16 ms·

This always gets bought up, and it's always wrong. > I have no expectation, for example, that these same regulators will stay on top of this and revise it when

This always gets bought up, and it's always wrong. > I have no expectation, for example, that these same regulators will stay on top of this and revise it when USB-C stops being the preferred or best choice. They didn't write the law as "you must use USB-C" They wrote the law as "The industry experts need to pick A standard for charging, and all manufacturers should respect that choice" They are welcome to change it going forward, they just have to agree and consolidate.

junofan 4y ago
Where? The directive’s annex 1a very clearly states “USB Type-C receptacle, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021.” https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755
- realityking 4y ago
  The main directive (not the annex) states > With respect to radio equipment capable of being recharged via means other than wired charging, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 44 in order to amend Annex Ia in the light of technical progress, and to ensure the minimum common interoperability between radio equipment and their charging devices, by: (a) introducing, modifying, adding or removing categories or classes of radio equipment; (b) introducing, modifying, adding or removing technical specifications, including references and descriptions, in relation to charging interface(s) and charging communication protocol(s), for each category or class of radio equipment concerned.’; So the commission can adopt new standards trough a much lighter executive process. It does not require new legislation to update the standard.
andrewla 4y ago
This is not correct so far as I can tell -- the amendment to directive 2014/53/EU [1] says > Hand-held mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers, in so far as they are capable of being recharged via wired charging, shall: > (a) be equipped with the USB Type-C receptacle, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 ‘Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power - Part 1-3: Common components - USB Type-C TM Cable and Connector Specification’, which should remain accessible and operational at all times; To switch to a new charger type would require legislative action, not just industry experts changing their mind. That said, I actually strongly prefer this approach to allowing an industry self-regulating group to make these decision. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/4/translations/en/renditions/native https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/4/...
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Interesting, I may be out of date then. Previously all the RED proposals called for a common charger, but did not directly specify the charger required. It seems like wireless charging still falls into that category (they require some form of interoperability by 2026, but do not state the exact form).
- bestouff 4y ago
  Well they asked everyone to agree on a standard 10 years ago, but that didn't happen (just because of Apple). So now they forcefully decided.
  - trasz 4y ago
    10 years ago USB 3 wasn't really a thing yet, and so it would be a significant downgrade compared to Lightning.
  - mmastrac 4y ago
    This is the truth of the matter. Apple has been dragging their feet on switching away from lightning. Why? No idea. It's a much slower standard, and puts the wearing parts in the port instead of the cable. USB-C is designed by committee, sure, but the port itself is better than lightning in nearly every consumer metric there is.
    - thebean11 4y ago
      Isn't USBC more fragile because of the middle piece that lives in the port? Lightning has always felt sturdier to me, though not enough to warrant carrying different types of cables..
      - vvatermelone 4y ago
        The middle piece is thin and does look fragile, but you can't put any real side load on it. The outer wall of the connector takes that force before you can put any real force on the middle. Unless you're jamming a flathead screwdriver or something in it. Beyond that, the springloaded contacts are on the cable end with type-c, with lightning it's inside the phone. I don't think it's a particularly common failure mode, but having less moving parts in the expensive bit is generally a good idea.
peeters 4y ago
> They are welcome to change it going forward, they just have to agree and consolidate. That's not how innovation works. What motivation would they have to change it if all your competitors will change it step? This only hurts consumers.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > That's not how innovation works Yes, exactly, this is how standardization works. Who cares about innovation in charging plugs form factor? Innovations should be innovative enough to get around the plug. Light bulbs have been the same for at least 80 years and it didn't stop innovation. Why do people are so scared about things that are only hypothetical, while this solves a real issue?
  - ericd 4y ago
    Light bulb sockets are actually a great example for the downsides of standardization, because they’re super suboptimal for LED bulbs, and are a large part of the reason for the transformers on many of the new bulbs burning out way before their rated lifetime. A better LED socket would provide better heatsinking/dissipation opportunities. But it was pretty good for many decades.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      How many more LED bulbs have been sold thanks to the fact that people don't have to replace the socket, just the bulb? Having a retro compatible socket drove the adoption of more energy efficient bulbs.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      MR16 is a 12V DC standard so it does not need a transformer, in theory it's much better for LEDs, and yet we hardly ever see it used even in new builds. Every time I rented a place with MR16, like 1/3 of all sockets in the ceiling were dead, the power supply was inside the false ceiling and it was not possible to fix without making a hole. Needless to say lardlord need much motivating to fix anything. Also, it;s not illegal to install random non-standard bulbs -> my last apartmentblock was built with some special, great, proprietary and patented LED-spesific socket. Guess what happened? 15 years on, the lamps started failing, and the manufacturere dropped production of anything for that socket! Now they need to replace like a thousands light fittings across the entire block, there is no way to get replacements. Some of them are in awkward places and will require a special vehicle to reach.
ubermonkey 4y ago
>they just have to agree and consolidate. It's still not clear that having this be regulated is better. We don't have a port problem. We used to have one, but it went away. It sure LOOKS like Apple will, eventually, transition away from Lightning on its own anyway. So why have regulators weigh in here at all? What's the point? What value is added?

