While various companies extended the USB spec to allow fast charging, various third parties were able to build chargers and cables that were compatible with thee methods.
The concern is that Apple will use various methods to ensure that third parties can't build compatible chargers/cables compatible with these extensions, unless they pay Apple a licensing fee.
There is also a concern that Apple's phones will implement only parts of the USB-C spec, unless the cables/chargers are licensed from Apple.
Modern technology allows Apple to impose all sorts of arbitrary restrictions and limitations. Whether or not Apple would do such a thing is a separate question, as is whether or not such restrictions are reasonable.
With Lightning, Apple had two vital advantages -- it had a connector nobody else could use without participating in the MFi program, and it had the right to control who its OEM suppliers could sell those connectors to.
With Type-C, Apple will not have either of those powers. Type-C connectors are readily available from whomever an accessory maker chooses, and will connect to any Apple Type-C device. When connected, the device will use the Power Delivery protocol to negotiate the parameters of the connection, and if it chooses to utilize the Authentication standard, have the ability to enforce those parameters in accordance with the apparatus is is connected to. All within the specs.
Unless Apple comes forth with an implementation that has their devices outright reject non-MFi cables, or those that don't identity as such, the EU has no case.
Objectively, charging at 20W with a standard, non-MFi cable would still conform to the requirements to adopt Type-C as the connector, and PD as the protocol.
If, as rumored, Apple chooses to only allow its devices to charge at 27W with a cable that identifies as being from an MFi-licensed supplier, that does not preclude, nor invalidate the first scenario.
Let's say a young Steve Jobs, instead of being a smelly hippy at Atari, did do a stint at IBM early in his career.
IBM's office dress code dictated blue suit and tie. Steve liked to come into the office in grey, and black suits, maybe even a fancy black tuxedo.
His boss tells him to ditch those, and like the rules say, wear a blue suit like everyone else, to preserve office harmony, and present a consistent appearance to clients.
So Steve comes into the office wearing a blue Brioni suit, made from 500-thread count fabric, which costs more than his colleagues can afford. It's expensive for Steve, too, but he has a friendly relationship with the Brioni store that most shoppers don't.
Would it be right for his boss to tell Steve, "no, you can do that, because it's a nicer suit that the rest of the guys can't afford, and could make them uncomfortable?" You have to buy your suits from the Men's Wearhouse like the rest of the guys.
He's wearing a blue suit, as dictated. What rule is Steve violating? Is there an unwritten rule for Steve alone, because he thumbed his nose at management for wearing grey and black in the past? The rules only say a "blue suit," not a "Men's Wearhouse Blue Suit," nor "Blue suits that don't cost more than $400." Just a blue suit, which Steve has complied with. Does his boss have the power to compel Steve to wear a particular brand of blue suit? Should he?
The EU has the right to regulate its markets, as does IBM to set a dress code.
On the face of it, the EU issued a directive to settle upon a single, interoperable USB charging standard to ensure broad compatibility, and reduce waste. If it really wanted to prevent companies from exploiting opportunities within that market, it should have written that into the rules, and made it publicly clear. And keep in mind that Qualcomm doesn't give QuickCharge away for free, even if its costs aren't as readily apparent to end consumers, or that Samsung's fastest charging only works with PPS-capable adapters, which are not required by spec, but something Samsung can conveniently and will happily sell you.
Personally, I dislike the idea of MFi cables being granted special capability, but that genie escaped the bottle a long time ago, and not just with regard to mobile accessories.
However, I also dislike the notion of governments going beyond ensuring conformity, to dictating specific performance, and/or specific implementations, more. Often, such edicts are issued with little regard to how they affect the market, and in particular, consumers. The state of California is infamous for governing in that fashion.
The EU might as well just be Apple's new design/engineering team. They're doing a great job at stifling innovation by mandating ports and speeds....let's not stop there! What's next, Apple has to make every new iPhone with a minimum 50MP camera? Or, perhaps they will mandate that all new iPhones must be able to run both Android and iOS?
How exactly is telling Apple to get with the times and use a modern port that allows for a 40Gbps standard stifling innovation? Was Apple stifling innovation when they moved to only USB-C on the Mac? How about with the iPad? Or was Apple being innovative when they did nothing with Lightning to improve speeds? Oh, an adapter allowed for USB 3.0 speeds on one iPad. How innovative!
Why are you mad that the EU is telling Apple that they cannot sell you a device limited to 480Mbps when transferring data?
They are telling Apple that they can't use something better than USB-C for wired charging.
No they aren't. The regulations do not say anything like that.
Perhaps I misunderstood the EU regulation. My impression was that if the phone used wired charging, that had to be over a USB-C connector using the USB standard.
This would preclude Apple using a different connector that was rated for higher voltages and/or currents.
The EU Directive specifically requires that devices specifically incorporate the USB Power Delivery standard, and that any additional charging protocol allows for full functionality of USB Power Delivery.
The Directive imagines that divergent solutions might be developed in the future, and says that the Commission should take action towards promoting and harmonizing such solutions to avoid future fragmentation of the market.
In other words, if a company develops a better mouse trap, they need to share it with other companies, thus eliminating any competitive advantage.
