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

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 129
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,946member
    crowley said:

    Why does the connector in the phone iPad etc even matter? 


    The EU continues to maintain that a common standard would reduce electronic waste
    This is not possible because it means that the EU must develop new standards of connector (for each and every type of device) no matter what the required specs are.

    There is no requirement for them to get involved the the connecting leads - just the power supply, that is where the majority of waste is.

    I don't consider this is a problem, it's just that it will have some unintended consequences with more energy being wasted in the equipment.
    USB c PD can handle all devices under 100w after that power supply should be built in and use a standard 3 pin socket. Really isn’t hard. 
  • Reply 82 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

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

    iPhones that support wireless charging

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

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

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

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

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




    edited August 2021
  • Reply 83 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    tmay said:

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

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

    Not the first USB name change

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

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

    Know your USB 3.2 versions

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

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

    USB 3.2 VERSIONS

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

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

    Here's another link with a great chart;

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

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

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

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

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



    "Wrong again"
    USB 3.0 is STILL 12 year old technology.
    It's part of the current USB 3.2 specification, is it not? All based on the same technology, only adding more lanes, and/or increasing frequency to gain bandwidth.

    By your definition, the standard would require USB 4.0, since it is in fact, the latest USB Specification. But does every phone need to be Thunderbolt 3 compatible,  or 20 Gbps,  or even 10 Gbps? Of course not. Hence with the standard allows the "12 year old technology" that is 5 Gbps, previous named USB 3.0. Cheap phones have a path to  USB Type C, which is what you have been arguing for, yes?
    edited August 2021 ronn
  • Reply 84 of 129
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,700member
    tmay said:

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

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

    Not the first USB name change

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

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

    Know your USB 3.2 versions

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

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

    USB 3.2 VERSIONS

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

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

    Here's another link with a great chart;

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

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

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

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

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



    "Wrong again"
    USB 3.0 is STILL 12 year old technology.
    And it’s still current. I’ll count you among the people who can’t distinguish between something’s age and it’s usefulness (how old are you again?)
    ronncrowleytmaymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 85 of 129
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,700member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

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

    iPhones that support wireless charging

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

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

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

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

    Also, how much energy is used in a shower? When you take a shower, you use more or less 15L/min of water. So, a shower of 5 minutes will consume 75L of water, which amounts to 9 MJ, or 2.5 kWh. In a nutshell, when you take a hot shower, you consume half a kWh per minute.
    So a year's worth of the energy equivalent of wirelessly charging a phone, consumed in 3 minutes.
    You need to look beyond absolutes. There are hundreds of millions of smartphones. If each one of them wastes energy unnecessarily it adds up to a very significant amount of waste. 
  • Reply 86 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

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

    iPhones that support wireless charging

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

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

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

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

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

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

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

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

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

    EDIT:

    I thought about this some more, and I'm convinced that myself and others believe that Apple is a leader in energy efficiency. This isn't absolutely true, of course, but there is evidence that Apple affords a huge effort to be environmentally friendly with its products. I and others are reassured, perhaps incorrectly, that Apple is taking care of that.
    edited August 2021
  • Reply 87 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:

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

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

    Not the first USB name change

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

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

    Know your USB 3.2 versions

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

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

    USB 3.2 VERSIONS

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

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

    Here's another link with a great chart;

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

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

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

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

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



    "Wrong again"
    USB 3.0 is STILL 12 year old technology.
    And it’s still current. I’ll count you among the people who can’t distinguish between something’s age and it’s usefulness (how old are you again?)
    George is a big proponent of using a device as long as it is technically feasible, so one would think that he would advocate USB 3.2 Gen 1 with a Type C connector. Most other consumers look at replacement as an opportunity to improve productivity, or add features.
  • Reply 88 of 129
    MplsP said:
    dee_dee said:
    Apple with it’s using USB-C for iPads but Lightning for others has no leg to stand on with this argument. It switched its laptops to USB-C creating huge ewaste. Apple likes to argue both sides of the coin when it comes to its costs. Very disingenuous. 
    It switched to USB-C for laptops because now if the cord is damaged you don’t have to replace the entire charger.  Try putting a little more thought into your arguments. 
    right - because there was no way to make a MagSafe cord that was detachable from the power supply brick. /s

    —————-

    are you for or against proprietary technology?  Please put more thought into your argument. 
  • Reply 89 of 129
    LeoMCLeoMC Posts: 84member
    Although some of the EU policies are really dumb, the majority are actually smart; this one would be a smart one.
    There are, for instance, numerous municipalities that have (solar powered) public phone chargers (in parks, inside public institutions, in busy areas); in order for them to be effective, they need to have both USB and lightning cables - a single standard would mean a single cable per charger or half the cost for a service provided to EU citizens.
    I don't know about you, but I tend to like when I get more for less.
    GeorgeBMactmay
  • Reply 90 of 129
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:

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

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

    Not the first USB name change

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

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

    Know your USB 3.2 versions

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

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

    USB 3.2 VERSIONS

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

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

    Here's another link with a great chart;

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

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

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

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

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



    "Wrong again"
    USB 3.0 is STILL 12 year old technology.
    It's part of the current USB 3.2 specification, is it not? All based on the same technology, only adding more lanes, and/or increasing frequency to gain bandwidth.

    By your definition, the standard would require USB 4.0, since it is in fact, the latest USB Specification. But does every phone need to be Thunderbolt 3 compatible,  or 20 Gbps,  or even 10 Gbps? Of course not. Hence with the standard allows the "12 year old technology" that is 5 Gbps, previous named USB 3.0. Cheap phones have a path to  USB Type C, which is what you have been arguing for, yes?

