If you had read my other posts then you would know that I have plenty to say about the proposal, most of it supportive. My objection to your posts has been the snidey way that you keep dissing the EU's involvement in it. And don't suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about as far as political concepts are concerned - of course I do, and you have no valid reason for suggesting that I don't.
I mentioned a few standards that aren't great. I know a bit more about them than you do, as I worked with them.
If you want to discuss those, then we can do so. But it has nothing to do with my political concepts, and wasn't stated as justifying ANY political idea, left or right.
Don't accuse me of being snide. I stated what I did directly. I'm not accusing you of problematic beliefs because you support this, don't do so to me.
Quote:
Obviously I don't know what your personal political allegiances are, but you did give a very good impression of being against anything collective in nature through your repeated objections to any government involvement in the process. You may not understand what I'm saying (that's the most generous explanation I can come up with for you thinking I don't know what I'm talking about in this respect) but there is what's called an individualistic/collectivist axis that runs through all politics, and opposing government involvement is at the individualistic end of the spectrum. Hence my conclusion, and I apologise if I misread you.
I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to be reading any part of my posts other that what you're zoning in on, which seems to be some strange sense of defensiveness about your system over there, which I haven't commented on, and I have nothing against.
You disagree with my statement here to jahonen?
Quote:
What usually works best when standards affect important issues affecting the environment, health, etc, is when industry, government, AND the people, in the form of independent experts and consumer organizations are ALL involved, and when there is no short (two years is very short) artificial timeline imposed. These things take time!
I never stated that I didn't like it because it was "forced" by the EU
....
What usually works best when standards affect important issues affecting the environment, health, etc, is when industry, government, AND the people, in the form of independent experts and consumer organizations are ALL involved, and when there is no short (two years is very short) artificial timeline imposed. These things take time!
Thanks for the clarification. I see your point and understand and even respect and would agree in many other examples. In this particular case I personally feel that a reasonable standard in this case is better than none.
And for the charger efficiency thing (not an electrical engineer here), didn't they impose better efficiency in this spec? Or is tech even further along in efficiency by a significant enough margin to go for an even better goal?
So we might see a micro-USB connector on all phones in the future. Are we calling that progress? Sure - Nokia can. Because they already have it and they can point to the "other" phones that don't!
Cables, power bricks, adaptors and connectors - all so Pre-2000. Feels like having a discussion about the improvements Ni-Cad batteries have over Lead-Acid! I call it Mickey Mouse Engineering, skin-deep crap done by committee (the big phone manufacturers serving Europe) and "supported" by politicians (the EU)?
What do we (the users) get from it? Nothing different, nothing really better. Still a cable. Just a different one!
I said it before - convenience drives innovation. Convenience is when something is improved and makes things easier. Take a look at this charging solution posted at Gizmodo. That's what I call progress: http://i.gizmodo.com/5126025/hands+o...ires-necessary
I guess the manufacturer seems to think that Apple is the one that would go the distance. It's a challenge, but I want that charger.
Thanks for the clarification. I see your point and understand and even respect and would agree in many other examples. In this particular case I personally feel that a reasonable standard in this case is better than none.
Good. Happy that was cleared up.
Quote:
And for the charger efficiency thing (not an electrical engineer here), didn't they impose better efficiency in this spec? Or is tech even further along in efficiency by a significant enough margin to go for an even better goal?
Regs, Jarkko
To a certain extent. As I mentioned earlier, as they transition from transformer based wall warts to electronic models, efficiency goes up, and residual leakage and drain goes down. But there's still enough power being wasted on a cumulative basis for it to bother me. We're talking about hundreds of millions of these things, most are which will continue to be plugged in all the time. And that's just in Europe!
I know the concept that something better, is better than nothing better, and I don't argue with that. But I know of improvements to these that are being used in more expensive products and that will also be used in cheaper ones in a couple of years or so.
Since the new universal chargers will be used for some time, until they die, I would have preferred to use the old ones for another two years or so, when they'll be thrown out, just about the time when the better ones will be arriving.
My contention is that two years of old tech thrown out is better than, what, five to eight years of a newer standard that's got the first two years of devices that are no better than the current ones plugged in?
They won't be replaced for a number of years by more efficient models because of the idea of forward compatibility, so consumers will keep them in use.
Am I being clear? I found it hard to write.
In addition, the packaging material from these new models that will be sold separately will have to be accounted for. That's more packaging than we would have seen with chargers sold with the device. I know that amount will lessen after the turnover is complete, but it will take a good five or more years. There's also extra fuel being used for those deliveries etc. It may at first seem unimportant, but since I think the standard is flawed, it doesn't seem to me at least, to be worth the extra stuff that it's causing.
