iPhone & AirPods will require USB-C for charging in the EU by late 2024

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    strongystrongy Posts: 19member
    i am guessing this is what people are talking about iPhone’s new Micro USB Adapter complies with EU charger standards, it did exist.
    auxiowatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 42
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 820member
    It's inane for governments to get involved in mandating tech specs like this... they move much too slowly. Think about it: as of 2024, the EU will mandate the use of a connector first announced TWELVE years prior. Like every other connector that has existed, USB-C would be supplanted by something better--except that innovation will now be stifled by the EU. I suppose we should be grateful the EU got such a late start on this idiocy or we'd all be stuck with USB-A connectors for charging. And this is really about much more than the connectors themselves--the size and shape of connectors dictates, in part, the design of the products that must accommodate them. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 42
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,624member
    charlesn said:
    It's inane for governments to get involved in mandating tech specs like this... they move much too slowly. Think about it: as of 2024, the EU will mandate the use of a connector first announced TWELVE years prior. Like every other connector that has existed, USB-C would be supplanted by something better--except that innovation will now be stifled by the EU. I suppose we should be grateful the EU got such a late start on this idiocy or we'd all be stuck with USB-A connectors for charging. And this is really about much more than the connectors themselves--the size and shape of connectors dictates, in part, the design of the products that must accommodate them. 
    The notion of 'innovation' and it being stifled is specifically mentioned in the EU Q&A document on the proposal. 

    In short, the proposal is not designed to impede innovation and allows for 'better' options to be incorporated at a later date.

    That said, the proposal is targeted towards environmental concerns and consumer benefit, not technological advancement. 

    Apple shipped the same 5W charger in millions of iPhone boxes for ten years.

    Isn't that 'anti' innovation in charging technology? Although it has upped its game in the last couple of years, it still lags behind competitors in charging technology. 
    muthuk_vanalingamAlex1Ndarkvader
  • Reply 24 of 42
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,717member
    avon b7 said:
    Apple shipped the same 5W charger in millions of iPhone boxes for ten years.

    Isn't that 'anti' innovation in charging technology?
    You lost the plot line there.  How did Apple bundling 5W chargers with their phones prevent other manufacturers from innovating their own charging technology?  In fact, you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence:
    Although it has upped its game in the last couple of years, it still lags behind competitors in charging technology. 
    So competitors did innovate and create better charging technology.

    I'm still failing to see the point of this regulation.  I don't know many people who have both an Android phone and an iPhone, so how is this saving the environment?  And once Apple switches from Lightning to USB-C on the iPhone, most iPhone owners are going to have to buy new charging cables, thus adding more environmental waste.

    I get that there's a loud minority of tech enthusiasts who own a plethora of devices, already have USB-C on at least one of them, and want a standard.  But there are many more who simply own a single phone these days.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 42
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,905member
    We don't want government gets into business telling tech companies how they should design the products. That certainly kills Innovation and not good for humanity. But, in this case, ok to have unified charging system long as it covers all bases and have room to improve/innovate. As a side note, USB-C is an Apple invention and that they gave it to the standard bodies and Apple wanted to keep it's name silent from the list of contributors. But, possibly later Apple found that it's lightening port/protocols/etc better so adopted it for it's products.
    Apple may have to support USB-C on iPhone sold in Europe starting 2024. For that reason Apple may move usb-c to all 2023 end release iPhone models, earpods,etc. OR Apple may go port less and the problem is solved for ever.
    edited June 2022
  • Reply 26 of 42
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    wood1208 said:
    We don't want government gets into business telling tech companies how they should design the products. That certainly kills Innovation and not good for humanity. But, in this case, ok to have unified charging system long as it covers all bases and have room to improve/innovate. As a side note, USB-C is an Apple invention and that they gave it to the standard bodies and Apple wanted to keep it's name silent from the list of contributors. But, possibly later Apple found that it's lightening port/protocols/etc better so adopted it for it's products.
    Apple may have to support USB-C on iPhone sold in Europe starting 2024. For that reason Apple may move usb-c to all 2023 end release iPhone models, earpods,etc. OR Apple may go port less and the problem is solved for ever.
    Translation: "Ah don' need da gubberment tellin' me wha kinda charguh ah kin use fer mah phone!"

    This is a regulation and regulation is what governments do. Despite the hysterics by some people here, regulation is not automatically bad; it depends on the regulation and how it's implemented. This seems like it should be a nothing for Apple. Didn't Phil Schiller proclaim "USB is the future!" 6 years ago? Why has it taken Apple so long, then? 

    Alex1Ndarkvader
  • Reply 27 of 42
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,624member
    auxio said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple shipped the same 5W charger in millions of iPhone boxes for ten years.

    Isn't that 'anti' innovation in charging technology?
    You lost the plot line there.  How did Apple bundling 5W chargers with their phones prevent other manufacturers from innovating their own charging technology?  In fact, you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence:
    Although it has upped its game in the last couple of years, it still lags behind competitors in charging technology. 
    So competitors did innovate and create better charging technology.

    I'm still failing to see the point of this regulation.  I don't know many people who have both an Android phone and an iPhone, so how is this saving the environment?  And once Apple switches from Lightning to USB-C on the iPhone, most iPhone owners are going to have to buy new charging cables, thus adding more environmental waste.

    I get that there's a loud minority of tech enthusiasts who own a plethora of devices, already have USB-C on at least one of them, and want a standard.  But there are many more who simply own a single phone these days.
    I'm definitely not contradicting myself. 

    What I mentioned (admittedly somewhat tongue-in-cheek) was Apple specific with regards to charging innovation. 

    It has done little to nothing and shipped a 5W charger in every iPhone box for 10 years while being privvy to exactly who was a new client and who was upgrading. 

    Competitors have been literally years ahead in every single aspect of charging. From battery chemistry, cooling, safety gates... 

    And that includes wireless charging. 

    But my post was not about Android manufacturers. 

    Not shipping a charger in the box could have been done for its cited environmental concerns many, many years prior. That didn't happen and it was likely, IMO, that the reason for shipping such a poor default charging option in the box was part of an 'upsell' strategy of 'your phone can actually charge a bit faster and we can sell you such a charger if you want one'. AFAIK there was never an option to return a 5W charger at purchase time for a discount on the phone itself or against a faster charger. So much for the environment.

    I can understand Apple trying to spin things to its advantage, though even if virtually no one actually swallowed the environmental line. It was something for them to put on a banner.

    Now, this EU proposal is a general move which goes way beyond phones. It aims to harmonise a huge swathe of the small consumer electronics market and it admits that there is no perfect solution.

    If you read through the impact assessments you will find that there are different combinations of pros and contras to be evaluated and no given combination will bring the best result for everyone so the real goal here is to improve the current situation. 

    That is a good enough start. 

    Innovation and accommodating future improvements is absolutely taken into account. 
    MplsPAlex1Nmuthuk_vanalingamdarkvader
  • Reply 28 of 42
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,152member
    Going portless would be a delicious up yours for the Euroweenies.

    the only real true difficulty these days would be wired carplay. But Apple could fix that with a decent wireless carplay adapter that works faster and is more compact than the current crop of third party wireless carplay adapters.  With a USB-A connector of course! (Although seriously, you would just supply two short cables, one with a male USB-c to male USB-A for most cars, and the other a male to male USB-c for those cars that actually have usb-c for the carplay port).
    edited June 2022 watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 42
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 1,146member
    One more year, and the idiotic Lightning connector is dead forever! 

    Apple is incredibly unlikely to build a EU-only iPhone, so we're all going to FINALLY get USB-C!

    It's a shame EU regulators were so slow, and it's a shame US regulators didn't jump on this first. 

    Begone, foul proprietary connectors!
  • Reply 30 of 42
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,036member
    avon b7 said:
    auxio said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple shipped the same 5W charger in millions of iPhone boxes for ten years.

    Isn't that 'anti' innovation in charging technology?
    You lost the plot line there.  How did Apple bundling 5W chargers with their phones prevent other manufacturers from innovating their own charging technology?  In fact, you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence:
    Although it has upped its game in the last couple of years, it still lags behind competitors in charging technology. 
    So competitors did innovate and create better charging technology.

    I'm still failing to see the point of this regulation.  I don't know many people who have both an Android phone and an iPhone, so how is this saving the environment?  And once Apple switches from Lightning to USB-C on the iPhone, most iPhone owners are going to have to buy new charging cables, thus adding more environmental waste.

    I get that there's a loud minority of tech enthusiasts who own a plethora of devices, already have USB-C on at least one of them, and want a standard.  But there are many more who simply own a single phone these days.
    I'm definitely not contradicting myself. 

    What I mentioned (admittedly somewhat tongue-in-cheek) was Apple specific with regards to charging innovation. 

    It has done little to nothing and shipped a 5W charger in every iPhone box for 10 years while being privvy to exactly who was a new client and who was upgrading. 

    Competitors have been literally years ahead in every single aspect of charging. From battery chemistry, cooling, safety gates... 

    And that includes wireless charging. 

    But my post was not about Android manufacturers. 