The primary purpose of the directive is to make charging standard, and to eliminate proprietary (and perhaps superior) charging methods. They feel that it is better to stick to the lowest common denominator, so that chargers/cables are interchangeable, than to let companies produce unique and better products.
If Apple makes a magical new connector that completely supersedes USB-C, they can submit it to the USB Implementors Forum as a new standard. If this magical connector is so good, they won't have any problem with getting other companies to adopt it. If it's so good, customers will flock to it instead of USB-C.
Since when have consumers flocked to something just because it was better. I seem to remember whining about PS2 and serial/parallel ports being dropped in favor of all usb
If Apple makes a magical new connector that completely supersedes USB-C, they can submit it to the USB Implementors Forum as a new standard. If this magical connector is so good, they won't have any problem with getting other companies to adopt it. If it's so good, customers will flock to it instead of USB-C.
So the EUC doesn't say that Apple can't use a better standard than USB-C. If Apple makes a magical new connector that completely supersedes USB-C, they can't use it unless the EUC says they can. Pretty much a distinction without a difference.
I'd like Apple to say they make a ton of money without the EU and tell them to piss off and pound salt. It won't happen but that would be great if they did. Apple would be ok, the EUC would be ok, and I guess the EU would be ok, not that I care.
I like the Lightning connector better than USB-C regardless of charging and data limitations. It's less fiddly than USB-C, and USB-C is only slightly less fiddly than micro-USB. It works for me if not the rest of the free world.
Yet another thing that will never happen. The EU can threaten whatever they want. If it tries to dictate Apple product design, Europeans will find themselves unable to have nice things.
We will see - Apple does deliver 230V 50 Hz power adapters in EU. And Apple disables iMessage in some countries due to encryption. USB-C is for all purposes something Apple should have delivered years ago.
Yet another thing that will never happen. The EU can threaten whatever they want. If it tries to dictate Apple product design, Europeans will find themselves unable to have nice things.
We will see - Apple does deliver 230V 50 Hz power adapters in EU. And Apple disables iMessage in some countries due to encryption. USB-C is for all purposes something Apple should have delivered years ago.
I agree. From a consumer perspective, switching from Lightning to USB-C is an improvement in the short term. In the long term it could easily hinder innovation and future improvements.
If Apple wanted to pick a fight with the UK, all they need to do is to disable wired charging for phones sold in the EU. That would bring them in compliance with the rule, without Apple having to switch to USB-C.
Personally, I think Apple will switch iPhones and other remaining Lightning devices to USB-C, as Apple seems to be adapting that as their standard connector (although some MacBooks can also be charged with Apple's proprietary MagSafe connector).
The EU might as well just be Apple's new design/engineering team. They're doing a great job at stifling innovation by mandating ports and speeds....let's not stop there! What's next, Apple has to make every new iPhone with a minimum 50MP camera? Or, perhaps they will mandate that all new iPhones must be able to run both Android and iOS?
How exactly is telling Apple to get with the times and use a modern port that allows for a 40Gbps standard stifling innovation? Was Apple stifling innovation when they moved to only USB-C on the Mac? How about with the iPad? Or was Apple being innovative when they did nothing with Lightning to improve speeds? Oh, an adapter allowed for USB 3.0 speeds on one iPad. How innovative!
Why are you mad that the EU is telling Apple that they cannot sell you a device limited to 480Mbps when transferring data?
They are telling Apple that they can't use something better than USB-C for wired charging.
No they aren't. The regulations do not say anything like that.
Perhaps I misunderstood the EU regulation. My impression was that if the phone used wired charging, that had to be over a USB-C connector using the USB standard.
This would preclude Apple using a different connector that was rated for higher voltages and/or currents.
The EU Directive specifically requires that devices specifically incorporate the USB Power Delivery standard, and that any additional charging protocol allows for full functionality of USB Power Delivery.
The Directive imagines that divergent solutions might be developed in the future, and says that the Commission should take action towards promoting and harmonizing such solutions to avoid future fragmentation of the market.
In other words, if a company develops a better mouse trap, they need to share it with other companies, thus eliminating any competitive advantage.
The primary purpose of the directive is to make charging standard, and to eliminate proprietary (and perhaps superior) charging methods. They feel that it is better to stick to the lowest common denominator, so that chargers/cables are interchangeable, than to let companies produce unique and better products.
The intention of the directive is not the same as the wording of the directive. There is nothing to stop Apple creating a "better than USB-C" wired charging solution and using it, even in the EU, as long as they abide by the specific wording of the directive for phones that they sell within the EU. That is, all phones sold that charge via a wire must feature the common charging port, currently identified as USB-C.
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
Yet another thing that will never happen. The EU can threaten whatever they want. If it tries to dictate Apple product design, Europeans will find themselves unable to have nice things.
We will see - Apple does deliver 230V 50 Hz power adapters in EU. And Apple disables iMessage in some countries due to encryption. USB-C is for all purposes something Apple should have delivered years ago.
I agree. From a consumer perspective, switching from Lightning to USB-C is an improvement in the short term. In the long term it could easily hinder innovation and future improvements.
If Apple wanted to pick a fight with the UK, all they need to do is to disable wired charging for phones sold in the EU. That would bring them in compliance with the rule, without Apple having to switch to USB-C.
