Personally, I think Apple would have introduced USB-C and retired Lightning in the very near future even if the EU completely didn’t exist, much less pass this law. The average lifespan of a new connector on Apple products is about a decade, and guess how old Lightning is?
I’ll be very, very surprised if Apple doesn’t put USB-C across the line before the law takes effect. For those who point out that USB-C itself is 10 years old, you’re right … but it was given new life when it was made compatible with Thunderbolt, so it likely has another decade (or more) left in it *as a connector standard.*
Smartphones require very low amounts of power compared to computers, so I’m not sure the “cable confusion” the USB-IF has engendered will be too much of an issue on the smartphone level.
Overall, moving to the USB-C standard *for wired charging* is a sound move. I think it would have happened with or without this law, which means from a practical standpoint that the law is irrelevant.
Thinks SCSI, ADB, RS232 serial, mini displayport/vga/DVI connectors, FireWire 400 & 800, audio Minijack, Thunderbolt, and lastly Lightning.
Only one of those is licensed from Apple. All the others are industry standards, and most of them are so old they simply aren't used by anyone these days for personal computing. The only reason that the original iPod used FireWire (IEEE 1394) is because USB 1.0 was not going to have the data speeds or power delivery needed for the iPod.
As for using USB-C on an iPhone because the Mac mini has USB-C, that's a silly argument. I still have secure cameras that use micro-USB-B, which I can use with ease with a USB-A PSU because the cable has different connectors on each end... or do you think that a micro-USB-B connected device from 5 years ago should also use a PSU with micro-USB-B on it so the cable can be reversible end-to-end. If so, I'd like to hear that argument because I've certainly never been confused on which end goes where.
I know some are not proprietary (ADB was. So was the Apple Display Connector (ADC). In addition, Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple and was only standardized industry-wide in Thunderbolt 3, which uses the same USB-C connector.
I don't want USB-C on my iPhone because of a Mac Mini. I want USB-C because I want to use one cable to charge all my devices. The point being that Apple has enacted USB-C on everything except the iPhone, including the Mini. Even my Sony headphones and my Apple Watch 7 use USB-C connectors.
You'd still not be using a single connector as you stated that you have an Apple Watch. The Apple Watch uses an inductive charger as the only way to charge the device.
Its is a good law. Apple was to late to implement the usb-c sooner. And thats not good. USB-C must be stay the standaard. For the environment is good not to change every 10 year! Usb-C is now finaly there on most products. Now change again is to be hypcriet.
"The European Union is, in theory, a force for good across Europe — just ask anyone in Britain now they've found out how much the EU used to do for that country"
I had to laugh at that! The EU member countries comprise of two distinct types: a) the majority poorer ones that want EU subsidies and investment and b) the minority richer ones that want to control the others. The UK originally joined an "economic community", i.e. free-trade association, but the European project quickly transformed into a central bureaucracy that wanted to control every aspect of daily life of over half a billion citizens. Compulsory USB-C is a drop in the ocean compared to the tens of thousands of rules and regulations. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic. The EU 'parliament' is purely a talking shop. The power rests with national governments and none of those wants the EU to be democratic as a democratic EU would take precedence. Taxation without representation. Power without accountability. The EU needs drastic reform to serve its citizens. These are some of the reasons the UK (narrowly) voted to leave the EU.
The USB-C debacle is wonderfully illustrative. The principle is noble - that there should be an open, common standard for device chargers in order to promote interoperability and save the annual disposal of millions of chargers. However, it is not for unelected bureaucrats with no technical knowledge, however well-advised, to be favouring one technical standard over another. It is for a global body such as the International Standards Organisation (ISO) to make suggestions in consultation with all the stakeholders. No, unelected EU bureaucrats will decide and for the EU only. It is not their competence, in every possible sense of the word.
Such it is for the size of bananas, which unit of weight they can be sold in, what you can call your pies, your electrical voltage, the height of your seat, the type of light bulb you allowed to buy, how many hours you can work, etc. tens of thousands of times over. That is what the EU did for us! Reform it drastically and the UK may rejoin. For now, the UK is starting to explore its new freedoms and remake old alliances.
