There won't be any less rechargers in use after this goes into effect
Correct. The benefit is that tens of millions per year won't be made or shipped. That's where the environmental benefit comes in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
and there will continue to be just as many plugged in all the time, likely more over time. It does add up.
This is true. This initiative doesn't alleviate the problem but it doesn't make it any worse, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It seems to me that designing chargers that drop their current draw to almost nothing until the device is plugged in would help a great deal. Right now, virtually no chargers do that, so they are powered all the time, though not delivering the amount of current the device needs. It's still considered to be too much. There are some spectacular numbers about how much current these things draw.
Sure, no load power consumption needs to be addressed, but recent designs have made significant improvements in this regard.
Again, the initiative of having a universal connector and voltage output on chargers has no effect on this. Let's say the spread in output current requirement is 100 mA to 900 mA. You're saying that if the devices that needed less than 900 mA had chargers tailored to their particular needs, instead of 900 mA chargers, that would be better from a power consumption point of view. That's probably true, but the difference is absolutely tiny; it's no where near coming close to the savings made by not making and shipping 162 million chargers every year.
Adopting a phone specific cable doesn't make sense as it just shifts the problem from the charger to the cable. You still can't charge your phone if you don't have the right cable. A simple adaptor that has a male dock connector and a female micro usb port (like in post 11 that you identified) is exactly what I had in mind when I stated that I thought an adaptor is most plausible.
It makes sense because Apple doesn't like to duplicate functionality, it doesn't break compatibility with existing third party products, and Apple likes adaptors. Of course if you lose the adaptor, you are still out of luck, but I don't see Apple getting rid of the dock connector or adding a micro usb port to the iphone while keeping the dock connector (but who knows) anytime soon. I suspect that Apple will support the standard with an adaptor and almost everyone else will have micro usb support without the need for an adaptor right on the phone (after an initial transition period).
Ummm, but you realise that your "adaptor" solution "simply shifts the problem" from the cable to the adaptor?? How is a phone specific cable any different from a phone specific adaptor? (an adaptor is basically just a really short cable at the end of the day)
tbh, i don't think that it will be possible to conform with this agreement without including a micro-USB port on the device itself.
the whole idea here is that the business traveller who gets to his hotel, then realises that he has forgotten his charger is able to ring the concierge and have a "standard" phone charger delivered to his room. if he's forgotten his charger then he's likely to have forgotten his "adaptor" also right? and the concierge is not going to have a spare adaptor, because then he might as well have a spare charger??
EDIT - i note that Apple have said they plan on providing an adaptor. Again, I'm surprised that this would conform with the agreement. I can certainly imagine them releasing an adaptor to ensure that current generation iPhones etc are able to be charged via micro-USB in the future, but to not include a micro-USB port on the device itself seems to almost defeat the point...?
Correct. The benefit is that tens of millions per year won't be made or shipped. That's where the environmental benefit comes in.
This is true. This initiative doesn't alleviate the problem but it doesn't make it any worse, either.
Sure, no load power consumption needs to be addressed, but recent designs have made significant improvements in this regard.
Again, the initiative of having a universal connector and voltage output on chargers has no effect on this. Let's say the spread in output current requirement is 100 mA to 900 mA. You're saying that if the devices that needed less than 900 mA had chargers tailored to their particular needs, instead of 900 mA chargers, that would be better from a power consumption point of view. That's probably true, but the difference is absolutely tiny; it's no where near coming close to the savings made by not making and shipping 162 million chargers every year.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying in general, I'm just not convinced that with this agreement, they've come to the best conclusion as to what should be done. I'm pointing out that this could be a bit early, and was agreed upon now because of fear of government legislation.
This really needs more research. I think they rushed it, and better results would have been obtained if they took some more time.
This really needs more research. I think they rushed it, and better results would have been obtained if they took some more time.
I understand your point, but the simple person in me has a tough time seeing what kind of improvements to the spec could have been made if they took more time? This work started in 2006. I mean it's just a charging connector. They already made the improvement that the same cable can be used for charging and data haven't they? They haven't ruled out USB3.0 have they?
The one thing I do see a problem with is that the connector is not as nice to fuble with in a dark car with your gloves on in -15 degrees Celsius weather as a very simple round plug (á la Nokia's current solution) would have been, but the benefits oveweigh the problems in this case methinks.
What evidence do you have for that? PC games controllers are simpler.