Personally, I think Apple will switch iPhones and other remaining Lightning devices to USB-C, as Apple seems to be adapting that as their standard connector (although some MacBooks can also be charged with Apple's proprietary MagSafe connector).
Hinder innovation? Lightning is already hindering innovation, with USB-C Apple gets a boost and contiuous feature updates for free. Sometimes I wish there would be a global instance for standards. Let markets resolve what markets can resolve, but if they fail doing that after a decade, time‘s up. E.g. I see no benefit of having these different kind of voltages and power plugs. I am a bit torn at batteries/chargers for tools. It is apita that even within a brand’s set of tools sometimes you cannot use the same battery packs and not at all between brands, at the same time I admit there is something about ergonomics and and it can be still a competitive advantage.
Meh, if Apple isn’t ready to go portless it should go USBc anyway. But what if it went thunderbolt, leapfrogging USBc? I suppose including Tb cable with every iPhone might be expensive.
Hinder innovation? Lightning is already hindering innovation, with USB-C Apple gets a boost and contiuous feature updates for free. Sometimes I wish there would be a global instance for standards. Let markets resolve what markets can resolve, but if they fail doing that after a decade, time‘s up. E.g. I see no benefit of having these different kind of voltages and power plugs. I am a bit torn at batteries/chargers for tools. It is apita that even within a brand’s set of tools sometimes you cannot use the same battery packs and not at all between brands, at the same time I admit there is something about ergonomics and and it can be still a competitive advantage.
"That's the wonderful thing about standards, there are so many to choose from"
While USB-C is a "standard," it provides a lot of leeway. The Power Delivery standard covers a wide range of voltages (5V, 9V, 12V, 15V, 20V) and currents. A charger is not required to provide all the voltages, nor all the currents (up to 5 amps). There are also multiple iterations of each standard.
If you have a 20W charger, and a device that requires 20W, they might not be compatible, even though both conform to one of the USB-C PD specs.
The intention of the directive is not the same as the wording of the directive. There is nothing to stop Apple creating a "better than USB-C" wired charging solution and using it, even in the EU, as long as they abide by the specific wording of the directive for phones that they sell within the EU. That is, all phones sold that charge via a wire must feature the common charging port, currently identified as USB-C.
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
In other words, Apple is free to innovate and develop a better connector, as long as it is USB-C.
This reminds me of the old days when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service in the USA. You could have whatever color telephone you wanted, as long as it was black.
Sometimes the best innovations come from technology that is a dramatic break from current practice.
Prior to the iPhone, the goal to improve smart phones was to make a better mechanical keyboard. If the government had imposed a standard requiring certain sizing of these mechanical keyboards, we wouldn't have the modern smartphone with its virtual keyboards.
Prior to USB, we had RS-232 serial connections on computers. Some devices used DB-25 connectors, some DB-9 connectors, and some various other connectors. If the government had mandated one of these to impose a common connector for serial communications, we would not have USB (Universal Serial Bus) at all.
Now, I am not commenting on whether or not requiring USB-C is overall a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that such a requirement has both good and bad effects.
The intention of the directive is not the same as the wording of the directive. There is nothing to stop Apple creating a "better than USB-C" wired charging solution and using it, even in the EU, as long as they abide by the specific wording of the directive for phones that they sell within the EU. That is, all phones sold that charge via a wire must feature the common charging port, currently identified as USB-C.
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
In other words, Apple is free to innovate and develop a better connector, as long as it is USB-C.
This reminds me of the old days when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service in the USA. You could have whatever color telephone you wanted, as long as it was black.
Sometimes the best innovations come from technology that is a dramatic break from current practice.
Prior to the iPhone, the goal to improve smart phones was to make a better mechanical keyboard. If the government had imposed a standard requiring certain sizing of these mechanical keyboards, we wouldn't have the modern smartphone with its virtual keyboards.
Prior to USB, we had RS-232 serial connections on computers. Some devices used DB-25 connectors, some DB-9 connectors, and some various other connectors. If the government had mandated one of these to impose a common connector for serial communications, we would not have USB (Universal Serial Bus) at all.
Now, I am not commenting on whether or not requiring USB-C is overall a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that such a requirement has both good and bad effects.
More than good or bad, it's more case of one aspect outweighing another.
Prior to this directive, the EU tried (and with great patience) to cajole the industry into solving a serious problem. That of multiple different chargers, most of which were not interoperable. This was lock-in in the purest sense. The result of that was a MoU (not legislation) which saw the industry move to USB. Guess who didn't?
A decade later, and as a result of not seeing the result it was aiming for, the EU brought the common charger directive to the table which, by the way, tackles a multitude of devices (not just phones).
There have been all kinds of consultation and impact studies.
No one proposal solved all the possible problems so that was never ever the goal.
The current directive aims to resolve a specific set of problems. Not all of them.
No, innovation will not be stifled. Innovation will be channeled through specific standards. The decisions behind the current directive even make direct mention of future possible improvements.
Even though wireless charging was specifically left out of the directive, Apple has woken up to the realities of what might happen and worked to integrate Magsafe into a standard.
These directives are therefore likely to have worldwide repercussions and that is a good thing.
As an aside, it was Apple that refused move on from a 10 year old 5W charger and dumped millions of them on users for more than a decade. That's a very long time in technology.
