10 ms·

Let’s say this rule was in place 10 years ago and we standardised on micro USB. How would it have been possible to advance to the next generation of technology

Let’s say this rule was in place 10 years ago and we standardised on micro USB. How would it have been possible to advance to the next generation of technology like USB-C. This feels that it’s banking on USB-C being forever future proofed or wireless connections does everything we ever need.

Angostura 7y ago
An IETF-style process to swap to a new standard, presumably.
- sib 7y ago
  Which will be captured by a bunch of manufacturers who like to innovate on "cheapest / crappiest" and who will outvotes the one manufacturer who actually innovates on "best"... As a customer, I'd like to keep the option for "best."
  - Angostura 7y ago
    Presumably that's why you are still using SNA to network your machines.
microtherion 7y ago
Micro USB would be kind of mediocre. But if the rule had been in place 20 years ago, cell phones today might be featuring SCSI connectors. And of course, all laptops would be mandated to have VGA connectors, eliminating a ton of conference room presentation guesswork.
- kevingadd 7y ago
  Why would you use SCSI to charge a phone? It'd be a standardized power connector, probably like those small round ones that are used for all sorts of household appliances. Similarly, your projector is already using a standardized power cable: The one that goes into your wall socket. For cables that don't terminate with a regular 2/3 prong on the other end, there are a few standardized shapes there too. My monitors and PC PSUs all take the same sort of connector on the non-wall-socket end even if they pull different amperages.
  - nomel 7y ago
    The charge ports of cellphones have almost always had data capabilities built in.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - anticensor 7y ago
      Old Nokia chargers disagree with various barrel connectors. It is not like "Anyone with thin-barreled Nokia charger?" was in the distant past.
      - nomel 7y ago
        Correct, thus my use of "almost always". For an example of an earlier dual purpose port, the Sony Ericsson line from 2000.
- oxfordmale 7y ago
  The law doesn't define the protocol. Apple could introduce USB-D as superior standard provided it is not proprietary. If this is a superior standard, other companies will adapt it too, becoming the new standard charger.
  - microtherion 7y ago
    I believe you are mistaken. The EU resolution calls for the development of "a common standard" (to be updated from time to time): https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070... Implementing a different standard, even if it is non-proprietary, won't do.
    - tripzilch 7y ago
      They call on the industry to agree on a common standard. 15 years ago. They explicitly do not mandate the protocol.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  > But if the rule had been in place 20 years ago, cell phones today might be featuring SCSI connectors. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070... "5. Points out that the Commission, without hampering innovation, should ensure that the legislative framework for a common charger will be scrutinised regularly in order to take into account technical progress; reiterates the importance of research and innovation in this domain to improve existing technologies and come up with new ones;"
SiempreViernes 7y ago
Why? The resolution states that the commission should make sure the standard can be updated as technology develops: "[...] the Commission, without hampering innovation, should ensure that the legislative framework for a common charger will be scrutinised regularly in order to take into account technical progress; reiterates the importance of research and innovation in this domain to improve existing technologies and come up with new ones;"
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  Because gov't moves as fast as innovation /s
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    You mean you miss the good old innovative days when every phone model had its own charger? The days where you needed special proprietary software to access any part of your phone if you connected it with to a computer using its special cable? I remember losing plenty of sms history and contacts when changing phones because the dedicated phone software was too old to run on my windows, and the dodgy program I found on the internet wouldn't work with my specific model. I also remember how in these heady days of unbridled innovation my girlfriend saved her sms's by writing them down on paper. And this was a fairly sensible solution to the innovation rich state of the market, where every manufacturer and close to every individual model, was its own silo.
    - eanzenberg 7y ago
      Seems like the free market solved all the probs you mentioned, so yeah.
      - 1ris 7y ago
        Seems way more like regulation solved this problem, so yeah.
      - monocasa 7y ago
the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
> How would it have been possible to advance to the next generation of technology like USB-C. The law does no say what a common charger is. Manufacturers are free to migrate to a new standard.
- nsajko 7y ago
  Presumably it is on the Commission to decide that USB-C is to be the next standard, and only then will there be a proposal for a law. (We are not yet talking about a law.)
  - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
    That didn't happen with the USB-A charger either.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    > Presumably it is on the Commission to decide that USB-C is to be the next standard, and only then will there be a proposal for a law. No, it literally says they're calling on the industry to agree on a common standard.
ac29 7y ago
This did happen 10 years ago, and they did standardize on micro-USB [0]. Use of the standard was voluntary, though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  And because it was only voluntary, Apple was able to innovate and create the lightning port which worked in either orientation and inspired the adoption of USB-C by the rest of the world
  - bonzini 7y ago
    They could have proposed a USB connector which worked in either orientation to the USB implementers forum back in 2012, couldn't they?
    - qeqeqeqe 7y ago
      And then wait 20 years for everyone to agree?
      - FireBeyond 7y ago
        That is an order of magnitude exaggeration. Lightning appeared in 2012. USB-C appeared in 2014. 20 years means we'd apparently still be waiting for another 12 years for USB-C. Hardly helps your argument.
        ajmurmann 7y ago
        USB-C is a complete mess. The physical appearance of the connector is nice, but the design by committee that resulted in invisible but critical differences is horrible. You cannot tell by looking at a cable or devices you are trying to connect or charge of the cable will provide the needed bandwidth or voltage. Two cables might look identical but one won't work at all for what you need and you have no way to tell.
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
The standard can be changed, it's just that manufacturers have to agree between themselves on the new standard. No involvement from the government is required. They can make USB 4, 5,6, connector C, D,E,Z, whatever. That's fine. What's not cool, is creating proprietary connector and not letting anyone else use it. Mind you they only have to agree on charging, not data transfer. As to whether it's worth it: hard to tell, there comes a time in a technology's maturity where compliance with a common standard is more important than incremental innovation. The power sockets in your house are dtandard, and your power company and electrician are not allowed to innovate, because at some point we decided compatability was more important.
- filoleg 7y ago
  >The standard can be changed, it's just that manufacturers have to agree between themselves on the new standard. If an agreement of all manufacturers is needed before introducing a new standard in production, it means that it will be delayed by the lowest common denominator of manufacturers until many years later. Which isn't good for the consumer, because they could've gotten a new superior charging standard on their phones many years earlier, as opposed to waiting multiple years until all manufacturers adopt it.
  - nwallin 7y ago
    The agreement doesn't need to be unanimous. And it's fine for the agreement to be "just use whatever the latest small form factor USB collector is" which has been the de facto Android standard since the beginning. It sounds like you're arguing that the lowest common denominator phone manufacturer will be holding up progress. But the connector is the easiest part, especially if it's a truly ubiquitous standard, because it will be heavily commoditized. The lowest common denominator phone manufacturer will just buy whatever the cheapest connector from China is, and this will almost always be whatever connector is most common.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    My argument is that charging is at this point a mature technology, we have a charging standard up to 100w. Do you expect future phones to draw more? What possible improvements could future charging standard have, as far as a mobile phone goes? And yes, it is pretty normal to have manufacturers sit round a table and agree standards -most ports on a computer, 4g wireless, etc. You cant even come up with your own phone communication standard - countries allocate frequency specifically for 4g or 5g, none will give you a frequency band for a proprietary communication standard.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Angostura 7y ago