PC Games Controllers are simpler? In what respect? If you can digitise a signal, USB will be able to handle that signal's delivery to the host. Even more so in the case of a mobile device. End of story. MIDI, keyboards, sound cards. How else do they connect to a PC?
Here, I offer a link to a gratuitous example which would never be used on a phone, but can be used to adequately prove the point that PC games controllers through USB can be anything BUT simple - http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/ga...s/320&cl=au,en. I count at least three A/D streams there, eight or so switches? The bandwidth of USB is plenty for providing a game controller.
Quote:
It's pretty clear that the industry doesn't agree with you, otherwise they wouldn't have made such a big deal over licensing Apple's connector.
That makes no sense at all. So what if industry is clamouring over the connector? That in no way supports any assertion that usb is simply not up to it. Your assertion.
It does however support the assertion that industry is clearly very interested in developing for the Apple connector because on the other side of it is one of the most popular consumer devices on the planet.
No argument with that at all. Just the one that suggests that USB somehow isn't up to it, which clearly is not true.
I guess you're probably talking about physical integration with the unit itself. In that respect I would probably agree... although I would be concerned about the physical integrity of the port through its use or misuse in such a manner.
Quote:
Even the much desired game controllers will appear. I'd love to see how they would do this for the Pre, with its USB connector.
I understand your point, but the simple person in me has a tough time seeing what kind of improvements to the spec could have been made if they took more time? This work started in 2006. I mean it's just a charging connector. They already made the improvement that the same cable can be used for charging and data haven't they? They haven't ruled out USB3.0 have they?
The one thing I do see a problem with is that the connector is not as nice to fuble with in a dark car with your gloves on in -15 degrees Celsius weather as a very simple round plug (á la Nokia's current solution) would have been, but the benefits oveweigh the problems in this case methinks.
Regs, Jarkko
The connector is just one problem I see. It's There are other little things about this that I'm not totally comfortable with. It's also the one size fits all proposition that bothers me.
I don't like standards coming out under a cloud like this one is. It was either get this finished, or we'll legislate something that you won't like aspect that makes me feel uncomfortable. Standards can take years, and I get the feeling that most of this work was done at the end, as time was running out.
PC Games Controllers are simpler? In what respect? If you can digitise a signal, USB will be able to handle that signal's delivery to the host. Even more so in the case of a mobile device. End of story. MIDI, keyboards, sound cards. How else do they connect to a PC?
Here, I offer a link to a gratuitous example which would never be used on a phone, but can be used to adequately prove the point that PC games controllers through USB can be anything BUT simple - http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/ga...s/320&cl=au,en. I count at least three A/D streams there, eight or so switches? The bandwidth of USB is plenty for providing a game controller.
That makes no sense at all. So what if industry is clamouring over the connector? That in no way supports any assertion that usb is simply not up to it. Your assertion.
It does however support the assertion that industry is clearly very interested in developing for the Apple connector because on the other side of it is one of the most popular consumer devices on the planet.
No argument with that at all. Just the one that suggests that USB somehow isn't up to it, which clearly is not true.
I guess you're probably talking about physical integration with the unit itself. In that respect I would probably agree... although I would be concerned about the physical integrity of the port through its use or misuse in such a manner.[/QUOTE]
Here's the pinout of the dock connector.
You have to remember that this integrates with the firmware and OS to provide a very complex interface that far exceeds what can be done with USB.
That's not true. Few chargers can power down when not being used. Current still flows through the charger. The only difference is that they aren't delivering the output to the device.
I have lots of wall huggers, and the most recent aren't drawing any less power than the older ones. That's assuming like for like.
The transformer based models consume more power when the device isn't plugged into them than do the electronic models. But all that I've tested do consume enough current so that when they're added together in the tens and hundreds of millions, there is significant power being wasted.
Although they don't totally power down, the current they draw drops to a very low level (say 0.25W). This is a vast improvement on previous generation chargers which often consumed close to their full rated power whether a device was plugged into them or not. Obviously switching off at the wall socket would be better still but we obviously can't control people's behaviour in their homes so we have to take whatever steps are available to mitigate the effect of their actions by making sure the devices they buy are as efficient as possible. One big benefit with this proposal will be that currently some people (I suspect many) may have multiple chargers plugged in for their different devices - in future they will only need to have one, and one that has been specified to have a very low no-load power draw.
Melgross, I really get the impression that you are struggling to find objections to this proposal, and further that this comes from your objection to regulation/standardisation of things in general. I wonder if you've ever considered that maybe you just have a problem with authority full stop? Would you call yourself a libertarian, by any chance?