    Not shipping a charger in the box could have been done for its cited environmental concerns many, many years prior. That didn't happen and it was likely, IMO, that the reason for shipping such a poor default charging option in the box was part of an 'upsell' strategy of 'your phone can actually charge a bit faster and we can sell you such a charger if you want one'. AFAIK there was never an option to return a 5W charger at purchase time for a discount on the phone itself or against a faster charger. So much for the environment.

    I can understand Apple trying to spin things to its advantage, though even if virtually no one actually swallowed the environmental line. It was something for them to put on a banner.

    Now, this EU proposal is a general move which goes way beyond phones. It aims to harmonise a huge swathe of the small consumer electronics market and it admits that there is no perfect solution.

    If you read through the impact assessments you will find that there are different combinations of pros and contras to be evaluated and no given combination will bring the best result for everyone so the real goal here is to improve the current situation. 

    That is a good enough start. 

    Innovation and accommodating future improvements is absolutely taken into account. 
    And yet, the battery life (hrs of usage between charge) on an iPhone has managed to keep up with and often exceeds that of an Android smartphone. Not bad for a company that has done nothing to advance battery charging tech in the past 10 years, while Android smartphone companies battery charging tech are years ahead of Apple.

    That 5W charger first shipped was meant to charge an iPhone overnight. For the average users back then, they only needed to charge their iPhone once every 2 or maybe 3 days. And it was usually done overnight and didn't take more than 4 hours. Even the heavier than average users only needed to charge their iPhone overnight, for it to last all day. And even back then, there were external battery packs that allow you to use your smartphone if the internal battery died. They were not as slim and powerful as todays external battery packs but they were often more practical to carry around, than a charger.

    Did it ever occur to you that there are other ways to increase battery life, which really matter more than charging rate, other than increasing the size of the battery and then having to come up with better charging tech to charge that bigger battery in a reasonable amount of time? Android is not nearly as energy efficient as iOS, so Apple from the get go didn't have to concentrate as much as Android smartphone companies, on battery charging tech to increase the battery life on an iPhone. I bet improve screen tech, has increase battery life on a smartphone, way more than any improvement on battery and battery charging tech. If your phone can last from the time you leave the home and the time you get back, does it really matter that much that you can charge it back to full in less than 30 minutes rather than 4 hours when you're sleeping? 

    That ten year old 5W charger that came with an iPhone can still be used to charge todays iPhone 13. (It slower than the newer iPhone chargers and much slower than a USB C fast charger, but will still charge it full overnight) Can you say the same for the 10 year old Android smartphone charger with the USB mini? How about the 5 year old Android smartphone with USB micro? Were they much more than 5W? Do they still work on the newest Android phones? So even after ten years, that 5W iPhone charger can still be use to charge every iPhone (that Apple still supports) in use. The 10W lightning iPad charger that came with the first iPad Air 9 years ago, was a 10W USB charger that can still be useful today with the proper adapter cable and will work fine charging todays iPhones and iPads. Even with any Android smartphones and the iPad Pro with the USB C port. 

    Some of Samsung phones still come with a 15W USB  C charger. Why? Why not a 25W USB C charger so that it can "fast charge"? Oh, I get it. This so that Samsung can "upsell" and sell a 25W (or higher) charger separately. Because the Samsung phone can charge faster. A 15W charger will barely work on a laptop (with USB C). Most require at least 25W. So another USB C charger will be needed for that laptop. No eventual E-waste saving there. Even though both phone and laptop have a USB C port. 

    And think about this. Over 85% of new iPhone purchasers every year, are buying at least their 2nd iPhone. Which means that with 85% of iPhones sold, the buyer most likely already have a charger for it and more than likely several. There were some outcry, even from some consumers in the EU, when 2 years ago, Apple discontinued providing a charger with each new iPhone purchase. But not nearly enough for Apple to change that policy. That did more to reduce E-waste globally, than this EU policy of forcing all smartphones to have a standard USB C port for charging. But now, when Apple is forced to use an USB C port for charging, a very large percentage of iPhone buyers will have buy a USB C charger (or a couple to have a spare) or Apple might be forced to provide one for at least several years.  

    This has nothing to do with USB C charging technology. The EU couldn't care less about charging rate. All they care about is that every smartphone has the same port. The port itself has nothing to do with charging tech. The charging tech is in the charging board inside the device and/or inside the charger and with software. They are not requiring smartphones to use a USB C charger. One can charge any iPhone with any USB C charger, now. One can use a USB C charger to "fast charge" using the lightning port, on newer model iPhones. (Not as fast as with Android phones with a USB C port, but 30 minutes for 50% charge is not bad.) The best policy would be for the EU to force companies to stop providing chargers and let the consumers determine what charger they need, if they need to buy charger. A charger becomes E-waste when it becomes obsolete, no matter what port it's for. The 15W USB C chargers that still comes with some Samsung phones, are not prone to be any more useful in 10 years, than that 10 year old 5W Apple charger.  But if it still have some use, it will save it from being E-waste. Better it sitting in a drawer full of other chargers, than in a landfill.

    Apple stop providing chargers and Samsung have stop providing chargers on most of their higher end phones. Since it's been nearly the case in the past 5 years, that about 85% of both iPhones and Android new phones purchasers are sticking with the same, they most likely already have a charger for their new phone purchases. So this policy will not have as much impact on reducing E-waste, as the EU politicians think it will. The reason why there are so many chargers stored in consumers drawers, though not technically considered E-waste yet, is because at one time, they got a charger with every purchase of a new phone. And not so much because the chargers in their drawer no longer work with their new phone purchase, because it's for a different charging port. In many cases, even that can easily be remedied by just buying a new adapter cable and not the whole charger. 

    Watch, several years from now, when the EU measure a reduction in E-waste from chargers, they will take credit for it with this policy of forcing all smartphones to use the same USB-C port. When in reality, the reduction will be the result of Apple and Samsung (and probably others) policy to stop providing chargers with each new purchase of their phones. Which had nothing to do with any EU policy. I'm willing bet that if Apple and Samsung were to offer new phone buyers a coupon for 50% off the standard charger, to make up for not including one, nearly every purchaser will use the coupon, whether they needed a charger or not. Wouldn't you? Even if just to have another spare. The thinking being, if every rechargeable device is going to eventually use a USB C port, then there's no harm having extra USB C chargers on hand. Or how about this one. Apple and Samsung provide a new charger with every new phone purchase but offer a $10 rebate if it's mailed back unopened. I bet most will still keep the charger, even if they don't need it right then and will toss it unopened into the drawer with their other chargers not being used. 

    From an E-waste point of view, does it make sense to you that Apple can't just supply a new iPhone with an USB C to lightning cable? This would be the best of both world. Consumers with a USB C charger can charge the iPhone. Even fast charge it if it's one with a high enough wattage  And consumers with an Apple charger can still charge the iPhone. Even with the 10 year old 5W Apple charger.  In the EU, about 25% of smartphone users already have a charger for an iPhone. And in the UK, it's over 40% of smartphone users. 

      
    auxiowatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 42
    docbburkdocbburk Posts: 109member
    To the people ragging on apple or the lightning connector, in the time that apple has used the lightning connector, Samsung has gone through at least 3 if not more connectors, micro usb, the weird two headed usb3, and usbc.  Talk about the waste of getting new cables and dock stations/chargers.  Also, all those ports and cable ends are easier damaged than the lightning.  Given the large size of the existing iPhone user base in Europe, it (the regulations) will initially result in a large amount of E-waste and cost the consumers more, in that they will replace their current lightning dock style charging stations.  While less efficient, I would still skip usbc charging stations and go straight to wireless.  
    Anytime you incorporate politicians/bureaucrats you're going to end up behind the times and stiffening some innovation, unless they are actually funding research.  Looks like they just slammed the door on QC tech and handed the win to PD.  QC is therefore relegated.  What if this kind of thinking was around in the early 80's.  Would they have picked Betamax or VHS? Or late 90's would they have picked DVD or DIVX, or more recently HDDVD, or Blu-ray? 

    I feel it is governmental overreach on the EU agency's part.  In push back against that, removing the port in favor of wireless charging only for the EU market, include €5.00-€10.00 coupon towards a MagSafe wireless charger, and a note about complying with regulations and moving towards the future with wireless and improved waterproofing, would be a pretty slick move. 
    auxiowatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 42
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    docbburk said:

    What if this kind of thinking was around in the early 80's.  Would they have picked Betamax or VHS? Or late 90's would they have picked DVD or DIVX, or more recently HDDVD, or Blu-ray? 
    If they had then there would have been a lot less waste of dead end players and discs.

    Kind of the point.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 33 of 42
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,717member
    darkvader said:
    One more year, and the idiotic Lightning connector is dead forever! 

    Apple is incredibly unlikely to build a EU-only iPhone, so we're all going to FINALLY get USB-C!

    It's a shame EU regulators were so slow, and it's a shame US regulators didn't jump on this first. 

    Begone, foul proprietary connectors!
    They'd begone if the rest of the tech industry actually prioritized good engineering and design above making a quick buck.

    The lightning connector, at the time, was unparalleled in simplicity.  USB was a mess of different connectors for different purposes (I still have about a dozen different USB cables kicking around), and manufacturers simply took whatever the standards committee gave them without question because they wanted to get products to market as quickly and cheaply as possible.  No one bothered to question anything or push the USB standards committee to do better.

