The intention of the directive is not the same as the wording of the directive. There is nothing to stop Apple creating a "better than USB-C" wired charging solution and using it, even in the EU, as long as they abide by the specific wording of the directive for phones that they sell within the EU. That is, all phones sold that charge via a wire must feature the common charging port, currently identified as USB-C.
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
In other words, Apple is free to innovate and develop a better connector, as long as it is USB-C.
This reminds me of the old days when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service in the USA. You could have whatever color telephone you wanted, as long as it was black.
Sometimes the best innovations come from technology that is a dramatic break from current practice.
Prior to the iPhone, the goal to improve smart phones was to make a better mechanical keyboard. If the government had imposed a standard requiring certain sizing of these mechanical keyboards, we wouldn't have the modern smartphone with its virtual keyboards.
Prior to USB, we had RS-232 serial connections on computers. Some devices used DB-25 connectors, some DB-9 connectors, and some various other connectors. If the government had mandated one of these to impose a common connector for serial communications, we would not have USB (Universal Serial Bus) at all.
Now, I am not commenting on whether or not requiring USB-C is overall a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that such a requirement has both good and bad effects.
More than good or bad, it's more case of one aspect outweighing another.
Prior to this directive, the EU tried (and with great patience) to cajole the industry into solving a serious problem. That of multiple different chargers, most of which were not interoperable. This was lock-in in the purest sense. The result of that was a MoU (not legislation) which saw the industry move to USB. Guess who didn't?
A decade later, and as a result of not seeing the result it was aiming for, the EU brought the common charger directive to the table which, by the way, tackles a multitude of devices (not just phones).
There have been all kinds of consultation and impact studies.
No one proposal solved all the possible problems so that was never ever the goal.
The current directive aims to resolve a specific set of problems. Not all of them.
No, innovation will not be stifled. Innovation will be channeled through specific standards. The decisions behind the current directive even make direct mention of future possible improvements.
Even though wireless charging was specifically left out of the directive, Apple has woken up to the realities of what might happen and worked to integrate Magsafe into a standard.
These directives are therefore likely to have worldwide repercussions and that is a good thing.
As an aside, it was Apple that refused move on from a 10 year old 5W charger and dumped millions of them on users for more than a decade. That's a very long time in technology.
The EU directive seems to be geared more towards cables than chargers. Current iPhones are already compatible with standard USB-C PD Chargers. iPhones generally don't come with a charger, only a cable that allows charging via a standard USB-C charger.
I don't know about you, but my experience is that cables wear out much more quickly than chargers. I tend to keep cables for longer, and replace chargers when more efficient ones become available. When I move to a new phone, it generally time to replace the charging cable anyway. I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all.
The EU regulation requires Apple to use a common USB-C cable as the wear item that gets routinely replaced. Let's not pretend that this about chargers, it's about cables and marketing. The EU doesn't like that Apple is free to innovate as to the connector used on their phone.
I suspect that if you glued a lighting to USB-C cable into your existing iPhone, it would meet the new EU rules, as it would then use a standard USB-C connector for charging.
"I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all."
The impact assessments show that it will.
I have a multitude of different chargers for different devices at home and none of them are fully interchangeable.
Yes, cables are another element in the charging process and current lightning cables add to the fragmentation problem that the EU directive is aiming to tackle.
Apple iPhones already use standard USB-C chargers. You can use the same charger for both iPhone and Android phones, the only difference is the cable.
In fact, you can even use the USB-C chargers that come with a MacBook to charge an iPhone. Some configurations of MacBook come with a dual port USB-C charger, allowing you to charge both you MacBook and phone at the same time.
Again, let's not pretend that this regulation is about the chargers. It's about not letting Apple use a proprietary cable. A three pack of 6 foot MiFi certified USB-C to Lighting cables is around $12 on Amazon.
Cables are a wear item. They get routinely replaced whether the phone has a USB-C or lighting connector.
In what way do you see this rule reducing waste? It doesn't affect the chargers that IPhone use. All it does is says that if someone is switching from Android to Apple, they can now continue to use the worn out Android charging cable, instead of using the new cable that came bundled with their phone.
It is absolutely about chargers and cables. It is about reducing fragmentation, reducing e-waste and also trying to take the confusion out of connectors.
The directive will also herald new labeling efforts.
It isn't about going after Apple. It's about the entire industry of small electronic devices.
Apple already uses USB-C chargers. This rule is about changing the cable. In terms of e-waste, cables are a wear item. This rule won't make cable last any longer.
In terms of taking the confusion out of connectors, USB-C is one of the more confusing connectors around. In the past, if the cable fit, it would work. You couldn't plus a serial cable into a video or a power connection. With USB-C, the connector can carry some combination of USB-2, USB-3, power, video, Thunderbolt. With real world cables, there is no easy way to tell by looking at a cable whether it will work for a particular purpose. My 6 foot USB-C power cable won't handle video, thunderbolt, or USB-3. My USB-3 cable doesn't handle thunderbolt, video, and it won't charge my laptop. My Thunderbolt cable doesn't handle everything, and I have lost track of what it won't do. The first thing I do when getting a USB-C cable is to label what I know it can do, and to note what I am unsure about (not all cables come with documentation of what they can't do). I suspect USB-C has actually increased the number of cables I carry, as you need a wide collection of cables to handle all the various functionality.
If reducing consumer confusion is the goal, USB-C is a very bad choice.
As I have stated. There is no perfect solution.
The EU has specifically looked at USB-C labeling and proposed measures to make things clearer.
As for cable lifespan, that depends on use and frequency of use, but cables can be made to be better and not only in resistence terms but ergonomics. That is up to the manufacturer. Apple does not have a great track record with cables.