If you look back through this thread you will find that the majority of posters applaud what they see as a sensible move towards standardisation, which means (amongst other benefits) that there will be many many fewer chargers made, people will only have to carry around with them one charger rather than many, the cable they use will support both data and power, people will probably have only one charger in the wall rather than a number, and the USB-A connector will undoubtedly start popping up in many more places.
Quite honestly I can't see many negatives to put against these significant positives except (from a political point of view) that this is a collective move, which might offend individualists. But the world really isn't black and white, and just as sometimes leaving things to the market is right, sometimes taking collective action is right. It's simply a case of horses for courses unless one is totally hidebound by dogma - which is how I see your posts, I'm afraid.
As far as Apple's dock cable is concerned the proposal does not outlaw it in its current form. It would be non-compliant at the device end but is already compliant at the other end. Apple could choose to put a micro-USB connector on the device and be 100% compliant or keep with the dock connector only and be partially compliant but not outside the proposal.
It seems that Apple is not very cooperative on this point. it is hard to not obey this practice. if not, Apple will lose a great number of customers in Europe. but if it follow this action, it will cost Apple much money to change the USB dock to suit this change. so for Apple, it is really very hard to decide.
No, it will be very easy for Apple to comply. They pretty much do comply currently as the charger end of the cable is already USB-A.
It's also the one size fits all proposition that bothers me.
It has to be one size fits all, otherwise the proposal doesn't work. If you can't charge any phone with any charger, the likelihood is that when people upgrade their phone, they'll need a new adaptor. That's the main thing this proposal is trying to eliminate.
Another benefit is that if you go travelling and forget your adaptor, you can use someone else's without trouble. This also wouldn't work without a "one size fits all" approach.
For a long time i've been wondering when low voltage DC devices would begin to be standardized. An absolutely absurd amount of power is wasted by the billions of AC/DC transformers left perpetually plugged in. To me, this seems like a more significant environmental concern than the discarded transformers themsevles.
Although they don't totally power down, the current they draw drops to a very low level (say 0.25W). This is a vast improvement on previous generation chargers which often consumed close to their full rated power whether a device was plugged into them or not. Obviously switching off at the wall socket would be better still but we obviously can't control people's behaviour in their homes so we have to take whatever steps are available to mitigate the effect of their actions by making sure the devices they buy are as efficient as possible. One big benefit with this proposal will be that currently some people (I suspect many) may have multiple chargers plugged in for their different devices - in future they will only need to have one, and one that has been specified to have a very low no-load power draw.
This is still a lot if power.. It can be better.
I don't see people having less chargers plugged in, because most wall warts are not chargers, but power supplies, which consume much more power than do these chargers.
Melgross, I really get the impression that you are struggling to find objections to this proposal, and further that this comes from your objection to regulation/standardisation of things in general. I wonder if you've ever considered that maybe you just have a problem with authority full stop? Would you call yourself a libertarian, by any chance?
If you look back through this thread you will find that the majority of posters applaud what they see as a sensible move towards standardisation, which means (amongst other benefits) that there will be many many fewer chargers made, people will only have to carry around with them one charger rather than many, the cable they use will support both data and power, people will probably have only one charger in the wall rather than a number, and the USB-A connector will undoubtedly start popping up in many more places.
Quite honestly I can't see many negatives to put against these significant positives except (from a political point of view) that this is a collective move, which might offend individualists. But the world really isn't black and white, and just as sometimes leaving things to the market is right, sometimes taking collective action is right. It's simply a case of horses for courses unless one is totally hidebound by dogma - which is how I see your posts, I'm afraid.
As far as Apple's dock cable is concerned the proposal does not outlaw it in its current form. It would be non-compliant at the device end but is already compliant at the other end. Apple could choose to put a micro-USB connector on the device and be 100% compliant or keep with the dock connector only and be partially compliant but not outside the proposal.
I'm not struggling at all. It's you guys who are being politically correct with the first proposal that comes out who are struggling.
Don't state ridiculous political concepts here as though you know what you are talking about.
If you read what I said carefully, you would see that what I said has nothing to do with that. a simple statement of fact is that companies who are under threat of legislation that might go further than where they want to go will almost always come up with standards that they hope will just make the politicians happy, and not one step further.
This is the way it works. It has nothing to do with my political beliefs, as though you have any idea as to what they are. Something you would, if you had been here long enough.