    After almost 20 years of plugging away at convoluted specifications and competing designs from different manufacturers, USB-C arrives and everyone forgets the sins of the past.  I don't, and being part of the tech industry, I still see the corner cutting and lack of respect for good engineering every day with the Android operating system.  Tech companies willing to tolerate poorly designed technology because it saves them a buck, under the guise of it being "standard" and "open".  I worked on custom devices before Android existed, and I can definitively say that the quality of the Linux core and the development tools at the time was much much higher (albeit more primitive).

    Until there's an acknowledgement and respect for technology designed with quality and simplicity in mind (not just plugging away at the first convoluted idea which came to mind, making consumers suffer horribly complicated and often buggy technology), there will be space for proprietary solutions.  From what I've seen during my time in the industry, the tech enthusiasts pushing open technology haven't changed since the advent of personal computers.  They still can't see beyond their own enthusiasm for technology itself to the purpose it serves for humanity in general.
    edited June 2022 watto_cobraJFC_PA
  • Reply 34 of 42
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,717member
    avon b7 said:
    auxio said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple shipped the same 5W charger in millions of iPhone boxes for ten years.

    Isn't that 'anti' innovation in charging technology?
    You lost the plot line there.  How did Apple bundling 5W chargers with their phones prevent other manufacturers from innovating their own charging technology?  In fact, you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence:
    Although it has upped its game in the last couple of years, it still lags behind competitors in charging technology. 
    So competitors did innovate and create better charging technology.

    I'm still failing to see the point of this regulation.  I don't know many people who have both an Android phone and an iPhone, so how is this saving the environment?  And once Apple switches from Lightning to USB-C on the iPhone, most iPhone owners are going to have to buy new charging cables, thus adding more environmental waste.

    I get that there's a loud minority of tech enthusiasts who own a plethora of devices, already have USB-C on at least one of them, and want a standard.  But there are many more who simply own a single phone these days.
    I'm definitely not contradicting myself. 

    What I mentioned (admittedly somewhat tongue-in-cheek) was Apple specific with regards to charging innovation. 
    The word "anti" would imply that what Apple did somehow prevented innovation.  It didn't.  Said with tongue-in-cheek or otherwise.

    It has done little to nothing and shipped a 5W charger in every iPhone box for 10 years while being privvy to exactly who was a new client and who was upgrading. 

    Competitors have been literally years ahead in every single aspect of charging. From battery chemistry, cooling, safety gates... 

    And that includes wireless charging. 
    Let's not forget the haphazard nature of this "innovation".  Like the Samsung exploding battery fiasco.  As I mentioned in my previous post, tech companies and engineers often get caught up in the race to get products and "innovations" to market as quickly as possible to gain a competitive edge.  Apple is rarely the first to market with technology, but they're usually the first to get it right with respect to real world benefit to consumers (not just checkbox comparisons).

    But my post was not about Android manufacturers. 

    Not shipping a charger in the box could have been done for its cited environmental concerns many, many years prior. That didn't happen and it was likely, IMO, that the reason for shipping such a poor default charging option in the box was part of an 'upsell' strategy of 'your phone can actually charge a bit faster and we can sell you such a charger if you want one'. AFAIK there was never an option to return a 5W charger at purchase time for a discount on the phone itself or against a faster charger. So much for the environment.

    Could they have dropped the charger earlier?  Sure.  But regardless, they were still the first in the industry to do it.

    Could they have put a more powerful charger in the box?  Sure, but that wouldn't have changed the environmental impact of shipping a charger with every phone.  Not to mention that the vast majority of consumers weren't going out and buying a more powerful charger.  Only tech enthusiasts took the time to look into details like that.  Most of the non-technical people I know either didn't know/care, or they used the USB charger from their iPad or power bar/splitter that they already had purchased (despite your implication of Apple trying to upsell).

    Now, this EU proposal is a general move which goes way beyond phones. It aims to harmonise a huge swathe of the small consumer electronics market and it admits that there is no perfect solution.

    If you read through the impact assessments you will find that there are different combinations of pros and contras to be evaluated and no given combination will bring the best result for everyone so the real goal here is to improve the current situation. 

    That is a good enough start. 
    The move to USB-C was already happening, so the legislation is redundant and a waste of time IMO.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 42
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,624member
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    auxio said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple shipped the same 5W charger in millions of iPhone boxes for ten years.

    Isn't that 'anti' innovation in charging technology?
    You lost the plot line there.  How did Apple bundling 5W chargers with their phones prevent other manufacturers from innovating their own charging technology?  In fact, you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence:
    Although it has upped its game in the last couple of years, it still lags behind competitors in charging technology. 
    So competitors did innovate and create better charging technology.

    I'm still failing to see the point of this regulation.  I don't know many people who have both an Android phone and an iPhone, so how is this saving the environment?  And once Apple switches from Lightning to USB-C on the iPhone, most iPhone owners are going to have to buy new charging cables, thus adding more environmental waste.

    I get that there's a loud minority of tech enthusiasts who own a plethora of devices, already have USB-C on at least one of them, and want a standard.  But there are many more who simply own a single phone these days.
    I'm definitely not contradicting myself. 

    What I mentioned (admittedly somewhat tongue-in-cheek) was Apple specific with regards to charging innovation. 

    It has done little to nothing and shipped a 5W charger in every iPhone box for 10 years while being privvy to exactly who was a new client and who was upgrading. 

    Competitors have been literally years ahead in every single aspect of charging. From battery chemistry, cooling, safety gates... 

    And that includes wireless charging. 

    But my post was not about Android manufacturers. 

    Not shipping a charger in the box could have been done for its cited environmental concerns many, many years prior. That didn't happen and it was likely, IMO, that the reason for shipping such a poor default charging option in the box was part of an 'upsell' strategy of 'your phone can actually charge a bit faster and we can sell you such a charger if you want one'. AFAIK there was never an option to return a 5W charger at purchase time for a discount on the phone itself or against a faster charger. So much for the environment.

    I can understand Apple trying to spin things to its advantage, though even if virtually no one actually swallowed the environmental line. It was something for them to put on a banner.

    Now, this EU proposal is a general move which goes way beyond phones. It aims to harmonise a huge swathe of the small consumer electronics market and it admits that there is no perfect solution.

    If you read through the impact assessments you will find that there are different combinations of pros and contras to be evaluated and no given combination will bring the best result for everyone so the real goal here is to improve the current situation. 

    That is a good enough start. 

    Innovation and accommodating future improvements is absolutely taken into account. 
    And yet, the battery life (hrs of usage between charge) on an iPhone has managed to keep up with and often exceeds that of an Android smartphone. Not bad for a company that has done nothing to advance battery charging tech in the past 10 years, while Android smartphone companies battery charging tech are years ahead of Apple.

    That 5W charger first shipped was meant to charge an iPhone overnight. For the average users back then, they only needed to charge their iPhone once every 2 or maybe 3 days. And it was usually done overnight and didn't take more than 4 hours. Even the heavier than average users only needed to charge their iPhone overnight, for it to last all day. And even back then, there were external battery packs that allow you to use your smartphone if the internal battery died. They were not as slim and powerful as todays external battery packs but they were often more practical to carry around, than a charger.

    Did it ever occur to you that there are other ways to increase battery life, which really matter more than charging rate, other than increasing the size of the battery and then having to come up with better charging tech to charge that bigger battery in a reasonable amount of time? Android is not nearly as energy efficient as iOS, so Apple from the get go didn't have to concentrate as much as Android smartphone companies, on battery charging tech to increase the battery life on an iPhone. I bet improve screen tech, has increase battery life on a smartphone, way more than any improvement on battery and battery charging tech. If your phone can last from the time you leave the home and the time you get back, does it really matter that much that you can charge it back to full in less than 30 minutes rather than 4 hours when you're sleeping? 

    That ten year old 5W charger that came with an iPhone can still be used to charge todays iPhone 13. (It slower than the newer iPhone chargers and much slower than a USB C fast charger, but will still charge it full overnight) Can you say the same for the 10 year old Android smartphone charger with the USB mini? How about the 5 year old Android smartphone with USB micro? Were they much more than 5W? Do they still work on the newest Android phones? So even after ten years, that 5W iPhone charger can still be use to charge every iPhone (that Apple still supports) in use. The 10W lightning iPad charger that came with the first iPad Air 9 years ago, was a 10W USB charger that can still be useful today with the proper adapter cable and will work fine charging todays iPhones and iPads. Even with any Android smartphones and the iPad Pro with the USB C port. 

    Some of Samsung phones still come with a 15W USB  C charger. Why? Why not a 25W USB C charger so that it can "fast charge"? Oh, I get it. This so that Samsung can "upsell" and sell a 25W (or higher) charger separately. Because the Samsung phone can charge faster. A 15W charger will barely work on a laptop (with USB C). Most require at least 25W. So another USB C charger will be needed for that laptop. No eventual E-waste saving there. Even though both phone and laptop have a USB C port. 

