3 ms·
This is an instance where I oppose the idea in the abstract, but support it in the specifics: USB-C has finally achieved a degree of "good enough" (naming/label
by lukifer 7y ago
This is an instance where I oppose the idea in the abstract, but support it in the specifics: USB-C has finally achieved a degree of "good enough" (naming/labeling issues notwithstanding) to be the ideal universal connector.
But: imagine what we might have gotten stuck with if this law had been implemented 10-20 years ago.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoWhile this resolution isn't actually a law, it does call for the commission to ensure standards get updated as technology develops, so I'm not seeing why we should imagine us being extra stuck with some old technology.
- lukifer 7y agoI think the fear is, the companies will be hindered from making those innovations if they have to go through a centralized approval process, particularly if that process is slow, bureaucratic, technologically illiterate, resistant to change, etc (to say nothing of regulatory capture). I'm not deadset against this sort of thing, and I think we could do a lot worse than USB-C as the new universal connector (at least for the next decade or so), but given past attempts at regulating tech (cookie banners), I think it's a legitimate concern.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoWell yes, but the upside of standards is that you are not beholden to a single company that could at any point try to create vendor lock-in and force you to pay an unfair price.