Just stick to the discussion.
But, from this post of yours, its obvious that you really have nothing to say about the subject itself, and have to attempt to bring politics into it instead. Please don't do that again.
It has to be one size fits all, otherwise the proposal doesn't work. If you can't charge any phone with any charger, the likelihood is that when people upgrade their phone, they'll need a new adaptor. That's the main thing this proposal is trying to eliminate.
Another benefit is that if you go travelling and forget your adaptor, you can use someone else's without trouble. This also wouldn't work without a "one size fits all" approach.
I understand the problem. That doesn't make it any more palatable. I'm hoping that we will get more intelligent chargers in the near future.
For a long time i've been wondering when low voltage DC devices would begin to be standardized. An absolutely absurd amount of power is wasted by the billions of AC/DC transformers left perpetually plugged in. To me, this seems like a more significant environmental concern than the discarded transformers themsevles.
That's one of my main concerns. I'd like to see that addressed as being a bigger problem.
IA simple statement of fact is that companies who are under threat of legislation that might go further than where they want to go will almost always come up with standards that they hope will just make the politicians happy, and not one step further.
OK. The thing that bugged me was that you stated plenty of things, but stopped just short of telling a) what's wrong with the proposal (on technical grounds) b) Your dislike stemming from that it was forced to be done by the EU (or any government for that matter). Altough I'm not 100% sure which pushed for the initiative first, the GSMA or the European Commision.
But my question for you is (just curiosity about your standpoint and nothing to do with Apple)? Would you have preferred, that the EU would have forced an EU standard, that might have taken longer to produce and be a better one (from your criterias which I really don't know yet) or that the purely open market would have done a new standard (would that ever have happened?) or one that was in fact the Apple standard which it refuses to license to other phone manufacturers?
An open standard is nice. However, I really don't like how GSM based signals interfere with a lot of audio and equipment and telephones. It will also induce audible clicks into nearby headphones, connected or otherwise.
But would that be a technical issue, rather than a standards issue?
I find it surprising that the thousands of bright minds in the GSM industry haven't found a solution for the problems you mention.... why do you think that is the case?
OK. The thing that bugged me was that you stated plenty of things, but stopped just short of telling a) what's wrong with the proposal (on technical grounds) b) Your dislike stemming from that it was forced to be done by the EU (or any government for that matter). Altough I'm not 100% sure which pushed for the initiative first, the GSMA or the European Commision.
I never stated that I didn't like it because it was "forced" by the EU. I did state that companies will often come to a proposal when a government states that they should, or that regulation will come into effect. I also stated that companies don't like to be regulated any more than possible by saying that they will try to come out with a proposal that is the most they are willing to give away, but hoping that it will be less than the government will impose.
That's different than saying that I don't like it because the government said that they would do something if the companies didn't.
Do you get the difference?
This COULD have been better done. That's what I'm saying, And for that, more time could have been taken.
Quote:
But my question for you is (just curiosity about your standpoint and nothing to do with Apple)? Would you have preferred, that the EU would have forced an EU standard, that might have taken longer to produce and be a better one (from your criterias which I really don't know yet) or that the purely open market would have done a new standard (would that ever have happened?) or one that was in fact the Apple standard which it refuses to license to other phone manufacturers?
Regs, Jarkko
First of all, this has nothing to do with Apple, at least I'm not disliking it because of anything that may SEEM to have Apple do anything. My dislike is simply because I believe that a better standard could have come about.
I'm really government neutral here. I just want to see better standards. When industry works on their own standards, as they do with issues that have nothing to do with governmental regulation pre se, they often come out with pretty good ones. But not always.
When governments work on standards, they often come out with pretty good solutions, but not always.
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've been involved in this for my own companies, so I have some experience here.
I'm not struggling at all. It's you guys who are being politically correct with the first proposal that comes out who are struggling.
Don't state ridiculous political concepts here as though you know what you are talking about.
If you read what I said carefully, you would see that what I said has nothing to do with that. a simple statement of fact is that companies who are under threat of legislation that might go further than where they want to go will almost always come up with standards that they hope will just make the politicians happy, and not one step further.
This is the way it works. It has nothing to do with my political beliefs, as though you have any idea as to what they are. Something you would, if you had been here long enough.
Just stick to the discussion.
But, from this post of yours, its obvious that you really have nothing to say about the subject itself, and have to attempt to bring politics into it instead. Please don't do that again.