For USB-C I wish it had locking independent like Lightning does. I still wonder if we will get port damage mishandling of USB-C vs cable damage of Lightning. I do like the idea of using one cable between phones. This will not make it do you don’t need multiple cables as USB-A are still everywhere. I can still find the 30pin cables for sale new. I haven’t seen a UPS with USC-C. Most external hard drives I’ve seen are sold with USB-A. Most chargers around, car, wall are USB-A. My 2019 truck has the built in USB-A. Want to use the built in charging ports at a restaurant or airport, then it is most likely USB-A. I’ve been looking for multi port USB-C car chargers at Walmart, truck stops, etc and haven’t found one. I can find lots of multi port USB-A car chargers. I’m not going to give up my Apple 5W USB-A charger anytime soon. The real world is a mess and this law won’t fix it. Apple would have converted to USB-C anyway.
Get yourself out of your tech bubble and look at the real world.
"The European Union is, in theory, a force for good across Europe — just ask anyone in Britain now they've found out how much the EU used to do for that country"
I had to laugh at that! The EU member countries comprise of two distinct types: a) the majority poorer ones that want EU subsidies and investment and b) the minority richer ones that want to control the others. The UK originally joined an "economic community", i.e. free-trade association, but the European project quickly transformed into a central bureaucracy that wanted to control every aspect of daily life of over half a billion citizens. Compulsory USB-C is a drop in the ocean compared to the tens of thousands of rules and regulations. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic. The EU 'parliament' is purely a talking shop. The power rests with national governments and none of those wants the EU to be democratic as a democratic EU would take precedence. Taxation without representation. Power without accountability. The EU needs drastic reform to serve its citizens. These are some of the reasons the UK (narrowly) voted to leave the EU.
The USB-C debacle is wonderfully illustrative. The principle is noble - that there should be an open, common standard for device chargers in order to promote interoperability and save the annual disposal of millions of chargers. However, it is not for unelected bureaucrats with no technical knowledge, however well-advised, to be favouring one technical standard over another. It is for a global body such as the International Standards Organisation (ISO) to make suggestions in consultation with all the stakeholders. No, unelected EU bureaucrats will decide and for the EU only. It is not their competence, in every possible sense of the word.
Such it is for the size of bananas, which unit of weight they can be sold in, what you can call your pies, your electrical voltage, the height of your seat, the type of light bulb you allowed to buy, how many hours you can work, etc. tens of thousands of times over. That is what the EU did for us! Reform it drastically and the UK may rejoin. For now, the UK is starting to explore its new freedoms and remake old alliances.
Just for your information: the EU citizens are all very happy that the UK left. Good riddance. For decades the UK has stalled integration of the other EU countries by abusing their special privileges no other EU country had. It is quite refreshing to see that we can now make real progress. In addition it does not make sense to call EU officials non-elected. They are representatives of an election process. By the way, is the current UK prime minister elected by the people? Did not think so.
There was open acceptance that a perfect solution does not exist. That was laid out very clearly in the impact assessments from the start. They even studied the financial impact on the industry. I definitely wouldn't call it a poor compromise. It's a start.
Every single combination of possible solutions had a negative impact somewhere along the line but just like with WEEE or RoHS, certain higher goals had to be attained.
Those goals are very clearly stated and, even with the necessary compromises, it does not make the law feeble in any way.
The EU even tried to do this without legislation for nearly ten years. Industry did not respond to the liking of the EU and legislation was drawn up. Legislation, again by definition, cannot be cooked up, amended approved and transposed in a short time.
Particularly as this law should not be taken 'alone'. It forms part of a literally huge swathe of upcoming legislation on measures to achieve goals which fall under different umbrellas. Consumer and environmental protections took centre stage in this one.
This is also clearly laid out in the approved text.
The law is designed to make charging easier by reducing fragmentation of not only the physical connection but also the charging protocols. Interoperability is a key objective. It is unwise to focus on Apple and mobile phones, as the law covers a large amount on non-mobile devices too. It will have a major impact on the industry and will definitely overflow into non-EU markets.
"That was another issue, the surfeit of chargers and cables that EU lawmakers complain are incompatible. According to them, people are so incompetent, that borrowing a friend's charger will indubitably suffer from the scourge of incompatibility. As well as e-waste, then, the EU wants to relieve the populace of this burden, by legislating any inconvenience over chargers out of existence."