In addition, I agree with Vinea that the USB 3 standard should have been required. This wouldn't be a burden on the manufacturers. One side of the cable could be the micro to the phone, and the other to a USB 3 plug, going into the USB 3 socket on the recharger.
I don't think there's any real doubt that shortly after the USB 3 standard is available we'll see manufacturers taking advantage of the benefits, which include, less power for the chipset inside the phone.
Frankly, I can't see an advantage to the micro USB 2 socket in the charger. If you look at Apple's charger, it's pretty small with the standard USB socket. I don't see chargers being made smaller because they'll be going to a smaller socket. How small do we want these things anyway? So what will they do, cut 5 mm off each of the dimensions?
This is why I've been saying that this is rushed. If they took some more time, they could have waited for the USB 3 chips and plug/sockets to be widely available. Why make a new standard with old products? And then USB 2 plugs would have fit into the socket anyway, but not the other way around.
It's the whole thing that I see is flawed.
Is it better than nothing? Well yes, if nothing would be done at all. No question.
But as something would be done, one way or the other, I would have preferred to see this taking some more time, get properly vetted from all involved, and then done as well as possible.
I really don't know how anyone can object to that.
As you can see, I'm taking your questions seriously. We all have an interest in this. What they will do over there, we'll likely see over here as well.
What do we (the users) get from it? Nothing different, nothing really better. Still a cable. Just a different one!
I said it before - convenience drives innovation. Convenience is when something is improved and makes things easier. Take a look at this charging solution posted at Gizmodo. That's what I call progress: http://i.gizmodo.com/5126025/hands+o...ires-necessary
I guess the manufacturer seems to think that Apple is the one that would go the distance. It's a challenge, but I want that charger.
As individuals, we get the convenience that any charger charges any phone. As a world, we get the major environmental benefits.
If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd have seen that I already stated that inductive charging is horrendously inefficient. It's basic physics and nothing will ever change it. Environmentally speaking, wired chargers beat the hell out of wireless ones.
So we might see a micro-USB connector on all phones in the future. Are we calling that progress? Sure - Nokia can. Because they already have it and they can point to the "other" phones that don't!
Cables, power bricks, adaptors and connectors - all so Pre-2000. Feels like having a discussion about the improvements Ni-Cad batteries have over Lead-Acid! I call it Mickey Mouse Engineering, skin-deep crap done by committee (the big phone manufacturers serving Europe) and "supported" by politicians (the EU)?
What do we (the users) get from it? Nothing different, nothing really better. Still a cable. Just a different one!
I said it before - convenience drives innovation. Convenience is when something is improved and makes things easier. Take a look at this charging solution posted at Gizmodo. That's what I call progress: http://i.gizmodo.com/5126025/hands+o...ires-necessary
I guess the manufacturer seems to think that Apple is the one that would go the distance. It's a challenge, but I want that charger.
As Mr.H has already said, induction is inefficient. For it to work really well, you need very close coupling, and that's just not possible with devices like these. Even at it's practical best, it will noticeably lag something with an electrical connection. And even the generation of power by induction is inefficient.
So, convenient, but not environmental. And the Pre gets terribly hot from this, which could mean shortened component lifetime.
I think I get what you were saying. But, the thing you're forgetting is that manufacturers have a history of high turnover in the design of their chargers. You allege that without this agreement, chargers currently in use would be used longer, rather than replaced with the new universal adaptor. This is not correct. Charger "A" will be used until a phone is purchased that uses charger "B" - without the universal charger agreement, it is likely that a consumer's new phone will use a different charger to their current one, so the manufacturer has to provide the one just in case. With the universal charger in place, initially, the charger for a new phone will probably be different to the charger the consumer already has (no change from before), and then with the next phone purchase, the charger the consumer already has will still be compatible so the phone doesn't need one in the box with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
In addition, the packaging material from these new models that will be sold separately will have to be accounted for. That's more packaging than we would have seen with chargers sold with the device.
You are forgetting that initially, manufacturers will still be including chargers with the phones. It's only after a few years that they will stop including chargers, so hopefully the number of chargers sold separately should not increase much beyond the level we have currently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
In addition, I agree with Vinea that the USB 3 standard should have been required. This wouldn't be a burden on the manufacturers. One side of the cable could be the micro to the phone, and the other to a USB 3 plug, going into the USB 3 socket on the recharger.