An IETF-style process to swap to a new standard, presumably.

sib 7y ago
Which will be captured by a bunch of manufacturers who like to innovate on "cheapest / crappiest" and who will outvotes the one manufacturer who actually innovates on "best"... As a customer, I'd like to keep the option for "best."
- Angostura 7y ago
  Presumably that's why you are still using SNA to network your machines.

microtherion 7y ago

Micro USB would be kind of mediocre. But if the rule had been in place 20 years ago, cell phones today might be featuring SCSI connectors. And of course, all laptops would be mandated to have VGA connectors, eliminating a ton of conference room presentation guesswork.

kevingadd 7y ago
Why would you use SCSI to charge a phone? It'd be a standardized power connector, probably like those small round ones that are used for all sorts of household appliances. Similarly, your projector is already using a standardized power cable: The one that goes into your wall socket. For cables that don't terminate with a regular 2/3 prong on the other end, there are a few standardized shapes there too. My monitors and PC PSUs all take the same sort of connector on the non-wall-socket end even if they pull different amperages.
- nomel 7y ago
  The charge ports of cellphones have almost always had data capabilities built in.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - anticensor 7y ago
    Old Nokia chargers disagree with various barrel connectors. It is not like "Anyone with thin-barreled Nokia charger?" was in the distant past.
    - nomel 7y ago
      Correct, thus my use of "almost always". For an example of an earlier dual purpose port, the Sony Ericsson line from 2000.
oxfordmale 7y ago
The law doesn't define the protocol. Apple could introduce USB-D as superior standard provided it is not proprietary. If this is a superior standard, other companies will adapt it too, becoming the new standard charger.
- microtherion 7y ago
  I believe you are mistaken. The EU resolution calls for the development of "a common standard" (to be updated from time to time): https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070... Implementing a different standard, even if it is non-proprietary, won't do.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    They call on the industry to agree on a common standard. 15 years ago. They explicitly do not mandate the protocol.
tripzilch 7y ago
> But if the rule had been in place 20 years ago, cell phones today might be featuring SCSI connectors. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070... "5. Points out that the Commission, without hampering innovation, should ensure that the legislative framework for a common charger will be scrutinised regularly in order to take into account technical progress; reiterates the importance of research and innovation in this domain to improve existing technologies and come up with new ones;"