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.
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.
Comments
There won't be any less rechargers in use after this goes into effect
Correct. The benefit is that tens of millions per year won't be made or shipped. That's where the environmental benefit comes in.
and there will continue to be just as many plugged in all the time, likely more over time. It does add up.
This is true. This initiative doesn't alleviate the problem but it doesn't make it any worse, either.
It seems to me that designing chargers that drop their current draw to almost nothing until the device is plugged in would help a great deal. Right now, virtually no chargers do that, so they are powered all the time, though not delivering the amount of current the device needs. It's still considered to be too much. There are some spectacular numbers about how much current these things draw.
Sure, no load power consumption needs to be addressed, but recent designs have made significant improvements in this regard.
Again, the initiative of having a universal connector and voltage output on chargers has no effect on this. Let's say the spread in output current requirement is 100 mA to 900 mA. You're saying that if the devices that needed less than 900 mA had chargers tailored to their particular needs, instead of 900 mA chargers, that would be better from a power consumption point of view. That's probably true, but the difference is absolutely tiny; it's no where near coming close to the savings made by not making and shipping 162 million chargers every year.
Adopting a phone specific cable doesn't make sense as it just shifts the problem from the charger to the cable. You still can't charge your phone if you don't have the right cable. A simple adaptor that has a male dock connector and a female micro usb port (like in post 11 that you identified) is exactly what I had in mind when I stated that I thought an adaptor is most plausible.
It makes sense because Apple doesn't like to duplicate functionality, it doesn't break compatibility with existing third party products, and Apple likes adaptors. Of course if you lose the adaptor, you are still out of luck, but I don't see Apple getting rid of the dock connector or adding a micro usb port to the iphone while keeping the dock connector (but who knows) anytime soon. I suspect that Apple will support the standard with an adaptor and almost everyone else will have micro usb support without the need for an adaptor right on the phone (after an initial transition period).
Ummm, but you realise that your "adaptor" solution "simply shifts the problem" from the cable to the adaptor?? How is a phone specific cable any different from a phone specific adaptor? (an adaptor is basically just a really short cable at the end of the day)
tbh, i don't think that it will be possible to conform with this agreement without including a micro-USB port on the device itself.
the whole idea here is that the business traveller who gets to his hotel, then realises that he has forgotten his charger is able to ring the concierge and have a "standard" phone charger delivered to his room. if he's forgotten his charger then he's likely to have forgotten his "adaptor" also right? and the concierge is not going to have a spare adaptor, because then he might as well have a spare charger??
EDIT - i note that Apple have said they plan on providing an adaptor. Again, I'm surprised that this would conform with the agreement. I can certainly imagine them releasing an adaptor to ensure that current generation iPhones etc are able to be charged via micro-USB in the future, but to not include a micro-USB port on the device itself seems to almost defeat the point...?
Correct. The benefit is that tens of millions per year won't be made or shipped. That's where the environmental benefit comes in.
This is true. This initiative doesn't alleviate the problem but it doesn't make it any worse, either.
Sure, no load power consumption needs to be addressed, but recent designs have made significant improvements in this regard.
Again, the initiative of having a universal connector and voltage output on chargers has no effect on this. Let's say the spread in output current requirement is 100 mA to 900 mA. You're saying that if the devices that needed less than 900 mA had chargers tailored to their particular needs, instead of 900 mA chargers, that would be better from a power consumption point of view. That's probably true, but the difference is absolutely tiny; it's no where near coming close to the savings made by not making and shipping 162 million chargers every year.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying in general, I'm just not convinced that with this agreement, they've come to the best conclusion as to what should be done. I'm pointing out that this could be a bit early, and was agreed upon now because of fear of government legislation.
This really needs more research. I think they rushed it, and better results would have been obtained if they took some more time.
This really needs more research. I think they rushed it, and better results would have been obtained if they took some more time.
I understand your point, but the simple person in me has a tough time seeing what kind of improvements to the spec could have been made if they took more time? This work started in 2006. I mean it's just a charging connector. They already made the improvement that the same cable can be used for charging and data haven't they? They haven't ruled out USB3.0 have they?
The one thing I do see a problem with is that the connector is not as nice to fuble with in a dark car with your gloves on in -15 degrees Celsius weather as a very simple round plug (á la Nokia's current solution) would have been, but the benefits oveweigh the problems in this case methinks.
Regs, Jarkko
What evidence do you have for that? PC games controllers are simpler.