USB 3 plugs and sockets are going to be backwards compatible with USB 2*, so this doesn't matter. The phone with a USB micro socket can use USB 2 or 3 to transfer data, it'll still be compatible with the universal chargers.
*There is an extension to the spec that has a bigger plug/socket (a standard plug/socket + an extra bit), but that doesn't have a micro connector version so it wouldn't be used in phones anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Frankly, I can't see an advantage to the micro USB 2 socket in the charger.
You are mistaken here. The charger is going to have a full-size USB socket, not a micro one. It's the phone that's going to have a micro socket.
I think I get what you were saying. But, the thing you're forgetting is that manufacturers have a history of high turnover in the design of their chargers. You allege that without this agreement, chargers currently in use would be used longer, rather than replaced with the new universal adaptor. This is not correct. Charger "A" will be used until a phone is purchased that uses charger "B" - without the universal charger agreement, it is likely that a consumer's new phone will use a different charger to their current one, so the manufacturer has to provide the one just in case. With the universal charger in place, initially, the charger for a new phone will probably be different to the charger the consumer already has (no change from before), and then with the next phone purchase, the charger the consumer already has will still be compatible so the phone doesn't need one in the box with it.
No, I wasn't saying that. What I was saying is that without this new standard, current design chargers in newly purchased phones/devices would be used for about two years as that's about the average lifetime for most phones, digital music/video players etc.
With the new standard, people won't be buying these devices with the "old" design chargers. They will be buying, separately, the universal chargers, which should last for a good fives years or longer (assuming they're built well), maybe up to eight.
I'm also saying, that, according to what I read in the journals, newer design, more efficient chargers that sense if a device is connected, will be on the market in about two years. These will use no more than a few micro watts when the charged device isn't plugged into the charger.
My contention is that with this standard pushed back, the old design current chargers will be around another years, then will disappear as new phones etc will be bought, and will be replaced mostly with these new highly efficient, low leakage models. But with this standard in place, the new universal chargers resulting from it will begin to replace the old chargers earlier. But these won't be the newer efficient models, and with the long lifetime of these units, they won't be replaced by the new efficient ones for far longer. So we'll have at least two more years of old technology chargers to contend with.
Is that clearer?
Quote:
You are forgetting that initially, manufacturers will still be including chargers with the phones. It's only after a few years that they will stop including chargers, so hopefully the number of chargers sold separately should not increase much beyond the level we have currently.
I realize that, but these will be the old models dressed up with the new plugs, all the same output. But we will still see separate chargers sold after a couple of years.
Quote:
USB 3 plugs and sockets are going to be backwards compatible with USB 2*, so this doesn't matter. The phone with a USB micro socket can use USB 2 or 3 to transfer data, it'll still be compatible with the universal chargers.
*There is an extension to the spec that has a bigger plug/socket (a standard plug/socket + an extra bit), but that doesn't have a micro connector version so it wouldn't be used in phones anyway.
It doesn't matter what the socket on the phone is, some are micro USB now. As long as it's USB 3.
This is where it gets confusing, as some will be compatible and some won't. At least, as far as I know, the B plugs will work on USB 3 sockets, but not the other way around. I'm not sure about any of the others, I'd have to look it up.
Quote:
You are mistaken here. The charger is going to have a full-size USB socket, not a micro one. It's the phone that's going to have a micro socket.
At least partly. It seems from some photo's, that not all chargers will have a cable that disconnects at all. I know this connector will be on the phone. I've stated that.
The standard isn't going to come into full force until 2012 or something so I don't think you need to worry. The likelihood is that the new universal adaptors shipped in the box with new phones will have very low standby power consumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It doesn't matter what the socket on the phone is, some are micro USB now. As long as it's USB 3.
This is where it gets confusing, as some will be compatible and some won't. At least, as far as I know, the B plugs will work on USB 3 sockets, but not the other way around. I'm not sure about any of the others, I'd have to look it up.
But this is the beauty of USB, it's backwards and forwards compatible. Got a phone with USB 2 socket and a computer with USB 3? That'll work (at USB 2 speeds). Got a phone with USB 3, computer with USB 3 and a charger with USB 2 socket? That'll work too - the data will go at USB 3 speeds, and the charger will still charge, because you can still use the USB 3 cable to connect the phone to the charger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
At least partly. It seems from some photo's, that not all chargers will have a cable that disconnects at all. I know this connector will be on the phone. I've stated that.
Someone already posted that part of the spec. is that the universal charger will have a full-size USB port, not a built-in cable.