    And think about this. Over 85% of new iPhone purchasers every year, are buying at least their 2nd iPhone. Which means that with 85% of iPhones sold, the buyer most likely already have a charger for it and more than likely several. There were some outcry, even from some consumers in the EU, when 2 years ago, Apple discontinued providing a charger with each new iPhone purchase. But not nearly enough for Apple to change that policy. That did more to reduce E-waste globally, than this EU policy of forcing all smartphones to have a standard USB C port for charging. But now, when Apple is forced to use an USB C port for charging, a very large percentage of iPhone buyers will have buy a USB C charger (or a couple to have a spare) or Apple might be forced to provide one for at least several years.  

    This has nothing to do with USB C charging technology. The EU couldn't care less about charging rate. All they care about is that every smartphone has the same port. The port itself has nothing to do with charging tech. The charging tech is in the charging board inside the device and/or inside the charger and with software. They are not requiring smartphones to use a USB C charger. One can charge any iPhone with any USB C charger, now. One can use a USB C charger to "fast charge" using the lightning port, on newer model iPhones. (Not as fast as with Android phones with a USB C port, but 30 minutes for 50% charge is not bad.) The best policy would be for the EU to force companies to stop providing chargers and let the consumers determine what charger they need, if they need to buy charger. A charger becomes E-waste when it becomes obsolete, no matter what port it's for. The 15W USB C chargers that still comes with some Samsung phones, are not prone to be any more useful in 10 years, than that 10 year old 5W Apple charger.  But if it still have some use, it will save it from being E-waste. Better it sitting in a drawer full of other chargers, than in a landfill.

    Apple stop providing chargers and Samsung have stop providing chargers on most of their higher end phones. Since it's been nearly the case in the past 5 years, that about 85% of both iPhones and Android new phones purchasers are sticking with the same, they most likely already have a charger for their new phone purchases. So this policy will not have as much impact on reducing E-waste, as the EU politicians think it will. The reason why there are so many chargers stored in consumers drawers, though not technically considered E-waste yet, is because at one time, they got a charger with every purchase of a new phone. And not so much because the chargers in their drawer no longer work with their new phone purchase, because it's for a different charging port. In many cases, even that can easily be remedied by just buying a new adapter cable and not the whole charger. 

    Watch, several years from now, when the EU measure a reduction in E-waste from chargers, they will take credit for it with this policy of forcing all smartphones to use the same USB-C port. When in reality, the reduction will be the result of Apple and Samsung (and probably others) policy to stop providing chargers with each new purchase of their phones. Which had nothing to do with any EU policy. I'm willing bet that if Apple and Samsung were to offer new phone buyers a coupon for 50% off the standard charger, to make up for not including one, nearly every purchaser will use the coupon, whether they needed a charger or not. Wouldn't you? Even if just to have another spare. The thinking being, if every rechargeable device is going to eventually use a USB C port, then there's no harm having extra USB C chargers on hand. Or how about this one. Apple and Samsung provide a new charger with every new phone purchase but offer a $10 rebate if it's mailed back unopened. I bet most will still keep the charger, even if they don't need it right then and will toss it unopened into the drawer with their other chargers not being used. 

    From an E-waste point of view, does it make sense to you that Apple can't just supply a new iPhone with an USB C to lightning cable? This would be the best of both world. Consumers with a USB C charger can charge the iPhone. Even fast charge it if it's one with a high enough wattage  And consumers with an Apple charger can still charge the iPhone. Even with the 10 year old 5W Apple charger.  In the EU, about 25% of smartphone users already have a charger for an iPhone. And in the UK, it's over 40% of smartphone users. 

      
    The iPhone has managed to keep up? 

    No. It has simply got its act together over the last couple of years. Prior to that it was a different story.

    Now, as for the rest of your essay, it really doesn't have much to do with my point. 

    Battery capacities have increased as users have squeezed more usage out of them. 

    As for efficiencies between operating systems, I very much doubt you could get anywhere near a good comparison. There are simply too many variables involved and there isn't 'one' Android to compare with. Many Android vendors don't simply 'skin' the system. They have entire runtime environments operating on their phones. They have very deep battery optimisation schemes in place.

    Batteries and charging permeate the entire system. Charger, protocol, cables (including chips inside the cables), thermal and voltage management, chemistry, safety gates. 

    Let's go back to 2017. An Android vendor attempted to run a photo comparison to the iPhone X in Alaska. The iPhone X came back with no photos because the battery couldn't handle the cold and the phone shut down. 

    A year earlier (2016) the same vendor announced a major breakthrough in battery composition and extreme temperature scenarios. 

    When you have a research center dedicated to battery technology you can apply breakthroughs to all manner of fields. Cell tower operations in desert or arctic climates. Mobile electronics, data centers (UPS solutions), PV solutions, the automotive industry... 

    Car battery tech can now warn of potentially catastrophic events as far as twenty four hours in advance. 

    The use of graphene has also allowed for major advances in technology. 

    The original 5W Apple charger may have been just fine for a couple of years but should not have stuck around as long as it did. 

    There is no getting away from that.

    The iPhone 6 battery-gate fiasco could probably been avoided if it had shipped with a larger capacity battery from the get go. Users might not have burnt through their cycles as fast and perhaps upgraded before they knew they had issues (or before the Apple system update brought them to the fore). 

    Fast charging allows users to change habits in a good way. I've seen countless iPhone users change their usage habits over the years to try and avoid running out of juice in mid afternoon. Other countless users carrying around, not an external battery, but the charger itself and looking for sockets. 

    Battery backups are nice get out of jail cards for all users but Apple ended up selling battery packs in cases. Clearly the on board batteries weren't fulfilly needs for a while. 

    Not in terms of capacity out of the gate nor charging speed. 

    As I said, it has only been recently that Apple has begun to offer what is regarded as standard in the industry and it still lags in some areas. 

    If the charging function on any phone is standards compliant then yes, an old charger will still charge a modern phone. At least in my experience. You won't get the satisfaction of literally seeing the charge percentage surge as you watch the screen but it will charge. 

    The bottom line is that Apple took its eye off the ball in battery terms and has played catch up recently. 

    As for the EU and e-waste, we know (through the impact assessments) that the move will have an impact. It will also provide the basis for clarity on the user side as it will not be limited to phones and will aim to make the current charging mess decipherable to users. 

    Unbundling of chargers is a given - industry wide. 


    edited June 2022 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 36 of 42
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,717member
    avon b7 said:
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    auxio said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple shipped the same 5W charger in millions of iPhone boxes for ten years.

    Isn't that 'anti' innovation in charging technology?
    You lost the plot line there.  How did Apple bundling 5W chargers with their phones prevent other manufacturers from innovating their own charging technology?  In fact, you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence:
    Although it has upped its game in the last couple of years, it still lags behind competitors in charging technology. 
    So competitors did innovate and create better charging technology.

    I'm still failing to see the point of this regulation.  I don't know many people who have both an Android phone and an iPhone, so how is this saving the environment?  And once Apple switches from Lightning to USB-C on the iPhone, most iPhone owners are going to have to buy new charging cables, thus adding more environmental waste.

    I get that there's a loud minority of tech enthusiasts who own a plethora of devices, already have USB-C on at least one of them, and want a standard.  But there are many more who simply own a single phone these days.
    I'm definitely not contradicting myself. 

    What I mentioned (admittedly somewhat tongue-in-cheek) was Apple specific with regards to charging innovation. 

    It has done little to nothing and shipped a 5W charger in every iPhone box for 10 years while being privvy to exactly who was a new client and who was upgrading. 

    Competitors have been literally years ahead in every single aspect of charging. From battery chemistry, cooling, safety gates... 

    And that includes wireless charging. 

    But my post was not about Android manufacturers. 

    Not shipping a charger in the box could have been done for its cited environmental concerns many, many years prior. That didn't happen and it was likely, IMO, that the reason for shipping such a poor default charging option in the box was part of an 'upsell' strategy of 'your phone can actually charge a bit faster and we can sell you such a charger if you want one'. AFAIK there was never an option to return a 5W charger at purchase time for a discount on the phone itself or against a faster charger. So much for the environment.

    I can understand Apple trying to spin things to its advantage, though even if virtually no one actually swallowed the environmental line. It was something for them to put on a banner.

    Now, this EU proposal is a general move which goes way beyond phones. It aims to harmonise a huge swathe of the small consumer electronics market and it admits that there is no perfect solution.

    If you read through the impact assessments you will find that there are different combinations of pros and contras to be evaluated and no given combination will bring the best result for everyone so the real goal here is to improve the current situation. 

    That is a good enough start. 

    Innovation and accommodating future improvements is absolutely taken into account. 
    And yet, the battery life (hrs of usage between charge) on an iPhone has managed to keep up with and often exceeds that of an Android smartphone. Not bad for a company that has done nothing to advance battery charging tech in the past 10 years, while Android smartphone companies battery charging tech are years ahead of Apple.

    That 5W charger first shipped was meant to charge an iPhone overnight. For the average users back then, they only needed to charge their iPhone once every 2 or maybe 3 days. And it was usually done overnight and didn't take more than 4 hours. Even the heavier than average users only needed to charge their iPhone overnight, for it to last all day. And even back then, there were external battery packs that allow you to use your smartphone if the internal battery died. They were not as slim and powerful as todays external battery packs but they were often more practical to carry around, than a charger.