The intention of the directive is not the same as the wording of the directive. There is nothing to stop Apple creating a "better than USB-C" wired charging solution and using it, even in the EU, as long as they abide by the specific wording of the directive for phones that they sell within the EU. That is, all phones sold that charge via a wire must feature the common charging port, currently identified as USB-C.
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
In other words, Apple is free to innovate and develop a better connector, as long as it is USB-C.
This reminds me of the old days when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service in the USA. You could have whatever color telephone you wanted, as long as it was black.
Sometimes the best innovations come from technology that is a dramatic break from current practice.
Prior to the iPhone, the goal to improve smart phones was to make a better mechanical keyboard. If the government had imposed a standard requiring certain sizing of these mechanical keyboards, we wouldn't have the modern smartphone with its virtual keyboards.
Prior to USB, we had RS-232 serial connections on computers. Some devices used DB-25 connectors, some DB-9 connectors, and some various other connectors. If the government had mandated one of these to impose a common connector for serial communications, we would not have USB (Universal Serial Bus) at all.
Now, I am not commenting on whether or not requiring USB-C is overall a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that such a requirement has both good and bad effects.
More than good or bad, it's more case of one aspect outweighing another.
Prior to this directive, the EU tried (and with great patience) to cajole the industry into solving a serious problem. That of multiple different chargers, most of which were not interoperable. This was lock-in in the purest sense. The result of that was a MoU (not legislation) which saw the industry move to USB. Guess who didn't?
A decade later, and as a result of not seeing the result it was aiming for, the EU brought the common charger directive to the table which, by the way, tackles a multitude of devices (not just phones).
There have been all kinds of consultation and impact studies.
No one proposal solved all the possible problems so that was never ever the goal.
The current directive aims to resolve a specific set of problems. Not all of them.
No, innovation will not be stifled. Innovation will be channeled through specific standards. The decisions behind the current directive even make direct mention of future possible improvements.
Even though wireless charging was specifically left out of the directive, Apple has woken up to the realities of what might happen and worked to integrate Magsafe into a standard.
These directives are therefore likely to have worldwide repercussions and that is a good thing.
As an aside, it was Apple that refused move on from a 10 year old 5W charger and dumped millions of them on users for more than a decade. That's a very long time in technology.
The EU directive seems to be geared more towards cables than chargers. Current iPhones are already compatible with standard USB-C PD Chargers. iPhones generally don't come with a charger, only a cable that allows charging via a standard USB-C charger.
I don't know about you, but my experience is that cables wear out much more quickly than chargers. I tend to keep cables for longer, and replace chargers when more efficient ones become available. When I move to a new phone, it generally time to replace the charging cable anyway. I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all.
The EU regulation requires Apple to use a common USB-C cable as the wear item that gets routinely replaced. Let's not pretend that this about chargers, it's about cables and marketing. The EU doesn't like that Apple is free to innovate as to the connector used on their phone.
I suspect that if you glued a lighting to USB-C cable into your existing iPhone, it would meet the new EU rules, as it would then use a standard USB-C connector for charging.
The intention of the directive is not the same as the wording of the directive. There is nothing to stop Apple creating a "better than USB-C" wired charging solution and using it, even in the EU, as long as they abide by the specific wording of the directive for phones that they sell within the EU. That is, all phones sold that charge via a wire must feature the common charging port, currently identified as USB-C.
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
In other words, Apple is free to innovate and develop a better connector, as long as it is USB-C.
This reminds me of the old days when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service in the USA. You could have whatever color telephone you wanted, as long as it was black.
Sometimes the best innovations come from technology that is a dramatic break from current practice.
Prior to the iPhone, the goal to improve smart phones was to make a better mechanical keyboard. If the government had imposed a standard requiring certain sizing of these mechanical keyboards, we wouldn't have the modern smartphone with its virtual keyboards.
Prior to USB, we had RS-232 serial connections on computers. Some devices used DB-25 connectors, some DB-9 connectors, and some various other connectors. If the government had mandated one of these to impose a common connector for serial communications, we would not have USB (Universal Serial Bus) at all.
Now, I am not commenting on whether or not requiring USB-C is overall a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that such a requirement has both good and bad effects.
More than good or bad, it's more case of one aspect outweighing another.
Prior to this directive, the EU tried (and with great patience) to cajole the industry into solving a serious problem. That of multiple different chargers, most of which were not interoperable. This was lock-in in the purest sense. The result of that was a MoU (not legislation) which saw the industry move to USB. Guess who didn't?
A decade later, and as a result of not seeing the result it was aiming for, the EU brought the common charger directive to the table which, by the way, tackles a multitude of devices (not just phones).
There have been all kinds of consultation and impact studies.
No one proposal solved all the possible problems so that was never ever the goal.
The current directive aims to resolve a specific set of problems. Not all of them.
No, innovation will not be stifled. Innovation will be channeled through specific standards. The decisions behind the current directive even make direct mention of future possible improvements.
Even though wireless charging was specifically left out of the directive, Apple has woken up to the realities of what might happen and worked to integrate Magsafe into a standard.
These directives are therefore likely to have worldwide repercussions and that is a good thing.
As an aside, it was Apple that refused move on from a 10 year old 5W charger and dumped millions of them on users for more than a decade. That's a very long time in technology.