    Yawn....
  • Reply 91 of 129
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:

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

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

    Not the first USB name change

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

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

    Know your USB 3.2 versions

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

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

    USB 3.2 VERSIONS

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

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

    Here's another link with a great chart;

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

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

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

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

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



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

    No, I'm not one of them.   Quite the opposite in fact:   I'm the one taking my 22 year old car to a garage this afternoon to try to keep it going because, despite a nasty little issue, it is quite functional and useful.

    But then, car technology hasn't moved much since I bought that car.
    But, USB technology has moved quite a bit since USB 3.0.  At some point it's worth it to move on.


  • Reply 92 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:

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

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

    Not the first USB name change

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

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

    Know your USB 3.2 versions

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

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

    USB 3.2 VERSIONS

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

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

    Here's another link with a great chart;

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

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

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

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

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



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

    No, I'm not one of them.   Quite the opposite in fact:   I'm the one taking my 22 year old car to a garage this afternoon to try to keep it going because, despite a nasty little issue, it is quite functional and useful.

    But then, car technology hasn't moved much since I bought that car.
    But, USB technology has moved quite a bit since USB 3.0.  At some point it's worth it to move on.

    Move on to what, exactly?

    Is it necessary that a phone have more than 5Gbps bandwidth? If so make your case.

    (This is the part where you post an explanation including details, as if you know what you are talking about.)

    For the record, car technology has moved quite a bit in 22 years. You just don't "see" the difference, evidently.

    BTW, I'm the one with an '84 Ford F-250, which looks like it actually is 37 years old, gets 10 mpg, and runs good enough for what it is used for; hauling materials, and going to the dump.
    edited August 2021
  • Reply 93 of 129
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:

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

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

    Not the first USB name change

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

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

    Know your USB 3.2 versions

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

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

    USB 3.2 VERSIONS

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

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

    Here's another link with a great chart;

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

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

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

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

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



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

    My new favourite comment.
    ronnpatchythepirate
  • Reply 94 of 129
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,426member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

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

    iPhones that support wireless charging

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

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

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

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

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




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

    Step 1: read the impact assessment.

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

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

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

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

    I'm sure the US is still leagues behind in energy efficiency. Apple cannot change that. 
  • Reply 95 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

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

    iPhones that support wireless charging

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

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

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

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

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




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

    Step 1: read the impact assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    ronn
  • Reply 96 of 129
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,426member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

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

    iPhones that support wireless charging

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

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

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

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

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




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

    Step 1: read the impact assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Why not read it?

    There is far more to it than e-waste.

    Here is the EU paper abstract (my bold):

    "The aim of this study is to provide input for the Commission impact assessment accompanying a new initiative to limit fragmentation of charging solutions for mobile phones and similar devices, while not hampering future technological evolution. The study was carried out by Ipsos and Trinomics, with support from Fraunhofer FOKUS (on behalf of a consortium led by Economisti Associati). It is based on research and analysis undertaken between January and November 2019. It employed a mixed-method approach, combining two main tasks: first, defining the problem (including a market and technology analysis), and second, an assessment of the likely impacts of a set of policy options for a possible new initiative. The sources of evidence include primary data (collected via a series of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, a survey of a representative panel of consumers, and the Commission’s Public Consultation) as well as secondary data (including statistics, market data, and literature on a wide range of relevant issues). Where possible, key impacts were estimated quantitatively based on a tailor-made dynamic model of the stock of chargers. Other impacts were assessed qualitatively. The focus of the study was on chargers for mobile phones, and specifically on technical options to work towards a “common” charger and their likely social, environmental and economic impacts. Other issues (including the available policy and regulatory instruments, the possibility to extend the scope to other portable electronic devices, and the issue of decoupling - i.e. the unbundling of charger from phone sales) were also considered"
    edited August 2021
  • Reply 97 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

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

    iPhones that support wireless charging

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

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

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

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

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




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

    Step 1: read the impact assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Why not read it?

    There is far more to it than e-waste.

    Here is the EU paper abstract (my bold):

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

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

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

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

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

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


    135

    Impact Assessment Study on Common Chargers of Portable Devices


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

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

    edited August 2021
  • Reply 98 of 129
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    crowley said:
    MplsP said:
    tmay said:

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

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

    Not the first USB name change

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

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

    Know your USB 3.2 versions

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

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

    USB 3.2 VERSIONS

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

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

    Here's another link with a great chart;

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

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

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

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

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



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

    My new favourite comment.

    You have a pretty weird sense of humor.
  • Reply 99 of 129
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,426member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

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

    iPhones that support wireless charging

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

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

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

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

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




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

    Step 1: read the impact assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Why not read it?

    There is far more to it than e-waste.

    Here is the EU paper abstract (my bold):

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

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

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

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

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

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


    135

    Impact Assessment Study on Common Chargers of Portable Devices


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Other companies are almost ready to bring such innovations to market (for example, wireless laser charging capable of continuously and intelligently keeping multiple devices optimally powered simultaneously). Magsafe doesn't bring anything to market that meets the goals of what the EU is seeking to resolve. 
    MplsP
  • Reply 100 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

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

    iPhones that support wireless charging

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

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

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

    Energy efficiency.

    Speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This has nothing to do with incandescent bulbs, obviously.

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit,

    I threw in this:

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




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

    Step 1: read the impact assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Why not read it?

    There is far more to it than e-waste.

    Here is the EU paper abstract (my bold):

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

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

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

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

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

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


    135

    Impact Assessment Study on Common Chargers of Portable Devices


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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