I was responding to what you said, which was (bold added by me):
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Frankly, I can't see an advantage to the micro USB 2 socket in the charger.
As Mr.H has already said, induction is inefficient. For it to work really well, you need very close coupling, and that's just not possible with devices like these. Even at it's practical best, it will noticeably lag something with an electrical connection. And even the generation of power by induction is inefficient.
So, convenient, but not environmental. And the Pre gets terribly hot from this, which could mean shortened component lifetime.
I was wondering when our police guy would get personal trying to shut me out. Fat chance.
One more try - I took out the "induction" for now. How about this concept:
That is certainly better. Much cleverer than induction-based charging and with better power efficiency.
However, it adds bulk to the phone (even if you built it in, it looks like it would add bulk) and the pad itself looks like it probably requires more raw materials than a normal wired charger.
Having said that, one of those pads for a large family would be great - everyone gets home and drops their phone on the pad - one pad plugged into the wall instead of several adaptors.
USB 3 plugs and sockets are going to be backwards compatible with USB 2*, so this doesn't matter. The phone with a USB micro socket can use USB 2 or 3 to transfer data, it'll still be compatible with the universal chargers.
*There is an extension to the spec that has a bigger plug/socket (a standard plug/socket + an extra bit), but that doesn't have a micro connector version so it wouldn't be used in phones anyway.
The diagrams of the USB 3 micro connector is longer than the USB 2 micro because it has the USB2 micro as half.
A phone with just usb2 micro won't be able to do usb 3 data transfers since it wont have the lines.
The spec looks fine now really. Companies can upgrade to USB 3 when they are ready.
Ah, thanks for that. I had begun to worry that I was talking nonsense about USB 3 micro connectors. And I was. But the key here is that you can plug a USB 2 micro plug into a USB 3 micro socket, so as you say phones can move to USB 3 when ready and they'll still be compatible with the universal charger specification.
The standard isn't going to come into full force until 2012 or something so I don't think you need to worry. The likelihood is that the new universal adaptors shipped in the box with new phones will have very low standby power consumption.
Yeah, it now seems as though the original time schedule they had won't be met. But still...
Quote:
But this is the beauty of USB, it's backwards and forwards compatible. Got a phone with USB 2 socket and a computer with USB 3? That'll work (at USB 2 speeds). Got a phone with USB 3, computer with USB 3 and a charger with USB 2 socket? That'll work too - the data will go at USB 3 speeds, and the charger will still charge, because you can still use the USB 3 cable to connect the phone to the charger.
If they use an "a" socket in the recharger.
Quote:
Someone already posted that part of the spec. is that the universal charger will have a full-size USB port, not a built-in cable.
Yeah, I checked that later. From many of the earlier posts, it looked as though the charger would also have the micro socket, which would have made no sense, and would be too easy to break. I was assuming those posts were correct. My mistake.
I was responding to what you said, which was (bold added by me):
Quote:
Maybe you didn't mean to write that?
That comes from reading these older incorrect posts without my doing some actual checking, which is something I don't usually do, but I'm rushed for time.
This is good news, and I hope they extend it to non-smart phones, too.
I also hope the agreement covers more than just the physical port. My current phone uses micro-USB, but it will only charge if you've plugged in an "approved" charger (ie, one purchased from the phone manufacturer). So I can't simply plug it into the USB port on my computer or use another phone's micro-USB charger. So hopefully they put an end to that practice, too!
...
I agree that this is good news of a good trend.
Similarly, some of existing implementations of mobile phone USB charging seem to be rather strict or specialized. As in the case of my son's HTC Touch, which would charge over its mini USB port but only with certain mini-USB cables, and not others.
Not sure if that meant we had some sub-standard cables, or if the HTC Touch electrical engineering did something which pushed at the high-end of USB specifications.
In general, and in this case also, I am all in favor of standardization of commodity parts and ports.
But my point being that even with a new so-called standardization on a USB port, it still may require upgrades to owners' usb cables, hubs, etc. (at least for those of us who may have inadvertently bought 'sub-standard' equipment
Comments
If you had read my other posts then you would know that I have plenty to say about the proposal, most of it supportive. My objection to your posts has been the snidey way that you keep dissing the EU's involvement in it. And don't suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about as far as political concepts are concerned - of course I do, and you have no valid reason for suggesting that I don't.
I mentioned a few standards that aren't great. I know a bit more about them than you do, as I worked with them.
If you want to discuss those, then we can do so. But it has nothing to do with my political concepts, and wasn't stated as justifying ANY political idea, left or right.