    Did it ever occur to you that there are other ways to increase battery life, which really matter more than charging rate, other than increasing the size of the battery and then having to come up with better charging tech to charge that bigger battery in a reasonable amount of time? Android is not nearly as energy efficient as iOS, so Apple from the get go didn't have to concentrate as much as Android smartphone companies, on battery charging tech to increase the battery life on an iPhone. I bet improve screen tech, has increase battery life on a smartphone, way more than any improvement on battery and battery charging tech. If your phone can last from the time you leave the home and the time you get back, does it really matter that much that you can charge it back to full in less than 30 minutes rather than 4 hours when you're sleeping? 

    That ten year old 5W charger that came with an iPhone can still be used to charge todays iPhone 13. (It slower than the newer iPhone chargers and much slower than a USB C fast charger, but will still charge it full overnight) Can you say the same for the 10 year old Android smartphone charger with the USB mini? How about the 5 year old Android smartphone with USB micro? Were they much more than 5W? Do they still work on the newest Android phones? So even after ten years, that 5W iPhone charger can still be use to charge every iPhone (that Apple still supports) in use. The 10W lightning iPad charger that came with the first iPad Air 9 years ago, was a 10W USB charger that can still be useful today with the proper adapter cable and will work fine charging todays iPhones and iPads. Even with any Android smartphones and the iPad Pro with the USB C port. 

    Some of Samsung phones still come with a 15W USB  C charger. Why? Why not a 25W USB C charger so that it can "fast charge"? Oh, I get it. This so that Samsung can "upsell" and sell a 25W (or higher) charger separately. Because the Samsung phone can charge faster. A 15W charger will barely work on a laptop (with USB C). Most require at least 25W. So another USB C charger will be needed for that laptop. No eventual E-waste saving there. Even though both phone and laptop have a USB C port. 

    And think about this. Over 85% of new iPhone purchasers every year, are buying at least their 2nd iPhone. Which means that with 85% of iPhones sold, the buyer most likely already have a charger for it and more than likely several. There were some outcry, even from some consumers in the EU, when 2 years ago, Apple discontinued providing a charger with each new iPhone purchase. But not nearly enough for Apple to change that policy. That did more to reduce E-waste globally, than this EU policy of forcing all smartphones to have a standard USB C port for charging. But now, when Apple is forced to use an USB C port for charging, a very large percentage of iPhone buyers will have buy a USB C charger (or a couple to have a spare) or Apple might be forced to provide one for at least several years.  

    This has nothing to do with USB C charging technology. The EU couldn't care less about charging rate. All they care about is that every smartphone has the same port. The port itself has nothing to do with charging tech. The charging tech is in the charging board inside the device and/or inside the charger and with software. They are not requiring smartphones to use a USB C charger. One can charge any iPhone with any USB C charger, now. One can use a USB C charger to "fast charge" using the lightning port, on newer model iPhones. (Not as fast as with Android phones with a USB C port, but 30 minutes for 50% charge is not bad.) The best policy would be for the EU to force companies to stop providing chargers and let the consumers determine what charger they need, if they need to buy charger. A charger becomes E-waste when it becomes obsolete, no matter what port it's for. The 15W USB C chargers that still comes with some Samsung phones, are not prone to be any more useful in 10 years, than that 10 year old 5W Apple charger.  But if it still have some use, it will save it from being E-waste. Better it sitting in a drawer full of other chargers, than in a landfill.

    Apple stop providing chargers and Samsung have stop providing chargers on most of their higher end phones. Since it's been nearly the case in the past 5 years, that about 85% of both iPhones and Android new phones purchasers are sticking with the same, they most likely already have a charger for their new phone purchases. So this policy will not have as much impact on reducing E-waste, as the EU politicians think it will. The reason why there are so many chargers stored in consumers drawers, though not technically considered E-waste yet, is because at one time, they got a charger with every purchase of a new phone. And not so much because the chargers in their drawer no longer work with their new phone purchase, because it's for a different charging port. In many cases, even that can easily be remedied by just buying a new adapter cable and not the whole charger. 

    Watch, several years from now, when the EU measure a reduction in E-waste from chargers, they will take credit for it with this policy of forcing all smartphones to use the same USB-C port. When in reality, the reduction will be the result of Apple and Samsung (and probably others) policy to stop providing chargers with each new purchase of their phones. Which had nothing to do with any EU policy. I'm willing bet that if Apple and Samsung were to offer new phone buyers a coupon for 50% off the standard charger, to make up for not including one, nearly every purchaser will use the coupon, whether they needed a charger or not. Wouldn't you? Even if just to have another spare. The thinking being, if every rechargeable device is going to eventually use a USB C port, then there's no harm having extra USB C chargers on hand. Or how about this one. Apple and Samsung provide a new charger with every new phone purchase but offer a $10 rebate if it's mailed back unopened. I bet most will still keep the charger, even if they don't need it right then and will toss it unopened into the drawer with their other chargers not being used. 

    From an E-waste point of view, does it make sense to you that Apple can't just supply a new iPhone with an USB C to lightning cable? This would be the best of both world. Consumers with a USB C charger can charge the iPhone. Even fast charge it if it's one with a high enough wattage  And consumers with an Apple charger can still charge the iPhone. Even with the 10 year old 5W Apple charger.  In the EU, about 25% of smartphone users already have a charger for an iPhone. And in the UK, it's over 40% of smartphone users. 

      
    The iPhone has managed to keep up? 

    No. It has simply got its act together over the last couple of years. Prior to that it was a different story.

    Now, as for the rest of your essay, it really doesn't have much to do with my point. 

    Battery capacities have increased as users have squeezed more usage out of them. 

    As for efficiencies between operating systems, I very much doubt you could get anywhere near a good comparison. There are simply too many variables involved and there isn't 'one' Android to compare with. Many Android vendors don't simply 'skin' the system. They have entire runtime environments operating on their phones. They have very deep battery optimisation schemes in place.

    Batteries and charging permeate the entire system. Charger, protocol, cables (including chips inside the cables), thermal and voltage management, chemistry, safety gates. 

    Let's go back to 2017. An Android vendor attempted to run a photo comparison to the iPhone X in Alaska. The iPhone X came back with no photos because the battery couldn't handle the cold and the phone shut down. 

    A year earlier (2016) the same vendor announced a major breakthrough in battery composition and extreme temperature scenarios. 

    When you have a research center dedicated to battery technology you can apply breakthroughs to all manner of fields. Cell tower operations in desert or arctic climates. Mobile electronics, data centers (UPS solutions), PV solutions, the automotive industry... 

    Car battery tech can now warn of potentially catastrophic events as far as twenty four hours in advance. 

    The use of graphene has also allowed for major advances in technology. 

    The original 5W Apple charger may have been just fine for a couple of years but should not have stuck around as long as it did. 

    There is no getting away from that.

    The iPhone 6 battery-gate fiasco could probably been avoided if it had shipped with a larger capacity battery from the get go. Users might not have burnt through their cycles as fast and perhaps upgraded before they knew they had issues (or before the Apple system update brought them to the fore). 

    Fast charging allows users to change habits in a good way. I've seen countless iPhone users change their usage habits over the years to try and avoid running out of juice in mid afternoon. Other countless users carrying around, not an external battery, but the charger itself and looking for sockets. 

    Battery backups are nice get out of jail cards for all users but Apple ended up selling battery packs in cases. Clearly the on board batteries weren't fulfilly needs for a while. 

    Not in terms of capacity out of the gate nor charging speed. 

    As I said, it has only been recently that Apple has begun to offer what is regarded as standard in the industry and it still lags in some areas. 

    If the charging function on any phone is standards compliant then yes, an old charger will still charge a modern phone. At least in my experience. You won't get the satisfaction of literally seeing the charge percentage surge as you watch the screen but it will charge. 

    The bottom line is that Apple took its eye off the ball in battery terms and has played catch up recently. 

    As for the EU and e-waste, we know (through the impact assessments) that the move will have an impact. It will also provide the basis for clarity on the user side as it will not be limited to phones and will aim to make the current charging mess decipherable to users. 

    Unbundling of chargers is a given - industry wide. 


    That's a lot of words just to fixate on one technical detail myopically: the battery.

    You only look to the materials, capacity, and charging ability.  What you likely don't understand is that the way the operating system performs power management is also incredibly important.

    I was at the tech talk where Bud Tribble explained how iOS minimized power loss by coalescing interrupts to minimize on/off transitions, which is where the majority of power is wasted in devices.  I knew very little about power management, but the clarity and simplicity of his design was brilliant.  Something someone who was only fixated on one way of looking at the world, like battery materials, would never come up with.
    edited June 2022 watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 42
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,717member

    As for efficiencies between operating systems, I very much doubt you could get anywhere near a good comparison. There are simply too many variables involved and there isn't 'one' Android to compare with. Many Android vendors don't simply 'skin' the system. They have entire runtime environments operating on their phones. They have very deep battery optimisation schemes in place.
    And yet the Kotlin/Java runtime which most Android apps use is still quite inefficient in terms of the actual number of instructions executed on the CPU to perform a task (as well as memory usage) compared to the Swift/Obj-C runtime used by most iOS apps.  This can't be ignored when considering power consumption.