PC Games Controllers are simpler? In what respect? If you can digitise a signal, USB will be able to handle that signal's delivery to the host. Even more so in the case of a mobile device. End of story. MIDI, keyboards, sound cards. How else do they connect to a PC?
Here, I offer a link to a gratuitous example which would never be used on a phone, but can be used to adequately prove the point that PC games controllers through USB can be anything BUT simple - http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/ga...s/320&cl=au,en. I count at least three A/D streams there, eight or so switches? The bandwidth of USB is plenty for providing a game controller.
It's pretty clear that the industry doesn't agree with you, otherwise they wouldn't have made such a big deal over licensing Apple's connector.
That makes no sense at all. So what if industry is clamouring over the connector? That in no way supports any assertion that usb is simply not up to it. Your assertion.
It does however support the assertion that industry is clearly very interested in developing for the Apple connector because on the other side of it is one of the most popular consumer devices on the planet.
No argument with that at all. Just the one that suggests that USB somehow isn't up to it, which clearly is not true.
I guess you're probably talking about physical integration with the unit itself. In that respect I would probably agree... although I would be concerned about the physical integrity of the port through its use or misuse in such a manner.
Even the much desired game controllers will appear. I'd love to see how they would do this for the Pre, with its USB connector.
I understand your point, but the simple person in me has a tough time seeing what kind of improvements to the spec could have been made if they took more time? This work started in 2006. I mean it's just a charging connector. They already made the improvement that the same cable can be used for charging and data haven't they? They haven't ruled out USB3.0 have they?
The one thing I do see a problem with is that the connector is not as nice to fuble with in a dark car with your gloves on in -15 degrees Celsius weather as a very simple round plug (á la Nokia's current solution) would have been, but the benefits oveweigh the problems in this case methinks.
Regs, Jarkko
The connector is just one problem I see. It's There are other little things about this that I'm not totally comfortable with. It's also the one size fits all proposition that bothers me.
I don't like standards coming out under a cloud like this one is. It was either get this finished, or we'll legislate something that you won't like aspect that makes me feel uncomfortable. Standards can take years, and I get the feeling that most of this work was done at the end, as time was running out.
PC Games Controllers are simpler? In what respect? If you can digitise a signal, USB will be able to handle that signal's delivery to the host. Even more so in the case of a mobile device. End of story. MIDI, keyboards, sound cards. How else do they connect to a PC?
Here, I offer a link to a gratuitous example which would never be used on a phone, but can be used to adequately prove the point that PC games controllers through USB can be anything BUT simple - http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/ga...s/320&cl=au,en. I count at least three A/D streams there, eight or so switches? The bandwidth of USB is plenty for providing a game controller.
That makes no sense at all. So what if industry is clamouring over the connector? That in no way supports any assertion that usb is simply not up to it. Your assertion.
It does however support the assertion that industry is clearly very interested in developing for the Apple connector because on the other side of it is one of the most popular consumer devices on the planet.
No argument with that at all. Just the one that suggests that USB somehow isn't up to it, which clearly is not true.
I guess you're probably talking about physical integration with the unit itself. In that respect I would probably agree... although I would be concerned about the physical integrity of the port through its use or misuse in such a manner.[/QUOTE]
Here's the pinout of the dock connector.
You have to remember that this integrates with the firmware and OS to provide a very complex interface that far exceeds what can be done with USB.
http://www.allpinouts.org/index.php/Apple_iPod_dock
http://codeguru.kr/46
That's not true. Few chargers can power down when not being used. Current still flows through the charger. The only difference is that they aren't delivering the output to the device.
I have lots of wall huggers, and the most recent aren't drawing any less power than the older ones. That's assuming like for like.
The transformer based models consume more power when the device isn't plugged into them than do the electronic models. But all that I've tested do consume enough current so that when they're added together in the tens and hundreds of millions, there is significant power being wasted.
Although they don't totally power down, the current they draw drops to a very low level (say 0.25W). This is a vast improvement on previous generation chargers which often consumed close to their full rated power whether a device was plugged into them or not. Obviously switching off at the wall socket would be better still but we obviously can't control people's behaviour in their homes so we have to take whatever steps are available to mitigate the effect of their actions by making sure the devices they buy are as efficient as possible. One big benefit with this proposal will be that currently some people (I suspect many) may have multiple chargers plugged in for their different devices - in future they will only need to have one, and one that has been specified to have a very low no-load power draw.