The EU directive seems to be geared more towards cables than chargers. Current iPhones are already compatible with standard USB-C PD Chargers. iPhones generally don't come with a charger, only a cable that allows charging via a standard USB-C charger.
I don't know about you, but my experience is that cables wear out much more quickly than chargers. I tend to keep cables for longer, and replace chargers when more efficient ones become available. When I move to a new phone, it generally time to replace the charging cable anyway. I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all.
The EU regulation requires Apple to use a common USB-C cable as the wear item that gets routinely replaced. Let's not pretend that this about chargers, it's about cables and marketing. The EU doesn't like that Apple is free to innovate as to the connector used on their phone.
I suspect that if you glued a lighting to USB-C cable into your existing iPhone, it would meet the new EU rules, as it would then use a standard USB-C connector for charging.
"I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all."
The impact assessments show that it will.
I have a multitude of different chargers for different devices at home and none of them are fully interchangeable.
Yes, cables are another element in the charging process and current lightning cables add to the fragmentation problem that the EU directive is aiming to tackle.
The intention of the directive is not the same as the wording of the directive. There is nothing to stop Apple creating a "better than USB-C" wired charging solution and using it, even in the EU, as long as they abide by the specific wording of the directive for phones that they sell within the EU. That is, all phones sold that charge via a wire must feature the common charging port, currently identified as USB-C.
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
In other words, Apple is free to innovate and develop a better connector, as long as it is USB-C.
This reminds me of the old days when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service in the USA. You could have whatever color telephone you wanted, as long as it was black.
Sometimes the best innovations come from technology that is a dramatic break from current practice.
Prior to the iPhone, the goal to improve smart phones was to make a better mechanical keyboard. If the government had imposed a standard requiring certain sizing of these mechanical keyboards, we wouldn't have the modern smartphone with its virtual keyboards.
Prior to USB, we had RS-232 serial connections on computers. Some devices used DB-25 connectors, some DB-9 connectors, and some various other connectors. If the government had mandated one of these to impose a common connector for serial communications, we would not have USB (Universal Serial Bus) at all.
Now, I am not commenting on whether or not requiring USB-C is overall a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that such a requirement has both good and bad effects.
More than good or bad, it's more case of one aspect outweighing another.
Prior to this directive, the EU tried (and with great patience) to cajole the industry into solving a serious problem. That of multiple different chargers, most of which were not interoperable. This was lock-in in the purest sense. The result of that was a MoU (not legislation) which saw the industry move to USB. Guess who didn't?
A decade later, and as a result of not seeing the result it was aiming for, the EU brought the common charger directive to the table which, by the way, tackles a multitude of devices (not just phones).
There have been all kinds of consultation and impact studies.
No one proposal solved all the possible problems so that was never ever the goal.
The current directive aims to resolve a specific set of problems. Not all of them.
No, innovation will not be stifled. Innovation will be channeled through specific standards. The decisions behind the current directive even make direct mention of future possible improvements.
Even though wireless charging was specifically left out of the directive, Apple has woken up to the realities of what might happen and worked to integrate Magsafe into a standard.
These directives are therefore likely to have worldwide repercussions and that is a good thing.
As an aside, it was Apple that refused move on from a 10 year old 5W charger and dumped millions of them on users for more than a decade. That's a very long time in technology.
The EU directive seems to be geared more towards cables than chargers. Current iPhones are already compatible with standard USB-C PD Chargers. iPhones generally don't come with a charger, only a cable that allows charging via a standard USB-C charger.
I don't know about you, but my experience is that cables wear out much more quickly than chargers. I tend to keep cables for longer, and replace chargers when more efficient ones become available. When I move to a new phone, it generally time to replace the charging cable anyway. I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all.
The EU regulation requires Apple to use a common USB-C cable as the wear item that gets routinely replaced. Let's not pretend that this about chargers, it's about cables and marketing. The EU doesn't like that Apple is free to innovate as to the connector used on their phone.
I suspect that if you glued a lighting to USB-C cable into your existing iPhone, it would meet the new EU rules, as it would then use a standard USB-C connector for charging.
"I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all."
The impact assessments show that it will.
I have a multitude of different chargers for different devices at home and none of them are fully interchangeable.
Yes, cables are another element in the charging process and current lightning cables add to the fragmentation problem that the EU directive is aiming to tackle.
Apple iPhones already use standard USB-C chargers. You can use the same charger for both iPhone and Android phones, the only difference is the cable.
In fact, you can even use the USB-C chargers that come with a MacBook to charge an iPhone. Some configurations of MacBook come with a dual port USB-C charger, allowing you to charge both you MacBook and phone at the same time.
Again, let's not pretend that this regulation is about the chargers. It's about not letting Apple use a proprietary cable. A three pack of 6 foot MiFi certified USB-C to Lighting cables is around $12 on Amazon.
Cables are a wear item. They get routinely replaced whether the phone has a USB-C or lighting connector.
In what way do you see this rule reducing waste? It doesn't affect the chargers that IPhone use. All it does is says that if someone is switching from Android to Apple, they can now continue to use the worn out Android charging cable, instead of using the new cable that came bundled with their phone.