Don't accuse me of being snide. I stated what I did directly. I'm not accusing you of problematic beliefs because you support this, don't do so to me.
Obviously I don't know what your personal political allegiances are, but you did give a very good impression of being against anything collective in nature through your repeated objections to any government involvement in the process. You may not understand what I'm saying (that's the most generous explanation I can come up with for you thinking I don't know what I'm talking about in this respect) but there is what's called an individualistic/collectivist axis that runs through all politics, and opposing government involvement is at the individualistic end of the spectrum. Hence my conclusion, and I apologise if I misread you.
I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to be reading any part of my posts other that what you're zoning in on, which seems to be some strange sense of defensiveness about your system over there, which I haven't commented on, and I have nothing against.
You disagree with my statement here to jahonen?
What usually works best when standards affect important issues affecting the environment, health, etc, is when industry, government, AND the people, in the form of independent experts and consumer organizations are ALL involved, and when there is no short (two years is very short) artificial timeline imposed. These things take time!
I never stated that I didn't like it because it was "forced" by the EU
....
What usually works best when standards affect important issues affecting the environment, health, etc, is when industry, government, AND the people, in the form of independent experts and consumer organizations are ALL involved, and when there is no short (two years is very short) artificial timeline imposed. These things take time!
Thanks for the clarification. I see your point and understand and even respect and would agree in many other examples. In this particular case I personally feel that a reasonable standard in this case is better than none.
And for the charger efficiency thing (not an electrical engineer here), didn't they impose better efficiency in this spec? Or is tech even further along in efficiency by a significant enough margin to go for an even better goal?
Regs, Jarkko
Cables, power bricks, adaptors and connectors - all so Pre-2000. Feels like having a discussion about the improvements Ni-Cad batteries have over Lead-Acid! I call it Mickey Mouse Engineering, skin-deep crap done by committee (the big phone manufacturers serving Europe) and "supported" by politicians (the EU)?
What do we (the users) get from it? Nothing different, nothing really better. Still a cable. Just a different one!
I said it before - convenience drives innovation. Convenience is when something is improved and makes things easier. Take a look at this charging solution posted at Gizmodo. That's what I call progress: http://i.gizmodo.com/5126025/hands+o...ires-necessary
I guess the manufacturer seems to think that Apple is the one that would go the distance. It's a challenge, but I want that charger.
Thanks for the clarification. I see your point and understand and even respect and would agree in many other examples. In this particular case I personally feel that a reasonable standard in this case is better than none.
Good. Happy that was cleared up.
And for the charger efficiency thing (not an electrical engineer here), didn't they impose better efficiency in this spec? Or is tech even further along in efficiency by a significant enough margin to go for an even better goal?
Regs, Jarkko
To a certain extent. As I mentioned earlier, as they transition from transformer based wall warts to electronic models, efficiency goes up, and residual leakage and drain goes down. But there's still enough power being wasted on a cumulative basis for it to bother me. We're talking about hundreds of millions of these things, most are which will continue to be plugged in all the time. And that's just in Europe!
I know the concept that something better, is better than nothing better, and I don't argue with that. But I know of improvements to these that are being used in more expensive products and that will also be used in cheaper ones in a couple of years or so.
Since the new universal chargers will be used for some time, until they die, I would have preferred to use the old ones for another two years or so, when they'll be thrown out, just about the time when the better ones will be arriving.
My contention is that two years of old tech thrown out is better than, what, five to eight years of a newer standard that's got the first two years of devices that are no better than the current ones plugged in?
They won't be replaced for a number of years by more efficient models because of the idea of forward compatibility, so consumers will keep them in use.
Am I being clear? I found it hard to write.
In addition, the packaging material from these new models that will be sold separately will have to be accounted for. That's more packaging than we would have seen with chargers sold with the device. I know that amount will lessen after the turnover is complete, but it will take a good five or more years. There's also extra fuel being used for those deliveries etc. It may at first seem unimportant, but since I think the standard is flawed, it doesn't seem to me at least, to be worth the extra stuff that it's causing.
In addition, I agree with Vinea that the USB 3 standard should have been required. This wouldn't be a burden on the manufacturers. One side of the cable could be the micro to the phone, and the other to a USB 3 plug, going into the USB 3 socket on the recharger.
I don't think there's any real doubt that shortly after the USB 3 standard is available we'll see manufacturers taking advantage of the benefits, which include, less power for the chipset inside the phone.