If you look back through this thread you will find that the majority of posters applaud what they see as a sensible move towards standardisation, which means (amongst other benefits) that there will be many many fewer chargers made, people will only have to carry around with them one charger rather than many, the cable they use will support both data and power, people will probably have only one charger in the wall rather than a number, and the USB-A connector will undoubtedly start popping up in many more places.
Quite honestly I can't see many negatives to put against these significant positives except (from a political point of view) that this is a collective move, which might offend individualists. But the world really isn't black and white, and just as sometimes leaving things to the market is right, sometimes taking collective action is right. It's simply a case of horses for courses unless one is totally hidebound by dogma - which is how I see your posts, I'm afraid.
As far as Apple's dock cable is concerned the proposal does not outlaw it in its current form. It would be non-compliant at the device end but is already compliant at the other end. Apple could choose to put a micro-USB connector on the device and be 100% compliant or keep with the dock connector only and be partially compliant but not outside the proposal.
It seems that Apple is not very cooperative on this point. it is hard to not obey this practice. if not, Apple will lose a great number of customers in Europe. but if it follow this action, it will cost Apple much money to change the USB dock to suit this change. so for Apple, it is really very hard to decide.
No, it will be very easy for Apple to comply. They pretty much do comply currently as the charger end of the cable is already USB-A.
It's also the one size fits all proposition that bothers me.
It has to be one size fits all, otherwise the proposal doesn't work. If you can't charge any phone with any charger, the likelihood is that when people upgrade their phone, they'll need a new adaptor. That's the main thing this proposal is trying to eliminate.
Another benefit is that if you go travelling and forget your adaptor, you can use someone else's without trouble. This also wouldn't work without a "one size fits all" approach.
For a long time i've been wondering when low voltage DC devices would begin to be standardized. An absolutely absurd amount of power is wasted by the billions of AC/DC transformers left perpetually plugged in. To me, this seems like a more significant environmental concern than the discarded transformers themsevles.
Although they don't totally power down, the current they draw drops to a very low level (say 0.25W). This is a vast improvement on previous generation chargers which often consumed close to their full rated power whether a device was plugged into them or not. Obviously switching off at the wall socket would be better still but we obviously can't control people's behaviour in their homes so we have to take whatever steps are available to mitigate the effect of their actions by making sure the devices they buy are as efficient as possible. One big benefit with this proposal will be that currently some people (I suspect many) may have multiple chargers plugged in for their different devices - in future they will only need to have one, and one that has been specified to have a very low no-load power draw.
This is still a lot if power.. It can be better.
I don't see people having less chargers plugged in, because most wall warts are not chargers, but power supplies, which consume much more power than do these chargers.
Melgross, I really get the impression that you are struggling to find objections to this proposal, and further that this comes from your objection to regulation/standardisation of things in general. I wonder if you've ever considered that maybe you just have a problem with authority full stop? Would you call yourself a libertarian, by any chance?
If you look back through this thread you will find that the majority of posters applaud what they see as a sensible move towards standardisation, which means (amongst other benefits) that there will be many many fewer chargers made, people will only have to carry around with them one charger rather than many, the cable they use will support both data and power, people will probably have only one charger in the wall rather than a number, and the USB-A connector will undoubtedly start popping up in many more places.
Quite honestly I can't see many negatives to put against these significant positives except (from a political point of view) that this is a collective move, which might offend individualists. But the world really isn't black and white, and just as sometimes leaving things to the market is right, sometimes taking collective action is right. It's simply a case of horses for courses unless one is totally hidebound by dogma - which is how I see your posts, I'm afraid.
As far as Apple's dock cable is concerned the proposal does not outlaw it in its current form. It would be non-compliant at the device end but is already compliant at the other end. Apple could choose to put a micro-USB connector on the device and be 100% compliant or keep with the dock connector only and be partially compliant but not outside the proposal.
I'm not struggling at all. It's you guys who are being politically correct with the first proposal that comes out who are struggling.
Don't state ridiculous political concepts here as though you know what you are talking about.
If you read what I said carefully, you would see that what I said has nothing to do with that. a simple statement of fact is that companies who are under threat of legislation that might go further than where they want to go will almost always come up with standards that they hope will just make the politicians happy, and not one step further.
This is the way it works. It has nothing to do with my political beliefs, as though you have any idea as to what they are. Something you would, if you had been here long enough.
Just stick to the discussion.