The intention of the directive is not the same as the wording of the directive. There is nothing to stop Apple creating a "better than USB-C" wired charging solution and using it, even in the EU, as long as they abide by the specific wording of the directive for phones that they sell within the EU. That is, all phones sold that charge via a wire must feature the common charging port, currently identified as USB-C.
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
In other words, Apple is free to innovate and develop a better connector, as long as it is USB-C.
This reminds me of the old days when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service in the USA. You could have whatever color telephone you wanted, as long as it was black.
Sometimes the best innovations come from technology that is a dramatic break from current practice.
Prior to the iPhone, the goal to improve smart phones was to make a better mechanical keyboard. If the government had imposed a standard requiring certain sizing of these mechanical keyboards, we wouldn't have the modern smartphone with its virtual keyboards.
Prior to USB, we had RS-232 serial connections on computers. Some devices used DB-25 connectors, some DB-9 connectors, and some various other connectors. If the government had mandated one of these to impose a common connector for serial communications, we would not have USB (Universal Serial Bus) at all.
Now, I am not commenting on whether or not requiring USB-C is overall a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that such a requirement has both good and bad effects.
More than good or bad, it's more case of one aspect outweighing another.
Prior to this directive, the EU tried (and with great patience) to cajole the industry into solving a serious problem. That of multiple different chargers, most of which were not interoperable. This was lock-in in the purest sense. The result of that was a MoU (not legislation) which saw the industry move to USB. Guess who didn't?
A decade later, and as a result of not seeing the result it was aiming for, the EU brought the common charger directive to the table which, by the way, tackles a multitude of devices (not just phones).
There have been all kinds of consultation and impact studies.
No one proposal solved all the possible problems so that was never ever the goal.
The current directive aims to resolve a specific set of problems. Not all of them.
No, innovation will not be stifled. Innovation will be channeled through specific standards. The decisions behind the current directive even make direct mention of future possible improvements.
Even though wireless charging was specifically left out of the directive, Apple has woken up to the realities of what might happen and worked to integrate Magsafe into a standard.
These directives are therefore likely to have worldwide repercussions and that is a good thing.
As an aside, it was Apple that refused move on from a 10 year old 5W charger and dumped millions of them on users for more than a decade. That's a very long time in technology.
The EU directive seems to be geared more towards cables than chargers. Current iPhones are already compatible with standard USB-C PD Chargers. iPhones generally don't come with a charger, only a cable that allows charging via a standard USB-C charger.
I don't know about you, but my experience is that cables wear out much more quickly than chargers. I tend to keep cables for longer, and replace chargers when more efficient ones become available. When I move to a new phone, it generally time to replace the charging cable anyway. I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all.
The EU regulation requires Apple to use a common USB-C cable as the wear item that gets routinely replaced. Let's not pretend that this about chargers, it's about cables and marketing. The EU doesn't like that Apple is free to innovate as to the connector used on their phone.
I suspect that if you glued a lighting to USB-C cable into your existing iPhone, it would meet the new EU rules, as it would then use a standard USB-C connector for charging.
"I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all."
The impact assessments show that it will.
I have a multitude of different chargers for different devices at home and none of them are fully interchangeable.
Yes, cables are another element in the charging process and current lightning cables add to the fragmentation problem that the EU directive is aiming to tackle.
Apple iPhones already use standard USB-C chargers. You can use the same charger for both iPhone and Android phones, the only difference is the cable.
In fact, you can even use the USB-C chargers that come with a MacBook to charge an iPhone. Some configurations of MacBook come with a dual port USB-C charger, allowing you to charge both you MacBook and phone at the same time.
Again, let's not pretend that this regulation is about the chargers. It's about not letting Apple use a proprietary cable. A three pack of 6 foot MiFi certified USB-C to Lighting cables is around $12 on Amazon.
Cables are a wear item. They get routinely replaced whether the phone has a USB-C or lighting connector.
In what way do you see this rule reducing waste? It doesn't affect the chargers that IPhone use. All it does is says that if someone is switching from Android to Apple, they can now continue to use the worn out Android charging cable, instead of using the new cable that came bundled with their phone.
It is absolutely about chargers and cables. It is about reducing fragmentation, reducing e-waste and also trying to take the confusion out of connectors.
The directive will also herald new labeling efforts.
It isn't about going after Apple. It's about the entire industry of small electronic devices.
The intention of the directive is not the same as the wording of the directive. There is nothing to stop Apple creating a "better than USB-C" wired charging solution and using it, even in the EU, as long as they abide by the specific wording of the directive for phones that they sell within the EU. That is, all phones sold that charge via a wire must feature the common charging port, currently identified as USB-C.
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
In other words, Apple is free to innovate and develop a better connector, as long as it is USB-C.
This reminds me of the old days when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service in the USA. You could have whatever color telephone you wanted, as long as it was black.
Sometimes the best innovations come from technology that is a dramatic break from current practice.
Prior to the iPhone, the goal to improve smart phones was to make a better mechanical keyboard. If the government had imposed a standard requiring certain sizing of these mechanical keyboards, we wouldn't have the modern smartphone with its virtual keyboards.
Prior to USB, we had RS-232 serial connections on computers. Some devices used DB-25 connectors, some DB-9 connectors, and some various other connectors. If the government had mandated one of these to impose a common connector for serial communications, we would not have USB (Universal Serial Bus) at all.