    While I couldn't find a direct comparison of Swift to Kotlin, I did find this research paper which studied the effects of the switch from Java to Kotlin.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 42
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,624member
    auxio said:
    avon b7 said:
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    auxio said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple shipped the same 5W charger in millions of iPhone boxes for ten years.

    Isn't that 'anti' innovation in charging technology?
    You lost the plot line there.  How did Apple bundling 5W chargers with their phones prevent other manufacturers from innovating their own charging technology?  In fact, you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence:
    Although it has upped its game in the last couple of years, it still lags behind competitors in charging technology. 
    So competitors did innovate and create better charging technology.

    I'm still failing to see the point of this regulation.  I don't know many people who have both an Android phone and an iPhone, so how is this saving the environment?  And once Apple switches from Lightning to USB-C on the iPhone, most iPhone owners are going to have to buy new charging cables, thus adding more environmental waste.

    I get that there's a loud minority of tech enthusiasts who own a plethora of devices, already have USB-C on at least one of them, and want a standard.  But there are many more who simply own a single phone these days.
    I'm definitely not contradicting myself. 

    What I mentioned (admittedly somewhat tongue-in-cheek) was Apple specific with regards to charging innovation. 

    It has done little to nothing and shipped a 5W charger in every iPhone box for 10 years while being privvy to exactly who was a new client and who was upgrading. 

    Competitors have been literally years ahead in every single aspect of charging. From battery chemistry, cooling, safety gates... 

    And that includes wireless charging. 

    But my post was not about Android manufacturers. 

    Not shipping a charger in the box could have been done for its cited environmental concerns many, many years prior. That didn't happen and it was likely, IMO, that the reason for shipping such a poor default charging option in the box was part of an 'upsell' strategy of 'your phone can actually charge a bit faster and we can sell you such a charger if you want one'. AFAIK there was never an option to return a 5W charger at purchase time for a discount on the phone itself or against a faster charger. So much for the environment.

    I can understand Apple trying to spin things to its advantage, though even if virtually no one actually swallowed the environmental line. It was something for them to put on a banner.

    Now, this EU proposal is a general move which goes way beyond phones. It aims to harmonise a huge swathe of the small consumer electronics market and it admits that there is no perfect solution.

    If you read through the impact assessments you will find that there are different combinations of pros and contras to be evaluated and no given combination will bring the best result for everyone so the real goal here is to improve the current situation. 

    That is a good enough start. 

    Innovation and accommodating future improvements is absolutely taken into account. 
    And yet, the battery life (hrs of usage between charge) on an iPhone has managed to keep up with and often exceeds that of an Android smartphone. Not bad for a company that has done nothing to advance battery charging tech in the past 10 years, while Android smartphone companies battery charging tech are years ahead of Apple.

    That 5W charger first shipped was meant to charge an iPhone overnight. For the average users back then, they only needed to charge their iPhone once every 2 or maybe 3 days. And it was usually done overnight and didn't take more than 4 hours. Even the heavier than average users only needed to charge their iPhone overnight, for it to last all day. And even back then, there were external battery packs that allow you to use your smartphone if the internal battery died. They were not as slim and powerful as todays external battery packs but they were often more practical to carry around, than a charger.

    Did it ever occur to you that there are other ways to increase battery life, which really matter more than charging rate, other than increasing the size of the battery and then having to come up with better charging tech to charge that bigger battery in a reasonable amount of time? Android is not nearly as energy efficient as iOS, so Apple from the get go didn't have to concentrate as much as Android smartphone companies, on battery charging tech to increase the battery life on an iPhone. I bet improve screen tech, has increase battery life on a smartphone, way more than any improvement on battery and battery charging tech. If your phone can last from the time you leave the home and the time you get back, does it really matter that much that you can charge it back to full in less than 30 minutes rather than 4 hours when you're sleeping? 

    That ten year old 5W charger that came with an iPhone can still be used to charge todays iPhone 13. (It slower than the newer iPhone chargers and much slower than a USB C fast charger, but will still charge it full overnight) Can you say the same for the 10 year old Android smartphone charger with the USB mini? How about the 5 year old Android smartphone with USB micro? Were they much more than 5W? Do they still work on the newest Android phones? So even after ten years, that 5W iPhone charger can still be use to charge every iPhone (that Apple still supports) in use. The 10W lightning iPad charger that came with the first iPad Air 9 years ago, was a 10W USB charger that can still be useful today with the proper adapter cable and will work fine charging todays iPhones and iPads. Even with any Android smartphones and the iPad Pro with the USB C port. 

    Some of Samsung phones still come with a 15W USB  C charger. Why? Why not a 25W USB C charger so that it can "fast charge"? Oh, I get it. This so that Samsung can "upsell" and sell a 25W (or higher) charger separately. Because the Samsung phone can charge faster. A 15W charger will barely work on a laptop (with USB C). Most require at least 25W. So another USB C charger will be needed for that laptop. No eventual E-waste saving there. Even though both phone and laptop have a USB C port. 

    And think about this. Over 85% of new iPhone purchasers every year, are buying at least their 2nd iPhone. Which means that with 85% of iPhones sold, the buyer most likely already have a charger for it and more than likely several. There were some outcry, even from some consumers in the EU, when 2 years ago, Apple discontinued providing a charger with each new iPhone purchase. But not nearly enough for Apple to change that policy. That did more to reduce E-waste globally, than this EU policy of forcing all smartphones to have a standard USB C port for charging. But now, when Apple is forced to use an USB C port for charging, a very large percentage of iPhone buyers will have buy a USB C charger (or a couple to have a spare) or Apple might be forced to provide one for at least several years.  

    This has nothing to do with USB C charging technology. The EU couldn't care less about charging rate. All they care about is that every smartphone has the same port. The port itself has nothing to do with charging tech. The charging tech is in the charging board inside the device and/or inside the charger and with software. They are not requiring smartphones to use a USB C charger. One can charge any iPhone with any USB C charger, now. One can use a USB C charger to "fast charge" using the lightning port, on newer model iPhones. (Not as fast as with Android phones with a USB C port, but 30 minutes for 50% charge is not bad.) The best policy would be for the EU to force companies to stop providing chargers and let the consumers determine what charger they need, if they need to buy charger. A charger becomes E-waste when it becomes obsolete, no matter what port it's for. The 15W USB C chargers that still comes with some Samsung phones, are not prone to be any more useful in 10 years, than that 10 year old 5W Apple charger.  But if it still have some use, it will save it from being E-waste. Better it sitting in a drawer full of other chargers, than in a landfill.

    Apple stop providing chargers and Samsung have stop providing chargers on most of their higher end phones. Since it's been nearly the case in the past 5 years, that about 85% of both iPhones and Android new phones purchasers are sticking with the same, they most likely already have a charger for their new phone purchases. So this policy will not have as much impact on reducing E-waste, as the EU politicians think it will. The reason why there are so many chargers stored in consumers drawers, though not technically considered E-waste yet, is because at one time, they got a charger with every purchase of a new phone. And not so much because the chargers in their drawer no longer work with their new phone purchase, because it's for a different charging port. In many cases, even that can easily be remedied by just buying a new adapter cable and not the whole charger. 

    Watch, several years from now, when the EU measure a reduction in E-waste from chargers, they will take credit for it with this policy of forcing all smartphones to use the same USB-C port. When in reality, the reduction will be the result of Apple and Samsung (and probably others) policy to stop providing chargers with each new purchase of their phones. Which had nothing to do with any EU policy. I'm willing bet that if Apple and Samsung were to offer new phone buyers a coupon for 50% off the standard charger, to make up for not including one, nearly every purchaser will use the coupon, whether they needed a charger or not. Wouldn't you? Even if just to have another spare. The thinking being, if every rechargeable device is going to eventually use a USB C port, then there's no harm having extra USB C chargers on hand. Or how about this one. Apple and Samsung provide a new charger with every new phone purchase but offer a $10 rebate if it's mailed back unopened. I bet most will still keep the charger, even if they don't need it right then and will toss it unopened into the drawer with their other chargers not being used. 

    From an E-waste point of view, does it make sense to you that Apple can't just supply a new iPhone with an USB C to lightning cable? This would be the best of both world. Consumers with a USB C charger can charge the iPhone. Even fast charge it if it's one with a high enough wattage  And consumers with an Apple charger can still charge the iPhone. Even with the 10 year old 5W Apple charger.  In the EU, about 25% of smartphone users already have a charger for an iPhone. And in the UK, it's over 40% of smartphone users. 

      
    The iPhone has managed to keep up? 

    No. It has simply got its act together over the last couple of years. Prior to that it was a different story.

    Now, as for the rest of your essay, it really doesn't have much to do with my point. 

    Battery capacities have increased as users have squeezed more usage out of them. 

    As for efficiencies between operating systems, I very much doubt you could get anywhere near a good comparison. There are simply too many variables involved and there isn't 'one' Android to compare with. Many Android vendors don't simply 'skin' the system. They have entire runtime environments operating on their phones. They have very deep battery optimisation schemes in place.