It has nothing to do with incompetence, at any level, but there are many people out there (Especially older folks that can't see the difference between micro USB, USB-C and even lightning). Harmonization will hugely benefit those people. It also directly resolves the other issues relating to non-phone/tablet charging. Harmonization affects much more than 'mobile' technology. Many more devices will be interoperable in terms of charging.
Charging protocols are another area which the new text deals with, in ensuring that all charger/devices are clearly labeled with what they can deliver. This was specifically mentioned in the impact assessment summary:
"Such harmonisation would be however incomplete, if it is not combined with
requirements regarding the combined sale of radio equipment and their chargers and
information to be provided to end-users. A fragmentation of approaches among the
Member States with respect to the marketing of the categories or classes of radio
equipment concerned and their charging devices would hamper the cross-border trade
in those products, for example by obliging economic operators to repackage their
products depending on the Member State, in which the products are to be supplied.
This would in turn result in increased inconvenience for consumers and would
generate unnecessary e-waste thus offsetting the benefits derived from the
harmonisation of the charging interface and charging communication protocol. It is
therefore necessary to impose requirements to ensure that end-users are not obliged to
purchase a new charging device with each purchase of a new mobile phone or similar
item of radio equipment. To ensure the effectiveness of such requirements, end-users should receive the necessary information regarding the charging characteristics when purchasing a mobile phone or similar item of radio equipment."
Harmonization means settling on a standard. USB-C is currently the only real candidate for a couple of clear reasons:
Again, from the impact assessment summary:
"It is technically feasible to define USB Type-C as the common charging receptacle for
the relevant categories or classes of radio equipment. The USB Type-C technology,
which is being used globally has been adopted at international standardisation level and has been transposed into the European system by the European Committee for
Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) under the European Standard EN IEC
62680-1 series5"
The 'mess' surrounding USB-C should be largely sorted (in charging terms) by the legal requirement to clearly make capabilities known to consumers. The issues relating to data transfer speeds aren't relevant here.
In any case, there were no other prime candidates available. USB-C is already widely deployed worldwide. Standardised and recognized at EU level. Cheap enough to de used in lower end equipment. And has legs for the foreseeable future. The EU has made it perfectly clear that these new requirements are open to refinement to cater to future advances in technology, too. But first things first.
The notion that lightning cable substitution will create more e-waste in the short term is irrelevant. Let's not forget that this law was created precisely due to fragmentation that the likes of lightning brought to market. It is exactly why innovation per se can run against what the EU is seeking. Everyone doing their own thing with scant regard for the consumer and environmental consequences. However, that doesn't mean that innovation and this legislation are incompatible. It was stated in the drafts of the very first impact assessments that innovation should not be stifled by these changes. That aspect has not changed since.
Future innovation in wired charging is accommodated and even mentioned in the text.
Mention of wireless charging is expressly included in the text even though this legislation does not cover it:
"With respect to charging by means other than wired charging, divergent solutions may
be developed in the future, which may have negative impacts on interoperability,
consumer convenience and the environment. Whilst it is premature to impose specific
requirements on such solutions at this stage, the Commission should be able to take
action towards harmonising them in the future, if fragmentation on the internal market is observed."
That is kind of like a shot across the bows to industry. There is no place for fragmentation.
As things stand, this legislation has been designed to resolve various problems. Now we have to wait for results. That will take a few years but the ball is rolling.
Let’s just start with the simple truth: a tech behemoth is STILL using an ancient standard they once invented that is slow and forces us to deal with many cables, and refuses to change.
Even this behemoth is using both standards throughout their own product portfolio for several years now. It’s highly inconsistent. Their new AirPods Pro still have the lighting cable. Their iPads: USB-C. Why? Why??? The argument of “more e-waste short-term” is a moot point since it’s already the case today - Apple designed it.
Secondly, there is nothing that prohibits the EU from amending their own laws with the acceptance of a future standard, granted they actually ARE a new standard (not another propriety AppleConnector 2.0 or SamsungSpeedyCable).
EU was very slow with this law - it took years and years. Apple had even more time to prepare for the inevitable seeing this law being drafted. If they were truly innovative in this respect, they would have abandoned Lightning years ago for a true standard. Instead their arrogance and priority to keep a profitable business around cables alive kept them on this course (sustainable company my ass - that’s just marketing).