Frankly, I can't see an advantage to the micro USB 2 socket in the charger. If you look at Apple's charger, it's pretty small with the standard USB socket. I don't see chargers being made smaller because they'll be going to a smaller socket. How small do we want these things anyway? So what will they do, cut 5 mm off each of the dimensions?
This is why I've been saying that this is rushed. If they took some more time, they could have waited for the USB 3 chips and plug/sockets to be widely available. Why make a new standard with old products? And then USB 2 plugs would have fit into the socket anyway, but not the other way around.
It's the whole thing that I see is flawed.
Is it better than nothing? Well yes, if nothing would be done at all. No question.
But as something would be done, one way or the other, I would have preferred to see this taking some more time, get properly vetted from all involved, and then done as well as possible.
I really don't know how anyone can object to that.
As you can see, I'm taking your questions seriously. We all have an interest in this. What they will do over there, we'll likely see over here as well.
What do we (the users) get from it? Nothing different, nothing really better. Still a cable. Just a different one!
I said it before - convenience drives innovation. Convenience is when something is improved and makes things easier. Take a look at this charging solution posted at Gizmodo. That's what I call progress: http://i.gizmodo.com/5126025/hands+o...ires-necessary
I guess the manufacturer seems to think that Apple is the one that would go the distance. It's a challenge, but I want that charger.
As individuals, we get the convenience that any charger charges any phone. As a world, we get the major environmental benefits.
If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd have seen that I already stated that inductive charging is horrendously inefficient. It's basic physics and nothing will ever change it. Environmentally speaking, wired chargers beat the hell out of wireless ones.
So we might see a micro-USB connector on all phones in the future. Are we calling that progress? Sure - Nokia can. Because they already have it and they can point to the "other" phones that don't!
Cables, power bricks, adaptors and connectors - all so Pre-2000. Feels like having a discussion about the improvements Ni-Cad batteries have over Lead-Acid! I call it Mickey Mouse Engineering, skin-deep crap done by committee (the big phone manufacturers serving Europe) and "supported" by politicians (the EU)?
What do we (the users) get from it? Nothing different, nothing really better. Still a cable. Just a different one!
I said it before - convenience drives innovation. Convenience is when something is improved and makes things easier. Take a look at this charging solution posted at Gizmodo. That's what I call progress: http://i.gizmodo.com/5126025/hands+o...ires-necessary
I guess the manufacturer seems to think that Apple is the one that would go the distance. It's a challenge, but I want that charger.
As Mr.H has already said, induction is inefficient. For it to work really well, you need very close coupling, and that's just not possible with devices like these. Even at it's practical best, it will noticeably lag something with an electrical connection. And even the generation of power by induction is inefficient.
So, convenient, but not environmental. And the Pre gets terribly hot from this, which could mean shortened component lifetime.
Am I being clear? I found it hard to write.
I think I get what you were saying. But, the thing you're forgetting is that manufacturers have a history of high turnover in the design of their chargers. You allege that without this agreement, chargers currently in use would be used longer, rather than replaced with the new universal adaptor. This is not correct. Charger "A" will be used until a phone is purchased that uses charger "B" - without the universal charger agreement, it is likely that a consumer's new phone will use a different charger to their current one, so the manufacturer has to provide the one just in case. With the universal charger in place, initially, the charger for a new phone will probably be different to the charger the consumer already has (no change from before), and then with the next phone purchase, the charger the consumer already has will still be compatible so the phone doesn't need one in the box with it.
In addition, the packaging material from these new models that will be sold separately will have to be accounted for. That's more packaging than we would have seen with chargers sold with the device.
You are forgetting that initially, manufacturers will still be including chargers with the phones. It's only after a few years that they will stop including chargers, so hopefully the number of chargers sold separately should not increase much beyond the level we have currently.
In addition, I agree with Vinea that the USB 3 standard should have been required. This wouldn't be a burden on the manufacturers. One side of the cable could be the micro to the phone, and the other to a USB 3 plug, going into the USB 3 socket on the recharger.
USB 3 plugs and sockets are going to be backwards compatible with USB 2*, so this doesn't matter. The phone with a USB micro socket can use USB 2 or 3 to transfer data, it'll still be compatible with the universal chargers.
*There is an extension to the spec that has a bigger plug/socket (a standard plug/socket + an extra bit), but that doesn't have a micro connector version so it wouldn't be used in phones anyway.
Frankly, I can't see an advantage to the micro USB 2 socket in the charger.
You are mistaken here. The charger is going to have a full-size USB socket, not a micro one. It's the phone that's going to have a micro socket.