Now, I am not commenting on whether or not requiring USB-C is overall a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that such a requirement has both good and bad effects.
More than good or bad, it's more case of one aspect outweighing another.
Prior to this directive, the EU tried (and with great patience) to cajole the industry into solving a serious problem. That of multiple different chargers, most of which were not interoperable. This was lock-in in the purest sense. The result of that was a MoU (not legislation) which saw the industry move to USB. Guess who didn't?
A decade later, and as a result of not seeing the result it was aiming for, the EU brought the common charger directive to the table which, by the way, tackles a multitude of devices (not just phones).
There have been all kinds of consultation and impact studies.
No one proposal solved all the possible problems so that was never ever the goal.
The current directive aims to resolve a specific set of problems. Not all of them.
No, innovation will not be stifled. Innovation will be channeled through specific standards. The decisions behind the current directive even make direct mention of future possible improvements.
Even though wireless charging was specifically left out of the directive, Apple has woken up to the realities of what might happen and worked to integrate Magsafe into a standard.
These directives are therefore likely to have worldwide repercussions and that is a good thing.
As an aside, it was Apple that refused move on from a 10 year old 5W charger and dumped millions of them on users for more than a decade. That's a very long time in technology.
The EU directive seems to be geared more towards cables than chargers. Current iPhones are already compatible with standard USB-C PD Chargers. iPhones generally don't come with a charger, only a cable that allows charging via a standard USB-C charger.
I don't know about you, but my experience is that cables wear out much more quickly than chargers. I tend to keep cables for longer, and replace chargers when more efficient ones become available. When I move to a new phone, it generally time to replace the charging cable anyway. I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all.
The EU regulation requires Apple to use a common USB-C cable as the wear item that gets routinely replaced. Let's not pretend that this about chargers, it's about cables and marketing. The EU doesn't like that Apple is free to innovate as to the connector used on their phone.
I suspect that if you glued a lighting to USB-C cable into your existing iPhone, it would meet the new EU rules, as it would then use a standard USB-C connector for charging.
"I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all."
The impact assessments show that it will.
I have a multitude of different chargers for different devices at home and none of them are fully interchangeable.
Yes, cables are another element in the charging process and current lightning cables add to the fragmentation problem that the EU directive is aiming to tackle.
Apple iPhones already use standard USB-C chargers. You can use the same charger for both iPhone and Android phones, the only difference is the cable.
In fact, you can even use the USB-C chargers that come with a MacBook to charge an iPhone. Some configurations of MacBook come with a dual port USB-C charger, allowing you to charge both you MacBook and phone at the same time.
Again, let's not pretend that this regulation is about the chargers. It's about not letting Apple use a proprietary cable. A three pack of 6 foot MiFi certified USB-C to Lighting cables is around $12 on Amazon.
Cables are a wear item. They get routinely replaced whether the phone has a USB-C or lighting connector.
In what way do you see this rule reducing waste? It doesn't affect the chargers that IPhone use. All it does is says that if someone is switching from Android to Apple, they can now continue to use the worn out Android charging cable, instead of using the new cable that came bundled with their phone.
It is absolutely about chargers and cables. It is about reducing fragmentation, reducing e-waste and also trying to take the confusion out of connectors.
The directive will also herald new labeling efforts.
It isn't about going after Apple. It's about the entire industry of small electronic devices.
Apple already uses USB-C chargers. This rule is about changing the cable. In terms of e-waste, cables are a wear item. This rule won't make cable last any longer.
In terms of taking the confusion out of connectors, USB-C is one of the more confusing connectors around. In the past, if the cable fit, it would work. You couldn't plus a serial cable into a video or a power connection. With USB-C, the connector can carry some combination of USB-2, USB-3, power, video, Thunderbolt. With real world cables, there is no easy way to tell by looking at a cable whether it will work for a particular purpose. My 6 foot USB-C power cable won't handle video, thunderbolt, or USB-3. My USB-3 cable doesn't handle thunderbolt, video, and it won't charge my laptop. My Thunderbolt cable doesn't handle everything, and I have lost track of what it won't do. The first thing I do when getting a USB-C cable is to label what I know it can do, and to note what I am unsure about (not all cables come with documentation of what they can't do). I suspect USB-C has actually increased the number of cables I carry, as you need a wide collection of cables to handle all the various functionality.
If reducing consumer confusion is the goal, USB-C is a very bad choice.
The EU might as well just be Apple's new design/engineering team. They're doing a great job at stifling innovation by mandating ports and speeds....let's not stop there! What's next, Apple has to make every new iPhone with a minimum 50MP camera? Or, perhaps they will mandate that all new iPhones must be able to run both Android and iOS?
Could not agree more.
Does the EU try to micromanage EU based companies like they do Apple? Do ASML, SAP, Siemens, et al and have to get design approval from the EU before they can release new products into the global market?
Yes, ASML, SAP, Siemens, et al. have to comply with EU regulations to sell to the European market, same thing.
Anyone who has bought USB-C cables on Amazon knows what garbage is out there. Apple is simply trying to prevent a poor user experience when using non certified cables. The foolish EU bureaucrats just don't get it.
they are trying to prevent a poor user experience by… limiting transfer speeds for products that Apple doesn’t make money from?