And what about this pretentious introduction in respect to the EU. The author has clearly no understanding because it dramatizes this topic so much that it apparently needs to emphasize the EU is “political bureaucracy”. It’s so juvenile.
The author was in the EU for a while, so I'm pretty sure he has a good idea how it works.
There are people that have lived in the United States their whole life and have no idea how government works. So that’s not exactly a credible “comeback”
Let’s just start with the simple truth: a tech behemoth is STILL using an ancient standard they once invented that is slow and forces us to deal with many cables, and refuses to change.
Even this behemoth is using both standards throughout their own product portfolio for several years now. It’s highly inconsistent. Their new AirPods Pro still have the lighting cable. Their iPads: USB-C. Why? Why??? The argument of “more e-waste short-term” is a moot point since it’s already the case today - Apple designed it.
Secondly, there is nothing that prohibits the EU from amending their own laws with the acceptance of a future standard, granted they actually ARE a new standard (not another propriety AppleConnector 2.0 or SamsungSpeedyCable).
EU was very slow with this law - it took years and years. Apple had even more time to prepare for the inevitable seeing this law being drafted. If they were truly innovative in this respect, they would have abandoned Lightning years ago for a true standard. Instead their arrogance and priority to keep a profitable business around cables alive kept them on this course (sustainable company my ass - that’s just marketing).
And what about this pretentious introduction in respect to the EU. The author has clearly no understanding because it dramatizes this topic so much that it apparently needs to emphasize the EU is “political bureaucracy”. It’s so juvenile.
The author was in the EU for a while, so I'm pretty sure he has a good idea how it works.
There are people that have lived in the United States their whole life and have no idea how government works. So that’s not exactly a credible “comeback”
Given that the original claim and argument that boiled down to "I disagree, so I'm going to argue ad homiem that the author is dumb" was ridiculous, it didn't need much.
USB-c versus lighting is not as clear-cut a decision as most posters posit. In my experience (and that of many others) Lightning is a superior connection for charging phones and other low power devices because the connector is more stable and less likely to damage the port it is connected to. There is a more secure connection, and the connector is more water resistant. USB-C is a two-part connector (sleeve and inside) that can be more easily bent out of shape, and because of the sleeve, it can more easily wiggle in a connector and damage the port resulting in expensive repairs. So I prefer lightning for my iPhone, AirPods, mouse, trackpad, etc.
On the other hand, USB-C generally has a faster data connection, and therefore is better for devices transferring a large amount of data.
As for the electronic waste issue, I have have many (dozens) of lightning cables and many (albeit fewer) UBB cables. Moving exclusively to one, will inevitably result in my discarding many cables.
I do not think that the EU (or any other government) should mandate specifications for electronic consumer devices. It can stiffle possible improvements or innovations, and is really not the job of government. Apple is far from a monopoly -- they are not even the leading provider of phones. People can always choose other brands if they want. And governments generally do not have the technical expertise or foresight to make the correct decisions.
The EU law, as written gives Apple until 2025 models to change the port. (It takes effect in November of 2024, but by then Apple will have introduced their 2024 iPhones). I think Apple will switch sooner, but it is not mandated to do so. Indeed if it comes up with phone that charges solely wirelessly, it need not switch at all. (And lightning could continue to be included for data transfer only but I think Apple will adopt a more reasonable solution than that.)
As far as reliability is concern; I have no issue with Lightening connector. I am not sure I can say the same for USB-C. It costs to replace the connector on any Phone.
A single charger format would benefit the world in many ways. From SIGNIFICANTLY reducing e waste to major consumer convenience, it’s a win.
However, a government should never encroach on the private market.
If the EU cared (rather than chose to act as dictators), they would provide a suggestion snd tax incentives for doing this.
The tech companies can get together and decide on the standard - not the government. The government can simply reward that private sector agreement with tax breaks and other incentives.
It’s really, really simple to accomplish good in this world when the motive isn’t muddied by an authoritarian quest for greed and power.
I'd personally like fewer types of cables. I have toolboxs of SCSI and adapters, ADB and PS2, USB flavors, firewire flavors. So if I'm traveling with my laptop and phone, why should I have to have two different cords just for charging? I don't give a rats-ass what a governing body says, or misplaced American-exceptionalism. Give me a simplier life, Apple. Retire the old tech and go by your founder's creed of 'strip away all the unnecessary' to just make it great.