I think I get what you were saying. But, the thing you're forgetting is that manufacturers have a history of high turnover in the design of their chargers. You allege that without this agreement, chargers currently in use would be used longer, rather than replaced with the new universal adaptor. This is not correct. Charger "A" will be used until a phone is purchased that uses charger "B" - without the universal charger agreement, it is likely that a consumer's new phone will use a different charger to their current one, so the manufacturer has to provide the one just in case. With the universal charger in place, initially, the charger for a new phone will probably be different to the charger the consumer already has (no change from before), and then with the next phone purchase, the charger the consumer already has will still be compatible so the phone doesn't need one in the box with it.
No, I wasn't saying that. What I was saying is that without this new standard, current design chargers in newly purchased phones/devices would be used for about two years as that's about the average lifetime for most phones, digital music/video players etc.
With the new standard, people won't be buying these devices with the "old" design chargers. They will be buying, separately, the universal chargers, which should last for a good fives years or longer (assuming they're built well), maybe up to eight.
I'm also saying, that, according to what I read in the journals, newer design, more efficient chargers that sense if a device is connected, will be on the market in about two years. These will use no more than a few micro watts when the charged device isn't plugged into the charger.
My contention is that with this standard pushed back, the old design current chargers will be around another years, then will disappear as new phones etc will be bought, and will be replaced mostly with these new highly efficient, low leakage models. But with this standard in place, the new universal chargers resulting from it will begin to replace the old chargers earlier. But these won't be the newer efficient models, and with the long lifetime of these units, they won't be replaced by the new efficient ones for far longer. So we'll have at least two more years of old technology chargers to contend with.
Is that clearer?
You are forgetting that initially, manufacturers will still be including chargers with the phones. It's only after a few years that they will stop including chargers, so hopefully the number of chargers sold separately should not increase much beyond the level we have currently.
I realize that, but these will be the old models dressed up with the new plugs, all the same output. But we will still see separate chargers sold after a couple of years.
USB 3 plugs and sockets are going to be backwards compatible with USB 2*, so this doesn't matter. The phone with a USB micro socket can use USB 2 or 3 to transfer data, it'll still be compatible with the universal chargers.
*There is an extension to the spec that has a bigger plug/socket (a standard plug/socket + an extra bit), but that doesn't have a micro connector version so it wouldn't be used in phones anyway.
It doesn't matter what the socket on the phone is, some are micro USB now. As long as it's USB 3.
This is where it gets confusing, as some will be compatible and some won't. At least, as far as I know, the B plugs will work on USB 3 sockets, but not the other way around. I'm not sure about any of the others, I'd have to look it up.
You are mistaken here. The charger is going to have a full-size USB socket, not a micro one. It's the phone that's going to have a micro socket.
At least partly. It seems from some photo's, that not all chargers will have a cable that disconnects at all. I know this connector will be on the phone. I've stated that.
Is that clearer?
Ah! OK, gotcha!
The standard isn't going to come into full force until 2012 or something so I don't think you need to worry. The likelihood is that the new universal adaptors shipped in the box with new phones will have very low standby power consumption.
It doesn't matter what the socket on the phone is, some are micro USB now. As long as it's USB 3.
This is where it gets confusing, as some will be compatible and some won't. At least, as far as I know, the B plugs will work on USB 3 sockets, but not the other way around. I'm not sure about any of the others, I'd have to look it up.
But this is the beauty of USB, it's backwards and forwards compatible. Got a phone with USB 2 socket and a computer with USB 3? That'll work (at USB 2 speeds). Got a phone with USB 3, computer with USB 3 and a charger with USB 2 socket? That'll work too - the data will go at USB 3 speeds, and the charger will still charge, because you can still use the USB 3 cable to connect the phone to the charger.
At least partly. It seems from some photo's, that not all chargers will have a cable that disconnects at all. I know this connector will be on the phone. I've stated that.
Someone already posted that part of the spec. is that the universal charger will have a full-size USB port, not a built-in cable.
I was responding to what you said, which was (bold added by me):
Frankly, I can't see an advantage to the micro USB 2 socket in the charger.
Maybe you didn't mean to write that?
As Mr.H has already said, induction is inefficient. For it to work really well, you need very close coupling, and that's just not possible with devices like these. Even at it's practical best, it will noticeably lag something with an electrical connection. And even the generation of power by induction is inefficient.
So, convenient, but not environmental. And the Pre gets terribly hot from this, which could mean shortened component lifetime.
I was wondering when our police guy would get personal trying to shut me out. Fat chance.