But, from this post of yours, its obvious that you really have nothing to say about the subject itself, and have to attempt to bring politics into it instead. Please don't do that again.
It has to be one size fits all, otherwise the proposal doesn't work. If you can't charge any phone with any charger, the likelihood is that when people upgrade their phone, they'll need a new adaptor. That's the main thing this proposal is trying to eliminate.
Another benefit is that if you go travelling and forget your adaptor, you can use someone else's without trouble. This also wouldn't work without a "one size fits all" approach.
I understand the problem. That doesn't make it any more palatable. I'm hoping that we will get more intelligent chargers in the near future.
This is a fascinating topic...
For a long time i've been wondering when low voltage DC devices would begin to be standardized. An absolutely absurd amount of power is wasted by the billions of AC/DC transformers left perpetually plugged in. To me, this seems like a more significant environmental concern than the discarded transformers themsevles.
That's one of my main concerns. I'd like to see that addressed as being a bigger problem.
IA simple statement of fact is that companies who are under threat of legislation that might go further than where they want to go will almost always come up with standards that they hope will just make the politicians happy, and not one step further.
OK. The thing that bugged me was that you stated plenty of things, but stopped just short of telling a) what's wrong with the proposal (on technical grounds) b) Your dislike stemming from that it was forced to be done by the EU (or any government for that matter). Altough I'm not 100% sure which pushed for the initiative first, the GSMA or the European Commision.
But my question for you is (just curiosity about your standpoint and nothing to do with Apple)? Would you have preferred, that the EU would have forced an EU standard, that might have taken longer to produce and be a better one (from your criterias which I really don't know yet) or that the purely open market would have done a new standard (would that ever have happened?) or one that was in fact the Apple standard which it refuses to license to other phone manufacturers?
Regs, Jarkko
An open standard is nice. However, I really don't like how GSM based signals interfere with a lot of audio and equipment and telephones. It will also induce audible clicks into nearby headphones, connected or otherwise.
But would that be a technical issue, rather than a standards issue?
I find it surprising that the thousands of bright minds in the GSM industry haven't found a solution for the problems you mention.... why do you think that is the case?
OK. The thing that bugged me was that you stated plenty of things, but stopped just short of telling a) what's wrong with the proposal (on technical grounds) b) Your dislike stemming from that it was forced to be done by the EU (or any government for that matter). Altough I'm not 100% sure which pushed for the initiative first, the GSMA or the European Commision.
I never stated that I didn't like it because it was "forced" by the EU. I did state that companies will often come to a proposal when a government states that they should, or that regulation will come into effect. I also stated that companies don't like to be regulated any more than possible by saying that they will try to come out with a proposal that is the most they are willing to give away, but hoping that it will be less than the government will impose.
That's different than saying that I don't like it because the government said that they would do something if the companies didn't.
Do you get the difference?
This COULD have been better done. That's what I'm saying, And for that, more time could have been taken.
But my question for you is (just curiosity about your standpoint and nothing to do with Apple)? Would you have preferred, that the EU would have forced an EU standard, that might have taken longer to produce and be a better one (from your criterias which I really don't know yet) or that the purely open market would have done a new standard (would that ever have happened?) or one that was in fact the Apple standard which it refuses to license to other phone manufacturers?
Regs, Jarkko
First of all, this has nothing to do with Apple, at least I'm not disliking it because of anything that may SEEM to have Apple do anything. My dislike is simply because I believe that a better standard could have come about.
I'm really government neutral here. I just want to see better standards. When industry works on their own standards, as they do with issues that have nothing to do with governmental regulation pre se, they often come out with pretty good ones. But not always.
When governments work on standards, they often come out with pretty good solutions, but not always.
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've been involved in this for my own companies, so I have some experience here.
I did discuss most of what I wasn't happy about.
I'm not struggling at all. It's you guys who are being politically correct with the first proposal that comes out who are struggling.
Don't state ridiculous political concepts here as though you know what you are talking about.
If you read what I said carefully, you would see that what I said has nothing to do with that. a simple statement of fact is that companies who are under threat of legislation that might go further than where they want to go will almost always come up with standards that they hope will just make the politicians happy, and not one step further.
This is the way it works. It has nothing to do with my political beliefs, as though you have any idea as to what they are. Something you would, if you had been here long enough.
Just stick to the discussion.
But, from this post of yours, its obvious that you really have nothing to say about the subject itself, and have to attempt to bring politics into it instead. Please don't do that again.
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.
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.