As for cable lifespan, that depends on use and frequency of use, but cables can be made to be better and not only in resistence terms but ergonomics. That is up to the manufacturer. Apple does not have a great track record with cables.
True, but the EU standard does not address cable lifespan.
Anyone who has bought USB-C cables on Amazon knows what garbage is out there. Apple is simply trying to prevent a poor user experience when using non certified cables. The foolish EU bureaucrats just don't get it.
they are trying to prevent a poor user experience by… limiting transfer speeds for products that Apple doesn’t make money from?
okay…
To be fair, there are a lot of poorly made third party cables that don't work very well. The cable may reduce charging speeds, or there can be issues transferring data.
Requiring a cable to meet certain guidelines may not simply be a money grab. There may actually be something to it.
For instance, my insurance company wants me to use appliances certified by Underwriter's Laboratories (UL). You may see this as a money grab by UL, or you may see it as an attempt to improve the life of consumers by steering them towards safer appliances.
The intention of the directive is not the same as the wording of the directive. There is nothing to stop Apple creating a "better than USB-C" wired charging solution and using it, even in the EU, as long as they abide by the specific wording of the directive for phones that they sell within the EU. That is, all phones sold that charge via a wire must feature the common charging port, currently identified as USB-C.
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
The EU's intention will become clear once they publish their "uniform implementation" guide in 3Q, as reported in the original story.
As will Apple's once it introduces the iPhone 15.
If the EU does try to impose performance standards, not merely compatibility standards, I wouldn't put it past Apple to do only what is necessary to abide by the letter of the law, and as with the sideloading edict, they could even restrict it only to that specific market. It's all software-controlled anyway.
What's sad is those in power are approaching this matter in a fashion no better than what's seen among the public, in forums like this, based on a rumor and with no more than a pedestrian understanding of the standards they've specified, or the ability to discern principle from practice. No better than the members of the U.S. Congress who clearly don't understand social media, or other technology they have the authority to oversee.
If you read the EU law, it doesn't require that all phones have USB-C charging. Only phones that charge with a wire. Phones that charge exclusively via MagSafe, or other wireless charging methods do not need a USB-C connector.
Apple has the option of a software change to make the lightning connector "data only". If they do that, all current iPhone models would meet the current spec, without any hardware changes whatsoever.
It turns out that the EU law, doesn't require USB-C, it merely prohibits other wired charging methods. Apple has the option of choosing to meet the rules by reducing functionality via software for iPhones sold in the EU.
I am in that boat already with my iPhone 12 Pro Max - the Lightning socket in the phone has failed completely, as in dead as a doornail, no charging or data. The only way to charge it is with the magnetic puck, which has, of course, its own USB-C connector and charger.
Using the USB-C pick is fine by me, the only skin that I really have in the iPhone Lightning game now is - or rather, was - CarPlay, but with the defunct Lightning socket I no longer have CarPlay access, which is annoying (a failed USB-C connector would result in the same CarPlay situation, natürlich).
Sounds like a great excuse to get a wireless CarPlay dongle.
If you read the EU law, it doesn't require that all phones have USB-C charging. Only phones that charge with a wire. Phones that charge exclusively via MagSafe, or other wireless charging methods do not need a USB-C connector.
Apple has the option of a software change to make the lightning connector "data only". If they do that, all current iPhone models would meet the current spec, without any hardware changes whatsoever.
It turns out that the EU law, doesn't require USB-C, it merely prohibits other wired charging methods. Apple has the option of choosing to meet the rules by reducing functionality via software for iPhones sold in the EU.
I am in that boat already with my iPhone 12 Pro Max - the Lightning socket in the phone has failed completely, as in dead as a doornail, no charging or data. The only way to charge it is with the magnetic puck, which has, of course, its own USB-C connector and charger.
Using the USB-C pick is fine by me, the only skin that I really have in the iPhone Lightning game now is - or rather, was - CarPlay, but with the defunct Lightning socket I no longer have CarPlay access, which is annoying (a failed USB-C connector would result in the same CarPlay situation, natürlich).
If you haven't attempted to clean the socket, then I would do so, and there are a number of youtube videos for that.
I am in that boat already with my iPhone 12 Pro Max - the Lightning socket in the phone has failed completely, as in dead as a doornail, no charging or data. The only way to charge it is with the magnetic puck, which has, of course, its own USB-C connector and charger.
Using the USB-C pick is fine by me, the only skin that I really have in the iPhone Lightning game now is - or rather, was - CarPlay, but with the defunct Lightning socket I no longer have CarPlay access, which is annoying (a failed USB-C connector would result in the same CarPlay situation, natürlich).
There are a number of third party devices that will add wireless CarPlay to a car that has only wired CarPlay. Essentially they are a wireless CarPlay receiver that attaches to the car via USB. If you were interested, this would allow you to use CarPlay, even with a non-functional lighting connector on your iPhone.
Thanks to all who responded with their very useful comments. I tried out Tmay’s suggestion of looking for youtube videos for cleaning the socket first. I used the wooden toothpick method and it worked a treat! So much so that I didn’t need to look any further at the relatively expensive dongles. Charging is reliably back via the Lightning port, as is CarPlay. One happy iPhone user again.
Comments
The EU has specifically looked at USB-C labeling and proposed measures to make things clearer.
As for cable lifespan, that depends on use and frequency of use, but cables can be made to be better and not only in resistence terms but ergonomics. That is up to the manufacturer. Apple does not have a great track record with cables.
Requiring a cable to meet certain guidelines may not simply be a money grab. There may actually be something to it.
For instance, my insurance company wants me to use appliances certified by Underwriter's Laboratories (UL). You may see this as a money grab by UL, or you may see it as an attempt to improve the life of consumers by steering them towards safer appliances.