junofan 4y ago

Where? The directive’s annex 1a very clearly states “USB Type-C receptacle, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021.” https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755

realityking 4y ago
The main directive (not the annex) states > With respect to radio equipment capable of being recharged via means other than wired charging, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 44 in order to amend Annex Ia in the light of technical progress, and to ensure the minimum common interoperability between radio equipment and their charging devices, by: (a) introducing, modifying, adding or removing categories or classes of radio equipment; (b) introducing, modifying, adding or removing technical specifications, including references and descriptions, in relation to charging interface(s) and charging communication protocol(s), for each category or class of radio equipment concerned.’; So the commission can adopt new standards trough a much lighter executive process. It does not require new legislation to update the standard.

andrewla 4y ago

This is not correct so far as I can tell -- the amendment to directive 2014/53/EU [1] says > Hand-held mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers, in so far as they are capable of being recharged via wired charging, shall: > (a) be equipped with the USB Type-C receptacle, as described in the standard EN IEC 62680-1-3:2021 ‘Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power - Part 1-3: Common components - USB Type-C TM Cable and Connector Specification’, which should remain accessible and operational at all times; To switch to a new charger type would require legislative action, not just industry experts changing their mind. That said, I actually strongly prefer this approach to allowing an industry self-regulating group to make these decision. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/4/translations/en/renditions/native https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46755/attachments/4/...

horsawlarway 4y ago
Interesting, I may be out of date then. Previously all the RED proposals called for a common charger, but did not directly specify the charger required. It seems like wireless charging still falls into that category (they require some form of interoperability by 2026, but do not state the exact form).
bestouff 4y ago
Well they asked everyone to agree on a standard 10 years ago, but that didn't happen (just because of Apple). So now they forcefully decided.
- trasz 4y ago
  10 years ago USB 3 wasn't really a thing yet, and so it would be a significant downgrade compared to Lightning.
- mmastrac 4y ago
  This is the truth of the matter. Apple has been dragging their feet on switching away from lightning. Why? No idea. It's a much slower standard, and puts the wearing parts in the port instead of the cable. USB-C is designed by committee, sure, but the port itself is better than lightning in nearly every consumer metric there is.
  - thebean11 4y ago
    Isn't USBC more fragile because of the middle piece that lives in the port? Lightning has always felt sturdier to me, though not enough to warrant carrying different types of cables..
    - vvatermelone 4y ago
      The middle piece is thin and does look fragile, but you can't put any real side load on it. The outer wall of the connector takes that force before you can put any real force on the middle. Unless you're jamming a flathead screwdriver or something in it. Beyond that, the springloaded contacts are on the cable end with type-c, with lightning it's inside the phone. I don't think it's a particularly common failure mode, but having less moving parts in the expensive bit is generally a good idea.

peeters 4y ago

> They are welcome to change it going forward, they just have to agree and consolidate. That's not how innovation works. What motivation would they have to change it if all your competitors will change it step? This only hurts consumers.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> That's not how innovation works Yes, exactly, this is how standardization works. Who cares about innovation in charging plugs form factor? Innovations should be innovative enough to get around the plug. Light bulbs have been the same for at least 80 years and it didn't stop innovation. Why do people are so scared about things that are only hypothetical, while this solves a real issue?
- ericd 4y ago
  Light bulb sockets are actually a great example for the downsides of standardization, because they’re super suboptimal for LED bulbs, and are a large part of the reason for the transformers on many of the new bulbs burning out way before their rated lifetime. A better LED socket would provide better heatsinking/dissipation opportunities. But it was pretty good for many decades.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    How many more LED bulbs have been sold thanks to the fact that people don't have to replace the socket, just the bulb? Having a retro compatible socket drove the adoption of more energy efficient bulbs.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    MR16 is a 12V DC standard so it does not need a transformer, in theory it's much better for LEDs, and yet we hardly ever see it used even in new builds. Every time I rented a place with MR16, like 1/3 of all sockets in the ceiling were dead, the power supply was inside the false ceiling and it was not possible to fix without making a hole. Needless to say lardlord need much motivating to fix anything. Also, it;s not illegal to install random non-standard bulbs -> my last apartmentblock was built with some special, great, proprietary and patented LED-spesific socket. Guess what happened? 15 years on, the lamps started failing, and the manufacturere dropped production of anything for that socket! Now they need to replace like a thousands light fittings across the entire block, there is no way to get replacements. Some of them are in awkward places and will require a special vehicle to reach.

ubermonkey 4y ago

>they just have to agree and consolidate. It's still not clear that having this be regulated is better. We don't have a port problem. We used to have one, but it went away. It sure LOOKS like Apple will, eventually, transition away from Lightning on its own anyway. So why have regulators weigh in here at all? What's the point? What value is added?