4 ms·

Hmm. You make a good point. In my attempt at reading both of these there seems to be a clear distinction being made when it refers to cables and when it refers

Hmm. You make a good point. In my attempt at reading both of these there seems to be a clear distinction being made when it refers to cables and when it refers to chargers. It also never really mentions ports. Therefore, to me, it cares less about the port and cable on the phone half and more about the brick / part that plugs into the wall. Neither document provides a definition for "charger". So perhaps whoever is in charge of implementing this directive (I'm not sure how this works in EU law) can interpret it either way? I wish it was more clear.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
I read "charger" to mean "the thing you use for charging", and not really bothering with the technical detail of exactly how this thing is made. I think reading the texts as if they spoke only of the transformer/brick itself is to narrow, and not in line with the common understanding of what a "charger" is. I will offer this suggestion of a precise definition for "charger": the complete technological assemblage required for transferring electrical power, suitable for storage, from a common wall socket onto the portable radio device. Basically, if you have a wall socket, a mobile radio device, and a third thing, and they cannot be assembled so that the mobile can be charger, the thing is not a "common charger".
- BinaryIdiot 7y ago
  Good points. My only hesitation on the charger definition is most laws include whatever definition the legislature is operating under and sometimes it's different than what you'd expect. I'd like to see some clarification :)
- djannzjkzxn 7y ago
  You can define the charger to include the cable, and I can define the phone to include the cable. Either way it doesn’t provide much insight into the definitions with legal force.
  - brmgb 7y ago
    That's not how it works. What the lawmakers mean is pretty clear as soon as you go read the documents affixed to the motion. There is no need for more boilerplate. The 2018 Comission report has this to say on the subject for example : The study has, in particular, provided the following information and conclusions: even manufacturers of mobile phones which did not sign up to the Memorandum of Understanding appear to have also adopted Micro-USB charging solutions, leading to the indication that almost 100% of data enabled phones sold in Europe in 2013 were compliant with Micro-USB charging solution.; due to the Memorandum of Understanding, it is estimated to have resulted in six to 21 million fewer standalone chargers over the period 2011 to 2013; the increasing prevalence of Micro-USB charging has limited the need to purchase standalone chargers and consequently reduced the use of raw materials than might otherwise have been the case. Since the previous experience of the Memorandum of Understanding had proven to be successful for the reasons mentioned above, the Commission wished to continue the approach already followed based on a voluntary agreement. Moreover, a voluntary solution could more readily accommodate new technology and innovation compared to a regulatory option. Additionally, a voluntary approach may have had the advantage of having a wider scope, compared to the regulatory option, for example, it may have covered both ends of the charging cable 79 . However, given the unsatisfactory outcome so far of the progress in the voluntary option, the Commission will shortly launch a study to assess costs and benefits of different options, including the regulatory one.
    - djannzjkzxn 7y ago
      If the report is saying almost 100% of phones sold follow the reg, then they must be saying Apple are in compliance, right? I don’t see how you can get near 100% of phones without including the iPhone. Also, take a look here: > Additionally, a voluntary approach may have had the advantage of having a wider scope, compared to the regulatory option, for example, it may have covered both ends of the charging cable. >However, given the unsatisfactory outcome so far of the progress in the voluntary option, the Commission will shortly launch a study to assess costs and benefits of different options, including the regulatory one. This seems to say fairly clearly that only a voluntary option would cover both ends of the cable. Then it says they are looking at the regulatory option instead of the voluntary option. It doesn’t seem to contemplate a non-voluntary regulation covering both ends of the cable. I don’t think I’m being pedantic or obtuse here, just reading the doc plainly.
tripzilch 7y ago
This one? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070... The charger is obviously the thing between your phone and the power socket. It seems perfectly clear to me. Because the entire thing is a charger. You can't use the charger without the cable. If the cable was a separate thing, fully interchangeable, the whole law wouldn't be necessary. And they can't in hindsight decide that the cables aren't part of the "package" because they wrote in the resolution what the motivation of this law is, which is interoperability / compatibility / interchangeability and reducing waste, and if the cable part is non standard and not compatible, then obviously you'd need an additional cable to make the whole charger simply operable. Needing additional cables is what the resolution states (several times) is one of the explicit purposes, to prevent. They also specifically discuss that wireless charging should be common as well, because not needing a cable is even better than needing the same cable. I get the idea that sometimes EU laws are so clear and straightforward, that Americans implicitly don't trust them and expect a "gotcha!".