Glad to hear the EU is forcing these common sense standards on cables and 3rd party app stores. Apple seems to be losing its touch (Siri anyone) and acts like innovation means a slightly fast chip each year. While the US is failing in its oversight, this will make things better for us all. Who wants to carry two sets of different cables for iPad and iPhone anyway?
Comments
I'd like Apple to say they make a ton of money without the EU and tell them to piss off and pound salt. It won't happen but that would be great if they did. Apple would be ok, the EUC would be ok, and I guess the EU would be ok, not that I care.
I like the Lightning connector better than USB-C regardless of charging and data limitations. It's less fiddly than USB-C, and USB-C is only slightly less fiddly than micro-USB. It works for me if not the rest of the free world.
If Apple wanted to pick a fight with the UK, all they need to do is to disable wired charging for phones sold in the EU. That would bring them in compliance with the rule, without Apple having to switch to USB-C.
Personally, I think Apple will switch iPhones and other remaining Lightning devices to USB-C, as Apple seems to be adapting that as their standard connector (although some MacBooks can also be charged with Apple's proprietary MagSafe connector).
And they are under no current obligation to share anything.
Sometimes I wish there would be a global instance for standards. Let markets resolve what markets can resolve, but if they fail doing that after a decade, time‘s up. E.g. I see no benefit of having these different kind of voltages and power plugs. I am a bit torn at batteries/chargers for tools. It is apita that even within a brand’s set of tools sometimes you cannot use the same battery packs and not at all between brands, at the same time I admit there is something about ergonomics and and it can be still a competitive advantage.
But what if it went thunderbolt, leapfrogging USBc? I suppose including Tb cable with every iPhone might be expensive.
While USB-C is a "standard," it provides a lot of leeway. The Power Delivery standard covers a wide range of voltages (5V, 9V, 12V, 15V, 20V) and currents. A charger is not required to provide all the voltages, nor all the currents (up to 5 amps). There are also multiple iterations of each standard.
If you have a 20W charger, and a device that requires 20W, they might not be compatible, even though both conform to one of the USB-C PD specs.
This reminds me of the old days when AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service in the USA. You could have whatever color telephone you wanted, as long as it was black.
Sometimes the best innovations come from technology that is a dramatic break from current practice.
Prior to the iPhone, the goal to improve smart phones was to make a better mechanical keyboard. If the government had imposed a standard requiring certain sizing of these mechanical keyboards, we wouldn't have the modern smartphone with its virtual keyboards.
Prior to USB, we had RS-232 serial connections on computers. Some devices used DB-25 connectors, some DB-9 connectors, and some various other connectors. If the government had mandated one of these to impose a common connector for serial communications, we would not have USB (Universal Serial Bus) at all.
Now, I am not commenting on whether or not requiring USB-C is overall a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that such a requirement has both good and bad effects.
Prior to this directive, the EU tried (and with great patience) to cajole the industry into solving a serious problem. That of multiple different chargers, most of which were not interoperable. This was lock-in in the purest sense. The result of that was a MoU (not legislation) which saw the industry move to USB. Guess who didn't?
A decade later, and as a result of not seeing the result it was aiming for, the EU brought the common charger directive to the table which, by the way, tackles a multitude of devices (not just phones).
There have been all kinds of consultation and impact studies.
No one proposal solved all the possible problems so that was never ever the goal.
The current directive aims to resolve a specific set of problems. Not all of them.
No, innovation will not be stifled. Innovation will be channeled through specific standards. The decisions behind the current directive even make direct mention of future possible improvements.
Even though wireless charging was specifically left out of the directive, Apple has woken up to the realities of what might happen and worked to integrate Magsafe into a standard.
These directives are therefore likely to have worldwide repercussions and that is a good thing.
As an aside, it was Apple that refused move on from a 10 year old 5W charger and dumped millions of them on users for more than a decade. That's a very long time in technology.
I don't know about you, but my experience is that cables wear out much more quickly than chargers. I tend to keep cables for longer, and replace chargers when more efficient ones become available. When I move to a new phone, it generally time to replace the charging cable anyway. I don't see this new regulation as reducing waste at all.
I suspect that if you glued a lighting to USB-C cable into your existing iPhone, it would meet the new EU rules, as it would then use a standard USB-C connector for charging.
The impact assessments show that it will.
I have a multitude of different chargers for different devices at home and none of them are fully interchangeable.
Yes, cables are another element in the charging process and current lightning cables add to the fragmentation problem that the EU directive is aiming to tackle.
Again, let's not pretend that this regulation is about the chargers. It's about not letting Apple use a proprietary cable. A three pack of 6 foot MiFi certified USB-C to Lighting cables is around $12 on Amazon.
Cables are a wear item. They get routinely replaced whether the phone has a USB-C or lighting connector.
In what way do you see this rule reducing waste? It doesn't affect the chargers that IPhone use. All it does is says that if someone is switching from Android to Apple, they can now continue to use the worn out Android charging cable, instead of using the new cable that came bundled with their phone.
The directive will also herald new labeling efforts.
It isn't about going after Apple. It's about the entire industry of small electronic devices.
If reducing consumer confusion is the goal, USB-C is a very bad choice.
okay…