Let’s make this simple. The iPhones all charge wirelessly. The lightning port is for troubleshooting issues and restoration and just happens to charge if needed.
Secondly, there is nothing that prevents the EU from amending their own laws with the acceptance of a future standard, granted it actually IS a new standard (not another propriety AppleConnector or SamsungSpeedyCable).
And how exactly is a new, better standard supposed to arise when it would be illegal to include it in EU-bound product?
Companies invest in R&D for competitive advantage. There will be much less incentive for a company like Apple to invent a new standard and then, rather than include it immediately in a new product, negotiate (for years) with other companies to make it a standard and then convince (after years) the EU to allow this as the new standard. Given the EU's deserve to have a single standard, would they then set a date for the existing standard to be 100% phased out? Twenty years from now, kids will be asking why we still have these clunky, out-moded USB-C plugs/
This article is wrong in so many levels. I keep seeing media and blogs obsessing about Apple but what they fail to see is that I have to keep a cable for my phone, a cable for my headphones, a cable for my computer, a cable for my watch, a cable for my tablet, etc etc… and as me, there’s many others.
I wish this law was approved many years ago and we wouldn’t have to deal with this mess.
What if they do a law next where you have to wear the same shirt and shoes as your neighbors because most of them prefer it that way so you must comply?
That would have an incredible impact on f-waste! Think of how many articles of clothing are discarded every year solely because they are out of fashion. Write your EUMP!
Comments
I’ll be very, very surprised if Apple doesn’t put USB-C across the line before the law takes effect. For those who point out that USB-C itself is 10 years old, you’re right … but it was given new life when it was made compatible with Thunderbolt, so it likely has another decade (or more) left in it *as a connector standard.*
Smartphones require very low amounts of power compared to computers, so I’m not sure the “cable confusion” the USB-IF has engendered will be too much of an issue on the smartphone level.
Overall, moving to the USB-C standard *for wired charging* is a sound move. I think it would have happened with or without this law, which means from a practical standpoint that the law is irrelevant.
I had to laugh at that! The EU member countries comprise of two distinct types: a) the majority poorer ones that want EU subsidies and investment and b) the minority richer ones that want to control the others. The UK originally joined an "economic community", i.e. free-trade association, but the European project quickly transformed into a central bureaucracy that wanted to control every aspect of daily life of over half a billion citizens. Compulsory USB-C is a drop in the ocean compared to the tens of thousands of rules and regulations. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic. The EU 'parliament' is purely a talking shop. The power rests with national governments and none of those wants the EU to be democratic as a democratic EU would take precedence. Taxation without representation. Power without accountability. The EU needs drastic reform to serve its citizens. These are some of the reasons the UK (narrowly) voted to leave the EU.
The USB-C debacle is wonderfully illustrative. The principle is noble - that there should be an open, common standard for device chargers in order to promote interoperability and save the annual disposal of millions of chargers. However, it is not for unelected bureaucrats with no technical knowledge, however well-advised, to be favouring one technical standard over another. It is for a global body such as the International Standards Organisation (ISO) to make suggestions in consultation with all the stakeholders. No, unelected EU bureaucrats will decide and for the EU only. It is not their competence, in every possible sense of the word.
Such it is for the size of bananas, which unit of weight they can be sold in, what you can call your pies, your electrical voltage, the height of your seat, the type of light bulb you allowed to buy, how many hours you can work, etc. tens of thousands of times over. That is what the EU did for us! Reform it drastically and the UK may rejoin. For now, the UK is starting to explore its new freedoms and remake old alliances.
There was open acceptance that a perfect solution does not exist. That was laid out very clearly in the impact assessments from the start. They even studied the financial impact on the industry. I definitely wouldn't call it a poor compromise. It's a start.
Every single combination of possible solutions had a negative impact somewhere along the line but just like with WEEE or RoHS, certain higher goals had to be attained.
Those goals are very clearly stated and, even with the necessary compromises, it does not make the law feeble in any way.
The EU even tried to do this without legislation for nearly ten years. Industry did not respond to the liking of the EU and legislation was drawn up. Legislation, again by definition, cannot be cooked up, amended approved and transposed in a short time.