SiempreViernes 7y ago

I read "charger" to mean "the thing you use for charging", and not really bothering with the technical detail of exactly how this thing is made. I think reading the texts as if they spoke only of the transformer/brick itself is to narrow, and not in line with the common understanding of what a "charger" is. I will offer this suggestion of a precise definition for "charger": the complete technological assemblage required for transferring electrical power, suitable for storage, from a common wall socket onto the portable radio device. Basically, if you have a wall socket, a mobile radio device, and a third thing, and they cannot be assembled so that the mobile can be charger, the thing is not a "common charger".

BinaryIdiot 7y ago
Good points. My only hesitation on the charger definition is most laws include whatever definition the legislature is operating under and sometimes it's different than what you'd expect. I'd like to see some clarification :)
djannzjkzxn 7y ago
You can define the charger to include the cable, and I can define the phone to include the cable. Either way it doesn’t provide much insight into the definitions with legal force.
- brmgb 7y ago
  That's not how it works. What the lawmakers mean is pretty clear as soon as you go read the documents affixed to the motion. There is no need for more boilerplate. The 2018 Comission report has this to say on the subject for example : The study has, in particular, provided the following information and conclusions: even manufacturers of mobile phones which did not sign up to the Memorandum of Understanding appear to have also adopted Micro-USB charging solutions, leading to the indication that almost 100% of data enabled phones sold in Europe in 2013 were compliant with Micro-USB charging solution.; due to the Memorandum of Understanding, it is estimated to have resulted in six to 21 million fewer standalone chargers over the period 2011 to 2013; the increasing prevalence of Micro-USB charging has limited the need to purchase standalone chargers and consequently reduced the use of raw materials than might otherwise have been the case. Since the previous experience of the Memorandum of Understanding had proven to be successful for the reasons mentioned above, the Commission wished to continue the approach already followed based on a voluntary agreement. Moreover, a voluntary solution could more readily accommodate new technology and innovation compared to a regulatory option. Additionally, a voluntary approach may have had the advantage of having a wider scope, compared to the regulatory option, for example, it may have covered both ends of the charging cable 79 . However, given the unsatisfactory outcome so far of the progress in the voluntary option, the Commission will shortly launch a study to assess costs and benefits of different options, including the regulatory one.
  - djannzjkzxn 7y ago
    If the report is saying almost 100% of phones sold follow the reg, then they must be saying Apple are in compliance, right? I don’t see how you can get near 100% of phones without including the iPhone. Also, take a look here: > Additionally, a voluntary approach may have had the advantage of having a wider scope, compared to the regulatory option, for example, it may have covered both ends of the charging cable. >However, given the unsatisfactory outcome so far of the progress in the voluntary option, the Commission will shortly launch a study to assess costs and benefits of different options, including the regulatory one. This seems to say fairly clearly that only a voluntary option would cover both ends of the cable. Then it says they are looking at the regulatory option instead of the voluntary option. It doesn’t seem to contemplate a non-voluntary regulation covering both ends of the cable. I don’t think I’m being pedantic or obtuse here, just reading the doc plainly.

tripzilch 7y ago

This one? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070... The charger is obviously the thing between your phone and the power socket. It seems perfectly clear to me. Because the entire thing is a charger. You can't use the charger without the cable. If the cable was a separate thing, fully interchangeable, the whole law wouldn't be necessary. And they can't in hindsight decide that the cables aren't part of the "package" because they wrote in the resolution what the motivation of this law is, which is interoperability / compatibility / interchangeability and reducing waste, and if the cable part is non standard and not compatible, then obviously you'd need an additional cable to make the whole charger simply operable. Needing additional cables is what the resolution states (several times) is one of the explicit purposes, to prevent. They also specifically discuss that wireless charging should be common as well, because not needing a cable is even better than needing the same cable. I get the idea that sometimes EU laws are so clear and straightforward, that Americans implicitly don't trust them and expect a "gotcha!".