to be much benefit from moving to USB Type C, if the goal is reducing e-waste.
    The reason why there is no hellhole is not insignificantly due to pressure from the EU!  There’s some circular intellectual self abuse going on here: the EU are idiots for pushing for standardisation because of the progress in standardisation that has resulted from the EU pushing it.

    And while every other manufacturer has made these moves Apple have been the hold out, because they’re in some way special. No, that doesn’t fly any more, the EU have been generous in allowing the industry to sort itself out without direct regulatory action; and Apple have dragged their feet. Enough of that.
    Certainly pressure from the EU was and is important, but the spec today is Micro USB, with allowance for an adaptor. That's a fail, especially given Lightning has been out since 2012, and the USB Type C specification was finalized in fall of 2014, some seven years ago. 

    Up to this point in time, the EU has been far behind where the market is going. Now the EU is attempting to deal with a recalcitrant Apple, which doesn't want to transition to what is expected to be the next standard; USB Type C. Given how quickly Apple adopted USB Type A, USB Type C, and Thunderbolt, even leading the drive for the current SIM standard, all leading technologies at time of adoption, you have to ask; why is Apple resisting Type C for the iPhone?

    Apple certainly isn't resisting the EU just because they want to be dicks about it. Perhaps it is as simple as the costs of transitioning to Type C for Apple, doesn't actually provide much e-waste benefit, given that Apple's current mitigation is a 2g adaptor.

    So if Apple doesn't want to transition to Type C, then maybe the EU needs to ask Apple, "What is your future for wired charging? Will you deprecate it in favor of wireless charging?"

    That line of questioning from the EU doesn't seem to have happened, and given iOS share in the EU of 31%, it really needs to.
    edited August 2021
  • Reply 115 of 129
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    tmay said:

    you have to ask; why is Apple resisting Type C for the iPhone?
    I don't, the answer is obvious.  Made For iPhone $.
  • Reply 116 of 129
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    crowley said:
    MacPro said:
    Next, all cars sold in the EU must have the same wheels. I was somewhat against Brexit (as an ex-pat, so no longer affected either way) but this sort of thing doesn't make it seem so hard to understand the desire to be free of the occasional collective idiocy that is Brussels.
    What is idiotic about thinking that devices in a common category should standardise on a commodity cabling for charging purposes?  it means that I can have less cables in my household because they're useful for multiple devices.  And when I change my device, huzzah, all my old cables work too.

    Are memories so short that they can't recall the cable hellhole of the 90s and early 00s where every OEM had a different charging connector, when dongles like these were actual products:



    We have a new cabling problem coming up:
    How about if every car manufacturer used their own proprietary connector for charging their electric vehicles?  Where you could only charge your VW at a station that had VW connectors?

    Standardization benefits both consumers and industry.
  • Reply 117 of 129
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    MacPro said:
    Next, all cars sold in the EU must have the same wheels. I was somewhat against Brexit (as an ex-pat, so no longer affected either way) but this sort of thing doesn't make it seem so hard to understand the desire to be free of the occasional collective idiocy that is Brussels.
    What is idiotic about thinking that devices in a common category should standardise on a commodity cabling for charging purposes?  it means that I can have less cables in my household because they're useful for multiple devices.  And when I change my device, huzzah, all my old cables work too.

    Are memories so short that they can't recall the cable hellhole of the 90s and early 00s where every OEM had a different charging connector, when dongles like these were actual products:



    We have a new cabling problem coming up:
    How about if every car manufacturer used their own proprietary connector for charging their electric vehicles?  Where you could only charge your VW at a station that had VW connectors?

    Standardization benefits both consumers and industry.
    Let's not use USB-C for that :smile: 
    Detnator
  • Reply 118 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,824member
    crowley said:
    tmay said:

    you have to ask; why is Apple resisting Type C for the iPhone?
    I don't, the answer is obvious.  Made For iPhone $.
    Overly simplistic answer, and almost certainly not the primary reason for Apple not transitioning to Type C.

    You might want to look at Apple deprecating the 3mm audio plug so that they can make bank off of wireless audio gear.

    Apple will make a shit ton of money off of wireless charging solutions; why would then care anymore?

    Seems more likely that Apple is going to deprecate wired charging, and wired connection, for the iPhone. 
  • Reply 119 of 129
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    tmay said:
    crowley said:
    tmay said:

    you have to ask; why is Apple resisting Type C for the iPhone?
    I don't, the answer is obvious.  Made For iPhone $.
    Overly simplistic answer, and almost certainly not the primary reason for Apple not transitioning to Type C.

    You might want to look at Apple deprecating the 3mm audio plug so that they can make bank off of wireless audio gear.

    Apple will make a shit ton of money off of wireless charging solutions; why would then care anymore?

    Seems more likely that Apple is going to deprecate wired charging, and wired connection, for the iPhone. 
    Same answer.  Made For iPhone applies to MagSafe licensing too.
  • Reply 120 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,824member
    crowley said:
    MacPro said:
    Next, all cars sold in the EU must have the same wheels. I was somewhat against Brexit (as an ex-pat, so no longer affected either way) but this sort of thing doesn't make it seem so hard to understand the desire to be free of the occasional collective idiocy that is Brussels.
    What is idiotic about thinking that devices in a common category should standardise on a commodity cabling for charging purposes?  it means that I can have less cables in my household because they're useful for multiple devices.  And when I change my device, huzzah, all my old cables work too.

    Are memories so short that they can't recall the cable hellhole of the 90s and early 00s where every OEM had a different charging connector, when dongles like these were actual products:



    We have a new cabling problem coming up:
    How about if every car manufacturer used their own proprietary connector for charging their electric vehicles?  Where you could only charge your VW at a station that had VW connectors?

    Standardization benefits both consumers and industry.
    Or Tesla only charging Tesla's, which isn't true either.

    https://media.vw.com/en-us/releases/1353

    The chargers will utilize charge plugs from the three standard connector types: U.S. (CCS1), Europe (CCS2) and China (GB-T). Pads will also be installed in the future to test inductive charging.  All charging equipment comes from different brands from around the world to maximize testing variability.
    Tesla is adopting CCS2 in Europe, and will probably transition to CCS1 in the future, deprecating their own connector.

    https://thedriven.io/2018/12/10/what-is-ccs-charging/

    Looks like the standards are in place for specific regions, and commonality between DC in CCS1 and CCS2. In essence, easy for automakers to ship specific AC component for a specific region.


Sign In or Register to comment.