One more try - I took out the "induction" for now. How about this concept:
http://www.wildcharge.com/index.cfm/...e_Products.htm
I was wondering when our police guy would get personal trying to shut me out. Fat chance.
One more try - I took out the "induction" for now. How about this concept:
http://www.wildcharge.com/index.cfm/...e_Products.htm
That is certainly better. Much cleverer than induction-based charging and with better power efficiency.
However, it adds bulk to the phone (even if you built it in, it looks like it would add bulk) and the pad itself looks like it probably requires more raw materials than a normal wired charger.
Having said that, one of those pads for a large family would be great - everyone gets home and drops their phone on the pad - one pad plugged into the wall instead of several adaptors.
USB 3 plugs and sockets are going to be backwards compatible with USB 2*, so this doesn't matter. The phone with a USB micro socket can use USB 2 or 3 to transfer data, it'll still be compatible with the universal chargers.
*There is an extension to the spec that has a bigger plug/socket (a standard plug/socket + an extra bit), but that doesn't have a micro connector version so it wouldn't be used in phones anyway.
The diagrams of the USB 3 micro connector is longer than the USB 2 micro because it has the USB2 micro as half.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/05...ide/print.html
A phone with just usb2 micro won't be able to do usb 3 data transfers since it wont have the lines.
The spec looks fine now really. Companies can upgrade to USB 3 when they are ready.
The diagrams of the USB 3 micro connector is longer than the USB 2 micro because it has the USB2 micro as half.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/05...ide/print.html
A phone with just usb2 micro won't be able to do usb 3 data transfers since it wont have the lines.
The spec looks fine now really. Companies can upgrade to USB 3 when they are ready.
Ah, thanks for that. I had begun to worry that I was talking nonsense about USB 3 micro connectors. And I was. But the key here is that you can plug a USB 2 micro plug into a USB 3 micro socket, so as you say phones can move to USB 3 when ready and they'll still be compatible with the universal charger specification.
Ah! OK, gotcha!
The standard isn't going to come into full force until 2012 or something so I don't think you need to worry. The likelihood is that the new universal adaptors shipped in the box with new phones will have very low standby power consumption.
Yeah, it now seems as though the original time schedule they had won't be met. But still...
But this is the beauty of USB, it's backwards and forwards compatible. Got a phone with USB 2 socket and a computer with USB 3? That'll work (at USB 2 speeds). Got a phone with USB 3, computer with USB 3 and a charger with USB 2 socket? That'll work too - the data will go at USB 3 speeds, and the charger will still charge, because you can still use the USB 3 cable to connect the phone to the charger.
If they use an "a" socket in the recharger.
Someone already posted that part of the spec. is that the universal charger will have a full-size USB port, not a built-in cable.
Yeah, I checked that later. From many of the earlier posts, it looked as though the charger would also have the micro socket, which would have made no sense, and would be too easy to break. I was assuming those posts were correct. My mistake.
I was responding to what you said, which was (bold added by me):
Maybe you didn't mean to write that?
That comes from reading these older incorrect posts without my doing some actual checking, which is something I don't usually do, but I'm rushed for time.
I was wondering when our police guy would get personal trying to shut me out. Fat chance.
One more try - I took out the "induction" for now. How about this concept:
http://www.wildcharge.com/index.cfm/...e_Products.htm
"Police guy"?
So the fact that both Mr. H and I pointed out a negative fact about inductive charging bothers you?
That looks like a nice product. But do you want to add that lump to the back of your devices?
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15582
I had been saying for some time now that we would be seeing some computers using this before 2010.
This is good news, and I hope they extend it to non-smart phones, too.
I also hope the agreement covers more than just the physical port. My current phone uses micro-USB, but it will only charge if you've plugged in an "approved" charger (ie, one purchased from the phone manufacturer). So I can't simply plug it into the USB port on my computer or use another phone's micro-USB charger. So hopefully they put an end to that practice, too!
...
I agree that this is good news of a good trend.
Similarly, some of existing implementations of mobile phone USB charging seem to be rather strict or specialized. As in the case of my son's HTC Touch, which would charge over its mini USB port but only with certain mini-USB cables, and not others.
Not sure if that meant we had some sub-standard cables, or if the HTC Touch electrical engineering did something which pushed at the high-end of USB specifications.
In general, and in this case also, I am all in favor of standardization of commodity parts and ports.
But my point being that even with a new so-called standardization on a USB port, it still may require upgrades to owners' usb cables, hubs, etc. (at least for those of us who may have inadvertently bought 'sub-standard' equipment