    Batteries and charging permeate the entire system. Charger, protocol, cables (including chips inside the cables), thermal and voltage management, chemistry, safety gates. 

    Let's go back to 2017. An Android vendor attempted to run a photo comparison to the iPhone X in Alaska. The iPhone X came back with no photos because the battery couldn't handle the cold and the phone shut down. 

    A year earlier (2016) the same vendor announced a major breakthrough in battery composition and extreme temperature scenarios. 

    When you have a research center dedicated to battery technology you can apply breakthroughs to all manner of fields. Cell tower operations in desert or arctic climates. Mobile electronics, data centers (UPS solutions), PV solutions, the automotive industry... 

    Car battery tech can now warn of potentially catastrophic events as far as twenty four hours in advance. 

    The use of graphene has also allowed for major advances in technology. 

    The original 5W Apple charger may have been just fine for a couple of years but should not have stuck around as long as it did. 

    There is no getting away from that.

    The iPhone 6 battery-gate fiasco could probably been avoided if it had shipped with a larger capacity battery from the get go. Users might not have burnt through their cycles as fast and perhaps upgraded before they knew they had issues (or before the Apple system update brought them to the fore). 

    Fast charging allows users to change habits in a good way. I've seen countless iPhone users change their usage habits over the years to try and avoid running out of juice in mid afternoon. Other countless users carrying around, not an external battery, but the charger itself and looking for sockets. 

    Battery backups are nice get out of jail cards for all users but Apple ended up selling battery packs in cases. Clearly the on board batteries weren't fulfilly needs for a while. 

    Not in terms of capacity out of the gate nor charging speed. 

    As I said, it has only been recently that Apple has begun to offer what is regarded as standard in the industry and it still lags in some areas. 

    If the charging function on any phone is standards compliant then yes, an old charger will still charge a modern phone. At least in my experience. You won't get the satisfaction of literally seeing the charge percentage surge as you watch the screen but it will charge. 

    The bottom line is that Apple took its eye off the ball in battery terms and has played catch up recently. 

    As for the EU and e-waste, we know (through the impact assessments) that the move will have an impact. It will also provide the basis for clarity on the user side as it will not be limited to phones and will aim to make the current charging mess decipherable to users. 

    Unbundling of chargers is a given - industry wide. 


    That's a lot of words just to fixate on one technical detail myopically: the battery.

    You only look to the materials, capacity, and charging ability.  What you likely don't understand is that the way the operating system performs power management is also incredibly important.

    I was at the tech talk where Bud Tribble explained how iOS minimized power loss by coalescing interrupts to minimize on/off transitions, which is where the majority of power is wasted in devices.  I knew very little about power management, but the clarity and simplicity of his design was brilliant.  Something someone who was only fixated on one way of looking at the world, like battery materials, would never come up with.
    Those runtimes I was mentioning, together with a myriad of other optimisation technologies (both in hardware and software) are present on Android and some vendors squeeze efficiencies out of everything they can. Efficiency isn't an Apple only thing. 

    It's is literally impossible to judge which 'system' is more efficient in realworld terms because users determine how much energy will be used and there is no 'one' usage pattern. You simply try to give users the best experience possible and overnight charging doesn't cut it in today's world and hasn't for quite some time. 

    The point is, efficiencies are baked into everything. A huge effort is made to save energy - by everyone. Looking at a particular runtime or language or hardware isn't going to help determine overall values. 

    So, how much energy is a off-Soc 5G modem going to suck up? How efficient are the antenna arrays? The general wireless hardware? Memory controllers and file systems? Acceleration technologies? How effective are the on board energy saving options? Monitoring? 

    I wasn't being myopic. The central point was about battery technology. 


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 39 of 42
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,717member
    avon b7 said:
    auxio said:
    avon b7 said:
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    auxio said:
    avon b7 said:
    Apple shipped the same 5W charger in millions of iPhone boxes for ten years.

    Isn't that 'anti' innovation in charging technology?
    You lost the plot line there.  How did Apple bundling 5W chargers with their phones prevent other manufacturers from innovating their own charging technology?  In fact, you contradicted yourself in the very next sentence:
    Although it has upped its game in the last couple of years, it still lags behind competitors in charging technology. 
    So competitors did innovate and create better charging technology.

    I'm still failing to see the point of this regulation.  I don't know many people who have both an Android phone and an iPhone, so how is this saving the environment?  And once Apple switches from Lightning to USB-C on the iPhone, most iPhone owners are going to have to buy new charging cables, thus adding more environmental waste.

    I get that there's a loud minority of tech enthusiasts who own a plethora of devices, already have USB-C on at least one of them, and want a standard.  But there are many more who simply own a single phone these days.
    I'm definitely not contradicting myself. 

    What I mentioned (admittedly somewhat tongue-in-cheek) was Apple specific with regards to charging innovation. 

    It has done little to nothing and shipped a 5W charger in every iPhone box for 10 years while being privvy to exactly who was a new client and who was upgrading. 

    Competitors have been literally years ahead in every single aspect of charging. From battery chemistry, cooling, safety gates... 

    And that includes wireless charging. 

    But my post was not about Android manufacturers. 

    Not shipping a charger in the box could have been done for its cited environmental concerns many, many years prior. That didn't happen and it was likely, IMO, that the reason for shipping such a poor default charging option in the box was part of an 'upsell' strategy of 'your phone can actually charge a bit faster and we can sell you such a charger if you want one'. AFAIK there was never an option to return a 5W charger at purchase time for a discount on the phone itself or against a faster charger. So much for the environment.

    I can understand Apple trying to spin things to its advantage, though even if virtually no one actually swallowed the environmental line. It was something for them to put on a banner.

    Now, this EU proposal is a general move which goes way beyond phones. It aims to harmonise a huge swathe of the small consumer electronics market and it admits that there is no perfect solution.

    If you read through the impact assessments you will find that there are different combinations of pros and contras to be evaluated and no given combination will bring the best result for everyone so the real goal here is to improve the current situation. 

    That is a good enough start. 

    Innovation and accommodating future improvements is absolutely taken into account. 
    And yet, the battery life (hrs of usage between charge) on an iPhone has managed to keep up with and often exceeds that of an Android smartphone. Not bad for a company that has done nothing to advance battery charging tech in the past 10 years, while Android smartphone companies battery charging tech are years ahead of Apple.

    That 5W charger first shipped was meant to charge an iPhone overnight. For the average users back then, they only needed to charge their iPhone once every 2 or maybe 3 days. And it was usually done overnight and didn't take more than 4 hours. Even the heavier than average users only needed to charge their iPhone overnight, for it to last all day. And even back then, there were external battery packs that allow you to use your smartphone if the internal battery died. They were not as slim and powerful as todays external battery packs but they were often more practical to carry around, than a charger.

    Did it ever occur to you that there are other ways to increase battery life, which really matter more than charging rate, other than increasing the size of the battery and then having to come up with better charging tech to charge that bigger battery in a reasonable amount of time? Android is not nearly as energy efficient as iOS, so Apple from the get go didn't have to concentrate as much as Android smartphone companies, on battery charging tech to increase the battery life on an iPhone. I bet improve screen tech, has increase battery life on a smartphone, way more than any improvement on battery and battery charging tech. If your phone can last from the time you leave the home and the time you get back, does it really matter that much that you can charge it back to full in less than 30 minutes rather than 4 hours when you're sleeping? 

    That ten year old 5W charger that came with an iPhone can still be used to charge todays iPhone 13. (It slower than the newer iPhone chargers and much slower than a USB C fast charger, but will still charge it full overnight) Can you say the same for the 10 year old Android smartphone charger with the USB mini? How about the 5 year old Android smartphone with USB micro? Were they much more than 5W? Do they still work on the newest Android phones? So even after ten years, that 5W iPhone charger can still be use to charge every iPhone (that Apple still supports) in use. The 10W lightning iPad charger that came with the first iPad Air 9 years ago, was a 10W USB charger that can still be useful today with the proper adapter cable and will work fine charging todays iPhones and iPads. Even with any Android smartphones and the iPad Pro with the USB C port. 

    Some of Samsung phones still come with a 15W USB  C charger. Why? Why not a 25W USB C charger so that it can "fast charge"? Oh, I get it. This so that Samsung can "upsell" and sell a 25W (or higher) charger separately. Because the Samsung phone can charge faster. A 15W charger will barely work on a laptop (with USB C). Most require at least 25W. So another USB C charger will be needed for that laptop. No eventual E-waste saving there. Even though both phone and laptop have a USB C port. 

    And think about this. Over 85% of new iPhone purchasers every year, are buying at least their 2nd iPhone. Which means that with 85% of iPhones sold, the buyer most likely already have a charger for it and more than likely several. There were some outcry, even from some consumers in the EU, when 2 years ago, Apple discontinued providing a charger with each new iPhone purchase. But not nearly enough for Apple to change that policy. That did more to reduce E-waste globally, than this EU policy of forcing all smartphones to have a standard USB C port for charging. But now, when Apple is forced to use an USB C port for charging, a very large percentage of iPhone buyers will have buy a USB C charger (or a couple to have a spare) or Apple might be forced to provide one for at least several years.  