SiempreViernes 7y ago

Why? The resolution states that the commission should make sure the standard can be updated as technology develops: "[...] the Commission, without hampering innovation, should ensure that the legislative framework for a common charger will be scrutinised regularly in order to take into account technical progress; reiterates the importance of research and innovation in this domain to improve existing technologies and come up with new ones;"

eanzenberg 7y ago
Because gov't moves as fast as innovation /s
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  You mean you miss the good old innovative days when every phone model had its own charger? The days where you needed special proprietary software to access any part of your phone if you connected it with to a computer using its special cable? I remember losing plenty of sms history and contacts when changing phones because the dedicated phone software was too old to run on my windows, and the dodgy program I found on the internet wouldn't work with my specific model. I also remember how in these heady days of unbridled innovation my girlfriend saved her sms's by writing them down on paper. And this was a fairly sensible solution to the innovation rich state of the market, where every manufacturer and close to every individual model, was its own silo.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    Seems like the free market solved all the probs you mentioned, so yeah.
    - 1ris 7y ago
      Seems way more like regulation solved this problem, so yeah.
    - monocasa 7y ago

the_mitsuhiko 7y ago

> How would it have been possible to advance to the next generation of technology like USB-C. The law does no say what a common charger is. Manufacturers are free to migrate to a new standard.

nsajko 7y ago
Presumably it is on the Commission to decide that USB-C is to be the next standard, and only then will there be a proposal for a law. (We are not yet talking about a law.)
- the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
  That didn't happen with the USB-A charger either.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  > Presumably it is on the Commission to decide that USB-C is to be the next standard, and only then will there be a proposal for a law. No, it literally says they're calling on the industry to agree on a common standard.

ac29 7y ago

This did happen 10 years ago, and they did standardize on micro-USB [0]. Use of the standard was voluntary, though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply

henryfjordan 7y ago
And because it was only voluntary, Apple was able to innovate and create the lightning port which worked in either orientation and inspired the adoption of USB-C by the rest of the world
- bonzini 7y ago
  They could have proposed a USB connector which worked in either orientation to the USB implementers forum back in 2012, couldn't they?
  - qeqeqeqe 7y ago
    And then wait 20 years for everyone to agree?
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      That is an order of magnitude exaggeration. Lightning appeared in 2012. USB-C appeared in 2014. 20 years means we'd apparently still be waiting for another 12 years for USB-C. Hardly helps your argument.
      - ajmurmann 7y ago
        USB-C is a complete mess. The physical appearance of the connector is nice, but the design by committee that resulted in invisible but critical differences is horrible. You cannot tell by looking at a cable or devices you are trying to connect or charge of the cable will provide the needed bandwidth or voltage. Two cables might look identical but one won't work at all for what you need and you have no way to tell.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

The standard can be changed, it's just that manufacturers have to agree between themselves on the new standard. No involvement from the government is required. They can make USB 4, 5,6, connector C, D,E,Z, whatever. That's fine. What's not cool, is creating proprietary connector and not letting anyone else use it. Mind you they only have to agree on charging, not data transfer. As to whether it's worth it: hard to tell, there comes a time in a technology's maturity where compliance with a common standard is more important than incremental innovation. The power sockets in your house are dtandard, and your power company and electrician are not allowed to innovate, because at some point we decided compatability was more important.

filoleg 7y ago
>The standard can be changed, it's just that manufacturers have to agree between themselves on the new standard. If an agreement of all manufacturers is needed before introducing a new standard in production, it means that it will be delayed by the lowest common denominator of manufacturers until many years later. Which isn't good for the consumer, because they could've gotten a new superior charging standard on their phones many years earlier, as opposed to waiting multiple years until all manufacturers adopt it.
- nwallin 7y ago
  The agreement doesn't need to be unanimous. And it's fine for the agreement to be "just use whatever the latest small form factor USB collector is" which has been the de facto Android standard since the beginning. It sounds like you're arguing that the lowest common denominator phone manufacturer will be holding up progress. But the connector is the easiest part, especially if it's a truly ubiquitous standard, because it will be heavily commoditized. The lowest common denominator phone manufacturer will just buy whatever the cheapest connector from China is, and this will almost always be whatever connector is most common.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  My argument is that charging is at this point a mature technology, we have a charging standard up to 100w. Do you expect future phones to draw more? What possible improvements could future charging standard have, as far as a mobile phone goes? And yes, it is pretty normal to have manufacturers sit round a table and agree standards -most ports on a computer, 4g wireless, etc. You cant even come up with your own phone communication standard - countries allocate frequency specifically for 4g or 5g, none will give you a frequency band for a proprietary communication standard.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]