Particularly as this law should not be taken 'alone'. It forms part of a literally huge swathe of upcoming legislation on measures to achieve goals which fall under different umbrellas. Consumer and environmental protections took centre stage in this one.
This is also clearly laid out in the approved text.
The law is designed to make charging easier by reducing fragmentation of not only the physical connection but also the charging protocols. Interoperability is a key objective. It is unwise to focus on Apple and mobile phones, as the law covers a large amount on non-mobile devices too. It will have a major impact on the industry and will definitely overflow into non-EU markets.
"That was another issue, the surfeit of chargers and cables that EU lawmakers complain are incompatible. According to them, people are so incompetent, that borrowing a friend's charger will indubitably suffer from the scourge of incompatibility. As well as e-waste, then, the EU wants to relieve the populace of this burden, by legislating any inconvenience over chargers out of existence."
It has nothing to do with incompetence, at any level, but there are many people out there (Especially older folks that can't see the difference between micro USB, USB-C and even lightning). Harmonization will hugely benefit those people. It also directly resolves the other issues relating to non-phone/tablet charging. Harmonization affects much more than 'mobile' technology. Many more devices will be interoperable in terms of charging.
Charging protocols are another area which the new text deals with, in ensuring that all charger/devices are clearly labeled with what they can deliver. This was specifically mentioned in the impact assessment summary:
Harmonization means settling on a standard. USB-C is currently the only real candidate for a couple of clear reasons:
Again, from the impact assessment summary:
"It is technically feasible to define USB Type-C as the common charging receptacle for
The 'mess' surrounding USB-C should be largely sorted (in charging terms) by the legal requirement to clearly make capabilities known to consumers. The issues relating to data transfer speeds aren't relevant here.
In any case, there were no other prime candidates available. USB-C is already widely deployed worldwide. Standardised and recognized at EU level. Cheap enough to de used in lower end equipment. And has legs for the foreseeable future. The EU has made it perfectly clear that these new requirements are open to refinement to cater to future advances in technology, too. But first things first.
The notion that lightning cable substitution will create more e-waste in the short term is irrelevant. Let's not forget that this law was created precisely due to fragmentation that the likes of lightning brought to market. It is exactly why innovation per se can run against what the EU is seeking. Everyone doing their own thing with scant regard for the consumer and environmental consequences. However, that doesn't mean that innovation and this legislation are incompatible. It was stated in the drafts of the very first impact assessments that innovation should not be stifled by these changes. That aspect has not changed since.
Future innovation in wired charging is accommodated and even mentioned in the text.
Mention of wireless charging is expressly included in the text even though this legislation does not cover it:
That is kind of like a shot across the bows to industry. There is no place for fragmentation.
As things stand, this legislation has been designed to resolve various problems. Now we have to wait for results. That will take a few years but the ball is rolling.
On the other hand, USB-C generally has a faster data connection, and therefore is better for devices transferring a large amount of data.
As for the electronic waste issue, I have have many (dozens) of lightning cables and many (albeit fewer) UBB cables. Moving exclusively to one, will inevitably result in my discarding many cables.
I do not think that the EU (or any other government) should mandate specifications for electronic consumer devices. It can stiffle possible improvements or innovations, and is really not the job of government. Apple is far from a monopoly -- they are not even the leading provider of phones. People can always choose other brands if they want. And governments generally do not have the technical expertise or foresight to make the correct decisions.
The EU law, as written gives Apple until 2025 models to change the port. (It takes effect in November of 2024, but by then Apple will have introduced their 2024 iPhones). I think Apple will switch sooner, but it is not mandated to do so. Indeed if it comes up with phone that charges solely wirelessly, it need not switch at all. (And lightning could continue to be included for data transfer only but I think Apple will adopt a more reasonable solution than that.)
My opinion only, of course.
Companies invest in R&D for competitive advantage. There will be much less incentive for a company like Apple to invent a new standard and then, rather than include it immediately in a new product, negotiate (for years) with other companies to make it a standard and then convince (after years) the EU to allow this as the new standard. Given the EU's deserve to have a single standard, would they then set a date for the existing standard to be 100% phased out? Twenty years from now, kids will be asking why we still have these clunky, out-moded USB-C plugs/