    This has nothing to do with USB C charging technology. The EU couldn't care less about charging rate. All they care about is that every smartphone has the same port. The port itself has nothing to do with charging tech. The charging tech is in the charging board inside the device and/or inside the charger and with software. They are not requiring smartphones to use a USB C charger. One can charge any iPhone with any USB C charger, now. One can use a USB C charger to "fast charge" using the lightning port, on newer model iPhones. (Not as fast as with Android phones with a USB C port, but 30 minutes for 50% charge is not bad.) The best policy would be for the EU to force companies to stop providing chargers and let the consumers determine what charger they need, if they need to buy charger. A charger becomes E-waste when it becomes obsolete, no matter what port it's for. The 15W USB C chargers that still comes with some Samsung phones, are not prone to be any more useful in 10 years, than that 10 year old 5W Apple charger.  But if it still have some use, it will save it from being E-waste. Better it sitting in a drawer full of other chargers, than in a landfill.

    Apple stop providing chargers and Samsung have stop providing chargers on most of their higher end phones. Since it's been nearly the case in the past 5 years, that about 85% of both iPhones and Android new phones purchasers are sticking with the same, they most likely already have a charger for their new phone purchases. So this policy will not have as much impact on reducing E-waste, as the EU politicians think it will. The reason why there are so many chargers stored in consumers drawers, though not technically considered E-waste yet, is because at one time, they got a charger with every purchase of a new phone. And not so much because the chargers in their drawer no longer work with their new phone purchase, because it's for a different charging port. In many cases, even that can easily be remedied by just buying a new adapter cable and not the whole charger. 

    Watch, several years from now, when the EU measure a reduction in E-waste from chargers, they will take credit for it with this policy of forcing all smartphones to use the same USB-C port. When in reality, the reduction will be the result of Apple and Samsung (and probably others) policy to stop providing chargers with each new purchase of their phones. Which had nothing to do with any EU policy. I'm willing bet that if Apple and Samsung were to offer new phone buyers a coupon for 50% off the standard charger, to make up for not including one, nearly every purchaser will use the coupon, whether they needed a charger or not. Wouldn't you? Even if just to have another spare. The thinking being, if every rechargeable device is going to eventually use a USB C port, then there's no harm having extra USB C chargers on hand. Or how about this one. Apple and Samsung provide a new charger with every new phone purchase but offer a $10 rebate if it's mailed back unopened. I bet most will still keep the charger, even if they don't need it right then and will toss it unopened into the drawer with their other chargers not being used. 

    From an E-waste point of view, does it make sense to you that Apple can't just supply a new iPhone with an USB C to lightning cable? This would be the best of both world. Consumers with a USB C charger can charge the iPhone. Even fast charge it if it's one with a high enough wattage  And consumers with an Apple charger can still charge the iPhone. Even with the 10 year old 5W Apple charger.  In the EU, about 25% of smartphone users already have a charger for an iPhone. And in the UK, it's over 40% of smartphone users. 

      
    The iPhone has managed to keep up? 

    No. It has simply got its act together over the last couple of years. Prior to that it was a different story.

    Now, as for the rest of your essay, it really doesn't have much to do with my point. 

    Battery capacities have increased as users have squeezed more usage out of them. 

    As for efficiencies between operating systems, I very much doubt you could get anywhere near a good comparison. There are simply too many variables involved and there isn't 'one' Android to compare with. Many Android vendors don't simply 'skin' the system. They have entire runtime environments operating on their phones. They have very deep battery optimisation schemes in place.

    Batteries and charging permeate the entire system. Charger, protocol, cables (including chips inside the cables), thermal and voltage management, chemistry, safety gates. 

    Let's go back to 2017. An Android vendor attempted to run a photo comparison to the iPhone X in Alaska. The iPhone X came back with no photos because the battery couldn't handle the cold and the phone shut down. 

    A year earlier (2016) the same vendor announced a major breakthrough in battery composition and extreme temperature scenarios. 

    When you have a research center dedicated to battery technology you can apply breakthroughs to all manner of fields. Cell tower operations in desert or arctic climates. Mobile electronics, data centers (UPS solutions), PV solutions, the automotive industry... 

    Car battery tech can now warn of potentially catastrophic events as far as twenty four hours in advance. 

    The use of graphene has also allowed for major advances in technology. 

    The original 5W Apple charger may have been just fine for a couple of years but should not have stuck around as long as it did. 

    There is no getting away from that.

    The iPhone 6 battery-gate fiasco could probably been avoided if it had shipped with a larger capacity battery from the get go. Users might not have burnt through their cycles as fast and perhaps upgraded before they knew they had issues (or before the Apple system update brought them to the fore). 

    Fast charging allows users to change habits in a good way. I've seen countless iPhone users change their usage habits over the years to try and avoid running out of juice in mid afternoon. Other countless users carrying around, not an external battery, but the charger itself and looking for sockets. 

    Battery backups are nice get out of jail cards for all users but Apple ended up selling battery packs in cases. Clearly the on board batteries weren't fulfilly needs for a while. 

    Not in terms of capacity out of the gate nor charging speed. 

    As I said, it has only been recently that Apple has begun to offer what is regarded as standard in the industry and it still lags in some areas. 

    If the charging function on any phone is standards compliant then yes, an old charger will still charge a modern phone. At least in my experience. You won't get the satisfaction of literally seeing the charge percentage surge as you watch the screen but it will charge. 

    The bottom line is that Apple took its eye off the ball in battery terms and has played catch up recently. 

    As for the EU and e-waste, we know (through the impact assessments) that the move will have an impact. It will also provide the basis for clarity on the user side as it will not be limited to phones and will aim to make the current charging mess decipherable to users. 

    Unbundling of chargers is a given - industry wide. 


    That's a lot of words just to fixate on one technical detail myopically: the battery.

    You only look to the materials, capacity, and charging ability.  What you likely don't understand is that the way the operating system performs power management is also incredibly important.

    I was at the tech talk where Bud Tribble explained how iOS minimized power loss by coalescing interrupts to minimize on/off transitions, which is where the majority of power is wasted in devices.  I knew very little about power management, but the clarity and simplicity of his design was brilliant.  Something someone who was only fixated on one way of looking at the world, like battery materials, would never come up with.
    Those runtimes I was mentioning, together with a myriad of other optimisation technologies (both in hardware and software) are present on Android and some vendors squeeze efficiencies out of everything they can. Efficiency isn't an Apple only thing. 
    But the thing about vendors who use Android on their systems is that they are limited in what they can do because there are some fundamental design decisions which cannot be changed.  For instance, the decision to use Java as the main development language for Android apps from day 1.  I'll expand after your next point...

    It's is literally impossible to judge which 'system' is more efficient in realworld terms because users determine how much energy will be used and there is no 'one' usage pattern. You simply try to give users the best experience possible and overnight charging doesn't cut it in today's world and hasn't for quite some time. 

    The point is, efficiencies are baked into everything. A huge effort is made to save energy - by everyone. Looking at a particular runtime or language or hardware isn't going to help determine overall values. 
    Oh but it does if nearly every single app running on the system is using that language/runtime.  It doesn't matter how someone is using their Android phone, if every app is written in Java (or Kotlin, which is built on Java), then they'll be subject to the same inefficiencies.  Now I get that Java has been optimized a lot since the days of purely interpreted bytecode (which is definitely far less efficient than native CPU code), but it still has core inefficiencies like garbage collection for memory management, which has been proven to be a less efficient way to manage memory in apps than automatic reference counting (ARC), which is what's used by Swift/Obj-C.

    Let me reiterate the fact that nearly every single app uses this.  So it is important no matter how someone is using their phone.  I get that it's only one part of optimization, but it's an important part nonetheless given how central it is to everything.  And it's not something vendors can change without breaking every app.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 42
    docbburkdocbburk Posts: 109member
    crowley said:
    docbburk said:

    What if this kind of thinking was around in the early 80's.  Would they have picked Betamax or VHS? Or late 90's would they have picked DVD or DIVX, or more recently HDDVD, or Blu-ray? 
    If they had then there would have been a lot less waste of dead end players and discs.

    Kind of the point.
    Unless the regulatory agency picked DIVX, Betamax, or HDDVD.  You are assuming that they would actually pick the tech that won.  DIVX allowed studios to sell movies ultra cheap, but make you pay more if you watched it more than twice.  Not so great!  So if you want to sell a used DIVX disc, the new owner would have at best one play, but more than likely have to pay the studio to play the movie.  That means they will likely just buy a new Disc instead of used = more E waste.  Betamax had a significantly shorter max movie time, therefore would have resulted in more videotapes being made = more E waste.  HDDVD holds significantly less data than Blu-ray = more E waste when considering things like television series, or other collections featuring multiple movies on one disc.  

    On top of all that, the fines they want to try to levy for noncompliance are up to 10% of worldwide revenue?  They have absolutely ZERO right to try to base any fine on profits made outside their territory.  That screams the highest degree of arrogance to me.  Any European company, and the EU would lose their mind if the US did this.  
Sign In or Register to comment.